This is an archive of past discussions about Croatian War of Independence. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Archive 1 (April-November 2006)

References

I don't see why should this reference ^ "Evicted Serbs remember Storm", Matt Prodger, BBC News be on page. I can find thousands links where Croats remeber massacre in their village and where Serbs got their houses rebuild by Croatian goverment and got returned. BBC isn't objective source since Englad was openly showing proserbian simpathy during the war. You don't think they will make report about beeing wrong? -Tomy108

About the name of this article

Good, now that we finally have article about the war, it'd be nice if we standardised the name of it. Here is list of redirects we currently have:

Croatian Homeland War
Croatian Secession conflict
Homeland war (Croatia)
Croatian War of Independence
Croatian war of independence
Croatian War
War in Croatia

It seems to me that only reasonable candidats are:

Croatian Homeland War ~16.800, [1]
Homeland war (Croatia) ~31.600, [2]
Croatian War of Independence ~475, [3]

Homeland war is a redlink. Sooo, it seems to me that it'd be apropriate to move this article to Homeland war and then fix all this redirects... Any better suggestions? --Dijxtra 12:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if Homeland war (Homeland War?) is free, let's move in. If someone else comes up with another Homeland war in the future, just move to Homeland war (Croatia). --Elephantus 12:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The most common name is actually the simplest possible - "war in Croatia", with ~81.700 results.

I thought about that one, but I find it just way to much generic. --Dijxtra 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

However, that cannot be the sole criterion. I am not convinced that "homeland war" makes all much sense in English, not unlike the "patriotic war" the Russians had. I don't know whether there is any point in using a direct translation over the common phrase war of independence. Which is really the best explanation of the meaning if you think about it - domovinski rat means war for the homeland (not of or in), and by that it means none other than an independent homeland. If you put "Croatia" together with "war for the independence of the homeland", the most sane contraction is indeed "Croatian war of independence". --Joy [shallot] 12:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

From an outsiders perspective, Croatia(n) Independence War makes more sense. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 13:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Croatian war of independence" seems quite plausible to me too, but the fact is it has 100 times less occurrences than "Homeland war". While I agree that the count can't be the sole criterion, the 31.600 / 475 ratio tells us something, don't you think? I wouldn't be so sure that "Homeland war" doesn't make sence in English... maybe we should ask some English native speakers?

BTW, don't get me wrong, I'm not that much against the "war of independence" solution (if I get outvoted I'll agree with you in a split of a sec), it just seems to me that "Homeland war" is much more common... --Dijxtra 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, apparently "homeland war" has caught on as a sort of semi-official literal translation from Croatian, which could explain its high google count (used in many Croatian sources translated into English). It may (or may not) be associated in the mind of an English speaker with either South African homelands or the recent "homeland security" USA thing? --Elephantus 13:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "Croatian War of Independence" (note the capitalization) is a bit more natural and neutral since the phrase "War of Independence" is idiomatic [4] and the word "homeland" often has negative connotations in the English-speaking world, especially in North America [5] [6] [7]. This of course makes me wonder if the name has played any role in colouring negative perceptions of Croatia in the media and is also why you often see English language articles referring to "Croatia's 'Homeland War'" (note the scare quotes). --AHrvojic 14:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Hi - Dijkstra has asked me to comment as a native English speaker (and presumably also as someone who is "politically neutral" about the general situation in the Balkans as a whole). I'd say that Croatian War of Independence is preferable in terms of English to Croatian Independence War (compare things like the American War of Independence, for instance). The term "homeland war" isn't used in English (although I note the comment that it is a literal translation and is used in cases where Croatian information has been translated into English). I certainly wasn't aware of the term and if I didn't now know its meaning I would probably assume it was a synonym for civil war - that is, a conflict between two sides for control of an already independent country. I don't think there is a specific term in widespread use in English to refer to the war in Croatia, it tends to be regarded as one facet of a larger war - often called the "Balkans Conflict". Perhaps putting the article at Croatian War of Independence with redirects from Croatian Homeland War and Homeland War (Croatia) might be the best solution? Grutness...wha? 14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me, and I switch my allegiance to Croatian War of Independence :-) --Elephantus 14:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support Croatian War of Independence since it specific, to the point, and is most NPOV in regard to other options. Redirects from Homeland war and Croatian Homeland War are acceptable, others are too obscure and non-specific to be used IMO. --Dr.Gonzo 14:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Croatian War of Independence per above. Well, this is not an official WP:RM, but it certainly resembles one (and we alredy have 2 admins involved :-) ). Duja 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is difficult because two questions are compounded here: 1) what is the most fitting name for the 1991-1995 war in Croatia, and 2) what is the most fitting name for the Wikipedia article about the said war. In sense 1) I'd say Croatian War of Independence wins hands down, but in sense 2) we should still consider the fact that "Homeland war" carries much higher momentum, since in Croatia the phrase is now used almost exclusively; it's almost fait accompli as far as naming is concerned. However, having said all that, I'd still go for Croatian War of Independence... GregorB 18:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Dijkstra asked me to join the discussion, therefore I'll try to give you my opinion on that. Actually, I mostly contribute to the German Wikipedia. We recently had someone who copied this article ("Kroatien-Krieg" in German) to, let's say "Croatian War of Secession". Unfortunately, the text still has not been deleted - think mainly due to lack of knowledge on behalf of German admins. Anyway, in his version of the text, the controversial user is trying to create the image that it is actually Croatia, more specifically the HDZ, that is responsible for starting the war. There is no reasonable neutral reason given for these POV views. After I mentioned that the Badinter commission stated that there were no secessions, but that we speak of a "break-up of Yugoslavia" (don't now the exact statement in English now), nobody really had any better argument for not deleting the parallel article, but still nothing has been done. By the way, the process of separation started much earlier. We could go back to the last Yugoslav Communist Party meeting, to Titos death and even further to the events of the Croatian Spring. Therefore, we definitely cannot speak of a secession...

Anyway, why am I writing this? It's all about the name and there are people who would like to create the image that Croatia began with all the fuss. It's also about who started and who defended. I'm not saying that the name "Croatian War of Secession or Independence" could necessarily imply that one side started the war, but we have to be very careful. Somebody is not amused about the ending this war, not at all, and would therefore like to give the article a slightly different tendency... Something else: Germans are usually not very much patriotic, knowing what happened in the past. Therefore expressions like "homeland" are used very carefully or not at all. I know, this is not the German wikipedia, but anyway, think homeland is quite a new term, even in English (sounds Bush-like for me). For Germans "homeland" (Vaterland, etc. - there is no exact translation) would sound a bit strange, I think. Germans would not use it. Yeah, homeland is one of the most difficult words to translate too, I think (everybody, every nation, culture, is thinking of something else - what is homeland? a homeland without serbs? does the croatian homeland include herzegovina? etc.). However, I do know that it is called like that in Croatia. But for Croatians to say "War in Croatia" would sound quite strange, wouldn't it? Yep, I know it was here...

As a conclusion: I would suggest the neutral and simple name "War in Croatia" (There's a nice but very sad song about that...). You could also specify it with a certain time period (1991-1995), if necessary (or if there are other wars to come). This is also logical because then You could classify all the other wars much easier: War in Slovenia, War in Bosnia-Herzegovina, War in Kosovo, etc. Think this name is not giving any implications on who started and who defended his "old historic area of settlement". Yeah yeah, ok, I'm not going into further argumentation, knowing what will possibly come. Those German users who contributed in a discussion about the article name quite agreed to "Kroatien-Krieg", the short form of "Krieg in Kroatien" (War in Croatia) mostly used in German Media (apart from Krieg in Jugoslawien, Balkankonflikt or Balkankrise, etc.), but we will have a closer look at the outcome of the discussion here (We actually do mention the expression homeland war in the heading, which should be ok). If you disagree, "Croatian War of Independence" would probably still be a good solution. Hope I could give You further facts to think about. --Neoneo13 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree per Grutness and Dr.Gonzo. (^'-')^ Covington 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that we have a consensus on "Croatian War of Independence". So I'll do the move now. --Dijxtra 14:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

JNA role

I changed the intro somewhat and added a "prelude" section, which should explain the background a bit more; I hope you'd agree.

I find the explanation of JNA's role in the article somewhat confusing. My point is: at one point, JNA ceased to exist and was "officially" withdrawn from Croatia. Thus, Serbian forces in Croatia were, theoretically, operating independently, as Milošević did not want to "involve Serbia in war". I don't recall, however, when that happened, but it should be explained in the article.

Also, I think the Dubrovnik episode is somewhat unconnected with the rest of the war, and few words can be spared on that. By my reckoning, that adventure was semi-independently initiated by JNA headquarters in Montenegro and Montenegrin government. Is there a separate article on that? Duja 15:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

O nazivu Croatian War of Independence

Hrvatska je htjela samostalnost pa otuda i naziv.Boris Živ

Ovo nije Hrvatska Wikipedija, ako nisi mozda primjetio. Mozemo mi da kazemo da je i rat u Bosni bio rat za Veliku Srbiju i Veliku Hrvatsku, ali to se nikom ne bi svidjelo osim bosancima. Jedan Boris drugome: lijepo je sto ste nazvali ovaj rat Domovinski, bas ste me dirnuli, ali nemojte prevoditi takve stvari na engleski, glupo zvuci, OK? Htjeli ste da se odvojite i tocka, cak se i u samom clanku spominje Secession, it was a war of secession. Hvala. --serbiana - talk 01:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A war for independence is when you are ruled by another nation, like Kuwait was ruled for a short time by Iraq, or maybe France by Germany in WWII. When a country wants to secede, it is a war of secession and not independence. --serbiana - talk 01:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We had a discussion about how to name this article. And we reached a consensus. If you wish to change the name of this article, please discuss it first. Thanks. --Dijxtra 02:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

New Straw poll on the title of the article

I am starting a new discussion about the title of the article, since the previous discussion has been from the croatian POV. There are few possibilities on how to name the article

Croatian War (most google hits)
Croatian Secession War
Croatian War of Secession
Croatian War of Independence
Croatian "Homeland" War
Croatian Separatist War
Croatian War of Separation
Croatian War of Separation from Yugoslavia
Separatism War against Croatian Serbs
Croatian Patriotic War of Secession
Croatian Chauvinistic War of Secession
Croatian Nationalistic War
Croatian National War
Serbo-Croatian War
Croatian War against SFRY
Croatian anti-Serbian War
Croatian war of national purification
Croatian Ethnic-cleansing War

... (other suggestions, please add)

Praviljno 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Get a life. And info on the legal stuff re Yu dissolution [8], [9] Mir Harven 22:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

for the name Serbo-Croatian War--TheFEARgod 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this war had many different aspects, a think that the most neutral name for it is War in Croatia or Croatian war. --Marko M 09:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that this should be a separate article from Yugoslav wars, which I've most often encountered as the Wars of Yugoslav Succession. I think most English readers would have a hard time thinking of this as separate from the neighboring conflict in Bosnia. --Msr657 22:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming

It's completly fair to note the 1991-1992 war as the Croatian War of Independence - heck, if the Dutch and Americans can do it - why can't the Croatians? However, there is a very deep messup produced there. The 1991-1995 War against the rebel Serbs cannot be a War for Independence - it's simply a Civil War (refer to the article for more detail). This is why many see as if Serbia occupied a third of Croatia (mistakingly) - when a third of Croatia was fighting it's own little War of Independence... --HolyRomanEmperor 17:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a "Civil War", for a very simple reason. A "Civil War" is a war in which two sides fight over control of the central government of an entire country. Whether one thinks of Croatia or Yugoslavia (when referring to the "whole country"), that wasn't true during that war. Croats had no interest in taking over the entirety of Yugoslavia and controlling the central government in Belgrade. Later on, when the Yugoslav army abandoned attempting to conquer (or whatever euphemism of take over, impose control on, you prefer to use) the entire territory of Croatia, they settled on supporting the local Serbs in their attempt to secede from Croatia. That was not a "Civil War" either, because the sided didn't fight for control over the central government and the entire country. Only those wars are correctly referred to as "Civil Wars". The term "Civil War" was merely a propaganda euphemism used by assorted parties in a (quite successful, at first) effort to keep other countries from intervening, to the advantage of the Serbs. Sure, the JNA retreated, however, it left massive amounts of heavy weapons and other supplies for the "Krajina" Serbs to use. Later on, JNA officers were blatantly involved in the fighting. So no part of the war was a "Civil War". Even though the war was often fought by former neighbors, it doesn't qualify to be called a "Civil War", because of the goals of the opposing sides. -- Emil --

Aaaand, what about involvement of JNA? Wasn't JNA supposed to stop Croatia from getting independent? --Dijxtra 05:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was - in 1991-1992 (after which, it retreated). That was Croatia's War for Independence - not the 1991-1995 war against the Serbs (Croatian Civil War). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So those were two separate wars? --Dijxtra 16:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, they do overlap in 1991-1992; but were in effect, yes, two wars. I mean, the practical name to apply to the latter period is somewhat illogical. Should the Kosovo War now be called "Serbian War of Independence"? or... the Chechnian rebellion Russian War of Independence? or how about the Hueguenots' Republic in souther France that was destroyed with the capture of Cardinal de Richelleu with the capture of La Roshel - a "French War of Indepence"? Do you understand what I am aiming at? The name of this article is good - but in several parts of it - it's errorous. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but what I'm pointing here out is that current name is not wrong. Yes, we could discuss if it is 100% correct, but the thing is that by Wikipedia guidelines it is the most suitable one. We asked guys which are not influenced by POV and which are native speakers of English, and they proposed a solution which we accepted. The most common English name. Calling it "Homeland war" or "Croatian civil war" would be somewhat POVish, I'd say... --Dijxtra 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The term War of Independence is generally used to describe a war occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is subsequently known as a war of independence (taken from article War of Independence on Wikipedia). So, current name is not wrong. Boris Živ

No there weren't two separate wars. because in the whole time between 1991 and 1995. there was never total peace. There was a cease fire yes but the shelling continued allthough sporaddicly. It was not a Civil war because Paramilitry forces from serbia ( lead by Arkan, and others ) were comming from Serbia to fight in croatia. The odd thing is that Croatia took it's chance for independece following the Yougoslav constitution of 1974. which allowed Republics to separte form teh union if it's people decide that way. I personally think that the name "The Croatian war of Indepencdece" is a good one since it's the best english translation for teh Croatian word "Domovinski rat". Marko

Request for explanation of POV-Check

Hi SrbIzLike,

I noticed you put a POV-check on the Croatian War of Independence article. Can you please put an explanatory note in the discussion section, noting what needs to be changed so that the article conforms to NPOV.

Thanking you,

croatian_quoll 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly - but the simple ideology of fighting a separatist faction doesn't fit in a greater faction's "War of Independence". Let's say that Njegos's fights against seperatism in the Serb tribes are called "Montenegrin War of Independence"? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a war of independence because the central conflict was between the central Jugoslav (Serb dominated) authorities & the Croatian governement. It was conflict between a supra-state trying to survive & a state in the federation (that has been nominally independent before - Kingdom of Croatia, autonomy status under Pacta Conventa/Nagodba, NDH) seeking greater autonomy/independence. This is exemplified by:

- JNA units trying to take over (unsucessfully) boder posts in Slovenija;

- JNA units from Bosnia & Croatia effectively operating as one unit in operations in Croatia;

- The attack on Dubrovnik by JNA units from Montenegro & paramilitaries from Serbia;

- The forces from Serbia proper that crossed the border to take control of Vukovar & other areas of Baranja, Eastern Slavonija & Western Srijem;

- The arrival of paramilitary forces from Serbia proper (under Arkan & Captain Dragan respectively) to prop the Croatian Serb military in the aftermath of the Maslenica Operation by the HV;

To assert that it was a civil war is the same as asserting that the Dili massacre & involvement of the Indonesian military was a civil war. Likewise in Croatia, the minority was used to create a state of emergency which provided a pretext for the (JNA in the case of Croatia, Indonesian military in East Timor) to intervene on the grounds of restoring law & order or to protect the minority. croatian_quoll 06:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the East Timor case, the JNA did not had intentions to stop Croatia from being independent, but only to secure areas inhabited by ethnic Serbs that were included into Krajina. The independence of the rest of Croatia (outside of Krajina) was not disputed by the Serb side of the war. PANONIAN (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

General Cleanup

The information content of this article is good, however I have noticed many small spelling and syntactical errors. I'll fix any of these that I find, but I'm sure I can't get them all. I don't know enough Wikipedia code to post the cleanup banner on the article, and I'm not sure the amount of errors is great enough to merit it anyway, I just thought I'd post this in case anyone else might feel that such an action is neccessary. Schnabeltier Angriff 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

POV title

The title of the article should be changed to "War in Croatia", which is an objective and NPOV title. Current title is disputed and based on nationalistic view of HDZ political party from Croatia. It is disputed whether this war was "war of independence" or civil war between HDZ government and ethnic Serb citizens of Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement is a bit false. The government which was in power at the moment the war started was not HDZ government, it was coalition govermnet, "Government of National Unity" which had even Zdravko Tomac of SDP as deputy prime minister. Therefore, it was not HDZ government. Just to make things clear. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And here is my basic point why this was not "independence war": if somebody fight for independence, then must be another side in that war that dispute this independence to him. But, there was not such other side in this war. Other side in this war did not disputed Croatian independence, but only Croatian control over territory of Krajina. So, how can somebody to fight for independence if nobody dispute that independence to him? PANONIAN (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, again, false that nobody disputed independence of Croatia. Veljko Kadijević, the most powerful man in JNA, disputed it. It is simply not true that the conflict was a plane and simple civil war. It ended as civil war between brakeaway municipalities which formed Republic of Serb Krajina, but it started as war for independence since JNA aimed to topple down the Zagreb government and secure the status quo. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, in the Croatian language, this war is called "domovinski rat", which does not mean "war for independence", but "war for homeland". It was not war for independence, but for borders of Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the previous discusion we had about this. It is on the top of this talk page. Thank you. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the war had an element of gaining independence. But it also included the drive to enlarge borders (towards Bosnia and Herzegovina), and a series of extensive ethnic cleansing campaigns within Croatia. This goes beyond any 'independence' drive - as was the case for Slovenia. The title is liable to cause offence and must be changed. But surely, it is also covered in Croatia and Yugoslav succession wars? Politis 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the war did had element of independece war in its beginning when Croat troops fougth against Yugoslav army, but since Yugoslav leadership decided to "let Croatia go away", the war became a civil war between Croatian government and Serbs of Krajina, and later even a war for Greater Croatia when regular Croatian army went to Bosnia to fight against Bosnian Serb Army. So, the complexity of this war really cannot be explained by words "independence war". PANONIAN (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice, here we agree that the war started as a war of independence and that it ended as civil war. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And when did Yugoslavia (a euphemism for Serbia obviously since Yugoslavia ceased to exist when the Yugoslav federation collapsed) decide to let Croatia go away? Was it after or before the Yugoslav army troops destroyed Vukovar and slaughtered thousands of civilians there? Was this decision perhaps taken by the Balkan peacemaker and Yugoslav president Milosevic? And what is this drivel about Croatian army fighting in Bosnia while stubbornly adhering to an idiotic phantasy that Serbia had absolutely nothing with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? The wars in Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Kosovo were wars for independence because that was exactly what Serbia was trying to prevent by causing them. For those who hibernated during the 90s it suffices to check the ICTY indictments against Milosevic, Martic, Karadzic, Mladic and the rest of the gang.

And I would advise against listening to this Serbian extreme nationalist called Panonian whose whole purpose of contributing here is to spam articles with words Serb or Serbs (as of recently operating on Hungarian towns and villages) 83.131.88.235 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Afrika paprika (I know that it is you here), it is you who deleting word "Serbs" from various articles. Seems that you want to delete entire Serb history to show that Serbs actually yesterday came from another planet and that lands that they inhabit actually "always" belonged to their neighbours (including Croats of course). A clear example of chauvinism. Regarding the question when exactly leadership of Yugoslavia decided to "let Croatia go away", I do not know exact date, but it was in 1991, before Croatia was internationally recognized as independent. Also, SFR Yugoslavia ceased to exist only in spring 1992 when it was transformed into FR Yugoslavia. Do you want to say that Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia were part of Serbia before 1991-1992 and that they fought for independence from Serbia? No, they were part of Yugoslavia, as was Serbia all this time. Regarding indictments of Milošević and others, these indictments exactly claim that they were connected one with another like the people in gang, and only thing that was "proved" in their indictments are their "personal connections", so accusing state of Serbia which even did not had an army before 2006 for these wars is ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My goodness Panonian. Every single new post of yours reeks of desparation. I won't even try to answer your accusation of being "Afrika paprika" (what a ridiculous name - probably one of those numerous idiotic straw man sock puppets created with the sole purpose to prove that the Serbs here on Wikipedia are exposed to harrassement by numerous nationalist extremists from neighbouring countries. Oh, you poor innocent thing! Are we lacking arguments again? Yugoslavia ceased to exist on June 25 1991 when Croatia and Slovenia proclaimed independece, thus provoking the dissolution of the Yugoslav federation. [10] FR Yugoslavia that Serbia founded in 1992 was NOT the successor state to the SFR Yugoslavia which was also reflected in the fact that it could not take over SFR Yugoslavia's membership in the UN, IMF, World Bank etc. In fact, it wasn't until 1 November 2000 that this until then unrecognized country, became a member of the UN under the name Serbia and Montenegro [11]. I understand that the Serbian leadership claimed otherwise, but you Serbs should learn that there is something called international law that civilized countries abide by. This also answers your illogical rant in the next few lines. 83.131.75.59 11:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bla, bla, bla (that is the value of your "oppinion" about my "desperate" personality), and now concrete things: Yugoslavia had 6 republics, thus if 2 of them declared independence in 1991, the rest four did not, and the country still existed. Later, two more republics (BIH and Macedonia) declared independence, while Serbia and Montenegro proclaimed creation of new federation, and that is what made end of SFRY. Your claim that "FR Yugoslavia that was founded in 1992 was not the successor state to the SFR Yugoslavia" exactly prove my point that creation of FRY marked an end of SFRY. PANONIAN (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The Milosević's aims were to abuse power as long as he can and to gain personal benefit from it. He never cared for any ideological cause (such is "Greater Serbia"). He was nothing but old-fashioned Mafia-boss that became a president. It is simple as that. He simply used Serbs that lived in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo to stay in power. That is the whole story of Milošević, and by the way, Franjo Tuđman was another Mafia-boss and he was very appreciative business partner to Milošević. PANONIAN (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You are suggesting that Milosevic as president of Serbia and later FRY didn't finance the Krajina and had nothing to do with the plan to connect Krajina, RS and FRY in one entity? --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The exact reason why Milošević and Tuđman started war in Croatia is because they could not start war in Bosnia, so they started war in Croatia and later "exported" it to Bosnia. And NATO bombed Serbia because of the war in Kosovo, not because those in Croatia and Bosnia. Also, Serbia and Montenegro was formed in 2003, not in 2000, thus the country that was internationally recognized in year 2000 had name Yugoslavia. Try to read something before writting your posts here, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An attempt of coolheaded discusion

Wikipedia has rules which were drown up so that we could all reach an agreement and so we don't spend our time in edit warring and insulting each other. One of this rules is WP:CONSENSUS. We had a discussion about how to name this article. The discussion reached a consensus. We named the article the way we did. Some people are objecting to this name. Let's make a discussion about it. After we make a discussion, we shall proceed as agreed. I the mean time, I will revert the unilateral name change in some articles because I consider that a disruption of Wikipedia. The name change is to be discussed and agreed upon here, not on other articles. Edits like this one are not helping us build a consensus but are inciting an edit war. Therefore I will now revert those.

Now, as for the name of this article, please propose some sane names (I think we all agree that names like "Separatism War against Croatian Serbs" are not helping us make a cool conversation), and then we'll discus... --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You forget to turn off caps... PANONIAN (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, how interesting that this sockpuppet appeared exactly now. What a strange coincidence... PANONIAN (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pogađaj triput. :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really a war of Independence

This was not a war of Independence, but more like a Croatian war of Secession - secession mean, the formal separation from an alliance or federation. Independence from what? Croatia was a founding member of Yugoslavia. After 1945 and under the Croatian Tito, it signed into the multicultural federation. Then, in 1991 it voted to break away from Yugoslavia. And then there was a military conflict. The conflict was directed against invading FRY and then Serbian forces. But it was also a war to include territory outside its jurisdiction, to take over sections of Bosnia. It also included military opperations to empty Croatian areas of their native Serb population. Croatia deserves its independence but this is more complex than a simple war of independence. Croatian war of secession? Politis 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Same thing, essentially. Secession is an action, and - if it works out - independence is its result. Someone said that there is no such thing as successful treason - because, if it succeeds, it is not called a treason. Roughly the same applies here.

There is another aspect of the article's name that is probably lost on most people: all independence wars are - necessarily and by definition - civil wars. (One possible exception could be wars fought by former colonies; these may also be liberation wars.) But that's an entirely different issue, the one I won't get into now. GregorB 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Commanders

If you look at the Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict (emphasis mine):

commander1/commander2 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include army commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed. Ranks and titles should be omitted. The dagger icon (†) may be used to indicate commanders killed during the conflict.

I don't think we should go into any detail here, but if we do, we should list important, top-level figures like Zvonimir Červenko and Mile Mrkšić (see Operation Storm), not marginal ones like Ademi, Đanko and Norac. GregorB 11:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Who was chief commander of Croatian army? "The Commander-in-Chief of all Croatian armed forces in peace and war is the President of the Republic."[12] Therefore, chief commander of Croatian forces was Franjo Tuđman. Chiefs of Staff during the war were Anton Tus and Janko Bobetko. Therefore, I'll put those people in the infobox. --Dijxtra 09:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call. GregorB 18:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since the current name of the article is incorrect and misleading because it were Serbs from Republic of Serbian Krajina that fought for independence from Croatia and Croatia did not fought for independence from Republic of Serbian Krajina, I propose that name of this article should be changed into its natural and correct name War in Croatia (1991-1995). PANONIAN (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I support name change to War in Croatia (1991-1995)

I oppose name change to War in Croatia (1991-1995)

Bobblehead
The Wanderer 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ante Perkovic 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
GregorB 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Dr.Gonzo 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Damirux 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Vodomar 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
croatian_quoll 14:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Kubura 02:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Name is too undetermined.
Luka Krstulovic 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC), agree with Kubura.

Comments

It was a Croatian war of Independece. Croatia and Slovenia wanted peace and Idependence from Yugoslavia...Yugoslavia said no and wanted war WHAT ELSE CAN YOU CALL IT??? Jagoda 1 05:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Croatia fought against JNA only in the beginning of the war (in 1991). After Croatia was internationally recognized, the JNA (or later VJ) was not involved in the war, and for most time of the war (1992-1995), Croatia fought AGAINST INDEPENDENCE of Republic of Serbian Krajina (If Croatia already was internationaly recognized independent state in this period, how it can fight for independence?) What happened to logic here? PANONIAN (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And now please see what this article claim (which totally contradict with its title): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence#1992_A_ceasefire_finally_holds Quote: "The final UN-sponsored ceasefire, the twentieth one, came in January 1992. Already in December 1991, after this series of unsuccessful cease-fires, the United Nations deployed a protection force in Serbian-held Croatia. The United Nations Protection Force was deployed to supervise and maintain the agreement. The JNA, the federal army progressively to withdraw from Croatia - even Krajina" "The warring parties mostly moved to entrenched positions as The Yugoslav People's Army soon retreated from Croatia into Bosnia and Herzegovina where war was just about to start." "Croatia became a member of the United Nations on May 22, 1992." "Armed conflict in Croatia continued intermittently at a small scale." And now you want to say that one internationally recognized independent country, member of United Nations, fought for its independence between May 22, 1992 and summer 1995?????? It simply does not fit into common sense. PANONIAN (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your own opinion of the events is not the most verifiable source. As Yugoslavia dissolved, it could only legally dissolve into its constituent republics. Yugoslavia's smaller successor state (after independence declaration of Slovenia and Croatia) decided to side with the Croatian Serbs, essentially violating its own laws by attempting to dissolve Yugoslavia along ethnic (as opposed to republican) lines. This successor state eventually abandoned Croatia, as you say, but not without leaving much of its equipment in the hands of the Croatian Serbs.

Yes, Croatia's independence was recognized, but as a foreign-armed minority separatist group held onto much of its territory, Croatia was not yet a sovereign state (a condition for independence). This had elements of a civil war. However, the conflict is legally viewed through the Yugoslav law from which it originated, and Greater-Serbian politics played from Belgrade influenced it.

It is quite obvious that the name "War in Croatia (1991-1995)" is an attempt to downplay the role of certain other nations in the conflict. There would be no RSK without the smaller successor state of Yugoslavia entering Croatia and it was during this time that the majority of Serb attacks came (Vukovar, Dubrovnik, etc.). I would rather see an article split (for example, Homeland War umbrella article, then Croatian War of Independence (1991-1992) and War in Croatia (1992-1995)) than a renaming.--Thewanderer 15:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite opposite: the current name of the article is an attempt to magnify the role of certain other nations in the conflict. Second thing, what I quoted there is not "my" opinion, but a text of this article that certainly was not written by me. This is not question about Yugoslav legality but about who fought for independence from whom. Regarding your view about sovereignty would you also say that Georgia and Cyprus are not sovereign states because parts of their territories are not controled by their governments? Once Croatia was internationally recognized as independent and admited to UN, we cannot call it with any other name instead of sovereign country. Regarding idea to split article into 3, I might support this idea, although the exact names of the 3 separate articles still should be discussed. PANONIAN (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest these names: the umbrella article should be named War in Croatia (1991-1995), and its subarticles would be: Croatian War of Independence (1991-1992) and Civil War in Croatia (1992-1995). PANONIAN (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get ahead of yourself. I said I would rather have a split than such a renaming. I would avoid both if possible. Also, this is not my view of sovereignty, but the Sovereignty article's: Further, it is generally held that another legal element of sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. ("No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty.") In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements.

Croatia's independence could only be completed once its sovereignty over Krajina territories was restored. It was all one process from 1991 to 1995. --Thewanderer 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Independence also means souverenity over entire territory. The goal was to secure independence while not losing any parts of our territory. Maybe we could rename it to "Croatian war of independence and of keeping its entire territory" ? --Ante Perkovic 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty simply means de jure sovereignty, not necessary de facto one too. Just compare Croatian case with cases of Georgia, Cyprus, Moldova, Somalia, etc. Once de jure sovereignty of one country is recognized, its fight for independence is finished, thus establishment of de facto sovereignty is nothing else but a technical problem in this case. PANONIAN (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is slightly erroneous PANONIAN. Sovereignty means control over territory. De jure sovereignty means nothing if the countrys security forces has no control - look at Iraq, Afghanistan & West Pakistan. The danger of defacto sovereignty is to convert it to de jure sovereignty over time. In Vito Rugas's book, Da nije bilo Oluje, he notes that in the absense of operation storm, the US diplomacy was getting prepared to recognise Serb war games in the interest of stabilising the region. An example where defacto control will be converted into de jure recognition is the region of Nagorno Karabakh - nominally a part of Azerbaijan but populated with ethnic Armenians. croatian_quoll 14:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding idea about 3 articles of the same war with different war names, I really can't express how silly the idea is. --Ante Perkovic 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that article titles should attempt to reflect a neutral POV as well, and I don't understand the resistance to a more netural and widespread use to describe the war. Something more concrete:

Google Search

"Croatian War of Independence" -site:wikipedia.org 
531 hits [13]

"War in Croatia" -site:wikipedia.org
67,100 hits [14]

--Lowg 06:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Name

Firstly y do we write the defeat of Krajina forces, when it was a war of independance, and the serbs attacked Croatia first.

Because Operation Storm was intended to defeat Krajina forces. And it defeated Krajina forces. And, then the war ended. --Dijxtra 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You dont mention why it began do you now?? We wanted to gain our full and complete independance from Yugoslavia, this could not be done without taking our rightful territory. We defended our nation against the Serb and JNA intervention.

And what is the point of writing what it was called in Serbian, there is no point to that. It is the CROATIAN war of Independance.

And the Serbs took part in it. I mean, we wouldn't have that war if there were no Serbs, now would we? There fore, Serbs are a crucial part of that war, just as Croats are. --Dijxtra 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Domovinski rat. Who gives shit wat the serbs call it, they attacked us and now they want to call it a civil war.

People who read Wikipedia give a shit. --Dijxtra 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

03:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Serbia-controled JNA occupied parts of Croatian and then, when confronted with lack of support from international community, they decided to let the weapons to the local Serbs, give them some generals, like Mladic, thet were paid from Belgrade and continued the war. So, weapons were sent from Belgrade, generals were from Serbia, money was comming from Belgrade ... and still, this was civil war with Serbia blissfuly detached from everything? Brilliant thinking. --Ante Perkovic 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dijxtra"

Forget it

I think this article should be left alone with the name "Croatian war of Independence" SIMPLE. that's what it was.

There are many topics about Balkans and its people that need to be looked at and re-edited to be unbias. Guys like Panonian and Ante Perkovic need to sit down and have a long chat to see what they can do to make articles unbias.

Jagoda 1 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Croatia's Independance

well i dont see the problem here. By the way im a Maltese Australian. Croatia was a republic of Yugoslavia and after its Independance was declared it broke away from Yugoslavia however because Milosevic wanted to promote his view of Greater Serbia and have the former union, he spurred on the Krajina Serbs and he himself attacked with the JNA Croatian territory. He wanted to go all the way to zagreb and to sse the Adriatic The Krajina Serbs were supplied in all ways and logistics by the Serb Serbs and the result of the war, was at the end Croatias freedom and nation

Bronco24man 11:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank God for Bronco. Like i said before TRUTH COMES OUT IN TIME. Thanks Falcon for your unbias view on this topic.

PS In Sydney Australia we have a soccer club called Hajduk Wanderers...it's a club who is half Croat and half Maltese run...but supported by all backgrounds. Take Care Falcon

Jagoda 1 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i no I live in sydney and i used to play for that club. Yeah well it seems that on wiki the only problem we have is with Serb nationalists who want to argue everything that doesnt present a rosy Serb POV. The truth is the truth and the world knows it.

No, you also have problem with Croats who actualy live in Croatia and who were here when the thing happened... --Dijxtra 07:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With all do respect, Dijxtra, Who gives you the right to speak on behalf of another person, and raise a point which is said to be false? It does not matter whether or not a person was in a war, and that person has moved out to another country, the point that matters is that, that person may have had a member of the family fight in the war. Is it then not fair that they get the same recognition, the same respect and most of all the right to speak based on what they believe happened? To question another pupils authenticity in reagrds of their culture, means you have some issues up your sleeves which need to be rectified sooner or later. A person may have knowledge in themselves and wish to pursue their point of view. By the way, living in Croatia, does not necessarily mean you are a a bigger Croatian, wake up to yourself, and think before you act and speak as sometimes it seems you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not Croatian, but I feel for the people who fought in this war, and most certainly those who died proud knowing they made a difference in the lives of many Croatians. Finally, it is not only you in the picture, there are others which form the jigsaw puzzle- that meaning the different pupils which fought in that war.

Chaldean Warrior 10:23, 1st September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm no big Croat (as you can see from my userpage), and it is really not that much complicated to be bigger Croat than me. Since I've been to Australia and have socialised with some Australian Croats, I'm quite aware that most of those people are quite big Croats and it would really be tremendously bold to declare yourself to be a bigger Croat than some of Australian Croats I've met. Put that aside, people on which behalf I speak give me the right to speak on their behalf. I assure you I am not the only Croat living in Croatia which is aware of the fact that Serbs which fought the war in questions were citizens of Croatia. My friends with which I have discussed this matter agree with me that Serbs who fought the war were mainly Croatian, not Serbian and those are people which give me the right to speak on their behalf. I'm terribly sorry for you if no person but yourself allowes you to speak in his/her name.

I would then like to remind you that Wikipedia is not about respect. It is not about leting everybody write what they think is the truth. It is not about collecting every existing POV. It is even not about the truth. It is about verifiability, and it is about NPOV. If you do not belive me, feel free to check this basic documents: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Now, it is realy nice to see you concerned about the right to speak freely. But I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a place where people come to speak freely, it is a place where people come to write an encyclopedia. The fact that somebody has something to say, some POV to express or feels that something is true and the other thing is false have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. Now that we know what Wikipedia is for, I'd like you to point out where I disputed anybody's right to speak freely. Thank you in advance. --Dijxtra 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Andrew, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't know you are new to Wikipedia, I realised that just now. I'm very sorry, I don't have the habit of biting the newcomers, I thought you are an established Wikipedia user. I'd like to apologise for assuming you are familiar with the rules of Wikipedia. As a new user, I'd recomend you to read this: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, so you can understand the way in which Wikipedia works. If you encounter any problems understanding principles of Wikipedia, feel free to contact me. I'm once again sorry for biting you... --Dijxtra 14:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe you should re-instate your wording in previous comments to others. It is also about the truth and your comments have just contradicted yourself. e.gIt is even not about the truth. then you say But I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a place where people come to speak freely, it is a place where people come to write an encyclopedia? Chaldean Warrior 10:23, 1st September 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit hard for me to understand which statements of mine are contradictory. Are you suggesting that "It is even not about the truth." and "But I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a place where people come to speak freely, it is a place where people come to write an encyclopedia?" I don't see how this two sentences contradict. --Dijxtra 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well an encyclopedia is about the truth, it is fact is it not? so therefore you are undermining our comments when your comments are false and contradictory in themselves. Chaldean Warrior 10:03, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

I see you didn't read the links I told you to read :-) Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. The first sentence will be enough, you don't have to read it all if it is to long for you. In fact, only the bolded part of the first sentence will be enough. Then you can return here to discuss. Thanks. --Dijxtra 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can read what I wish to read on my own accord, I dont need a parrot to tell me what to do Thanks. Anyways it seems that you have a selfish viewpoint on many situations, I believe you should get over what you think and take into account everyone elses point of view.

Tctctc, seems like you havent done you homework yet again... WP:NPOV, young padawan, WP:NPOV. We do not deal with points of view here... --Dijxtra 10:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I picked up on another point you stated, you said that serbs that fought in the war were croatian? what sense does that make? How can a serb then mysterioulsy turn into a croat? You dont seem to make much sense in your pointers, you can't just state that another croat allowed me to speak on behalf of them as you have not used quotes to reassure that. Once again you have pursued your "selfish" I want all the credit for comments, self.

Chaldean Warrior 12:17, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

Please review your userpage and remove the userbox which states you are native speaker of English. Because native speaker of English would know difference between "Croat" and "Croatian". But, since you don't seem to grasp it, here's the explanation for you: Croat is member of a nation called "Croats". Serb is a member of a nation called "Serbs". Croatian is that which belongs to Croatia (in this case, a person that is a citizen of Croatia). Therefore, a Croatian Serb is a Serb who is native of Croatia (click on the link if you don't belive me). I hope that now everything I wrote has sense for you. If you need more explanations of my rather complicated statements, feel free to ask. --Dijxtra 10:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems still like you are not making sense of yourself and I think that is the point to many other people. You stated I should take off my native speaking of english. Firstly what does that "Croat" and "Croatian" determine about how much english you know. Firstly we dont live in croatia so we dont study the difference between them. Secondly, english has nothing to do with the subject of history- apart from the fact that you need it to write. I dont see how your comment adjusts to the fact that an Australian should know the difference between "croat" and "croatian". You stated that a Croatian is that which belongs to Croatia (in this case, a person that is a citizen of Croatia). I strongly oppose this, there are many Croatians which are not citizens of Croatia, but are Croatian, once again your selfish POV. What makes you more Croatian then them? You always leave me wandering in awe and wander as you state comments which I always seem to grasp ahold of and refute. By the way this would of had been a better explanation Croats are a south Slavic people mostly living in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatians are the western group of South Slavic languages. You always seem to forget the importance of your explanations; the core. Your points to me are like a vase with no flowers EMPTY.

Chaldean Warrior 11:54, 3rd September 2006 (UTC)

I beg you to inform yourself before making a fool out of yourself. Please read this article: Croatian. This disambig page (among other things) says: "Croatian may refer to: Of or relating to Croatia". Therefore, "Croatian Serbs" (did you even bother to click on the link to see what "Croatian Serbs" are?) are Serbs who live in Croatia. Period. Damn, why don't you just read what I wrote and click on the links I give you? --Dijxtra 09:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting for a name change

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The current name of the article is incorrect and misleading because the Serbs from the Republic of Serb Krajina that fought for independence from Croatia and Croatia didn't fight for independence from the Republic of Serb Krajina. Croatia wanted to seccede from Yugoslavia, and I propose that name of this article should be changed into its natural and correct name - Croat War of Secession.

I support name change to Croat War of Secession

I oppose name change to Croat War of Secession

Chaldean Warrior 1:51, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)
Ante Perkovic 06:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Dr.Gonzo 12:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Dijxtra 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Wanderer 14:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Kubura 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC), see this [15] and this [16].
GregorB 21:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Roberta F. 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Damirux 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
croatian_quoll 14:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Luka Krstulovic 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Prkno 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Ivan Kricancic 06:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I believe that this article should be left for the Croatians to decide, and not for the bias serb propaganda. How could you change the name of this; Croatia war of independence to suit the needs for the Serbs? I mean I dont see the name Serbia in the heading do you? This should remain at this heading and left alone as it is a heading which allows people to know what the article is about. is there more serb propaganda up your sleeves?

Chaldean Warrior 1:51, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Andrew, I think it's sad that you're siding with the Croats just because you're Catholic, and Croats are Catholic. And then you call Serbs nationalists? This sounds more like a jihad than propaganda. --KOCOBO 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

KOCOBO, it is not because I am a catholic that I am with the Croatians, it is because I feel for their rights as a people, and can't stand serbian nationalists tampering their rich and pleasant history and culture. As for your comment on Jihad, I do not see how we are having a "holy war", if there is anyone showing signs of Jihad it is you, seeing as you are striving to enrich false accusations to try and impress your anonymous people. Before you go around and yet again make other false accusations,I believe it is time for you to open your smudged eyes and be a better and more profound person. Anyways, the word Jihad identifies the inner-qualites in which most Serbian Nationalists like yourself bear in your "black" heart.

Chaldean Warrior 2:39, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, OK, so if you were Christian Orthodox, you would still support the Croats... Yeah, right ;) --KOCOBO 01:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What does religion have to do with my inner-beliefs as a person. Even is I was christian orthodox I would feel for the rights of the Croatian people, and by the way how could you put these false accusations on me in saying if i was orthodox I would not support the Croatians? How would you know? Opps, i forget the serbs are so damn good and lieing and putting words in peoples mouths. Brainwashing, the word that best describes it. Dont just look at it because I am a Catholic, get rid of you black stubborn heart and think of it on a larger scale.

Chaldean Warrior 2:39, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

When will Serbs finaly learn to live with their dark past from 1990's? It would be about time. --Ante Perkovic 06:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ante there is no point in asking they are always is denial

Chaldean Warrior 6:28, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

As we already concluded, Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia successfully in the first (shorter) part of the war, and the rest of the war had nothing to do with Croatia seceding from Yugoslavia but with Krajina seceding from Croatia. Therefore, the proponents statement is wrong and I object this renaming. --Dijxtra 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an unacceptable name. First off, even if it was a war of succession (which it wasn't), it would not be a Croat war, but a Croatian one. Certain users seem to be obsessed with "secession". How long would that obsession last if we renamed the article to Serb seccession from Croatia war?

Secondly, I think we should add a section to this article about the Badinter Commission showing how the most authoritative group decided that Yugoslavia ceased to exist (dissolved) rather than Slovenia and Croatia seceded from it. It's hugely important and this fact is also the basis of Croatia's declaration of independence. --Thewanderer 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What most Serb contributors here miss is that Republika Srpska Krajina was not recognised by any country in the world and was judged to be a criminal enterprise by the ICTY. In light of these facts, the notion of Serbs secceding from Croatia is a poor attempt to veil irredentist designs by the Republic of Serbia to create a Greater Serbia. It also conveniently ignores the fact that the military and political elite of the Republic of Serbia had desire for territory of the Republic of Croatia that was relative majority Croat such as Vukovar or overwhelmingly Croat (circa 90%) like Dubrovnik. It was transparent that economic targets such as the oil fields of Slavonia, the tourist income of Dubrovnik and the military factories of Bosnia were the real targets. Croatian War of Independence should stay. croatian_quoll 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Name change

This survey has not been listed at WP:RQM. The format is deffective and without proper calmed and steady discussion is deemed to fail or have no legitimacy whatsoever. Instead continuing with petty ethnic bickering and edit warring for the sake of it, I will invite the main actors to think about this and then listing the requested move for discussion as for wikipedia guidelines, providing a well-thought rationale. I want this to serve as a reminder too for Wikipedia policy against personal attacks and insults. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it'd be nice if the properly formated RQM waited until saaaay... 15.9., so we're sure everybody's home from the holidays. --Dijxtra 10:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Croatian War of Independence → Croat War of Secession – The name of the war depicts how the Croats called it, but there were two sides to the war. This way, the article addresses the reality of the situation back then. Svetislav Jovanović 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support

Strong Support --Svetislav Jovanović 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Very strong Support - of course, the Croats wanted to separate from Yugoslavia, not the Serbs. --KOCOBO 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support - Croats started this war, they wanted to secede from the federation, the new name of the article is good. I support the name change. Srbijanković 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support --User:LukaP

Serb ^talk 02:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support - this wasn't war for independence --Jovanvb 11:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Support but then find more NPOV name 1991-1995 war in Croatia. --TheFEARgod 11:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support Andrija.b 18:04, Septembar 3,2006
Support I do think the name of the article should be changed as it was not a war of independence, but to the more neutral version suggested previously, War in Croatia (1991-1995) or 1991-1995 war in Croatia as suggested more recently.// Lowg ^.talk. 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support --Krytan 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support --Medule 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support Croats wanted to secede form former Yugoslavia. That should be stated in the article name. --Manojlo 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Support (but to Croat'''ian''' War of Secession). More appropriate name of the war. Nikola 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support -- Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Support , Serbs want to stay in, Croats want to break away. Secede means to break away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BosnianSerb (talk • contribs)

Oppose

Strongly Oppose --Thewanderer 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC) This is a ridiculous renaming request, with users giving outrageous reasons for wanting to move the article. None of this is verifiable, and a certain interest group here believes that making up its own name for the war based on their own opinion is NPOV. I'm not sure if it's even worth trying to explain it to people who really won't care what I say either way (but I'll give it a shot). This can't be a Croat war of seccession. Croats didn't secede Yugoslavia. One of Yugoslavia's republics, Croatia, proclaimed its independence which was based on the fact that Yugoslavia had ceased to exist. Secondly, we have people voting to support the move based on "Croatia started it". This really has nothing to do with the war's name. Croatia had a legal right to declare its independence which was illegally denied it by the invading Yugoslav army and the Croatian Serbs who launched the war. None of you are voting with any useful facts or information, just your own opinions. If Serb users want to stuff the vote with immature one-line reasons given, good for them. However, such a vote will never be considerer valid until the proponents of a move get their act together and provide credible evidence, which can be genuinely supported by a majority.
Oppose - If anything, I am prepared to support a move to War in Croatia (1991-1995) only if clear consensus could be reached, as long as that stops the edit warring. I also have to remind some editors that the current name is *not* fruit of a unilateral move but of a previous survey, as studying the talk page history would determine. There has also been a call to stop any RQM survey until the second half of September and this has been disregarded, something I find quite unpleasant. On a practical level, even if the support side obtains more than 60% of the votes, nothing would stop them running a new survey if other editors believe it has been run under unfair circumstances, thus making this whole exercise pointless (the 60% mark may goes up to 80% for controversial issues, to ensure a good level of consensus and avoir re-runs) E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. A spiteful, trollish, inane, and badly argumented suggestion. Consider this: "Croat War of Secession". GregorB 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
With your rationale, we definitely need to move this article as the current title is not very impressive google results as well. "Croatian War of Independence"// Lowg ^.talk. 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Then again, you'll have to ask yourself why do you support moving this article from a not very impressive title to an even less impressive one. GregorB 12:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. As Asterion, I might support "War in Croatia" or like, but the proposed title is a clear violation of WP:POINT (and votecasting and...). Duja 08:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Wording is very tricky here. One must understand that Yugoslavia was a federation of nations and 'nationalities'. As such the constituent parts had the right to declare (or fight for) independence. Croats fought for independence they were entitled to. In contrast "War of Secession" would probably better suit Republika Srpska Krajina.Tonycdp 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Croatia fight for its independence through entire war. At first against Serbia-controled JNA, then against Serbia-controlled puppets in so-called RSK. --Ante Perkovic 22:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - We have discussed all this in the past. I really see no reason to change the title since it is concise and NPOV. Calling it "War in Croatia" is also completely unacceptable, since there were many wars in Croatia and that makes the title vague and non-descriptive. On the other hand Croatia waged only one war for independance, ever. --Dr.Gonzo 23:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose --Roberta F. 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Oppose - the renaming of article is absolutely rubbish. Serbs attacked start war in Slovenia, then Croatia, Bosnia... and wants to make Great Serbia. Croats just want freedom from that idea made by Serbs. Croats do not want to live anymore in that Yugoslavia. Look at the names of people who are voting for changing the name of the article. All Serbs. Thanks to people who knows what is doing bussiness with Serbians - not anymore!!! Damirux 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Oppose Vodomar 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Why American war for independence? - It's american soil and citizens of future USA won, the same stands for this article, idea of renaming it is POV. SpeedyGonsales 11:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Besides, it appears that there is not a single Wikipedia article titled "Fooian War of Secession". I'd recommend everyone involved to take a look at Naming the American Civil War, an interesting read. GregorB 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Frankly, I find this boring & rather surreal. This "initiative" reminds me of an American pre-war lyrics: Croats and Serbs/reely get on my nerves ! Mir Harven 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Oppose The war is called either the homeland war of Croatian war of Independence in Croatia - this article is about Croatia and should reflect the local Croatian terminology used. As someone has already mentioned, it is hard to secede from a federation that no longer exists (when Stipe Mesic was denied the presidency in the next rotation). In the absense of a functioning federation, you declare independence. The war wasn't a war of succession, but an attempt to conquer then annex territories to create a Greater Serbia as part of the latest reinteration of Nacrtanje. It was a war for the maintenance of Croatian independence - all documented in the hague by the ICTY. It is sad that most of those supporting the change appear to be Serbs - it reflects the strange preoccupation Serb nationalists have all things Croatian. croatian_quoll 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Who did the Serbs attack? Themselves? The Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia, the Croats wanted to expell them from their own land, what were the Serbs supposed to do? Just sit around and do nothing. As far as the vote buying is concerned, you can call whoever you want over the e-mail or whatever, but not over Wikipedia. What you did in the past was wrong, but I forgive you. --Serb User Bormalagurski^talk 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Bormalagurski, you said it: "you can call whoever you want over the e-mail or whatever, but not over Wikipedia". Since User:Svetislav Jovanović called people to vote over Wikipedia, this vote will not have credibility and is worthless because of this: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Thank you for reminding me to check. --Dijxtra 09:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, he said I can express my opinion. He didn't ask me to vote. --Serb ^talk 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And voting is not expressing your oppinion? Didn't you express your opinion by supporting this move? --Dijxtra 07:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I could've expressed my opinion in this discussion, I didn't have to vote. But, I chose to vote. --Serb ^talk 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, User:Svetislav Jovanović didn't ako people to vote. He just called them to express their opinion and called the change in their talk page "voting". It's a biiiiig difference ;)). --Ante Perkovic 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Croats call the war a War of Independence, why? Because they wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. Therefore, the article should be rightfully called Croat War of Secession. --KOCOBO 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your freedom? You're in Australia! You don't care about Croatia, thats why you don't live there! Where were you in 1991 when Croatia needed you? Heh, please, go outside and get off the computer... --Serb ^talk 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I can bet that you've never even been to Croatia. --Serb ^talk 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

All three of you which made the remarks KOCOBO, Srbijanković and Bormalagurski are dumb, dumb and dumber. Firstly, KOCOBO, you stated that Croats wanted the war to be called the War of Independence, if it was a secession they would of had a politcial meeting not a war. A secession means that you wish to break apart from a union and a political matter through series of steps; war not being one them. A secession is best described as America (North and South) which had a secession through a series of steps and meetings. WAR was not was caused the secession was it? So then, that means if you go to war, you are going their to fight for your country as you may have not had fair and equal circumstances which is understandable in this case, as serbs were horrendous, black-hearted people which took advantage of the Croatians. Secondly, Srbijanković you just contradicted yourself when you secede you do not go to war to solve the issue you do it through a series of organised steps. The Croatians then had a disadvantage the first time and declared war on Serbia in order to rectify the unfair circumstances. The war then pathed a new life for the Croatians, and gave them their own country, WHICH IS WHY IT IS CALLED THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, as they went to war and fought for their independence this has nothing to do with secession. Thirdly, Bormalagursk, you are a fool in yourself, do you get to choose were you wish to be born? NO, By the way the would have been just born in that year do you expect him to go to war whilst he is a baby? Please before you three go any further think before you act and dont attempt to bring the Serb Propaganda into the lives of outsiders. You have tried once to many times and you have failed. I feel for the rights of the Croatians as a people, and can't stand serbian nationalists tampering their rich and pleasant history and culture. Before you go around and yet again make other false accusations,I believe it is time for you to open your smudged eyes and be better and more profound people. The word Jihad best identifies the inner-qualites in which most Serbian Nationalists like yourselves bear in your "black" heart.

Chaldean Warrior 5:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so many personal attacks, Andrew. I think we, the users of Wikipedia, are pretty much sick of your stories of "Serb Propaganda", it's accenting how much you're pushing your Croat Propaganda. Go sing Danke Deutschland somewhere else. --Svetislav Jovanović 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

you should check my vote and consider the idea--TheFEARgod 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding various interpretation that Serbs fought for "independence", it's important to note that Badinter Arbitration Committee, set up by EU countries in 1900's, gave their oppinion on the right to self-determination of Croatia and of Croatian Serbs.

According to The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee:

Opinion No. 2

On 20 November 1991 the Chairman of the Arbitration Committee received a letter from Lord Carrington, Chairman of the Conference on Yugoslavia, requesting the Committee's opinion on the following question put by the Republic of Serbia:

Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?

The Committee took note of the aide-mémoires, observations and other materials submitted by the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia, by the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and by the `Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina'.

1. The Committee considers that, whatever the circumstances, the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of independence (uti possidetis juris) except where the states concerned agree otherwise.

As you can see in the text above and at the address I provided, Yugoslavia ceased to exist, Croatia was one of the successors and Serbs in Croatia, backed by Serbia, tried to change the croatian borders. --Ante Perkovic 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Protecting this page

Since this page has descended into edit war and there was not one constructive edit, I'm protecting it for now. --Dijxtra 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

So as to not confuse the issues here: the edit that says result is "Decisive defeat of the Republic of Serb Krajina Army" was originally mine, while the edit that says location is RSK was certainly not mine. "Defense of Croatia" is very vague and implies - since we agree Krajina is a part of Croatia - that Croatia was defended from herself. I don't remember Croatia being attacked by the JNA in 1995. GregorB 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And lets just forget about the 250,000 Serbs that were ethnically cleansed in 1995... --KOCOBO 19:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And lets just forget that 99% of them didn't even see one single croatian soldier, but were evacuated by serbian authorities. Of course, Serbs likes to call that ethnic cleansing, which is rediculous. --Ante Perkovic 19:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And lets just ignore the videos of Serb victims of Croat violence in August 1995, what happened to those who dared to stay in Croatia... Lets just forget that Croats were throwing stones and spitting on the Serbs that were leaving, and were told to leave or die. If thats not ethnic cleansing, I don't know what is. --KOCOBO 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is typical for serbian propaganda. Yes, some people were stoned, yes some people were killed ands yes, some people were told to leave or die. But, still, Serbs packed before all of this happened. So, they were not forsed to leave. As I said, great mayority of them were forced to leave by local Serb authorities and never evene seen a single Croat.

You can talk about ethnic cleansing, you can talk about 250 000 people that left, but putting it together in the same sentence the way you did is typical serbian manipulation with the facts. --Ante Perkovic 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not manipulating with the facts, I am merely presenting them. The facts speak for themselves, you speak out of bias. --KOCOBO 03:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not. If you say 250,000 Serbs that were ethnically cleansed, then you are not just presenting the facts, you are interpreting them. If you wrote that they left, that would be presenting? As for my bias, just look at the voting! Out of 15 people voted PRO moving, all are either proven to be Serbs, or have history of strong pro-serbian bias. On the other side, we have 2 non-balkan votes and even one from Serbia. All this voting is just another proof how isolated you radical Serbs are in your national mythology. Of course, you can tell your stories to each other, but when you come out, on the internet, your ideas always hit the wall. I suggest all of you should just try to stop living in denial. --Ante Perkovic 07:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ante, calm down. I think you're just mad that the majority is "FOR" the remaming of the article. Too bad there are 11 million Serbs, and only 4 million Croats, eh? --Serb ^talk 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This user got problems with figures. There were ca. 8,6 M Serbs & 4,6 M Croats in the 1991. census. Since then, situation has, as far as numbers are concerned, changed for worse, especially for Serbs. In 2000s there were ca. 4,6 M Croats in what used to be Yugoslavia and ca. 8 M Serbs-. more than 500 k "deficit", due mainly to emigration. Now, if one counts emigres, there are possibly more Croats than Serbs in EU and both Americas. But-what about these figures ? There are ca. 60 M British and 200 M Indonesians, 6-7 M Israelis and ca. 240 M Arabs, 82-4 M Germans and 1, 1 B Indians. And- do I, as a rule, buy British, German and Israeli goods, or Indonesian, Indian and Arab ones ? Do I read German, Israeli and British authors, or the Arab, Indonesian and Indian writers ? Well, I do both, but evidently, the disproportion is significant. I guess it's quality, geopolitical & cultural affinities that count. Human beings are not cattle to be counted like that. Mir Harven 11:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Jugoslavia has found that the Krajina forces, Bosnian Serb forces and forces from the Republic of Serbia worked as one cohesive military unit, comprising mainly of units of the JNA as well as many paramilitary forces. This judement can be found in the ruling that the conflict b/w Serbia & Croatia/BiH were an international conflict. It is also reflected in many indictments for war crimes. This point is also the basis for the BiH Republics case before the International Court of Justice in which it is put forward that the Republic of Serbia is guilty of orchestrating genocide of BiH's non-Serb population.

The response to the initial posting on this subsection seeks to artifically create a difference between the forces and by implication, attempting to reinterpret the conflict from an invasion (as judged by a UN court), to a civil war as put forward by Greater Serbia apologists. croatian_quoll 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith Edits

1 Leave the article as is. 2. Many Croats left Belgrade and Serbia, many Croats left Boka and Montenegro after 1991...people left from both sides to avoid trouble. Smart people. As for Serbs hatred in Croatia, HOW STUPID, Croatian soccer team has 3 Serbs playing for it now - Dado Prso, Milan Rapajic and Bosko Balaban...i don't see any hatred towards them because they are Serb origin. I know of heaps of Serbs that live in Dalmatia today with no problems. Why start trouble here on Wiki with all your BAD FAITH EDITS and lies...Some Serbs here think you're the only victims or something.....Serbs did some bad things in WW2 and in the 90s..but so did half the world at one time or another...only the Swiss are innocent of all wrong doing. Take it easy.. We all go over the top with pride thing on our race (maybe due to our countries finally being called Croatia and Serbia) ...we have to learn to get along as in the eyes of the world the Balkan people look like idiots still bickering. WAR IS OVER 2006 now

Reply to me I would love to hear from you. No point adding fuel to the fire, enough is enough.

Jagoda 1 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV name

Wee urgently need a NPOV name. Croatian War of Independence is Croat-sided and Croatian War of Secession is Serb-sided.

Here are my proposals:

No other solution than this--TheFEARgod 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposals are fine, more or less. I certainly wouldn't readily agree that the current name is POV, but if it is, I'd like to point out that this was hardly anyone's intention. In our initial discussion here we decided against Homeland war (clearly the most obvious choice) and chose the current name precisely in order to avoid POV. Still, it has been pointed out that "CWoI" wasn't really a war of independence in its second stage (1992-1995), and IMO even the first stage (1991-1992) is somewhat debatable in that respect. This is, I think, a valid point. I'd pick War in Croatia. (Yes, it's rather generic - but should there be another one, this one will get to be renamed.) GregorB 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The first stage (1991-1992) is clearly a war for independence. General Kadijevic and Panic have publicly stated that the goal was to make a beeline via Vukovar through Slavonija and overthrow the government of Croatia. The fact that the JNA stumbled at Vukovar and they adopted the Virovitica, Karlovac and Karlobag plan and then finally just areas with a substantial Serb area doesn't negate this fact.croatian_quoll 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The process of independence includes the concept of territorial integrity and it's defence. Territorial integrity is integral to the notion of independence. After the recognition of Croatian soveriegnty, the second part of the war is logical extension of the war of independence, namely restoring sovereignty i.e. territorial integrity of the internationally recognised Republic of Croatia. Thus the second stage (1992-1995) is part of the War of Independence also. Any attempt to divorse territorial integrity from independence is artificial. croatian_quoll 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that JNA ever intended to establish control over the entire territory of Croatia; certainly there was never a serious attempt to do so. This was already clear in July 1991, when JNA agreed to withdraw from Slovenia. The plan was to control Serb-populated areas, expanding further if possible. But generally speaking I agree: without Croatian forces fighting back JNA would be able to seize perhaps as much as 50% of the territory, making the "independence" of the remaining 50% a questionable achievement. GregorB 09:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion goes counter to a number of facts - the statements by Kadijevic and Panic. You forget that the political leadership of the military, Kadijevic et al, were in the "maintaining the integrity of Yugoslavia" camp (even if that meant minus Slovenia), as opposed to the "create a Greater Serbia camp" of much of the opposition and certain elements in the government. As for the later, your statement goes counter to the maps of Greater Serbia which included approx 80% of Croatia. Also w/o Croatian forces fighting back, the JNA+paramilitaries would have seized 80%+ of the territory - what else would stop them? What stopped the JNA was the resistance encountered at places like Vukovar, and the lack of manpower, despite conscription - it seemed young urban Serbs in Serbia had no appetite for dying for a Greater Serbia. It wasn't a lack of effort, but a lack of ability to muster the requisite Serb forces and the Croatian resistance. croatian_quoll 02:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To avoid further loss of energy, I'd support the same solution as GregorB. --Dijxtra 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, per Dijxtra. Just 2 more points: a) ex-Yu wars should be named in a standard way: Kosovo war, Bosnia war-not Bosnian war and/or Croatia(n) war. You cant get Bosnian and Croatia war-or, you can, but, it's stylistically messy. b) technically, it wasn't a war of "independence", but against Serbian/JNA aggression & efforts to control and exploit Croatia. It's not unlike de-colonization wars, actually in this respect similar to the Algerian war. Three sides: a native people (Algerian Arabs), colonial minority (French colonists, Pieds noirs) & colonial centre with its ambitions (Paris, French Army). Therefore, I'd prefer Croatian war. In case of Croatia war, the change to Bosnia war should be made. Mir Harven 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and while we're at it let's rename American War of Independence to American War, Irish War of Independence to Irish War, Greek War of Independence to Greek War, etc. Or better yet, War in America, War in Ireland, War in Greece... All good generic names I'm sure no one would feel threatened by.

On a less sarcastic note, I feel that the opponents of the present name have not provided one acceptable argument why it should be changed in the first place. If bullying and threat of constant edit wars is argument enough for change fine I'll shut up and accept it, but somehow I don't think that's the way it works. And dont even get me started on the fact that 50% of "voters" in previous polls were, infact, sockpuppets of those same serbian users who initiated the poll in the first place. Somehow, "blowing up" votes doesn't seem the least bit democratic or NPOV motivated to me... --Dr.Gonzo 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

those countries achieved independence AFTER the war--TheFEARgod 10:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Croatian War of Independence, is no different to the American war of Independence or the Irish war or Independence. As such it is NPOV and it is sad that Serb nationalists have an objection to something that is accepted by European institutions.

Actually, it was. 1) we got our country as a political entity (Socialist Republic) before the war, they didn't 2) Irish lost Ulster due to British and Protestant terror and intervention. It would be equal if we had not done with so called RSK. Also, our war spilled over to Bosnia-unlike the cited examples. The most appropriate term would be "Wars for/against Serbian domination", but, I doubt the Serbian users would agree. 3) we could have been independent with 70% of Croatia & the war could have ended in 1992., with independent rump Croatia and triumphant Greater Serbia. From 1992. on, technically, we, as an independent country, fought to reclaim our occupied national territories. So, I think the more appropriate title would be Croatian war, since it was war not only fought on Croatian soil, but sucking in Croatian nation as a whole (emigres etc.). Mir Harven 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

True that the Croats had their entity in Jugoslavia, but the key point is independence - they were not independent and if one looks at the structure of the security forces in that time (70% Serb versus the 12% of the SRH population), it had a colonial structure, just like in the American and Irish war of independence. You forget that Eastern Slavonia was not fully integrated until about the year 2000. And there are the islands in the Danube (Sarengrad), cadstrally Croatian that are occupied by the Serb army.

It is also true that the conflict crossed over into Bosnia, as much for strategic reasons (having a bulkwark to help defend the slim coastline) as it was political (vis a vie the Herzegovinan lobby). Very similar to French involvement for strategic reasons in the American war of independence.

I disagree with your notion of independence - the process of independence includes the concept of territorial integrity and it's defence. Territorial integrity is integral to the notion of independence. Thus the second stage (1992-1995) is part of the War of Independence also. Any attempt to divorse territorial integrity from independence is artificial. Note that the occupied territories effectively divided Croatia in two and interrupted the economic "wholeness" of Croatia. croatian_quoll 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It IS NPOV b/c it accurately reflects what took place, a constituent republic fighting to maintain newly found independence from the objectives of the Serb military and political elite to create a Greater Serbia.

The argument that the JNA was trying to maintain Jugoslavia if false and goes contrary to the 1974 constitution. The League of Communist of Croatia have always tried to negotiate Croatian soveriegnty with the vehicle of Jugoslavia as part of the ongoing battle for influence between federalists and unitarists. They only sought a solution outside the Jugoslavia model when Milosevic systematically dismantled aspects of the federal constitution including the autonomy provisions of Vojvodina & Kosovo, raiding of the Central Bank for expenses in Serbia, disarming of territorial units in other republics and openly canvassing redrawing of republican boundaries.croatian_quoll 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I call on the two opposing sides to opt for the NPOV Croatian War - War in Croatia names--TheFEARgod 10:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just make clear which of the two, I also opt for Croatian War because of Kosovo War and Bosnian War.--TheFEARgod 10:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Support War in Croatia (maybe War in Croatia (1991-1995), but the ambiguity is stretched). Maybe it's just me, but "Croatian War" doesn't sound right to my ears; can't articulate it, just sounds wrong...Duja 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence is NPOV and I strongly support retaining that name.

It has not been substantiated by opponents how the term "war of independence" represents POV.

All notions of the conflict being a case of Serbs secceding from Croatia is debunked by the findings of the EU's Badinter Arbitration Committee in that;

a) "Yugoslavia was in the process of disintegrating", Federal institutions ceased to exist (despite retaining a legal personality in International institutions) & it was up to the Republics to negotiate a new association;

b) The boundaries of the Republic were valid as international boundaries and could not be changed unless with mutual agreement, and that "that the Serbian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia is entitled to all the rights concerned to minorities and ethnic groups[...]"

All the following options:

represent POV b/c it omits the reference to the core issue of the conflict; namely that it was a war of independence. Any move away from the existing title represents a departure from commonsense.

Also, in light of the use of the term "war of independence" for other similar conflicts, to exclude it for the Croatian equivalent is POV and prejudicial. (Refer to comment & examples under title 'Precedent for use of War of Independence').

Trivial, politicised sniping do not represent legitimate complaints. The wikipedia guidelines refers to this in the context of what constitues NPOV & how to deal with fringe views.

In the absence of evidence of how the current title is POV, please support the existing NPOV title Croatian War of Independence. croatian_quoll 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont intend to look wishy-washy, but "Independence" option seems to be rather heavily supported: Algerian_war, Anglo-Irish_War (see the actual titles), ...I'd say that if Kosovo gets independence, the war will be renamed "Kosovo/ar war for Independence". As for BiH- it's too messy to predict. Still, I think Croatian war is the best solution & don't see much point in Duja's unease. OK- a slight reservation would be along following lines: a) the term is a bit "romantic" and dated- there had been and, I think (not that I would like this to happen) there will be other "Croatian wars", b) it implies that it was, territorially, fought outside Croatia where Croats are widely settled-which is untrue, except for Ravno and a few other points in BH (a village near Drvar and Slunj). IMO, the options are, in descending order of exactitude and "desirability" (from my POV):

1. Croatian war for Independence (pros & cons given)

2. Croatian war

3. Croatia war (1991-1995)

4. Croatian-Serbian war Mir Harven 14:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I Croatian war sounds awkward. I think we (supporters of the compromise solution) should make an informal vote between War in Croatia and War in Croatia (1991-1995). When we choose one of those, we could make a RQM and hope there is more than 60% of sane people here, so we can move the damn article and start doing something useful. --Dijxtra 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe-and maybe not. It was definitely the war of a nation, "to be or not to be" profile. In this respect, it's not unlike (except for the outcome) Jewish-Roman_wars. It's not "war in Judea" or "war in Palestine" or whatever. It was all-Jewish all-national war. Mir Harven 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I supported the current name at the time. As I see it, its biggest problem is not that it's POV (which triggered the bad faith RM above), but that it contradicts WP:OR and WP:NC(CN) -- it's hardly the most common name for it. While there isn't a prevalently common name for it, "War in Croatia" appears to be the leader in Google hits. Your point b) is probably what I had in mind subconciously -- it somehow implies that it's a war that Croats waged... somewhere... a bit crusade-ic. Plus, it lies behind in GHits. Duja 14:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The most proper name would be "Croatian Homeland War" or "Domovinski rat" as it is frequently (if not always) reffered to in Croatia.

Yeah, but we're supposed to use the most common English name, not the most common Croatian name... and as we discussed few months ago (when the article got its original name), Englishmen got no clue what "Homeland War" is. --Dijxtra 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been decided a while ago that this name is too POV (which I can agree with), this name is out of the question. However, let me just note that, at this time, Google gives 304,000 hits for "Domovinski rat", it's proper name in Croatian, and only 71,000 for "war in croatia" (a high number for sure, but understandable due to it's generic nature). Claiming that "Croatian War of Independence" constitutes OR is downright silly.

I wouldn't agree. See WP:NC(CN). I think we can all agree that "Croatian War of Independence" is not quite the most common name for the war... --Dijxtra 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If we can't name it with it's proper name then we have to find a name that fits best. There is no doubt in my mind that "Croatian War of Independence" fits best due to a number of reasons. First of all it was waged entirely on the territory of present day Croatia, it was waged in opposition to hegemonistic centralized government, it was started in reaction to Croatian parliment declaring Croatian independence (not before), and ultimately it was succesfull in bringing about Croatian independence. --Dr.Gonzo 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(please, keep in mind I'm not trying to be inflamatory, this is just a friendly discussion) See, that exactly what original research is. We're supposed to take the most common name. "Croatian War of Independence" would be just fine if we all agreed upon it (as we did few months ago when this article got its name). But now we have people complaining, and now we have to play by the rules. And the rules say we have to take the most common one. --Dijxtra 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree that "Croatian War of Independence" is OR, no matter what. It has it's fair share of hits (on a side note - number of Google hits is not an argument, nor can it be), and since a common english language name for the war hasn't been established, it's as good as option as any. Infact it's the best option because it clearly defines what it was. As for the people complaining - I wonder why there are none of those who initiated the rename in the first place commenting here. I can certainly appreciate comments by TheFEARgod and Duja, but why isn't Bormalagurski and his army of sockpuppets commenting on this? --Dr.Gonzo 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess because all these bungled multiple personalities have a hard time, desperately trying to answer the central Advaita Vedanta question: "KO HAM ?" Mir Harven 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm as for the translation War in Croatia (Rat u Hrvatskoj) is used more than Croatian War (Hrvatski rat), so I opt for the first name with the years--TheFEARgod 14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pros & cons

1. CW of Secession. I think it's out of question, because noone has "seceded" from anyone, but Yugoslavia ceased to exist when any socialist republic proclaimed her independence (see Badinter etc.). Milošević's maneouvres with "continuity" failed, as we all know (the UN Yu seat vacant etc.)

2. CW of Independence. Plus- that's how such wars are called (American, Irish, Algerian,..). Minus-Croatia was independent in 1992. already, and fought 1992.-1995. not to gain independence, but to get her territories back under govt control.

The process of independence includes the concept of territorial integrity and it's defence. Territorial integrity is integral to the notion of independence. Thus the second stage (1992-1995) is part of the War of Independence also. Any attempt to divorse territorial integrity from independence is artificial. croatian_quoll 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Croatia war. Plus- similar to Kosovo (but why Bosnian, not Bosnia-Herzegovina war ?), territorially clearly defined. Minus- there have been much wars fought in Croatia, forget the Google counts.

4. Croatia war (1991-1995). Plus-clearly defined, no confusion. Minus- I don't see any.

5. Croatian war. Plus- it was a pan-Croat war, we know, although fought within (mainly) boundaries of Croatia. 70% of Croatian elite forces (Hrvatski gardijski zdrug, Bojna Zrinski-Frankopan,..) were comprised from Croats from BiH. Minus- the same as plus, too "emotional-destiny-sanctification of history" stuff.

6. Croatian-Serbian war. Out of question due to cynical associations (1st, when will be the 2nd, 3rd,..?)

I don't pretend to give solutions, just to clear the air.

Mir Harven 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't 3 and 4 be "War in Croatia"? --Dijxtra 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Mir Harven 22:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A comment on "CW of Independence". Croatia in 1991 did proclaimed independence, but it had to fight to keep it (Croatia didn't choosed the war, because Croatia was too weakly armed, unlike Serbia, that imposed the war). Serbia with its sockpuppets (let's use wiki-terminology) Republic of Serb Krajina, Rep. Srpska and Montenegro was fighting (a military and paramilitary campaign has been undertaken) against the existence of Croatia of any type (not just independent); goals were dismembering of Croatian territory (and annexing it) and physical elimination (by killing or expulsion by force or intimidation) of Croat population (examples: massacres in Ovčara, Škabrnja, expulsions from Syrmia and Bačka, from rebel Serbs'-controlled territories in Croatia, B&H). Serbia and its sockpuppets was seriously threatening to the existence of Croatia - we can say that part of the threat was removed not earlier than late 1993. Kubura 00:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

I removed it from the requested moves page. Virtually a dead heat. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Precedent for use of "War of Independence"

If the name is changed for the Croatian War of Independence, then in the interests of consistency, it will need to be changed for all the following examples. The fact that the "War of Independence" is in such common use, exemplifies the fact that it is a NPOV term, and the proposals to rename this stubb, sadly, seems an attempt by Greater Serb nationalists to politicise the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Independence

The term War of Independence is generally used to describe a war occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is subsequently known as a war of independence.

Examples include:

In the face of this, I drop the proposal of any other option than CWoI. Some redirects are even more "patriotic" (Liberation war, Revolution), and, frankly, I don't see why Croatia should be the exception only to conform to ex-Yugoslav nomenclature which describes different historical situations (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo) that were "resolved" (if they are) in the main by outside pressures & intervention. It was a, let's use the Soviet name, "Great patriotic war", and I don't see why would wiki be steered by Google counts that only reflect prevalent journalistic approach of the English-speaking world-which changes, since Anglo-Irish war is much, much more common term than Irish war for independence. Here it is, for Googlers:"Anglo-Irish war"- 35,000, "Irish war for independence"- 185. IMO, the issue is settled: CWoI is the best possible option. Mir Harven 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

many of these are only redirects, I see. Certainly, english-speakers use the term War in Croatia --TheFEARgod (listening) 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fear God

Im sorry but why are you editing as if the name vhange is certain and only the new name decided, mate we're not changing anything until everyone has a say. U cant just rock up one day and change the NPOV name of a hotly discussed article.

Sorry but I don't understand. A discussion is sane and appreciated on wikipedia and that's what am I doing.--TheFEARgod (listening) 09:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments buy HRE

As per Elephantus' and Vodomar's statements - the comparation with the American War of Independence cannot apply here. Although Croatia was fighting to gain its independence in 1991 and achieved it in 1992, the majority of this war is centered around a war against seceding party, that is trying to gain its independence from Croatia. The only reasoning for this naming is that the Croatian War of Independence (1991-1992) and the Croatian Civil War (as I call it; 1991-1995) are continous and overlapping, however, USA's wars against the seperatist Republic of Texas (or even Utah, I think) that came subsequently after the independence aren't called "American Wars of Independence". Here logic applies - Croatia's independence wasn't a question in this war. For instance, if the renaming of this article to Homeland War would be suggested - I would more than support it, as it would be 1,000% more accurate. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding USA's wars against the seperatist Republic of Texas ... after the independence aren't called "American Wars of Independence":

Of course it's the other war! Did Texas fought the war to separate from USA and to stay in British empire? --Ante Perkovic 14:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

HRM, the notion of a "civil war" or of "Serbs seceding from Croatia" are disingenuous b/c an international court (ICTY) has found the conflict to be an international conflict. The court saw through the charade of trying to project the conflict as local Serbs rebelling and as being a separate military and state entity to Serbia. The court found that

the entities political and military leadership were controlled from Belgrade and acted as one unit;
the JNA secretly armed local Serbs in Croatia and BiH;
the objective of arming local Serbs was to create conflict and rebellion with the Republican governments as a pretext for the JNA to intervene and establish Serbian military control as a prelude to annexation. As an aside, the strategy is similar to the one adopted by the T&I in East Timor.

After all, where these statelets to be independent countries? - the end game was union with Serbia and extending the border of Serbia beyond the Drina river. The view is also supported by the role Milosevic played in peace negotiations.

If there was no Republic of Serbia, then the case for secession could be made. But the JNA's units from Serbia's involvement in this situation as well the fact the boundaries were internationally recognised turns the conflict into one of an invasion and conquest. As such, the Republic of Croatia was fighting for it's independence in two ways:

* initial survival; then

* territorial integrity to its internationally recognised boundaries. croatian_quoll 04:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All the comparisons with other wars of independence are valid. You have a military power and a state with imperial ambitions trying to project their power over the other nation which is forced to fight for it's independence. That is the key characteristic of all wars of independence and it applies equally to the Croatian War of Independence. To try to define some arbitrary criteria in an attempt to differentiate the various wars of independence is artificial and in bad faith. Leave the title as is, otherwise it is a case of prejudice if we allow the Irish, Americans, Phillipines et al to have their war of independence but not the Croatians. This is the 5th vote concerning the title - issue at play is not one of NPOV. croatian_quoll 04:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "...Colonists were divided over which side to support in the war; in some areas, the struggle was a civil war. The Revolutionaries (also known as "Americans" or "Patriots") had the active support of about 40 to 45 percent of the colonial population. About 15 to 20 percent of the population supported the British Crown during the war and were known as Loyalists (or Tories). " taken from American_Revolutionary_War#Armies.2C_militias.2C_and_mercenaries. So the independece was not supported by the majority and there will be always one's who would like to stay with the old power(s). Vodomar 00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

buying votes the fear god

please refrain from personal accusations.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Point-counterpoint

RSK might have fought to stay in Yugoslavia intially - but throughout the majority of the war, to simply create an independent entity (the extreme), or to peacefully re-integrate into Croatia after a certain period, but martially force Croatia to recognize the old rights of the Serbian people of Croatia (less extreme). RSK never had any desire to join the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which it/its people considered for the most of the war (and all the way to the presence) a treacherous obstacle of any hopes for any Croatian Serb. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This assesment is not supported by international institutions like the EU, UN and ICTY, nor in the actions of the political and military leadership of RSK who were irreconsilable with the notion of reintegration with Croatia - the rejection of the Z4 plan agreed to by Croatia under the auspices of the contact group being an example (refer evidence tendered by Peter Galbraith et al in the trial of Milan Martic). The clearing of the Posavina corridor of it's Croat-Bosniak majority was done so in order to connect these entities to Serbia.croatian_quoll 13:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a little deeper than that - the Z4 plan was accepted by more than half of the Krajina politicians and Croatia itself had very deep doubts about accepting such a thing (even to revoking in the last minute). Besides, refusing a peace treaty cannot lead to it's OK to slaughter them as RS did to the Bosniaks; since they practicly pushed BiH into the war refusing peace treaties. --212.200.83.73 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't complicated at all. From the reporting website of the ICTY war crimes tribunal: [[29]]

During the Z-4 plan talks, Jarcevic was Martic’s foreign policy advisor. He says the RSK president refused to even negotiate about the plan, because the international force was renamed. It was no longer called UNPROFOR, but UNCRO and the name change meant that they no longer had the mandate to protect the Serbian population. Before that happened, Martic went through the document and saw that the autonomy would not include all of the RSK, but only “11 municipalities in the Knin and Dvor districts”, he says.

Contrary to what Jarcevic said, the then US ambassador in Zagreb, who testified as a prosecution witness this April, said that Martic “physically refused to touch the document”when the Russian ambassador tried to personally hand it to him.

And [[30]]

REFUSING Z-4 WAS “EXTREMELY STUPID” THE HAGUE, 26.04.2006.

Peter Galbraith clarified why he said why he called the accused Martic “man very limited abilities and intelligence”. He could have kept the Serbs in their homes in Krajina, yet he failed to do it, former US ambassador to Zagreb said.....

....Galbraith clarified that he had said that because he thought it was “extremely stupid” of Martic to refuse to negotiate about the Z-4 plan, a document tabled by the USA, Russia, the EU and the UN. According to him, Martic was not up to the situation he found himself in as the president of the Krajina Serbs. Had he been up to it, he would have accepted the peace plan, gotten the autonomy, there would have been no Operation Storm and the Serb people would have remained in Krajina. In Galbraith’s opinion, Martic himself would have avoided facing trial before the ICTY in The Hague. croatian_quoll 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "JNA" after 1992. And, yes; the British Empire armed the seperatists with its retreat from North America. Just as it armed the Pakistani (andthe Indians in a way) in the "Indian War of Independence?" (oh, wait - Pakistan did succeed to secede).

Additionally, I declare the voting invalid as per User:Dijxtra's noting. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've removed the poll as all it will do is reinforce the fact that there is not agreement here. If you just try to go by the exactly percent, then the poll will not be seen as valid. This can only create more tension.Voice-of-All 20:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom is not hearing a case related to this article. Laughing Man 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Added poll history back in b/c it is the latest relevant poll and other polls are included. croatian_quoll 07:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

== OK here's the poll: ==

Do you accept the compromise about the most neutral possible name (War in Croatia) which will make all parties involved happy (and shouldn't include the words SECESSION or INDEPENDENCE)??

I'd like to suggest some ground rules to make this a formal vote: 1) the poll is open for five days, 2) votes are only "Support" or "Oppose" (preferably no variations or alternative suggestions; these shoud be counted as "Oppose"), 2) if "Support" gets more than 50% of the votes, the article is renamed, 3) otherwise, everything stays the way it is and this discussion continues. GregorB 11:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this is unacceptable, since this "rule" would mean that 1+ vote would be enough to change the current status. There is no way I- or, I guess, those of similar opinion, would accept such an arbitrary rule. I'm not so conversant with wiki bureaucratic percents procedure, but to change the current status, I think it's got to be ca. 75% (or 66%) of those who are for the change.Mir Harven 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

50% for War in Croatia - as defined above - would mean that this title has more votes than all other titles combined, which IMO is a reasonable criterion for renaming. But whether it's 50%, 66% or some other ratio, the thing is it has to be defined and agreed upon beforehand. Otherwise, nothing is solved, since in the end we'd vote again on what to do with the outcome - and I'm afraid that's exactly what is going to happen here if the result turns out to be anywhere near parity. GregorB 13:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What? No 55% like the referendum on Montenegran independence ; )- 50% is an arbitrary figure picked by one person. I believe 66 -75% is the correct criterion for such changes. In the absense of 66-75% support for the change, the default title should remain i.e. Croatian War of Independence. In any case, am disturbed by how many polls have been initiated to get the titled changed. How many polls do we need to have for the message to get through that the Croatian War of Independence as the current title is the most NPOV and appropriate. croatian_quoll 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. There must be some rules for the change of the existing title to another one. It doesn't matter if the proposed change is a sum, or a way out, or whatever. The specifics are irrelevant & there is no necessity to agree upon anything. What are the wiki rules re percentage needed to change the existing title ?. That's all. Mir Harven 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any hard-and-fast rules regarding page moves; my figure was indeed arbitrary, but it was also just a suggestion. 66% is perhaps better; 75% seems excessive. GregorB 14:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's because you don't read guidelines ;-) See WP:RQM. --Dijxtra 11:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree; let's just count votes (no puppeting or casting, please) and move on; too much energy has been wasted. Duja 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support --TheFEARgod (listening) 09:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, since I'd like to make: a) the truth "happy", which is not achieved by compromises if the truth hurts one side involved, b) list given by someone (Kubura ?) is greatly on the side of "Independence" option, as can be verified by Googlers in the case of Anglo-Irish war/Irish war for Independence (hence, Google is irrelevant), plus- it's a kind of war that neatly fits "wars for independence" pattern- unlike Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina wars. Mir Harven 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Duja 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, albeit reluctantly... GregorB 11:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, this war perfectly fits "war of independence" definition.
Also, if you accept this "compromise", you would proof that sock-puppeting and stubborn vandalism of radical Serb users is an effective way of pushing POV here. I've seen too many of theirs "my way or edit war" blackmails. Let's not open the Pandora box. --Ante Perkovic 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, for all the reasons stated above and more. This request for move was initiated in bad faith and its proponents have done nothing to convince me that is should be moved. --Dr.Gonzo 12:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Jovanvb 12:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Laughing Man 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Andrija

Oppose croatian_quoll 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 14:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support. Why support? Because the name of the article violates Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Why weak? Read Ante Perkovic's comments and note WP:CITE and WP:NOR (the current naming is used internationally) --HolyRomanEmperor 14:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose The present name is the most appropriate one. "American War of Independence" may be POV to the British, but that's not a reason for changing it to "War in America" or "American War of Secession". --Elephantus 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Very strong oppose, as many other users have explained, the name Croatian War of Independence is definitely the most appropriate one. It was the first name with a reason, and it should stay as it is! If the Serbs have problems with defining there own crimes, they shouldn't write it here. --Luka Krstulovic 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I think I've already expressed my opinion on this talk page quite clearly as to the technical reasons why the current name is accurate. It seems to me that we are not voting to change the title because it is innaccurate or POV, but because Serb users simply don't like it. NPOV does not mean that it must be a title that every group likes, but rather a title which is correct and most descriptive. --Thewanderer 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as per arguments given by other's, just do a bit of research and you will see that the arguments for the opposition stacks up. Also, why don't the learned gentlemen try to rename the "American War of Independence" to the American War of Secession ? Vodomar 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Support This is most NPOV and most correct name that I already proposed and it is nice that now more users understand this. PANONIAN (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - the war was not in Croatia, it as in the Republic of Serb Krajina. --Serb ^talk 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Support --Medule 10:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I fully support the change, but I just can't vote support since the vote once again is not formated per WP:RQM, and because of this: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. --Dijxtra 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Support --Manojlo 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Support Djus 17:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. First, this proposition offered nothing new from the voting on "War in Croatia (1991-1995)". We're voting about the same thing twice (no brackets and years, and "the title is different"? Are we becoming childish here?). Second, neither one day has passed, we have again new voting on the same thing. What is this? Poll-spamming untill the opposers go to do something else (because they have their lives and other things to do, not just to hang on wiki-polling)? And someone proposes shortened voting time from few weeks to five days? What'll be next? Few hours? Wait till the opposing side goes to sleep, give the poll-proposal and in few hours finally push what you want here? Third, the proposer is unsigned. Shall we make polls every time some unknown parachutists passes by and proposes the poll? Fourth, what this means: "...about the most neutral possible name"? The proposer took the role of the judge here also? 195.29.161.70 09:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as per arguments given by others above. Unregistered users' votes shouldn't be counted as valid. Kubura 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shouldn't this actually be called the...

Krajinan War of Independence?

After all, they were the only ones actually fighting for independence. They just happened to lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.163.253 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 September 2006

What was the Croatian War of Independence

Some serbians are writing comments like: "of course, the Croats wanted to separate from Yugoslavia, not the Serbs.", or "Croats started this war, they wanted to secede from the federation, the new name of the article is good. I support the name change.", or some uneducated write: "I do think the name of the article should be changed as it was not a war of independence, but to the more neutral version suggested previously, War in Croatia (1991-1995) or 1991-1995 war in Croatia as suggested more recently.", not understanding what NPOV is. NPOV isn't when both sides agree, or making compromise. It's when the name of the article is true (in accord with the content and subject)! Most of the rubbish comments were made by serbs (look at the names), and I suggest that checkusers look out for the serbian sockpuppets on the voting (which is meaningless if the serbs are gathering any kind of voters just to get more votes).

Let me tell you something about the Croatian War of Independence. The Serbians (Yugoslavia back then), gaining power and tetitory would of suceeded in conquering the Balkans if there weren't for HOS or the Operation Storm. Some serbs say that "the Croats wanted to separate from Yugoslavia, not the Serbs", and that is absolutley correct. Thank's god we wanted to sepparate, the Yugoslavian government was imposed to us, and before that we were a free country. Surely we wanted to be a free country again and not end up like Bosnia (which is a story for itself). The same situation is now happening in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, while the serbs are manipulating the truth and calling croats "ustaše" or trying to proclaim Operation Storm an ethnical cleansing etc... If this article were American War of Independence, i'm sure the administrators would of stopped this nonsence, but when it's about Balkans...

I hope this discussion will be over soon, and the name will remain the same as it is. Before the administrators make the decision (conclusion), they should at least read something about this war and realise that Croatian War of Independence is even less than a NPOV name. Thank you. --Luka Krstulovic 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavia has dissoluted. Like a dissolved partnership, where all partners were equal. If someone becomes too imposive in partnership, and wants to rule over the others (instead behaving as one of equals), then other partners dissolve the partnership. Same as with marriages. One spouse may be the only that kept the (sur)name, but that doesn't give him the right to claim right on all property that one marriage brought with it. I've mentioned the case of marriage, where both spouses entered as equal, with no "pre-marriage contracts". Maybe this clarifies things. Kubura 09:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Serbia indeed did try to impose centralism, however that doesn't change - nor can justify - the fact that Croatia has wanted to secede pretty much through the whole of existence of a Yugoslav state. Actually, that problem of the "Croatian Question" lasted permanently from 1918. One perfect example is the 1970s Croatian nationalist movement, while Serbia was still totally irrelevant as a factor.

Also there is the (in)famous Tito's saying how Serbia and the Serbian people are and always will be "the Guardians of any Yugoslav state". For instance, he opened the Srijem frontline against the Axis forces by the end of the war and breached it using strictly and only hundreds of thousands of conscripts from Serbia (mostly boys & girls), the sole exlplaination given how "it is on the Serb People to bring the fight and free Yugoslavia"; the proclaimation of Belgrade as the capital, aside from historical reasons, he explained as "Serbia's key relevance in a Yugoslav state" - so it doesn't even wonder that Serbian-Yugoslav nationalists & centralists decided to save Yugoslavia from dissolving by any means necessary. However, Croatia's seccession from Yugoslavia can hardly (or impossibly) "justified" by how Serbia tried to conduct centralism, since Slovenian & Croatian seccessions and Serbian centralism were simultaneous. --PaxEquilibrium 10:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Trends

Please see War of Independence.

Algerian War of Independence - ibid
American War of Independence - American Revolutionary War
Angolan War of Independence - ibid
Bangladesh War of Independence - Bangladesh Liberation War
Chilean War of Independence - Chilean Independence
Croatian War of Independence - ibid
Dutch War of Independence - Eighty Years' War
Eritrean War of Independence - ibid
Estonian War of Independence - Estonian Liberation War
Greek War of Independence - ibid
Irish War of Independence - ibid
Israeli War of Independence - 1948 Arab-Israeli War
Mexican War of Independence - ibid
Philippine Revolution
Philippine-American War
Romanian War of Independence - ibid
Wars of Scottish Independence
South American Wars of Independence
Spanish War of Independence - Peninsular War
Turkish War of Independence - ibid
Of those rebellions which are listed, four out of five are called Wars of Independence - or direr. I don't see why we should make an exception for the Croats. They won their independence, didn't they? The Israeli war is named the way it is because the question is bandied about now. It should be called "Israeli War of Independence," too -- if not "Israeli War of Sustenance"... --VKokielov 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not again... --Dijxtra 08:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I just didn't get a chance to lay down my argument. So here it is. I'm not asking for the name to be changed. --VKokielov 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

All those that you mentioned are a lot different - in each & every single of those wars, an entity was fighting to secede, martially win independence from a larger political entity; here, an entity was only at first fighting for independence; whereas the majority of it is refering to its own war against a separatist entity of its own. --PaxEquilibrium 10:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

nonsense

Removed this nonsense. Is is a joke? [41] // Laughing Man 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

~~Strike-through text~~

From a film called "Croatia, my love"? You actually consider that a neutral source? --estavisti 15:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Recognition by the French : serious bias!!

"France French diplomatic policy was led by the ageing Francois Mitterrand, too blasé to take interest in the Balkans (and notably, like Belgium, ignoring even larger ethnic cleansing in Rwanda)."

Come on, who wrote this?! Can we allow stuff like that?Evilbu 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)