Talk:Croatian War of Independence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

No Serb Wins?

It's pretty hard to believe that the only Serb win in this entire 5-year war was at Vukovar... I mean, come on!!! They held out for like 5 years and committed a bunch of massacres and there was only one win... That's pretty hard to believe... But then again, an article like this one (from Wikipedia) is really biased, so you can't expect much, I guess... Disappointed, but no surprised... huh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.189.101 (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

if you can find them,add them.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of the territories settled by unarmed people are not wins. Zenanarh (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have to do some research and buy a book or two... Probably the one made by Osprey Publishing... The strongest rebel Serb areas in Croatia were in eastern Slavonia and the areas around Knin and Lika in Dalmatia... From what my dad tells me (because he's a Croatian Serb) before Mladic got promoted and sent to Bosnia, he was a rebel Croatian Serb general fighting in Dalmatia and that he did really good - that's why he got promoted and sent away... It's absolutely impossible that there was a single win... That's a lie, I tell you... Just impossible... Can't be true... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.189.101 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL you're right, Mladic did really good, he was a leader of an army of 15-20.000 well armed soldiers (Serbian paramillitaries + mobilised Serbs in JNA), 30-40 tanks, 10 MIG's, a few battleships, heavy artillery - a force which occupied the most of Ravni Kotari defended by the Croatian police units (around 100 men with pistols and a few guns) in September '91 (there was no Croatian army at all in the beginning). In the next 3 months there was 120 km long front fireline in Kotari attacked by previously mentioned Serbian force and defended by 400-500 poorly armed Croats (much more Croats were mobilised but there was no enough weapon for all, only uniforms). I can remember some really gigantic Serbian wins like occupation of the Croatian village of Paljuv, it was defended by 10 local paisants armed with the guns for rabbits. Or the most victorious one, occupation of the vilage of Škabrnja in October '91, the best defended Croatian village in Kotari, by 200 local men (all of them had the uniforms and some kind of a gun, including that for neutralizing the rabbits and birds). Mladic asked them to remove the road barriers so he could replace 20 tanks from occupied Zadar airport to Benkovac. When the paisants did it he ordered a massive attack on Škabrnja, a few airplanes, 30 tanks and a few thousands of heavily armed soldiers broke to the village fighting against empty houses and frightened oldmen, women and children hidden in the basements (see Škabrnja massacre), since Croatian "force" retreated to Glavica, a hill above Škabrnja, where they remained for a few hours, probably because the tank armor was too strong for the rabbit guns. Yeah Mladic did really good, a real hero ;) Zenanarh (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot about Mladic and Dalmatia is in the article Battle of Dalmatia. The JNA forces there were not that strong (over 50% of JNA's tanks and much heavy weapons were aimed at Vukovar, the rest spread out), but were much stronger then poorly armed defenders. Still, they aimed to capture the entire Dalmatia coast and were stopped along the entire line, partly because they spread too thin - attacking Maslenica, Zadar and Šibenik at the same time. Only Maslenica of the three was captured, and the loss of the bridge was the only real strategic defeat for the Croats, which was neutralized by ferry lines and later by Operation Maslenica. The loss of Vukovar was a bigger blow to Serbs then Croats, not just due to losses, but due to time and effort lost (the Cro army more then doubled in size in the three months the siege lasted, something which they badly needed)...

Anyway, as for the subject of Serb wins, indeed there were none... In 1990/early 91, they occupied Serb-inhabitated areas and then attacked out in the latter half of 1991. If you compare maps of their territories in 1992 and Serb-inhabitated areas, you'll see that they advanced only several kilometers out in every direction from those territories... that kind of says it all - they tried to take everything at once and failed everywhere... a classic war mistake. The only Cro areas which they captured was the area around Maslenica, and they managed to get to the suburbs of many cities: Karlovac, Osijek, Šibenik, Zadar, Gospić, but failed to enter any. The Spanish Inquisitor (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Compareably, they did somewhat better in Bosnia, but even there the biggest area captured was the Bosnian Posavina, which is less then 1/10th of Bosnia. I don't actually have much knowledge about Kosovo, but I've heard the KLA got beaten badly before NATO interveaned... but then again, the KLA was just as badly armed as early Croat and Bosnian forces. The Spanish Inquisitor (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The JNA forces there were not that strong? - Well, Škabrnja was attacked by 30 tanks, all armor batalion present there. Also when I say 15-20.000 soldiers, keep in mind that they were not all in JNA. In fact this number was usually present there by the weekends. Every Friday there were caravans from Serbia to Croatia, returning back by the end of Sundays. In Croatia these people were called "Weekend Chetniks". All direct offensive actions in Dalmatia in the autumn and winter of '91 occured during the weekends, mainly in Saturdays and Sundays. Thursdays and Fridays were usually used for heavy artillery attacks on all non-occupied region as preparation for direct attacks by the weekends. I remember this number as evaluation from those days. Zenanarh (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

About the JNA strength, I was talking about the situation of equipment in general. The JNA had about 2000 tanks all total, of which the 9th Knin Corps had only about 100... It was still too strong, as Croats there had 0 tanks... at least until some were captured when the first barracks fell...

(I don't recall exact numbers, but about 2 out of 4 (total) JNA tank brigades and 4 out of 6 mechanized brigades - that's all JNA tanks and armor - were at Vukovar and east Slavonia: that's 50% tank strength)... This actually was sensible, as tanks were less useful in Dalmatia and Lika... Slavonian plains are much more suitable for tank operations. The Spanish Inquisitor (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, everyone here should just chill because this discussion is NOT about massacres,Zenanarh... This is about Serb military victories in the Croatian War of Independence... The rebel Serb Krajina state backed by the JNA during the early phase of the war successfully expelled hundreds of thousands of people... During this early establishment of Krajina, there had to be some military engagements between Croat and Serb forces... I just find it incredibly hard to believe that the only Serb win listed here was at Vukovar... If so, that's pathetic... Somewhere in the article, it said by like late or middle 1991, 1/3rd of Croatia was under Serb control... How can this be? If there were no battles or engagements won by the Serbs, it must have been just simply a matter of marching over desired territory - something that is highly unlikely... ~ Wayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.189.101 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The JNA plan was to crush the newly elected Croatian govenment and to capture Zagreb at the beginning,then trough negotiations they stopped. While Croatia was finaly getting some real weapons to fight the war,Serbs just hoped to get the territories thecaptured trough negotiations.but that was illegal because of the Yugoslav constitution where the borders were made in 1945.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The places where serbs won were in whole eastern Slavonija like,Dalje,Glina,Erdut and Dalmacija... from the Montenegrin border to Dubrovnik,and all the places which stood in the way of making an ethnicly pure state.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There were JNA barracks in almost every city. The crisis was started in September '91 both in the cities and outside. The Serbian paramilitaries supported by JNA blocked the roads around Krajina and expelled non-Serb population. As an answer Croatian civilians blocked JNA barracks in the cities. After negotiations JNA simply evacuated its force from the surrounded city barracks to desired territory. There was no Croatian force at all. It didn't exist, Croatia was not prepared for the war. Officially Croatian forces developed to proffesional army during '92 in the war conditions. Zenanarh (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic hatred grew and various incidents fueled the propaganda machines on both sides

Can someone give me an example of Croatian propaganda during the conflict in Croatia? This is relatvism.Serbian propaganda is a known phenomenon and by stating the sentence like this is shows like all sides were doing it while Serbian propaganda machine was fully operating.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Decisive Croatian victory

How is it decisive???Croatia won back all of it's occupied territory. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC

Good point. The article also fails to mention that the Krajina Serbs lost ground only because Milosovic's government withdrew Serbian government support for them due to Western pressure. The "decisive victory" result needs to be removed, and the article needs to be balanced.

206.34.122.70 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Causes (actual or otherwise) of a battlefield victory neither add to nor detract from a victory being tactical, strategic, decisive or hollow. A decisive victory is an indisputable victory that determines outcome of the war - a definition supported by this source and this source. Since this particular battlefield victory was followed by significant change in the political environment and the Erdut Agreement, I would say it fits the definition nicely.

Removal of unreferenced disputed section

1989-1995: The World Stood Apart

{{Unreferencedsection|date=October 2006}} {{POV|date=October 2006}} While on the one hand, crisis emerged in Yugoslavia with the weakening of the Communism in Eastern Europe and the rise of nationalism, on the other the world stood by as developments unfolded. Yet the Western press was full of warnings of impending tragedy in the Balkans right from the start. As the war unfolded in Croatia there were many warnings that this was a prelude for much worse ethnic conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The role of the international community in the war would become a matter of much controversy. Many commentators today condemn the lack of international interest in the war at the time. However they had other matters on their mind. The war developed at a time when the attention of the USA and the world was on Iraq, and the Gulf War in 1991, along with a sharp rise in oil prices and a slowdown in the growth of the world economy. Thereafter it was if the rising influence of nationalist and separatist ideologies found their counterpart in Western and Russian policies of laissez-faire. This was not unique to the Balkans, the European nations refused to intervene for example in Rwanda despite culminating in blatant ethnic cleansing on an even worse scale in 1994.

At first in 1989-91, the international community tried to deny the problem and tended to support the Yugoslav government. The UN imposed a weapons trade embargo for all former Yugoslav republics. It placed the seceding republics in an inferior position, as they had no control over the Yugoslav weaponry which was by and large controlled by the Serb forces. Official recognition of the new states of Slovenia and Croatia and of the status of the SFR Yugoslavia became a controversial issue at the time for foreign governments.

By mid-December 1991, other newly formed states such as Lithuania, Latvia, and Ukraine recognized Croatia's and Slovenia's independence. Croatia and Slovenia recognized each other. The Vatican also recognised Croatia.

Then, between 19 December and 23 December, several other European countries, including Germany, Sweden and Italy announced their recognition of Croatia's (and Slovenia's) independence. The European Union as a whole recognized the independence of the two breakaway republics on 15 January 1992.

Each of the major foreign governments acted somewhat differently. {{POV|date=April 2008}}

United Kingdom

Particular attention has been focused on the John Major-led government of the UK for insisting on policies of strict non-intervention. Some historians today see this as helping support the "might is right" powers of the time.

Germany

Nearby western European countries were mostly responsive to the demands of the Croatians, notably Germany. <!-- Helmut Kohl's government of Germany might have been ready to take more affirmative action if it had not been occupied with its own borders, and if it didn't face such resistance elsewhere in the European Union. The above is supposition ("might"), not fact -->

Russia

The Eastern countries, e.g. Russia and Greece, were old Serbian allies. They opposed recognition of Croatia. If anything, Boris Yeltsin's government was a moderating influence. However the large changes occurring in Russia at the time were one reason that put the Western nations on their guard, afraid of taking any military action that might have provoked a wider conflict. That fear was no longer so present in 1999, but in the early 1990s it was not easy to decipher how Russia might react.

United States

The USA was among the more conservative forces in the west, as was the United Kingdom (under Prime Minister John Major) in initially practising non-intervention. The administration was led by George Bush as President until end-1992. Matters changed with Bill Clinton, who took a more aggressive stance on the issue and played a more forceful intervention role. In 1995 the US, using the latest Predator and other tracking devices, thoroughly observed the movements of the Croatian Army and Gotovina's forces in preparation for Operation Storm. Successive US Secretaries of State Lawrence Eagleburger and Warren Christopher strongly criticised the moves of Germany and others arguing that this would escalate the war.

---

Please do not restore information on international response without citations and an eye towards neutrality.--BirgitteSB 13:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rebel Serbs

Croat forces fought against the rebel Serbs; but in some of areas where Croatia fought against rebel Serbs, so-called RSK hasn't managed to establish its rule (Croatia controlled the area whole time). E.g., the areas with some small Serb communities, where the JNA-backed rebellion hasn't succeded or where the rebellion was prevented. Kubura (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

JNA's support

JNA provided the weapons to rebelled Serbs (before the rebellion - that is the point of organization of support), as well as organizing military maneouvres for them.
Also, they got all logistical support (how many Serbs were parading in uniforms before things came to boiling point).
E.g., that was the case in Gospić in 1991, before the battle for Gospić started.
The Serbs, that later rebelled, were often absent from work (or going earlier "away" from work). They were going to practice the shooting in JNA's barracks.
But, I owe you the reference. Kubura (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Another reference wouldn't harm of course but the main problem I see with this edit is the addition of "started by Serb forces living". It sounds really strange like Serbs began the Croatian War of Independence. I think that it would be better not to write who started the war in the intro as the reader can always read about the whole sequence of events that led to war in the article itself. Alæxis_¿question? 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In Croatia, this war is not called ...of indenpendece. It's "Domovinski rat" - "Homeland war". Indenpendence was ratified by constitution, not by the war. This war WAS started by the Serbs as an attempt to destabilize Croatia and grab as much as they can of its territory - it was supposed to be good initial point to overtake Bosnia. This was both military and political plan by S. Milošević. In Croatia noone else was able to start the war because noone was armed, except Serbs. There was no Croatian army, just police. You wouldn't start a war armed with water pistols, would you? Croatia was in state of shock when it happened, noone expected it and noone was ready. Croats were defending their country, not attacking someone else's one. Zenanarh (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a specialist in this area and I'm going to discuss this here. Just find a reliable independent source (not Croatian or Serbian) where it would be written that the war was started by Croatian Serbs. Alæxis_¿question? 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it already directly or indirectly said by all sources used here, as well as whole this article, if you read it well? Why not to mention who was the war started by? Just because some Serbian political structures are still not ready to take responsibility for actions of their "missionaries" 17 years ago? I talked to some Serbs from Serbia in last few years, in general they didn't know what had happened in Croatia at all. They were all shocked when realizing it. They thought the Martians were responsible. Maybe it's due to now almost historical "victim-like" feeling incorporated in nature of the Serbian people, encouraged by their politicians in last 200 years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. But it's not problem of Wikipedia, is it? So we can have an article where it's described how the Serbian minority in Croatia was used by Serbian radical S. Milošević for starting a war campaign, but we must not mention it in the leading sentence??? Zenanarh (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you say so you should have no problem in finding (maybe among those already present in the article) an independent and reliable source confirming this. Alæxis_¿question? 08:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that reliable sources should be quoted before making any changes of this nature. I also think that the above mentioned 'victim like' feeling seems to describe UTC's emotive comments. 213.198.239.46 (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed "fighting for their rights and lives" from the sentence about Serbs killing Croatian police before the war since it makes it sound as if Croatian police started killing Croatian Serbs or something so the poor Serbs had to arm themselves and fight for their lives, which is pretty hilarious. Tapir (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

I would not say that it is hillarious at all. Branislav Glavas is actually on trial for crimes in Slavonija against Serb civilians at the very beginning of the Croatian war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.239.46 (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Constitutive nation"

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Martic-order1995.jpg

The image Image:Martic-order1995.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Stable version"

What "stable version", Alaexis? It's you who made that change and declared it as "stable". Kubura (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

These words ("In 1993, the Croats and Bosniaks then turned against each other[citation needed]") were part of a stable version. Then an anon changed them without adding any sourses or at least explanations and then I just reverted anon's edit. If you think that his version is more accurate just add sources proving it. Alæxis_¿question? 08:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Civil war" and aggression on Croatia

This is from the talkpage of the article Yugoslav Wars. I'm copying these postings here, because I know that many users (usually opposing trolls) never go to the linked page.
Here's the section from the book "Serving My Country" of Hrvoje Kačić [1] (Cro. original title is "U službi Domovine"), that deals with "civil war" and aggression on other country.
In this case, comments by English parliamentarists are also useful [2], as well as of some English university professors [3] :
"Arbitražna komisija dana 4. srpnja 1992. donosi Interlokutornu odluku kojom se utvrđuje neosnovanost žalbenih navoda i odbijaju se svi podneseni prigovori. Naime, Arbitražna komisija utvrđuje da ingerencije i nadležnost svojeg rada ne temelji na Brijunskom sporazumu, nego na uvjetima kako su određeni zajedničkom deklaracijom prihvaćenoj jednoglasno na ministarskoj konferenciji svih država EZ, održanoj 27. kolovoza 1991, radi postizavanja mira, ali i sa svrhom uspostavljanja arbitraže. U ovoj odluci Arbitražne komisije utvrđuje se da su uvjeti kako su utvrđeni Deklaracijom o Jugoslaviji bili prihvaćeni od svih šest jugoslavenskih republika, već prilikom otvaranja Konferencije o miru, te da su ti uvjeti stupili na snagu dana 7. rujna 1991".
"U obrazloženju donesene odluke, Arbitražna komisija se također pozivala i na odluke Međunarodnog suda pravde u Haagu. Datum 7. rujna 1991. ima svoj poseban značaj, jer se svi sukobi nasilja do tog datuma tretiraju kao unutrašnji sukobi ili građanski rat. Međutim, nakon utvrđenog datuma svi sukobi, a osobito oružana suprotstavljanja i ljudske žrtve, te rušenje odnosno nanošenje imovinske štete na teritoriju Hrvatske, spadaju u režim Međunarodnog sukoba. Činjenica je da su beogradski (velikosrpski) sateliti vožda s Dedinja upotrebljavali oružanu silu i sudjelovali u agresorskim operacijama od postavljanja kninskih balvana (kolovoz 1990.). No moramo prihvatiti da je autorativno tijelo Međunarodne zajednice utvrdilo da Srbija vrši agresiju na Hrvatsku od 7. rujna 1991. na dalje. To najbolje pokazuje i dokazuje primjer žrtava i rušenja Vukovara.".
Note: Hrvoje Kačić was a participant on Peace Conferences on former Yugoslavia (Brussels, London...), he's international expert for the maritime law, former President of External Affairs Committee of Croatian Parliament. Also, Hrvoje Kačić was Olympic silver medalist (waterpolo, 1956).
Translation in English. My knowledge of English iurist terms isn't the best one, so feel free to ask, if anything confuses you.
"On July 4, 1992, Arbitration Committee (in further text: AC) has brought the Interlocutory decision, that ascertained that the appeals are unfounded, and with that decision, all objections were rejected. Point is, that AC has ascertained, that ingerentions and jurisdictions of AC weren't based on Brijuni agreement, but on conditions determined in joint declaration, which was unanimously accepted on the conference of all ministers of EEC countries (conference was held on August 27, 1991). The aim of declaration was achieving of peace, but also the establishing of arbitration. In that decision of Arbitration Committee it is ascertained that, the conditions, in the form they were ascertained with Declaration about Yugoslavia, were accepted from all six Yugoslav republics, already by the opening of Peace Conference, so these condidions came to power on September 7, 1991.
"In the explication of the decision, AC has referred to decisions of International Court of Justic in Hague. The date of September 7, 1991 has special significance/importance, because all violent conflicts till that date are treated as internal clashes or civil war. But, after that date, all conflicts, especially armed confrontations and human victims, and destructions, and making of damage on properties on the territory of Croatia, belong to regime of International conflict. It's the fact, that all Belgrade's (Greater Serbian) satellites of vožd from Dedinje (translateor's note: S. Milošević) 've used the armed force and participated in aggressive operations, since laying of tree-logs near Knin in August of 1990. So, we must accept that authoritative body of international community has concluded that Serbia is doing aggression on Croatia since September 7, 1991, and onwards.. The best example and proof for that are the Vukovar's victims and the destruction of Vukovar.".
Prof. Zvonimir Šeparović gave his arguments, in which he claims that this "borderdate" should be moved back even more. I'll give you the text and source, as soon as I find it. Kubura (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This was the news from HINA from March 10, 2004, published on the site of Hinet (later called HTnet and now T-portal, www.t-portal.hr). Unfortunately, it's not available anymore on that site, so I am giving it here in its full form.
Agresija SCG imala je međunarodni karakter rata u RH od proglašenja neovisnosti 25. lipnja 1991, izjavio je nekadašnji hrvatski ministar vanjskih poslova i pravosuđa, umirovljeni profesor Zvonimir Šeparović
ZAGREB - Šeparović je to rekao komentirajući tvrdnje 'prijatelja suda' koji su na suđenju bivšem predsjedniku SRJ Slobodanu Miloševiću zanijekali da je oružani sukob u Hrvatskoj imao 'međunarodni karakter' od uspostave hrvatske neovisnosti 8. listopada 1991, kada je donesena Odluka o raskidu državnopravnih sveza s ostalim republikama i pokrajinama SFRJ.
Hrvatska je od proglašenja neovisnosti 25. lipnja 1991. postala država: imala je svoj teritorij, demokratsku vlast i svoje stanovništvo, navodi Šeparović i dodaje kako je 'pokušaj 'prijatelja suda' da umanje krivnju ratnog zločinca Miloševića, proziran i neutemeljen'.
U prosincu 1990. prihvaćen je novi demokratski Ustav, zatim je 19. svibnja 1991. proveden referendum o državnom položaju Republike Hrvatske te 25. lipnja 1991. prihvaćena Deklaracija o proglašenju suverene i samostalne Republike Hrvatske.
'Hrvatska je tada postala suverenom nezavisnom državom. Međunarodno priznanje (koje je uslijedilo kasnije) nije neophodan element za postojanje države, da bi država postojala činjenično, de facto', smatra Šeparović.
Tvrdi da se međunarodni karakter nekog rata, prema međunarodnom javnom i običajnom pravu, određuje prema međunarodnopravnim činjenicama na koje međunarodnopravni poredak nadovezuje učinak.
'Takva je činjenica i rat i oružani sukob kojima se bavi i međunarodno kazneno i međunarodno humanitarno pravo. Početak rata Jugoslavije (Srbije i Crne Gore) protiv Hrvatske, za ostvarenje plana Velike Srbije, po nekima je započeo u kolovozu 1990. pobunom Srba u Kninu, po drugima je taj rat započeo 3. ožujka 1991, kada je Borisav Jović kao predsjednik Predsjedništva SFRJ prihvatio zahtjev tadašnjeg ministra obrane Veljka Kadijevića za oružanu intervenciju JNA u Pakracu. Uzimaju se i drugi datumi: 2. svibnja 1991. kada su u Borovu Selu ubijeni hrvatski policajci', podsjetio je.
'Čini se najlogičnijim uzeti 3. srpnja 1991 - dan kad su srpske snage protiv osamostaljene, nezavisne države Hrvatske izvršili širu vojnu akciju zauzimanja područja Baranje. Od toga dana postoje svi elementi međunarodnog karaktera rata u Hrvatskoj. Rat je dobio međunarodni karakter i po tome što je vanjski svijet, odnosno međunarodna zajednica, započela svoje nastojanje za uspostavu mira', navodi Šeparović i podsjeća da je tako Europska zajednica brojnim rezolucijama i posredničkom ulogom EZ-ove trojice tretirala Hrvatsku kao državu.
'EZ je pozvala srpsku stranu da prestane s promjenama granica i osvajanjem teritorija silom, sazvana je i Mirovna konferencija koja je i održana 7. rujna 1991. u Haagu. Tako je na četvrtoj plenarnoj sjednici mirovne konferencije zaključeno - prvo, postupno priznanje nezavisnosti republika koje to žele, drugo, suverene i nezavisne republike mogu se udružiti u 'labavu asocijaciju', treće, potrebno je osigurati ljudska prava i prava manjina, i četvrto, nema jednostranih promjena granica.
'Pokušaj 'prijatelja suda' (amici curiae) da na Haškom sudu umanje krivnju ratnog zločinca Miloševića, proziran je i neutemeljen', izjavio je Šeparović.
Steven Kay i Branislav Tapušković, prijatelji suda (amici curiae), iznijeli su stajalište na suđenju Miloševiću da je rat u Hrvatskoj 'postao međunarodni u jednom trenutku između 15. siječnja i 22. svibnja 1992.' te su zatražili od Raspravnog vijeća da utvrde otkad sukob u Hrvatskoj smatra 'međunarodnim' (prvi je datum priznanja Hrvatske od tadašnje EZ, a drugi kad je primljena u UN).
Po Šeparovićevim riječima, Jugoslavija (Srbija i Crna Gora), koju je vodio Milošević, izvršila je u međunarodnom sukobu agresiju na Hrvatsku i stoje sve kvalifikacije koje su postavili tužitelji toga suda u predmetu Milošević. I tužbom pred Međunarodnim sudom pravde (ICJ) i Bijelom knjigom hrvatske Vlade iz 1999. dokazali smo da je protiv Hrvatske izvršena agresija bivše Jugoslavije i JNA, zaključio je.
Zvonimir Šeparović (1928) bio je dekan zagrebačkoga Pravnog fakulteta, rektor Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, jedan od utemeljitelja Svjetskoga žrtvosolovnoga društva i njegov predsjednik, ministar inozemnih poslova i pravosuđa Republike Hrvatske i prvi hrvatski veleposlanik pri UN-u.
Translation to follow. Kubura (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Football Match

I deleted much of following... no references, trivial in terms of war, and non-neutral:
On 13 May 1990, a football game was held in Zagreb between Zagreb's Dinamo team and Belgrade's Crvena Zvezda team. Matches between these two top Yugoslav soccer teams were always high-risk, but in 1990, the game erupted into violence. The day before the match, the ultras of Dinamo Zagreb - Bad Blue Boys and Red Star Belgrade - Delije had already been causing trouble in the streets of Zagreb. Before the ultras of the two respective clubs were given entry to the Maksimir stadium, they were checked for weapons, because of the high risk of the two fan fractions clashing. The match started with both fan groups shouting provocative slogans at each other. Suddenly the Dinamo and Red Star ultras started throwing stones at each other. Nobody knows who threw the first stone. Shortly after that the Red Star ultras started to tear the stadium apart, ruining seats and advertising boards. The Red Star ultras got out of the area which was reserved to them, and attacked and beat up a neutral group of Croats, who were watching the match. Some of the attacked Croats were lying down unconscious, but all these events found place, without a reaction from the militia (Communist-era police) which was mainly Serb controlled[citation needed]. This fuelled the whole situation on the stadium, as the fan fractions of Dinamo began to tear down the fence, to get to the other side of the stadium, so they could help the Croats who were getting physically attacked by the Red Star ultras[citation needed]. First when the Dinamo ultras tore down the fence, the police reacted sending many policemen to prevent the Croats to get to the other side of the stadium. It evolved into a battle between the Croatian Dinamo fans and the Yugoslav police. The Dinamo ultras succeeded in getting over to the other end of the stadium to the Red Star ultras and everything resulted in a clash, ending the game and resulting in over 60 people hurt, including some stabbed, shot and poisoned by tear gas. cckkab (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me just add to this that having watched the game I can confirm that some Dinamo players actually physically attacked police, at that time very symbolic. 213.198.239.46 (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.239.46 (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not some. AFAIK, it was only Zvonimir Boban. He attacked the policeman (legendary kick into chest) who was beating Dinamo's fan. That scene appears in Croatian movie Crvena prašina (Red dust).
Seconds after that kick, the other policemen told to that policeman: "Shoot him!". He replied: "Why don't you shoot him, you have the guns too!" The original sound recording of that message was aired on the Radio Zagreb.
Finally, this was really true event. Instead acting against the Zvezda's fans who began the incident, police turned solely to Dinamo's fans, Croats and attacked them.
Try searching on some video sites, and type "dinamo zvezda", "dinamo zvezda neredi", "dinamo zvezda 1990", "dinamo zvezda boban". Kubura (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

I suggest that the paragraph 'Casualties notes' be moved to the top and that a note on the number of casualties (Croatian civilians, native Serbs of Croatia, military from both sides, etc) be in the introduction. Politis (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The combatants are listed incorrectly. "combatant1 =" is usually the attacker ("aggressor"). "combatant2 =" is the defender. Currently, combatant1 are Croats, and combatant2 are Serbs. Just making a note. I wanted to fix that, but then I realized that I'll probably get attacked for placing Croats second to Serbs... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about that, I just checked a couple of other language versions (DE, ESP, SLO, HR, SRB, RUS, GRE, TUR, SWE) that put Croatia to the left and Hungarian, Polish, Romanian and Czech to the right. Don't know what is right then?? I also discovered that couple of language versions put Vatican and Croatia on the one side against Serbs.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My remarks

After I've made an edit, some users got into revert war, without any discussion.
Although I've made an edit that is more fair and more descriptive, that same edit has been reverted childishly, with summary "restored intro; please propose significant changes at the talk first".
Alaexis, you've made an edit. How do we know that your edit is "truth given from the God himself, so you don't need to explain anything", while the other users have to explain every detail, being necessary or not.
Alaexis, your edit from 06:44, 24 June 2009 [4]. You've changed my line:
"Initially, the war was waged between Croatian police forces and rebel Croatia Serbs, who opposed the new Croatian government, although at that time Croatian (and Slovenian) authorities weren't propagating independence from Yugoslavia, but confederation. So those rebelled Serbs have proclaimed an autonomous "Republic of Serb Krajina" to ensure their status. "
into this line:
" Initially, the war was waged between Croatian police forces and the Serbs living in the Socialist Republic of Croatia, who opposed its secession from Yugoslavia, and proclaimed an autonomous "Republic of Serb Krajina" to ensure their status. ".
Come on, Alaexis. You've put the blame on the all Croatian Serbs.
Have in mind that all Croatian Serbs haven't rebelled, but remained loyal. So, there's your mistake. Or personal point of view.
Further, why have you deleted the line that speaks about original attitude of Croatian (and Slovenian) governments (confederation)? What's the explanation for your move? If you don't know for that, than you shouldn't mess into this topic. You're not helping.
About this edit from 06:46, 24 June 2009 [5] - your version is better. That wasn't illegal separation. I've missed to correct that. Still, "secesssion"/"separation" (secesija) is not the same thing as "razdruženje". Further, rebel Serbs weren't the sole and major reason why Croatia has declared independence. Opstruction of role of Croatia by Serbia and its puppets in Yugoslav Presidium and attempts to annihilate it weren't "less important thing".
Next edit, edit from 06:58, 24 June 2009 [6] is vandalism. This is called "mass revert". You've deleted almost whole paragraph that describes the early phases of conflict. You could have inserted the template "fact", not delete. Alaexis, your explanation in summary "partially restored second part of intro; intro is not for details; please propose significant changes at the talk first". Intro is not for details? Intro was the paragraph before. Following paragraph is not an intro. Or you think that you can have that as the excuse to delete the things that you dislike to see? Those "details" aren't the same as the version you've left.
Next edit, edit from 10:53, 24 June 2009 [7]. DIREKTOR, you cannot leave the version with "Initially, the war was waged between Croatian police forces and the Serbs living in the Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Croatia, who opposed its secession from Yugoslavia.". This means: Serbs from Croatia opposed to secession. That wasn't the case. Part of them were opposing.
Further, the idea about independence of Croatia wasn't considered in mid-Aug 1990. At that time Croatian and Slovenian governments were thinking about proposing of confederation.
Further, "The goal was primarily to remain in the same state with the rest of the Serbian nation, this was interpreted as an attempt to form a "Greater Serbia" by Croats (and Bosniaks)". First, at that time, contemporary Bosniak politicians weren't speaking about their nation as "Bosniaks", but "Muslims" (Muslims in the sense of nationality, as Yugoslav statistics represented them). Further, Bosnian Muslims finally comprehended what was going on at the time when it was too late. Because of that many Muslims were killed by Serbs. Many of them naively believed till the last moment "we're in good relations with Serbs, they won't do us anything bad". In fact, at that time Bosnian Muslims were under heavy influence of greaterserbianist propagandist machine, so they were more afraid of "ustashis" than Serbs.
Further: difference in the names of this war doesn't reflect the language difference, but the ideology difference.
Finally, rebel Serbs haven't immediately declared Republic of Serbian Krajina. There was a time lag after tree log-revolution. After the rebellion on Aug 17 1990, there was a (illegal) referendum of rebel Serbs on Aug 26 1990. After that referendum, SAO Krajina was declared (SAO=Serb Autonomous Region) on Dec 21 1990. Republic of Serb Krajina was declared on Dec 19 1991.
Next edit, edit from 11:33, 24 June 2009 [8]. DIREKTOR, you say "minor fixes to the infobox". Was it necessary? I see whole paragraphy red.
Next edit, edit from 11:37, 24 June 2009 [9]. DIREKTOR, your comment "Fix casus. The Krajina Serbs essentially had nothing against Croatian independence, they said that "they can sedede, but they're not taking us or our lands with them". Its a well-known wartime phrase". You've changed the line of casus, from "Serbian opposition to the independence of Croatia" to "Aspirations of Croatian Serbs towards secession from Croatia ". DIREKTOR, please, who told you that? You cannot put the blame on Croatian Serbs. All of them haven't rebelled, neither all Serbs that rebelled later originally intended to rebel. So, poor Cro. Serbs are guilty, and greaterserbianist and yugounitarist circles in Serbia have nothing with that?
Next edit, edit from 13:10, 24 June 2009 [10]. OK, Spellcast, let it be your way.
Next edit, edit from 13:35, 24 June 2009 [11]. "casus field was removed from Template:Infobox Military Conflict in 2007)". Official policy?
Next edit, Spellcast's edit from 14:02, 24 June 2009 [12] "restore useful edits that got blindly mass reverted by user:Kubura. this includes removing unsourced info". Wrong, Spellcast. So, my edits are unsourced, so these have to be removed. Interesting, you give no sources for your edits. We have to move them as well.
First, the term "Yugoslav Wars" is not correct at all. Second, changing "vicious nationalism" in "chauvinism" is very heavy phrase. Please, avoid peacock terms. In fact, whole line "The war in Croatia resulted from the rise of chauvinism in the 1980s which slowly led to the dissolution of Yugoslavia". That's not truth. First of all, I would never use the word "chauvinism" in this case. Second, we cannot say that the rise of nationalism caused the breakup of Yugoslavia. Awakened national feelings were not the problem. The fast-rising Greater Serbian expansionism (at first disguised, later more and more open) caused it. Unequal treatment of other nationalities, primarily Croats and Albanians (and Slovenes after Slovenia opposed to greaterserbianist circles; remember the embargo on Slovenian goods) caused the breakup of Yugoslavia. Romantic national movement of Croatian spring was roughly abrupted because of "nationalism". Such abruption wasn't implied for the Serbian movement from late 1980's (it contained more iconography and rhetoric that was against Yugoslav laws, compared to Croatian spring). Etc.
Final blows came 1) when pro-greaterserbianist delegacies obstructed Croats and Slovenes on Congress of YU Communist Party and voted for the system that'd discriminate smaller constitutive nations ("one voter, one vote". Imagine similar system in UN; China and India together are able to impose any solution.) 2) when Serbian and Serbian-puppet delegacies obstructed the election of Croatian member of YU Presidium (it was turn for Croatian member).
Next edit, DIREKTOR's edit from 14:50, 24 June 2009 [13]. There's an article about Republic of Croatia (1990-1991)? And if I were the author of such article, some smart*ss would say that it's contentforking.
DIREKTOR, your edit from 15:58, 27 June 2009 [14], DIREKTOR, are you sure? JNA and JRM have left Croatia after (fragile Sarajevo truce was signed on Jan 2 1992; e.g. JRM kept island Vis and Lastovo under occupation until May 1992). And still, how long have they been attacking Croatia after they've left Croatia?
Sorry if my message was too long. Still, there were too many (unexplained) edits that blamed me for "unexplaining". If you find my message too long, read the paragraph(s) that mention your respective names. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can see my username being mentioned but I'm certainly not going to read all this :) (see WP:TLDR). No offence, Kubura, but you honestly should write shorter posts. Anywayz, concerning the changes you made, its all fine except the reference to Greater Serbia. For the record, you and I both know they were indeed trying to form such a superstate, which is obvious from their refusal of the Plan Z. However, that's our opinion, and they're denying that opinion. Therefore it is necessary to back your "clear attempt" text with a source. Since 99% Croatian and Serbian sources contradict on this, we need an unbiased and respectable foreign source using the term "Greater Serbia". If there is none then, well, we just can't add that by Wiki policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From what little I did read, you're talking about "blame"? First of all, "blame" has nothing to do with this, we're not here to "blame" anyone. We are obligated to be neutral, and that means considering all points of view. Only from the Croatian point of view does it make sense to talk about "blame" in the article (or to write so as to blame people or factions). Kubura, the Serbs in Croatia did rebel against Zagreb... Were they encouraged to do so? Well, allegedly and probably yes, but they were the ones that rebelled, so the "blame" (if we choose to discuss it) is indeed with them in the end.

Did all of them rebel? Well, that would be impossible. 100% of people supporting anything at all is impossible. How much of the Serbs population supported the rebellion? We don't know, and its ridiculous to speculate, but its reasonable to assume that most of them did. When we say "Croatian Serbs rebelled", nobody means "all of them took up arms and shot Croats". It obviously means "most of them rebelled actively or supported the rebellion", a fact which is reasonably obvious. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not all Serbs living in Croatia took part in the rebellion and that is clear for any reader. So I think that we should call them secessionist once or twice (like "The Croatian War of Independence was a war fought in Croatia from 1991 to 1995 between the Croatian government and secessionist ethnic Serb forces."). We shouldn't add the adjective 'rebel' to Serbs each time as it's already clear to the reader who is meant and there's no risk of confusion. I'm content with the current state of the article in this aspect except that I'd also remove the word rebel from the first sentence where it's redundant (secessionist+rebel). Alæxis_¿question? 14:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on most points, except that "rebel" is not redundant next to "secessionist", particularly in the lede. Many "rebels" are not "secessionists", for example, the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. It must be clear that the purpose of the rebellion was scession, not some concession or regime change. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another point: the JNA. If we consider the situation strictly legally, the JNA was there in support of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. It was a de jure support formation under the RSK. The JNA is not therefore a combat authority, it is included within the RSK entry in the infobox. So if we were to follow the book on this one, the JNA should actually be removed altogether as an entry. The Croatian Serbs did, in fact, want to remain in a "Yugoslavia", but their aspirations were illegal. If the secession of Croatia is legal, then the JNA in the RSK is seperate from the rump "Yugoslavia", and is engaged in assisting a foreign (allied) country (in short: RSK ≠ "a part of SFR Yugoslavia"). Of course, I realize that would be contested bitterly because of subjective hatred towards the "yugocommunist invaders" so I won't be pushing this thing all the way according to the rules (just like the RSK should be combatant1 in the infobox as the attacker and rebel, and not combatant2, but that would be placing Serbs first and Croats second, right? treasonous... :).

The only reason to keep the JNA in there as a seperate combatant is because it was engaged in fighting prior to the Croatian declaration of independence. The distinction should be made between the period prior to Cro independence and after. After that the JNA was legally a formation within the RSK - a formation "sent" to assist the rebel state, certainly not a seperate combatant authority. I hope my point is clear enough on this, its quite a complex issue (like most things associated with the Homeland War).

LoL, looks like my post isn't that brief either :P)--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

answers

This edit was unsourced (although likely true), besides two 'rebels' in the intro is too much from any point of view.\

Here also no sources were presented, besides much of the info is not so relevant to this article's topic to be given in so much detail in the intro. Alæxis_¿question? 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

…“which was interpreted as an attempt to form a ‘Greater Serbia’ by Croats (and Bosniaks)”

This seems like Serb nationalist POV-pushing with the intention to argue that the “claim of Croats and Bosniaks were a mere assumption/delusion”. But in fact, the “Greater Serbia plan” was recognized in the international media outside Serbia and even in the ICTY findings: TADIC CASE: THE VERDICT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.194.43 (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I will try to incorporate it into the article. Though I'm a little bit surprised that it does not mention a list of people indicted and sentenced by the ICTY in this war.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why only the Croatian war is called "of indipendence" and not the same for the Bosnian war or for the war in Slovenia?

This is just one of many problems with this biased article. Hruss (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add new comments to the top of someone else's old comments. Especially those without actual substance. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is NOT the right name! Please change! After all it was separation, not legal due to Yugoslav constitution neither UN Chapter! Wikipedia, be NEUTRAL please! Otherwise, we can call any such separation as war for independence... what about IRA or ETA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.208.6 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

NOT NEUTRAL: Why only the Croatian war is called "of indipendence" and not the same for the Bosnian war or for the war in Slovenia? Thanks DCGIURSUN (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PERFECTLY NEUTRAL: It is the most common name in English. Croats don't call it "the war of independence", by the way, we call it the "homeland war" (domovinski rat) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, that was a real (terrible) civil war in a multietnic State. So, why do not change "Croatian war of indipendence" in "Croatian war"? Best regards.DCGIURSUN (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not up to us. Its all about the most widely used name in the English language. To my knowledge, this is it. (I also think it was essentially a civil war with foreign involvement). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia had war criminals and had joint terrorism with Serbia, Croatia was in sense a war of independence only due to other international interference. (i still say the former nations of Yugoslavia should reconsider there petty differences and region under new rule and law.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt igor (talk • contribs) 02:51, 1 June 2009

DIREKTOR, I can't believe that you said that. Do you know the meaning of the phrase "civil war"?
Rebel Serbs weren't fighting to be the ruling party of Croatia or to be the part of Croatia in any way. They were fighting on the side of the forces that attacked Croatia. On the side that wanted to conquer whole Croatia/occupy and annex the big part of Croatia.
About Slovenia: if someone wants that JNA's attack on Slovenia from 1991 to be called as Slovenian War of Independence, OK. Kubura (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't believe I said what? I'd say you're the one with a lack of knowledge on the "phrase".

A civil war is "a war between organized groups to take control of a nation or region", like the Krajina or the American South. You apparently think its not a civil war if the rebels want to secede from the country, as opposed to taking control of all of it. Ever heard of the American Civil War? The South (CSA) did not try to rule all of the USA, they just wanted to secede from the USA, i.e. take control of the Southern region. Its a touchy point in Croatia, but the point of view that it was a civil war is legitimate. It was certainly a war primarily between ethnic Croatian and ethnic Serbian citizens of the Republic of Croatia. i.e. between the government and the secessionist rebels. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Confederation has lost the war. Therefore, North writes the history.
"primarily between ethnic Croatian and ethnic Serbian citizens of the Republic of Croatia".
First, there no "Serbian" citizens of Croatia. Only "Serb" citizens of Croatia. "Serbian" means "citizen of Serbia" (not necessarily a Serb).
If you meant "Serb" when you wrote "Serbian", then, DIREKTOR, you've insulted the Serbs that remained loyal to Croatia.
Do you now many Serbs have remained in the free part of Croatia, the part of Croatia that was under control of Croatian government? Do you know that more Serbs was there, than in the occupied part, part under the control of the rebel Serbs?
Further, regarding the term "civil war": if you find me uncompetent, please read above the explanation of prof. Hrvoje Kačić (professor of Law) and Zvonimir Šeparović (professor of International Law). I have theirs arguments behind me. So, DIREKTOR, please, don't POV-ize. Kubura (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"North writes the history"? Nope. Historians write the history. And anyway I don't understand you're trying to say? Croatia won the war and defeated the rebels just like the North, so? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Serbian/Serb, bla bla bla. Cjepidlačenje. I don't know if you're right and I don't care. You know what I meant: I meant "ethnic Serbs that were citizens of the Republic of Croatia". I'm not here to discuss grammar.

Yes, I know Croatia is a touchy point because the rebels got a LOT of support from outside the country. As I said, I do not claim its an unassailable position, or even the predominant view, but the thesis that it was a civil war is legitimate. The war did take place primarily between the "Serb" (Serbian) citizens and Croat citizens of the Republic of Croatia, except that the "Serb" citizens got a hell of a lot of support from Serbia and the JNA. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The title Croatian War of Independence is perfectly acceptable. Even if considered non-neutral, the war has a single common name as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources, and is therefore in compliance with WP:NAME. See a Guardian article, a New York Times article, a BBC News article and an ABC news article as solid references for the title.) I expect there would be also a reference to War in Croatia in English-language sources, but the same situation applies to Gulf War vs. War in Kuwait - which means that kind of title is a fair description but not a common name.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This title is both: a) commonly used in English, and b) reasonably neutral. In a general sense it is not "ideal" , but it does not have to be. I don't think there is an alternative title that would not fail badly at either a) or b). GregorB (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

War of Independence - against secessionist forces (?!?)

The first sentence in the article makes no sense at all: "The Croatian War of Independence was a war fought in Croatia from 1991 to 1995 between the Croatian government and secessionist ethnic Serb rebel forces". According to this formulation, it was in fact the secessionist ethnic Serb rebel forces who were fighting for their independence from Croatia, so the title of the article should then really be "Ethnic Serb war of Independence from Croatia" (?). Croatia's war of independence from SFR Yugoslavia (i.e. 1991-2 phase of the conflict) and ethnic Serb secession from Croatia (i.e. 1992-1995 conflict) should be separated into different sections, and properly retitled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.137.151 (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an overly subtle distinction, and also wrong. The point of "independence" was that the end result was the independence of Croatia. Had the war ended differently, you couldn't be claiming that the ethnic Serbs were seeking independence from Croatia, which wouldn't have been independent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, that sentence was since corrected, so this is moot. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

citation missing frenzy

Anotherclown (talk · contribs) recently added the "unreferenced" top tag as well as thirty seven (37) inline citation-needed tags (if I counted them correctly). Some of it was at the end of paragraphs that actually have referenced individual sentences. The top tag was since demoted to refimprove by someone else who noticed the error. Is there any real reason not to consider this behavior silly and disruptive? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO that is overdoing it, assuming good faith. Truth be said, a significant number of references should be added and as they are readily available, they should be placed at appropriate paragraphs. Furthermore, I saw that the same user failed the article's GAN - and honestly, if I were doing the review, I would have done the same because of the missing references. I think the article should also be reorganized in terms of section grouping, sequence and summary style (Iraq War might be a good example for that) and that would allow more straightforward referencing. Once again, I see no major issue with article contents, rather "technical" issue which prevent the article from a GA rank. Perhaps a WP:PR would help (and a copyedit afterwards). Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But I still can't see the point of asking for a citation on a list item "Operation Medak pocket, area near Gospić, 9–17 September 1993." where the topic has its own immediately linked article? That particular bit of information is trivial as well as trivially verifiable, so it looks like a copy&paste job rather than actual review... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely true - Talk:Croatian War of Independence/GA2 review dismissed the article GAN outright, with no real review posted. As I said, that was excessive use of the tag assuming good faith. But even if application of tags was not merely misguided, rather intentionally disruptive - and it does appear so in case of trivially verifiable items - it must be admitted that at least some additional references are required for GA, as a lot of work obviously went into the article, and it surely can be a GA. To put words into actions I've already provided a reference for a paragraph, and I'll try to do a number of others too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The article did not meet the standards for GA and I failed it per the GA quick fail criteria. If you have a problem with that you should request another review. Please be sure to read the criteria first though and make the required improvements to the article. IMO this article is missing a large number of citations and so I added the tags where I felt they were required rather than listing each instance in the review. Not sure how that could be seen as disruptive but if that is how you see it thats not my problem. I won't waste my time reviewing this article again. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article at the time of review did not meet the criteria and was therefore quick failed (although it seems significant improvements have been made now as a result). I don't believe that it is disruptive for a reviewer to point out where improvements are needed. Given that we currently have a large backlog at GAN, responding in a negative manner to someone who volunteered their time to review the article is not a good way of encouraging them, or others to continue reviewing GANs. I would ask that all editors here be mindful of this fact when responding to GAN feedback in the future. After all, the whole process is dependant upon volunteers contributing their time. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both Anotherclown & AustralianRupert. I would failed it per the GA quick fail criteria if I was reviewing the article. However, the article was greatly improved since then. Not only by references, but with everything else (see section bellow). I am sure that user Joy didn't mean anything badly. So, Anotherclown, if you still have an interest in reviewing the article, we would be thankful. Kebeta (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you should have indicated something along those lines in the edit summary. I just saw "cn and unrefed tags" and the diff content, and from that it was not clear why you thought that this amount of tags would improve the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Some issues to improve the article

• The lead of this article may be too long, and maybe four instead of five paragraphs would be better.
• Structure may be changed a bit. There are only sections, instead of some subsections. For example, the section can be "Background", and subsections can be: "1980s", "1990: Electoral and constitutional moves",...
• Some section are to long (like "1991: First phase of the war"), and should be broken with the appropriate subsections.
• Months and days of the week generally should not be linked.
• Unfortunately, American and British spelling are mixed in the article.
• There are some problems with the links, see here
• In the Infobox there is "Croatian government gains full control of Croatia". I am not sure about that, since the War ended in August 1995, and so-called Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia lasted afterwards.
• In the Infobox there is "location: Croatia". Operation "Storm" (which was a part of Croatian War of Independence), and some other battles were also on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe a note "b" which already exist should be put next to Croatia.
• In the Infobox there is "Yugoslav People's Army - Serbian and Montenegrin units involved up to May 1992". Yugoslav People's Army wasn't involved after 1992 or the note "a" is sufficient?
• There are still some paragraphs without inline citations (Wikipedia:Verifiability).
• Maybe "Croatian War of Independence" deserves it's own template on the end of the article, instead of only "Yugoslav Wars" template.
• It would be good if the article can be improved thorough copyediting (Guild of Copy Editors).

Just a few thoughts. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

How about the following structure: 0 lead; 1 Background; 1.1 Rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia; 1.2 Electoral and constitutional moves; 1.3 Civil unrest and demands for autonomy; 1.4 Military forces; 1.5 Type of war; 1.6 Name of the war; 2 1991: Open hostilities begin; 2.1 The first armed incidents; 2.2 Declaration of independence; 2.3 Ten-Day war and its consequences; 2.4 The first phase of the war Escalation of the conflict; 3 1992: Ceasefire; 4 1993: Croatian military advances; 5 1994: Erosion of support for Krajina; 6 1995: Resolution of armed conflict/End of the war; 7 Casualties (no subsections); 8 Serbia's role in the war; 9 Timeline of major events... followed by references etc. That would require some rearranging of the article paragraphs, but nothing major. On the other hand, a better layout would be achieved. As far as copyediting is concerned, I think that should be the last thing performed before a new GAN. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone else recently complained that the lead section was too short... yesterday I noticed it didn't actually summarize the entire contents, and fixed that. It explains the premise, the actual nature, the timeline, and the naming. These are pretty essential things, so I don't think it can be too long.

I agree that the per-years sections look like an improvisation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, I wasn't refering on how many words there are in lead, but that four instead of five paragraphs would be better (per WP:LEAD and per the next GA rewiev). Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The un.org/icty links all need to move to icty.org. Sadly not all are analogous, but the good news is that the new site is more easily navigable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The number of paragraphs is reported to be too large by an automatic PR reviewer, yet it is certainly not too long. The issue is easily remedied by removal of an unnecessary gap between lead paragraphs 3 and 4. Nothing of essence is at issue here, but sadly GAN reviewers will point that out.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What should be done with the section that is currently named References? Some of the items there are included in Notes (inline references), some of them are not. Should we remove those already included in the inline citations and rename the section to Further reading or something along those lines?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tomobe's proposal above is definitely a big improvement. Although, I think that a layout of the World War II is a better example than of the Iraq War, since Iraq War did not meet the good article criteria, and World War II is a GA. Or a mix of them like:

• 0 lead
• 1 Background
  • 1.1 Rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia
  • 1.2 Electoral and constitutional moves
• 2 Pre-war events
  • 2.1 Civil unrest and demands for autonomy
  • 2.2 Military forces
• 3 Course of the war
  • 3.1 1991: Open hostilities begin
    • 3.1.1 The first armed incidents
    • 3.1.2 Declaration of independence
    • 3.1.3 Ten-Day war and its consequences
    • 3.1.4 The first phase of the war
  • 3.2 1992: Ceasefire
  • 3.3 1993: Croatian military advances
  • 3.4 1994: Erosion of support for Krajina
  • 3.5 1995: Resolution of armed conflict
    • 3.5.1 Operation Storm
    • 3.5.2 End of the war
• 4 Aftermath
  • 4.1 Casualties
  • 4.2 War crimes and Concentration camps
• 5 Impact
  • 5.1 Type and the name of war
  • 5.2 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
• 6 Serbia's role in the war (maybe to integrate this section into others sections)
• 7 Timeline of major events

Is this too much...any thoughts? Kebeta (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a GA article is a better model. I would move the ICTY to Aftermath section, and naming/type of war... not sure... The Military forces subsection as it is now covers both prewar and wartime developments and it warrants a separate section IMO. Perhaps more so, since the remainder of the section on Pre-war events is closely related to electoral and constitutional moves and therefore belongs to Background. As far as Operation Storm and End of the war sections are concerned, as the article stands now, there is not much material there to warrant separate subsections - moreover there's no Erdut Agreement article yet. Besides, all sections/subsections should contain summary style: see also and main article links. Since Serbia's involvement is a significant factor here, I would keep the section. Also, I would prefer to avoid having two subsection names starting with "The first...". I understand this is not a major difference to what User:Kebeta proposed, but it would also give us a bit more compact TOC.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• 0 lead
• 1 Background
  • 1.1 Rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia
  • 1.2 Electoral and constitutional moves
  • 1.3 Civil unrest and demands for autonomy
• 2 Military forces
• 3 Course of the war
  • 3.1 1991: Open hostilities begin
    • 3.1.1 The first armed incidents
    • 3.1.2 Declaration of independence
    • 3.1.3 Ten-Day war and its consequences
    • 3.1.4 Escalation of the conflict
  • 3.2 1992: Ceasefire
  • 3.3 1993: Croatian military advances
  • 3.4 1994: Erosion of support for Krajina
  • 3.5 1995: Resolution of armed conflict
  • 3.6 Type and the name of war
• 4 Impact and aftermath
  • 4.1 Casualties
  • 4.2 War crimes, Concentration camps and ICTY
• 5 Serbia's role in the war (maybe to integrate this section into others sections)
• 6 Timeline of major events

I would prefer Tomobe03's second model. It's compact and fairly synoptic.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And a fundamental question: When did the war end? After Operation Storm or when Erdut Agreement was signed? Both could be argued convincingly - the former was the last military operation associated with the war, the latter marked formal end of hostilities (peaceful reintegration). My opinion leans towards Erdut Agreement - and there are credible references for that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Concentration camps are in no way "aftermath". They existed in 1992, and the war certainly did not end before 1995. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither are casualties... amended proposed section title accordingly. Thanks for the pointer.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the war ended in 1995, I was referring to Erdut Agreement of Nov 12, 1995--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First to Joy: Concentration camps did exist around 1992, but there are still missing people from that perion (camps), which belongs to the "aftermath" section.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they should not be mentioned in the sections with 1991 and 1992 content, because that's when the bulk of the capturing, imprisonment and releasing happened. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Second to Tomobe: I am ok with your modification, except I would have more subsections in "1995: Resolution of armed conflict".

• • 3.5 1995: Resolution of armed conflict
    • 3.5.1 Operation Storm
    • 3.5.2 Dayton Agreement
    • 3.5.3 Erdut Agreement

This way we have three major points which contributed to the end of the war. If there is not much material there to warrant separate subsections, the new material should be added to have a complete picture. What do you think? Kebeta (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In principle, that's by me, however I would rather opt for a different set of subsections (for now) - if and when more material is added, other subsections are more than welcome. The subdivisions I would rather have are:

• • 3.5 1995: Resolution of armed conflict
    • 3.5.1 Military operations (note: HV offensive flanking Knin from the north may also be mentioned as it is relevant to Op Storm)
    • 3.5.2 Peace agreements (primarily Erdut, noting influence of Op Storm and other military activities for Dayton, mentioning Z4)

Operation Storm (and Flash) has its own article and may be referenced by a see also link at the beginning of the 1st subsection so there's no rush to add the material. The same applies to Dayton agreement, although no matter how significant the agreement may be to Croatia, it primarily applies to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of course, Operation Storm and subsequent military action in the western Bosnia did create an environment were the agreement was possible in the first place and Dayton agreement should be mentioned in that context here. As far as Erdut Agreement is concerned, it should be definitely included in the article (hopefully someone will be kind enough to create its own article too some day). This type of subdivision would be meaningful as it covers major aspects separately without going into unnecessary details (there are main articles) or creating excessively brief subsections.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am OK with that for now. Kebeta (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Another issue - what about paramilitary forces from Serbia (Serbian Ministry of the Interior), should they be into Infobox or not? They existed and fought on the terrain, but one can argue that they were not combatant authorities like Croatia, RSK...but units fighting for the RSK? Kebeta (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think all such forces that were present on the ground, organized as separate units (i.e. at least some sort of structure) should be referenced and included - even if used as auxiliary troops or policing troops.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Another issue that is bound to crop up during a future GAN review is that some image captions are excessively long. Some of them include multiple sentences, inline references etc. Some of the material should be moved to the article text itself, or removed/reorganized/reworded if it is already in the main text. If nobody objects to that I'll get around to those some time soon. On the other hand, if anyone else wishes to tackle the captions (or even alt text), I'm OK with that! Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't object...:-) BTW, I started to fix sections, feel free to improve them further. I also added 'citation tags' on the end of the paragraphs, since this would be a main problem for GA. I would like to try to improve 'references & notes'. Any thoughts about that? Kebeta (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the "References" are really inline citations. I started to add available references, and as go through the text, I'll try to incorporate those into "Notes". The remaining ones - may become "Further reading" section. If you wish to improve the refs, a lot of those present now in the text lack info on authors or proper formating - so there's plenty to do there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will do as you suggested. BTW, I am still unhappy with the position and title of section:'Type and the name of war'. Does it looks good to you? Kebeta (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better now, but I'm not quite sure... let's have the new structure in place for a while, and maybe we'll get a better idea then. What do you think?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am OK with that. BTW, what do you think about splitting 'Notes' into Footnotes & Citations, since you already fixing Notes? Kebeta (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a sentence without a reference - (Ironically the siege, despite its brutality, contributed to the beginning of a resolution to the war towards year-end (see below). I don't understand it. If you can fix or is ok as it is, put it back. Kebeta (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That particular one would be hard to reference properly, since there is no real correlation between the two other than conjectural ones, benefiting immensely from hindsight. On the other hand, feel free to leave all other unreferenced sentences there, I'll get to those soon and if some prove impossible to reference I'll point that out here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Although, I will restore the sentence if I find a credible reference.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the sentence because it was unreferenced, but because I didn't understand it....:-) Kebeta (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It means that the war didn't escalate that much further after the siege, which it could have. It might be considered ironic, but it's probably just the most realistic behavior if we look at the big picture. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the 'References' & 'Notes' - the first five points in 'References' should be implemented in the 'Notes'. Now there are 212 'Notes', I think that some of them are duplicated. That can be solved with 'ref name' for some of them. Kebeta (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are duplicates, but I would like to reference everything first (even if accidentally placing duplicates) and then I'll remove duplicates when everything is in there. I feel this is much faster process - maybe I'm wrong, but it sure seems so to me. I'll be sure to implement the five points you specified, but I expect to do that just before I go hunting for duplicate citations.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Kebeta (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I slightly expanded naming paragraphs in the main text, so what do you say about moving the last paragraph of the lead (2 sentences only) forward and attaching it to the end of the first paragraph of the lead. Boldface text would have to go in either case as GAN review allows bolding the first instance of the title repeated in the lead to be boldfaced and nothing else.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving the last paragraph of the lead to the end of the first paragraph of the lead can improve the article. Especially if we will have to have a fourth paragraph for something else (lead has to cover all main text). Although, I suggest that lead should be the last one to fix - just before copyediting (Guild of Copy Editors). Kebeta (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No need to rush things.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just moved a number of paragraphs within "Background" section to achieve better flow of prose and hopefully some clarity. I'm quite happy with the section right now - images are yet to be placed properly along with their alt text, but that's another issue, which would best be addressed just before a copyedit is requested. What do you think about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And another thing - "Media" section contains some films/TV series dealing with/mentioning the war. I can think of a number of others, but there should be a reference at least to more significant ones. Also I feel the section title should be something else because Media implies newspapers and TV reporters etc. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Whith things like that (smaller importance to the quality of the article) you can do as you want, since GA reviewer will have his own thoughts, and this minor things can easily be fixed in a procces of GA....:-) Kebeta (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User Tomobe03 doubled the number of references and contributed to the article considerably. There are only two more unsourced paragraphs left. The article is huge now, though, with over 140.000 bytes. As far as images are concerned, I don't see anything much wrong with them. The "Media" section could be replaced with "In popular culture".--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing fundamental about the images (not that many to choose from are found in the commons) - alt text is missing, their distribution may be adjusted a bit (though not before the text itself is finalized) and that's it. The size of the article (prose) is quite smaller, I'm not sure, but I'd say no more than 60K, which is still readable (the rest are references, lists, boxes etc.). Still some more references are needed beyond the two unreferenced paragraphs, and possible duplicates need be addressed.

On a more fundamental point: Dayton Agreement did not relate to the Croatian War of Independence directly, rather on the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Erdut Agreement ended the war in Croatia. Of course, Dayton Agreement was made possible, among other things, by operations Flash and Storm, and the Dayton Agreement brought lasting peace to B&H, which is by default a stability-promoting factor to all neighboring countries, but the fact remains that Erdut Agreement marks a watershed: After it was signed all reasons for further war in Croatia ceased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. Kebeta (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I would rather like to think of the article as a joint effort - quite a few more editors contributed recently (Kebeta, Joy etc) - and I'm sure there are still more contributions to be made by them and others. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a proposal regarding the references, media, notes...

• • 8 References
    • 8.1 Footnotes
    • 8.2 Citations
    • 8.3 Bibliography
    • 8.4 Media
    • 8.5 External links

It is unusual, and I am not quite sure about it, but they are all References? 'Media' can be named differently, 'Footnotes' would be description or explanation (now a part of notes), 'Notes' would become 'Citations', 'References' would become 'Bibliography'. Kebeta (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is unusual... Personally, I don't think WP:FOOTERS allow that, and we would create an unnecessary obstacle to a successful GAN.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was just a thought. Kebeta (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That structure would make sense, but I really think we don't need extra obstacles. --Tomobe03 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

About the images - two images 'Map of Operation Flash' & 'Map of Operation Storm' which happened in 1995 are in the section '1993: Croatian military advances'. They should be moved to appropriate section, or thear image caption can be expanded with mention of 1995? Kebeta (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that Croatia was in ruins after initial JNA attacks, but other things many be better, since there are may images with ruins? Also, I tryed to move some images in its appropriate sections, so the reader can follow the article much better. What do you think? The GA reviewer will probably point a number of images, so I removed couple of them (the ones I thought that are representing fewer than others). Feel free to restore them if you thing otherwise. Kebeta (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about location of the images yet. We still have a subsection to create - on "War crimes and ICTY" as discussed above. Once paragraphs are pulled from the present text to fill the new section, present layout will change. The new section shall absorb or create references to the massacres listed in the timeline, in which case all but most relevant ones (in terms of a timeline of events) may be removed from the timeline. What do you think?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You read mine minds. I was just thinking of "War crimes and ICTY" section. That is a last big obstacle for GA. Kebeta (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a saying about thinking alike :) Anyway, yes, that section, additional references for 1995, type of war, and casualties (although the latter are already there in the infobox), and there is a missing citation pointed out for Šešelj reference. After that images can be arranged and alt text added to those finally selected, finding a willing copyeditor et voila!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that 'alt text' is not required for GA. So you can nominate the article for copyediting as soon as this last section is done. Kebeta (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is, but copyediting does not have to wait that to be completed, since it is not related to alt text. It's a fifteen minute chore anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's massive overlinking in the article, and that'll have to be addressed, but likewise, a copyedit need not wait as excessive links can be removed later on.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And a good copyeditor will remove a great number of them.....:-) "War crimes and ICTY" section needs to be finished - and that's all. Than copyediting, and after that nomination. You will probably have couple of weeks from nomination to a review, to improve the article further. See you. Kebeta (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I started fixing 'Notes' (only books). I think that we could shorten the article from "157,253 bytes" to cca."143,000 bytes" by doing so. There is a book in 'Notes' - "Greater Serbia: from ideology to aggression, Zagreb, Croatian Information Centre, 1993.", which don't have a page number. It should be added, but the book is not online, so I couldn't added myself. Kebeta (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The article looks fantastic now. Only the German version is equally as good. Re-nominating it for GA is just a matter of time.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's not rush yet. There are still some things to be done - not many though - I'll split some paragraphs and move parts of them to the ICTY subsection (but not whole paragraphs as before) and a sentence on a naval engagement still has to go into 1991... and a copyedit request must be made before GAN... but yes it looks good!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article looks much better. I aranged images to suit thear sections, but there are still some problems left (especially in 1991). The article can be nominated for a copyedit any day, so after one more opinion with copyediting skills has gone through the article, it will look much better than now. And, hopeful the copyeditor will shorten the article without cutting any information (redundant text, overlinking, same text in the body of the article and in the image caption....) Kebeta (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Beaten me to the punch! (see just below) I agree.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, everything I wanted to add is now in (except a reference or two and the alt text, but those are not a priority now) so maybe we ought to look for a copyeditor?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit requested!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. I still don't think that alt text is required for GA. I deleted first three points from Bibliography, but if those are not included in the notes also, they can (if necessary) be put in 'Further reading' section (to create a new section). 'Bibliography' is now  Done. 'Notes' require some more fixing. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think a reviewer required the alt text for a motorway GAN I submitted, but maybe I misunderstood a recommendation for a must. Anyway those do not stand in the way of a copyedit, and I'll add them once the article is nominated - it's really no problem as those take few minutes to do. As far as notes are concerned, I'll scan through them to see what to do later on, as they too are not really required for a usable copyedit. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, great job!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Added fourth/last paragraph into lead, to conclude the picture. Unfortunately, the last sentence isn't mentioned in the article. So either you delete it from the lead, or add something about it into the body. Kebeta (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Added and referenced! Btw, that's really what was missing to round this off!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have two questions: Number one, is the copy-edit process finished? And number two, Croatia-Serbia lawsuits are mentioned twice, in sections "War crimes and the ICTY" and "Serbia's role in the war". I suggest to get it merged into either the one or the other, there is no need to mention it twice to shorten the size of the article.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I added this info into lead and automatically added the explanatioan in the body. I guess I overlook that (duplicated Croatia-Serbia lawsuits), but I leave this to Tomobe to solve....:-) Regarding the copy-edit process, I guess that a copyeditor had some other thing to solve, and he will probably be back any time soon. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the copyedit is finished. The top-of-the-page notice is gone since the copyeditor apparently made a pause in his work - but since the article is not short, that's understandable. I hope to see some more copyediting yet.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

But then, why was the GOCEinuse tag removed?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the GOCEinuse tag , sincr the copy editor who added this notice has not been edited for several hours. In this way we can further improve the article until he/she is back. Kebeta (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, the copyeditor will return to work (presumably - this one has already copyedited a successful GAN article for me) and the notice will be back up. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As a note to anyone reviewing dead links: The checklinks resource points out one NY Times link (Srebrenica reference) as dead, although it is perfectly operational and nothing need be done in that respect - I guess that claimed 98% accuracy is catching up!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

One further thing - the external links section seems, hm... dubious at best. It contains a number of resources which I would prefer to remove as they do not add nothing substantial, a movie reference which would be better off in the "popular culture" section and an ICTY homepage link which should not be there in the first place since the ICTY is wikilinked in the article. Does anyone have any better suggestion than to move the film reference to the corresponding section and remove the entire remaining content (and the section)?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this for contents of the External links, instead of the present contents:

{{Dmoz|Society/History/By_Time_Period/Twentieth_Century/Wars_and_Conflicts/Yugoslav_Wars/Croatia_1991-95|Croatia 1991-95}}

{{Dmoz|Society/Issues/Warfare_and_Conflict/War_Crimes/Yugoslavia/International_Criminal_Tribunal|ICTY}}

those are even suggested by WP:EL--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the template - {{Yugoslav wars}} could be complemented with a specific navbox, but on the other hand there's already {{Campaignbox Croatian War of Independence}}, and at the same time, {{Campaignbox Yugoslav Wars}} is slim. I'm not sure which of these I don't dislike :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Having revisited Template talk:Campaignbox Croatian War of Independence, I'm in favor of moving this into a navbox, because it's a really lousy campaignbox. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

local name

Regarding the local name, we could use with a bit of clarification. In Croatia, the vanilla official term is Domovinski rat. Few people actually use the phrase velikosrpska agresija today; it was popular in the 1990s which was notable because everyone from President Tuđman onwards used it. The use of the *exact phrase* has waned somewhat in favor of the former term, but that doesn't mean it's obsolete. The terms srpska agresija or just agresija are still widely used in reference to the war, and not just as single mention in rants like the one we had as the first reference, but in completely general context. Now if only this explanation could be phrased in a way that won't be taken as an instant flamebait :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, agreed. Perhaps as another item in the annotations proposed since dragging out an explanation in the lead seems a bit too much.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Finding a reference for the naming favour trends will be a different thing - but I'll give it a shot.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

external links

Regarding external links, there are currently 8 of them:

1. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [15], World Courts [16] and Sense [17]
2. Article on onwar.com
3. Croatia Between Aggression and Peace
4. (in Croatian) Resources about the war on hic.hr
5. (in Croatian) Another resource from hic.hr
6. Ivo Skoric - A Story About the War in Croatia
7. Vijesti_net - "Rat za mir" About movie that deals with Montenegrin aggression on Dubrovnik area
8. (in Serbian) NIN Zloupotreba psihijatrije (Abuse of psychiatry)

However, some of them may seem unsuitable. I suggest we remove no. 4, 5 and 7. If someone finds a good new external link, he can add it without hesitation.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO the external links section should normally contain the official website of the article subject (and in this case there is none) and those sites that add something to the article. I think the War Photo Limited link is great, but I'm not sure that any other site really does anything for the article. (The ICTY link would be fine if the article was on the ICTY, but not here.) Simply adding anything to the EL that has something to do with the war, as I see it, doesn't make much sense - if the linked site has some relevant information, not covered by other reliable sources in the article it should be used as an inline citation and not an EL. Then again, that's just my opinion - anyone else?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems all right now, though it could be better. The Amnesty International report is a solid EL for information, HIC has some books about the war, onwar.com is an OK source. There is this United Nations report about detention camps and special paramilitary forces, but they are already in the article, in the references section. So until someone finds something substantial, there is not much to change in the EL section.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that AI report is a reliable source and that any book where proper editing is in place and there is no obvious POV pushing is likely to be a reliable source, but I'm just not sure that any of those (except for War Photo Limited) add any thing new to the article or help understanding the content of the article. Ideally I'd like to see a link to a Croatian War of Independence Museum (no official website, unfortunately - this is the closest thing I could find so far), or other similar institutions, sites that may host professional quality photographs such as WPL already listed (after all a small army of press photographers was in Croatia at the time) - those two, in my opinion, fill the gap left by relative scarcity of commons based photos that would illustrate the article. There is a possibility to link Open Directory Project, but that is also of doubtful use in this particular case. And finally, per WP:ELPOINTS links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Annotations

Got an idea: What do you say we create yet another section - "Annotations" - such as in Vietnam War and use that to annotate "March 1991 - November 1995" explaining that no actual formal start (declaration) of the war exists, and that the combat operations practically ceased in Croatia in August. If nobody objects, I could transfer the a, b, c and d notes located in the inbox now to the new section removing some clutter from the top of the page by shortening the infobox.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing something similar to your proposal. I also wrote that on talk page before (Footnotes & Citations) which is similar to (Annotations & Notes). See Bismarck class battleship. Footnotes are explaining something with ref., and Citations are shorten refs. Kebeta (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

An now it's  Done

I suppose you/we should done this with the body of the article, not only with Infobox. For example: notes 31,32,....Kebeta (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Those two should remain inline refs only - although with "quote" parameter of the cite web template. If something is quoted from the referenced material cite web template is sufficient - if something has to be elaborated upon, annotation is in order. (I guess. Somebody correct me if I got it wrong.) I corrected the templates, placed quote parameter in there and noticed that the two references should be switched - first Martić, then Babić to follow the prose properly. That too is fixed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional images

It's really amazing that there is no image of the building where the Oct 8 decision was made better than this available in the commons. Perhaps wikipedians in Zagreb might do something about it. There is an image of a commemorative plaque but that's all.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

operations in the timeline (previously in the campaign box)

I moved in all the missing operations from the campaignbox into the timeline so that they a) have a clear and precise timestamp at least b) get referenced. Sorry it adds so many inline cleanup tags to an otherwise well-referenced article :) but the problem had already existed, it just wasn't as obvious. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wrote below the answer before your question.....:) Kebeta (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about moving so many new events into 'Timeline of major events'. Especially ones which don't have thear own article on en-wiki. That means that those events are not major, but minor events of Croatian War of Independence. If we continue like this, that section will require it's own article. In addition, it makes already big article a bigger one, and with aditional tasks yet to solve. What do others think? Kebeta (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought about just instantly removing them, but if there is a point in having red links in general, as well as listing each individual massacre - regardless of whether it was actually a major event that influenced the war - I went with the more lenient option of including them. I also did a quick skim when I verified the dates, and got the impression that they mostly seem relevant and are reasonably major events for a war article. Some could easily go, though, such as the apparently never executed last operation in Herzegovina. Feel free to prune what you think is irrelevant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, article existence doesn't necessarily imply major vs. minor. Some operations do have articles, but some don't, even if they are comparable. It's simply a matter of whether someone was interested and capable enough to make an article. We shouldn't dismiss them out of hand on that basis. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to build a consensus what is major and what is not and prune the list or move the list to an entirely separate article (see: Timeline of World War II (1940)). All the events (apart from the new items in the list) are mentioned in the article itself and wikilinked. I would rather include the new items in the article, than in this list, which IMO was too long to begin with. Every battle and massacre was significant (at least tactically) but it is impossible that all of them had major (not necessarily decisive) impact on the war.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I am OK with all the events. I am just afraid that a GA reviewer will think otherwise, especially since the article is 181,130 bytes long. Following above, I am afraid he/she will require a separate article - so we will lose "a real major events", although I agree that they are all important. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my point: There's virtually no end to the timeline - there will be dates this or the other barracks were conquered, evacuated or surrendered, major artillery attacks, rocket strikes, air raids etc, all sorts of planned ops, drills, myriad of ceasefires and truces signed and broken... If the timeline is not a separate article (which it can be) there must be a line to what is considered major for the purposes of this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I agee with Tomobe that we need to build a consensus what is major. Kebeta (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Kebeta you're right - we're running a risk of having a GAN reviewer arguing against this type of list. We could have a really comprehensive list with every major and minor and even peripheral event specified (FL potential) and avoid losing focus from what's important (all massacres are tragic, but hide Vukovar among a dozen other ones and a casual reader might miss it for instance, while a genuinely interested reader will research the thing down a wikilink to the comprehensive list) by having this list trimmed down and having the comprehensive list in a separate article. The comprehensive list would not be hard to do - we have a start right here already, and it can be expanded whenever convenient.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I say we quickly end this debate by moving the entire timeline into a separate article that can live a life of its own, and be linked from both this article in the see-also section and from the campaignbox. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems a better solution than having a too long list here. I agree.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Where we will put then a template "History of Croatia"........:) Kebeta (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I put it next to the background section, where it's also appropriate. It actually renders that way nicely on 1024px width with a slightly larger font (a readable one, if I may say); on wider/smaller setups it gets a bit bunched up, but reading columns that wide sounds like a painful exercise anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have one of those wide format screens (1366x768)- and the bunching is quite significant. How does this left-aligned setup look on a 1024? Feel free to revert if it is no good, I have no way of knowing first hand.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This may seem to be an odd resolution, but plenty of new notebooks have exactly that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to shuffle it again. But I do advise resizing the window to get at a less eye-straining column width :) For example Firefox's Web developer add-on has a handy Resize function for easy switching. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On mine (1440x900) there is a huge space between two name section's: 'Background' & 'Rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia'. Otherwise, it looks good. Is a 'Notes' section appropriate sections for a template. If it is, I think the template will fit in very well there. Kebeta (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Republic or Federation

Just thought of this: Shouldn't the 1995 belligerents/commanders in the infobox specify Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina carrying the federation flag next to the name - Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina - or specify both Republic of BH and HVO. In light of the Washington Agreement I would go for Federation. Furthermore, I think that the infobox 1995 info should be marked 1994-1995 or at least Nov 1994 - 1995 since Cincar and Winter 94 ops happened in Nov - Dec 1994. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, because the Federation was formed as early as March 1994. But, the Republic could still be kept, in earlier parts, because of Operacija Lipanjske zore and others that (at least nominally) encompassed RBiH territory. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Is AP W Bosnia really involved in the Croatian War of Independence or only the Bosnian war?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you consider 'Operation Storm' as a part of Croatian War of Independence, than AP W Bosnia is involved.......:) Kebeta (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I was thinking in terms whether its forces ever engaged Croatian forces or occupied Croatian soil. No problem, I'll dig up a reference somewhere and put it in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if AP WB ever occupied Croatian soil (I think not - but was on the border with Croatia). But I do know that cca. 10,000 soldiers of AP WB participated in Operation Storm (on Serbian side, of course). Kebeta (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)