Talk:Croatian War of Independence/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

More maps

File:Former Yugoslavia wartime animation 92-95.gif and/or its individual slides? GregorB (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

timeline bits - May 1990

This was part of old Serbs of Croatia timeline article that I'm integrating into the Timeline of the Croatian War of Independence article:

• May 1990 - The Croatian government began to "fire Serbs from jobs in the Croatian police, state bureaucracy, and state-owned companies". In addition, "Serbs were alarmed by the reintroduction of historic Croatian symbols and insignia that had also been used by the Ustaše". Consequently, Tudjman tended to rule in an authoritarian way and "refused to condemn the former Ustaše state and its crimes". As a result many Serbs in Croatia became convinced that the HDZ sought to restore the Ustaše regime.

Can anyone verify that reference? It's a lot of prose that doesn't really belong to a timeline article anyway, rather this article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kind of off-topic, but...The Croatian coat of arms existed as far back as the 10th century and even the Socialist Republic of Croatia used it, which really means it is lame to try to push it as a "Ustasha symbol". "U" is a Ustasha symbol, not the chess board, which is even today used in numerous countires as Croatia's official flag, even in Serbia - and Israel. Enough said. This has been refuted over a decade ago.

Tudjman was an authoritarian leader, but still far less so than the rigid Yugoslav leaders. Serbs did indeed lose their jobs in the 1990s, but mostly in the police (that was probably triggered by the uncertainty of "Greater-Serbian fever" that was growing that time) - that is sad, but unless the police was the only employment possibility for them, they still had other options. Like, start a petition or a protest to have their jobs back? Was it really so difficult to use peaceful means to solve the problem? And how much of them did lose their job anyway, 3,000, 2,000, 1,000, 100...? We still need relieable data to determine to what extent that actually influenced Serbs in Croatia as a whole. Today it is obvious that it wasn't Tudjman who was trying to revivie the Ustasha regime, but Milosevic, in order to create that typical "problem-reaction-solution" scheme and make Serbs do whatever he told them to do.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• You're right, it's way off topic. Yup, the Croatian chequy is an ancient symbol but the version which suddenly became very popular at the time was the one with the top-left white field, the version used by the Ustashe and which is even today regarded as a right-wing symbol and is used a lot by right and far-right grops in Croatia (compare the NDH version and the communist/modern version). So this clam is definitely not unfounded and whoever "refuted it a decade ago" either has no clue or is ideologically motivated. Also, the government media suddenly began insisting on speakers using "pure" Croatian words, some of which haven't been used since the NDH days, the Croatian kuna which replaced the dinar as the currency in 1994 was explicitly named after the currency used in NDH, Yugoslav names of military ranks were replaced with names of ranks as used in NDH. Football clubs such as NK Hajduk Split or NK Šibenik began adopting the adjective "Croatian" so they became HNK Hajduk Split and HNK Šibenik. It was an atmosphere of nationalist revival and many nationalist symbols and ideas which would have landed you in prison a year ago were now not only allowed but very popular. To be fair, there were also other factors which contributed to an exaggeration of these things in the consciousness of Serbs, but generally speaking it made a lot of sense for Serbs to begin feeling less than safe or welcome.
• Yes, Tudjman was an extremely authoritarian leader and I would put him pretty much in the same category as the preceding Yugoslav leaders. Tudjman went to great lengths to imitate Tito's ruling style and the fact that he despised parliamentary democracy and free speech is very well documented by several memoirs published by the people who worked with him. Žarko Domljan,the man who was appointed speaker of parliament by Tuđman in the early 1990s and whose greatest contribution to Croatia's politics was designing the stained glass windows on its building and inventing the Latin America-style presidential sash for Tudjman, talked about this in Nedjeljom u dva a while ago. He also talked about how the man who supplied meat for the parliament's in-house restaurant was sacked merely for being a Serb and said that he saw nothing wrong with the decision as "it was well known what types of characters meet at his apartment". So there's one guy for you who was not in the police and who was undoubtedly sacked for merely being a Serb. Ironically, the man later fought in the Croatian Army. As for petitions and such - if the atmosphere among local Serbs (especially those in urban areas such as Zagreb) was one of fear, petitions and public protests would have made them even more vulnerable. I do recall a tabloid daily called "Slobodni tjednik" which openly published lists with names and addresses of Serbs who they claimed to be "disloyal to Croatia" and some of them turned up dead or disappeared soon after. Not a happy place to petition for anything is it?
• "Today it is obvious that it wasn't Tudjman who was trying to revive the Ustasha regime, but Milosevic, in order to create that typical "problem-reaction-solution" scheme and make Serbs do whatever he told them to do." - that's only one part of the story. Tuđman saw himself as some sort of a saviour of Croats, a person who would unite descendants of both the Ustashe and the Partisans, so the regime had a huge tolerance for far-right outbursts - for example the far-right party HSP even formed its own militia called the Croatian Defence Forces who wore black uniforms and named their units after infamous Ustashe commanders. But above all, Tuđman was very paranoid, Soviet-style, and almost every speech you can find by him mentions unidentified "foreign influence", "domestic traitors", "sold-out souls", as well as the idea that Yugoslavia was a Serbian-made imperialist project which implied that the obvious omnipresent nationalist sentiment was seen as just a normal reaction to it (this idea survived to this day, so much so that telling someone that he/she is a "Yugoslav" is seen as an insult). Sure, what you said about Milošević is true and there are books documenting the way the atmosphere in Croatia was portrayed as becoming increasingly fascist in the Serbian media, and there are many well-evidenced exaggerations they employed as part of their propaganda. And sure, Tuđman was not trying to revive the Ustashe per se - but he did tolerate those who were a great deal and he did make many symbolic moves in order to win approval from the far-right elements of society and to achieve what in his mind was a consensus between the good parts of communist legacy and the revived nationalism (which was unavoidably closely connected to the WWII Ustashe movement). Timbouctou (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

ICTY Verdict on Gotovina

This has been removed.

The court found that Gotovina and Markac planned and led members of the Croatian military forces and special police in an effort to forcibly and permanently remove the ethnic Serb population from the Krajina region of Croatia.

In its judgment, the court found that Gotovina and Markac were members of a joint criminal enterprise that also included then president Franjo Tudjman and other members of Croatia's political and military leadership. [1]

— Balkan Insight reporting on the Ante Gotovina verdict.

As Timbouctou stated: rv quote by Balkan Insight about what ICTY had said - either quote the verdict or nothing at all)

Can someone help find the original quote? I don't see what's wrong with this one, but yeah, I do agree that it is better to include the original one. (LAz17 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)).

Is this good enough? [2] In all honesty, the Balkan Insight thing says it in less space. I think it is better to use that quote that they had. How do you suggest this big one gets reduced in size? I do not think that it will look good having several paragraphs quoted. (LAz17 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)).

Done. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Croats displaced

The numbers of croats displaced does not seem correct. There were not 500,000. Furthermore, some of the links are dead, and one link includes all displaced people, both serbs and croats. Therefore this should be fixed. (LAz17 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)).

UNHCR is pretty clear when it comes to the number of the displaced: By the end of 1991, an estimated 500.000 Croats and other non-Serbs were displaced from parts of Croatia overrun by Serb rebels. They did not flee just from parts of Croatia were Krajina was established, but also from surrounding area. For instance, Osijek had 100.000 inhabitants in April 1991, but close to two thirds left the city during the siege due to daily shelling. As for the dead link, which one is it?[3]--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bosniaks had for a long time claimed numbers of for example over 200,000 people killed in bosnia and herzegovina. Only in the last few years had the media come to more realistic figures of about 100,000. Similarily, this figure of 500,000 is simply so large that it is ridiculous. (LAz17 (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)).

The source in the article is not from Croats or Bosnians, but from UNHCR.--Kebeta (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

To address the discrepancy of the Bosnian War death toll - it is simple to explain. Experts couldn't go to the war torn territory back in those days to count the dead - that would be an interesting sight, a UN expert going to, let's say, Prijedor to say : "Excuse me, I just want to count how many people you killed." - so they had to rely on an estimate. Gruesome TV images of Bosnia in 1992 were so scary that the experts overestimated the death toll and placed it at 250.000 dead. Today, after a survey has been made, the real number of killed turned out to be actually lower, somewhere between 99.000 and 103.000, depending on which source you take (IDC or ICTY).

However, with refugees, you didn't have to rely on an estimate. When you got 100.000 refugees from Eastern Slavonia, you got 100.000 refugees. Period. That doesn't change with time. What do you expect, that someone will say: "Aw-shucks, I didn't accommodate a four-member family at my home, but only a two-member family! I was drunk and saw double." I myself was surprised at the large number of Croats displaced, too. Roughly half of them returned to their homes in 1992, after the ceasefire, while the remaining 170.000 stayed displaced until 1995 when they finally got the chance to return to the former Krajina region.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This number is not fatalities, it's refugees. Osijek was already listed as an example. When you consider that the former municipality of Vinkovci had a population of around 100,000, and that the front line cut right across it, it's easy to see how large numbers of people became refugees. Civilians don't fancy sitting around while grenades fall all over the place... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I can buy that 200,000 were displaced. But 500,000 is a ridiculous overstatement.

Figures in bosnia were not overestimation by mistakes. They were deliberate mistakes. For the record, far left elements in the US tabbed death tolls to be as low as 30,000 there. Yet the media picked up more on purpose. This 500,000 is a just like that, a number of the past when anti-serb paranoia was very high. (LAz17 (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)).

I'm sure you think that and will remain convinced in it regardless what of the sources may say, but please respect the right of other users to follow the sources. UNHCR is a very good source. That said, that number does indeed seem too large. There simply weren't 500,000 Croats living in the territory captured by the Krajina. I am surprised as well, but I certainly would not oppose the statement without very good sources. See where the UNHCR got that info, and what those figures represent exactly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets look at exactly what the source says. an estimated 500,000 Croats and other non-Serbs were expelled from parts of Croatia overrun by Serb forces As we see, this does not include croats from other parts of Croatia outside of Krajina. And it is well known that there were not even half as many Croats in Krajina. Therefore, we can disregard this source as biased crap concocted by a biased croat, Neven Crvenkovic. We also do not see this number repeated anywhere else. (LAz17 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)).

As a matter of fact that's another simple fallacy - that the territory had to be completely occupied by RSK in order for the civilians to become refugees en masse. Civilians fled areas of fighting because they by and large did not want to risk getting hurt. That included huge amounts of people who were simply in the range of enemy artillery. There didn't even need to exist a classical war front - a lot of civilians fled the areas of Slavonski Brod and Županja because Serb forces could (and did) shell them from across the Sava river. In fact, opposite examples exist, too - some civilians were adamant in staying in places that were occupied by forces hostile to them, i.e. RSK territory was probably never completely without Croat population. Sadly, some of those people came to regret it, such as ten Croats who were killed in the so-called Bruška massacre - Benkovac was RSK territory in December '91, had been since Operation Coast-91. So lacking an actual coherent analysis of why UNHCR would be wrong, I'm inclined to give their estimate the benefit of the doubt. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

More to the point - blithely removing content about refugees sourced from a document published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (sic) is plain silly. Find an analogous source that contradicts them, and then you may have a case, but before that all we have is your word against theirs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Blithely removing?! The source clearly says that 500,000 Croats were displaced from the Krajina area of Croatia. If you add the number of all Serbs, Croats, and other groups there you will NOT get that number. That number is a mistake and is hence disinformation. Your reversal is vandalism. Do it again and I will report you. (LAz17 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)).

It could simply be misspoken. If we're supposed to assume good faith from you, you're supposed to assume good faith in an UNHCR-published article :P --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Could? Might? Maybe? There is no room for such speculation. People make mistakes, that's that. Intentional or accidental is not going to be my judgement. (LAz17 (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)).

Another 180,000 persons became internally displaced within Croatia. [4] Another source. I am not sure if it is croats or croats and serbs. I think it's only croats, as that article seems to deal only with croats. (LAz17 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)).

I had a look at all of those, and found them:

http://es.ictj.org/static/Europe/TJdevelopments.eng.pdf says "According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as of April 2006, over 120,000 out of 300,000 Croatian Serbs and 218,000 out of 221,000 Croats involuntarily displaced during the war had returned to Croatia." and references: "Data from UNHCR and the Office for Displaced Persons and Refugee published in OSCE Mission to Croatia, “2006 Review Report on Croatia’s Progress in Meeting International Commitments since 2001”, 9 June 2006 p. 13." So I searched for that and found http://www.osce.org/zagreb/19519 which says "Prior to that, as a result of the 1991 occupation of parts of Croatian territory by Serb forces, 220,000 ethnic Croats had been displaced."

the HRW link in turn links to http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1995/Croatia.htm which says "As of March 1995, the Croatian government was providing refuge to 189,000 refugees from Bosnia and 196,000 persons who have been internally displaced as a result of the war in Croatia in 1991 and thereafter." and references: "United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Office of the Special Envoy for former Yugoslavia, "Information Notes on Former Yugoslavia," No. 3/95, March 1995. " A google search for that didn't seem to find the original text, just a lot of references to it.

So the second source is also UNHCR, and the third is OSCE + Croatian Government. To me the main issue seems to be how to reconcile all this in general, rather than how to eliminate the aforementioned 2005 article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The 2005 opinion article could say five million croats were displaced. Just because something is written somewhere does not mean that it is true or ought to be in an encyclopedia. As I had demonstrated, not even 500,000 people lived in the former Krajina, and that article specifically states that 500,000 Croats were displaced from the former Krajina. It's very problematic and should not be included. As for these other articles, they're pdf files, hence official reports. They have more weight than the opinion of a nationalist biggot who wants to inflate numbers. Such a huge number is simply illogical and bullshit. No offense. (LAz17 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)).

I've also heard numbers in the area of 220,000. 500,000 displaced Croats really does seem like "crap". As I said before, there simply weren't that many Croats there. I'd go with 220,000.

Furthermore, "Displacement of 220,000 Croats and 300,000 Serbs" should be restored to the article's infobox as one of the major consequences of the war. I listed the displacement in my original draft of the infobox [5], but it has since been removed (from the "Result" category, below "Croatian advances in Bosnia and Herzegovina.."). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the overly specific characterization of refugees as people banished from RSK - could simply be misspoken, they could have meant the full refugee burden at the time. I googled the Croatian phrase "tisuća prognanika i izbjeglica" and easily found another few sources such as:

• this article that explicitly states "Broj prognanika i izbjeglica u samoj Hrvatskoj smanjio se od 550 tisuća krajem 1991. godine na 386.264 u 1995. godini. Istodobno je broj izbjeglica u inozemstvu smanjen od 150 na 57 tisuća. Počevši od 1995. godine počinje masovan povratak prognanika i izbjeglica." - published in a journal of the University of Zagreb Faculty of Law
• this article that says "Predstojnik Vladina Ureda za prognanike i izbjeglice Lovre Pejkovic istaknuo je da je Hrvatska s ukupno 700 tisuca prognanika i izbjeglica, koliko ih je 1992. imala" - published by Croatian Radiotelevision, quoting a Croatian Government official in charge of the refugee sector
• this book that says "Početkom 1992. godine na različite načine zbrinuto je oko 550,000 prognanika iz hrvatskih područja zahvaćenih ratom" - also from the Faculty of Law

While skimming over results, I saw even larger numbers that included numerous Bosnian refugees. So dismissing the UNHCR document out of hand because their phrasing isn't precise is at best - short-sighted. Smearing the author is also libelous, BTW. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Congradulations, you've solved the mystery: the number refers to the total number of refugees in Croatia and incudes Bosniak and Croat refugees from Herzegovina and Bosnia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No, read more carefully, the Bosnian war had not escalated before Q2/1992, and two of the sources I quoted above specifically preclude that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The number probably includes serbs who were displaced. It does not say croats in your third source for example, it says people. Serbs were massively deported from Western Slavonia in the Summer of 1991, for example.

Also, keep in mind that this was the early 1990s, when the various sides were saying all sorts of insane figures. The bosniaks at this time, in early 1992 were saying how the Serbs had killed 100,000 - at the start of the war. Jee, maybe it was 200,000 - I sold my graphic novel which documented their b.s., called "Fax from Sarajevo".

It appears that Gospod Pejkovic is the one who concocted this 500,000+ figure. As we can see here, [6] the guy is a biased prick. He's not credible. That article there proves it man. Don't make the mistake of using "bad sources" and interpreting certain sources in a wrong way. And if you really want to push the issue, I could find sources that say that 200,000 serbs were cleansed by 1995, and then another 200,000 in 1995 - making the serb number 400,000 instead of 300,000. I honestly think that such nationalism is not something that should be welcome. Don't promote it bro. Please don't. (LAz17 (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)).

All I'm going to say on this is that 500,000 displaced Croats from terrirories held by the Krajina rebels is fishy. That would suggest that there were actually more Croats than Serbs living in the Serbian-populated regions of Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There were not even nearly that many people in all of Krajina from all ethnic groups. Therefore, the goal of these guys is to say that all the people were Croatian, and that there was an invasion rather than an uprising. That's what the average American bloke believed based on what the media was saying. I mean come on, in 1999 when the Kosovo bombing was going on, US media said that 500,000 albanians were killed. At the end, they reduced that number to 10,000 from all sides throughout the entire war. Large figures have been concocted for political reasons. They were lies made on purpose to promote a certain agenda. (LAz17 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)).

You're being completely disingenuous. I had actually omitted a mention of 1.1M (!) refugees in 1992 by Adalbert Rebić because I only saw it quoted by right-wing media and couldn't find an original. If academics from the Zagreb Faculty of Law say "Broj prognanika i izbjeglica u samoj Hrvatskoj smanjio se od 550 tisuća krajem 1991. godine na 386.264 u 1995. godini. Istodobno je broj izbjeglica u inozemstvu smanjen od 150 na 57 tisuća." then I must conclude that you'd rather rant than read a simple scholarly source like that. To disregard the first part of what they explicitly wrote as biased source without a shred of proof is a complete violation of WP:IRS. And, yes, the link to the ICTY questioning doesn't prove squat - as the head of a Croatian Office for Refugees and Displaced Persons he had zero practical jurisdiction over RSK at the time and bringing him up to "testify" about that is equivalent to having him make an educated guess - at best. It does further enlighten us to the simple fact that you'd rather rant and smear random people than contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive fashion. Please stop doing that. Upon reading that Sense Agency article, I looked up the actual testimony of this person, e.g. here and found interesting bits that relate to something he was in fact in charge of:

[...] We had to organise extra censuses, the first one of which was in 1992. And, at that time, we counted 247.271 expelled persons. [...]

[...] we find in paragraph 4 of your statement in which you refer to the census of expelled persons in April 1992, the refugee census in March 1993, the census of expelled persons and refugees in June 1994, and the re-registration of expelled person, returnees and refugees in March /April 1997. [...]

So how about we try to piece some of that together? (Having the actual table mentioned in that testimony would be good.) The number they list above is very closely aligned with the UNHCR and other data we already have in the article so I fail to see any real reason for opposing it other than "I don't trust them because they could have had a hidden motive". In fact I'd venture to say that UNHCR and other data is indeed based in these censa. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I Concur. Several sources support the 500.000 number [7], [8], [9] and as Joy observed, they probably meant it applies to whole of Croatia, not just the Krajina territory. Even Goldstein mentions it [10]. Mind you, in 1991 people were leaving their homes even in Zagreb. So, if the infobox is allowed to mention the 447.000+ displaced Serbs based on purely Serbian sources, I see no reason why the 500.000 number should be censored, since it is not just based on purely Croatian sources, but on UNHCR and others too. Everything else is POV pushing.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My address key points...

the link to the ICTY questioning doesn't prove squat - as the head of a Croatian Office for Refugees and Displaced Persons he had zero practical jurisdiction over RSK at the time and bringing him up to "testify" about that is equivalent to having him make an educated guess - at best.

What? You are justifying his horrific lies? This happened in 2009, well after the war had ended, and well after everyone in their right mind knew the correct data. You're basically supporting the logic of holocaust deniers... oh they were not in charge when it was happening, thtey wouldn't know better, they were making an educated guess that a fraction of the people were killed/displaced. Please, your response here is downright disgusting.

J&A, lets go through your sources one at a time.

1) Your link specifically includes refugees from bosnia and herzegovina. Whoops!

2) After looking and thinking that I am going blind or something, I really could not find anything that mentions anything around 500,000 in your second link. Strike two, buddy.

3) This source includes people of all nationalities. It does not say anything about 500,000 croats only being displaced. Some 200,000 croats, and 300,000 serbs, hence making up the 500,000 figure. Congrats!

4) To address point four. That figure of serbs displaced is not bad at all. Just look at the census data, and you get around 400,000. Considering that many serbs identified as yugoslavs in 1991, it would not be an understatement that a total of 500,000 serbs got flushed out.

The idea that 500,000 being displaced is pure bullshit. This has already been demonstrated by various ways. There were not even half as many croats in the former krajina, and there were not that many displaced in all of croatia as a result of the war in croatia.

Figures produced by government officials there are not reliable. We see how the 200,000 bosniaks killed had floated around for a decade since the war in bosnia. Then it was readjusted to being 200,000 dead from all sides. And then that number fell down to 100,000 almost two decades later. This is a classic example how numbers are problematic. The example of this overstatement of Croatisn refugees is also a classic example of pathological propaganda. As a result this is something that must not be on wikipedia.

We probably won't come to a consensus here. The reason why is because the pathological croatian anti-serb hatred runs too high. I am not even kidding. I live in Chicago where top croatian organization embrace hitler and the nazis. Just go to the croatian cultural center in chicago... you'll find out. I am not saying that this is going on here, but I am sure that these numbers come from this camp. We see clearly how a key proponent of this, based on that news article, does not even know some very basic numbers! We need to stop this anti-serb propaganda that had been quite prominent in the 1990s. Most accredited sources point in the direction of some 200,000 croats being displaced. That is roughly 50% more than the croats who lived in the former krajina area. That is a very fair number. There is no need for obscure over-estimations. Gone are the 1990s when everything anti-serb could fly. I mean come on, in 1999 the US media was saying that 500,000 albanians got killed, when from the entire conflict 10,000 died on both sides. People do things in order to promote their agenda. Now, should I go to the kosovo war article and include the US propaganda source of 500,000 killed albanians, and the numerous places where this number was republished? No. It's wrong, therefore it has no place on wikipedia. Same for this here. Lastly, a message to J&A - read your sources and what they say before you post them. You clearly have not read them. It's so obvious with your first source... it almost follows director word for word man, explaining that that number includes croats from bosnia & herz too! Come on, that's not a serious way to support one side of the issue, by throwing unread sources that support the side that you are against. (LAz17 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)).

Now you are going overboard. The figure of 500,000 displaced Serbs is also nonsense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

LAz, please take a moment off here. You're ranting, which may or may not actually be warranted, but you're barking up the wrong tree. We need to set aside the (abundant) bits of propaganda and focus on the facts in the specific case. If the numbers cited by international organizations at the time converge on the same numbers the government provided at the time and today, then whatever else the same person said later can't magically invalidate the former facts which are most pertinent here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

J&A, lets go through your sources one at a time.

Yes, let's do that, shall we?

1) Your link specifically includes refugees from bosnia and herzegovina. Whoops!

So refugees from Bosnia are invisible? Whether they were Bosniaks or Croats, during the war it is clear on which territory they were residing. It says that on the Croatian side there were 500.000 displaced persons, out of a 4,5 million population. So, I'm glad you finally agree to that number.

2) After looking and thinking that I am going blind or something, I really could not find anything that mentions anything around 500,000 in your second link. Strike two, buddy.

Strike zero is more like it. Look again [11]. Page 439. Paragraph two: "Croatian War...produced nearly 500.000 refugees and displaced persons."

3) This source includes people of all nationalities. It does not say anything about 500,000 croats only being displaced. Some 200,000 croats, and 300,000 serbs, hence making up the 500,000 figure. Congrats!

That is once again your inner censorship speaking. Look again: [12] It clearly says that Croatia had 500.000 displaced persons on page 523. It does not say anything about the percentage of nationalities. Alas, I don't get where you get your "200.000 Croats and 300.000 Serbs" number? More so, if 300.000 Serbs were already displaced in 1992, what were they after Operation Storm?

So, since you established your own rules, which proved you wrong, and accepted these sources, I'm glad you finally give in. We can't have double rules, of course, accepting purely Serbian sources (447.000+ displaced) but somehow inexplicably rejecting Croatian (and other) sources.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1) While I'm reasonably sure they're not invisible, we are not talking about the refugees from Bosnia, Justice and Arbitration. The proposal is that 500,000 Croatian refugees came from those territories of Croatia that were held by the Serbian rebels.
• 2) That statement does not specify that the 500,000 were Croats and includes the total number of war refugees from the war in Croatia, including the displaced Serbs after Operation Storm.
• 3) Once again, that source does not specify that the 500,000 were Croats and includes the total number of war refugees from the war in Croatia, including displaced Serbs.

I would also reccomend that you scale down on the anti-Serbian rhetoric in general.

To me it seems clear that the sources agree: the 500,000 figure is the total number of refugees "produced by the war in Croatia". Most likely 220,000 Croats, and 300,000 Serbs. All in all, it must be recognized that it is certainly a physical impossibility for the Krajina to have contained 500,000 Croats - in addition to the 580,000 Serbs therein. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried explaining. I think he either doesn't get it or hates me because I am a Serb. (LAz17 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)).

I think I'll take J&A's bait. Serbs displaced huh... here, Altogether about 280,000 Croatian Serbs have fled the country as a result of the dynamite campaign and other measures. Of Zagreb's prewar population of 60,000 ethnic Serbs, about 20,000 are left That was published in 1993. [13] [14] Add the number of displaced serbs from 1995, and you will see that the real numbers of Serbs displaced are an underestimate by even that serbian source! You may be on to something, that serbian source is an underestimation. I however do not have the time now to dig deep for numbers, but [15] mentions 600,000 somewhere. I do not want to waste my time splitting hairs. Perhaps the number that is currently on the wiki page can be bumped up by a factor of a few or several tens of thousands. However, saying that 500,000 croats were displaced from krajina is an absolutely ridiculous statement that simply is not acceptable. That's bumping it up by hundreds of thousands. Similarly, it's not worth one's time to start adding 600,000 serbs being displaced.

As director lays it out to you, your sources explain and help the point that I was making. The discussion is not on total refugees of both groups. We are looking at individual groups. Now, I have seen croats claim that serbs in croatia are orthodox croats, and try to use that logic to say that there never were serbs in croatia, it's only croatians. Similarilyl, nationalist bosniaks attempt to say that the only people in Bosnia are Bosnians, and so there are no Serbs or Croats in Bosnia, they're all Bosnians, and then by extension bosniaks... one does not get far with this logic. (LAz17 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)).

Once again, that source does not specify that the 500,000 were Croats and includes the total number of war refugees from the war in Croatia, including displaced Serbs. I would also reccomend that you scale down on the anti-Serbian rhetoric in general.

Sir, I really don't care if the majority of refugees were Croats or Serbs (which seems to be the real issue here). Either way, it does not matter to me. I just want to establish facts. I hope that doesn't insult any nationality here. And the fact is that UNHCR listed "500.000 Croats and other non-Serbs" as refugees in 1991 on its website. And still does. If it were a mistake, they would have redacted the number. If that is disputed, then 2,2 million displaced from Bosnia can also be disputed. The best way would be to e-mail them and ask for clarification.

To me it seems clear that the sources agree: the 500,000 figure is the total number of refugees "produced by the war in Croatia". Most likely 220,000 Croats, and 300,000 Serbs.

Again, it has to be sourced. You are now guessing which is a bad thing for Wikipedia. Who says there were 220.000 Croats and 300.000 Serbs? I can say that the UNCHR link most likely refers to Croatia as a whole, and not Krajina. Until someone can find a realiable source that gives a good ratio, the whole thing is on thin ice.

I think I'll take J&A's bait. Serbs displaced huh...here,Altogether about 280,000 Croatian Serbs have fled the country as a result of the dynamite campaign and other measures. Of Zagreb's prewar population of 60,000 ethnic Serbs, about 20,000 are left. That was published in 1993. [16] [17] Add the number of displaced serbs from 1995, and you will see that the real numbers of Serbs displaced are an underestimate by even that serbian source! You may be on to something, that serbian source is an underestimation. I however do not have the time now to dig deep for numbers, but [18] mentions 600,000 somewhere.

Yes, exactly. Published in 1993. But we are talking about 1991 here. And by the way, emperors clothes is at least 80 % propaganda.

this article that explicitly states "Broj prognanika i izbjeglica u samoj Hrvatskoj smanjio se od 550 tisuća krajem 1991. godine na 386.264 u 1995. godini. Istodobno je broj izbjeglica u inozemstvu smanjen od 150 na 57 tisuća. Počevši od 1995. godine počinje masovan povratak prognanika i izbjeglica." - published in a journal of the University of Zagreb Faculty of Law

this article that says "Predstojnik Vladina Ureda za prognanike i izbjeglice Lovre Pejkovic istaknuo je da je Hrvatska s ukupno 700 tisuca prognanika i izbjeglica, koliko ih je 1992. imala" - published by Croatian Radiotelevision, quoting a Croatian Government official in charge of the refugee sector:::* this book that says "Početkom 1992. godine na različite načine zbrinuto je oko 550,000 prognanika iz hrvatskih područja zahvaćenih ratom" - also from the Faculty of Law

I guess Joy's arguments just get ignored. Even if a consensus is brought that the UNHCR link is dismissed, one should at least mention these 550.000 refugees according to Croatian sources. Either that, or the info of 447.000+ displaced by Serbian sources should also get sacked. What seems to bother me, is this info by ICTJ which cites four million displaced in the former Yugoslavia. It somehow fits with the UNHCR link. If there were 4.000.000 displaced, and we deduct 1 million from Kosovo (850.000 Albanians and 150.000 Serbs) and 2,2 million from Bosnia we get roughly 800.000, which fits perfectly with the 300.000-350.000 displaced Serbs and 500.000 Croats equation.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Justice, it seems you just don't understand what this discussion is about. You are supposed to try and prove 500,000 Croats were displaced from those areas of Croatia held by the Krajina rebels. NOT the total number of refugees in Croatia, NOT the total number of refugees created by the War, NOT the total number of dicplaced Croats from everywhere - ONLY Croats and ONLY those displaced from the RSK. That is what we are talking about. And 220,000 Croats and 300,000 Serbs is sourced. I really reccomend you take a break and read through the discussion. You are missing te point entirely and posting huge walls of text fervently arguing things that are not even the subject of the discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This book says the following:

"As of March 1995 the Croatian government was providing refuge to 189,000 refugees from Bosnia and 196,000 persons who have been internally displaced as a result of the war in Croatia in 1991 and thereafter. Officials of the UNHCR in Croatia told Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representatives that they estimated that an additional 30,000 unregistered refugees were living in Croatia in mid-1994. These figures do not include the 97,000 displaced persons and refugees who have sought refuge in the so-called UNPAs, most of which remained under Serb control until mid-1995."
(Civil and political rights in Croatia, 1995, p. 47)
Adding all these together yields some 512,000 refugees within the borders of Croatia according to UNHCR's estimate in mid-1995, before Operation Storm - including 196k internally displaced persons (presumably Croats) and 97,000 refugees who sought refuge in what was then Krajina (presumably Serbs).
LAz - you'll need far better sources for your claims then tenc.net or the 1993 NYT article (which btw also says that "Croatia's total population before the war was about 5 million" which is off by almost 220,000). For the record, the figures cited by the Revija za socijalnu politiku were published in an article in a peer-reviewed publication but they themselves were sourced from the Croatian ministry of labour and social welfare and the article itself does not give sufficient context to determine which of the 550,000 refugees in Croatia and 150,000 abroad came from where. In addition, we have no reason to assume bad faith by Pejković and the UNHCR article is a news story written by one Neven Crvenković and the figure mentioned by him could be correct or not, and his assumption that these people were Croats or Serbs could be right or not - we just can't know without checking the official UNHCR report which Crnković should have consulted when he wrote the article. The "Eastern Europe" book by Frucht looks credible but again - we don't know where he took his numbers from. In a nutshell, this is an issue of sources - many writers threw lots of numbers around without revealing their sources. We must take that into account and stick with only those figures which were officially confirmed. Not derivations stemming from comparisons of reports with the 1991 census and not speculations - especially not the ones published during the war (for example the 1993 NYT article uses numbers that itself says had not been published anywhere - and since 18 years had passed one would assume that more precise and updated figures are out there somewhere as opposed to speculations by Čičak who himself is not entirely credible) I'd like the actual report in lieu of an article describing what the report will one day say. Another issue is whether we are supposed to insist on the ethnicity of refugees at all. Does it really matter for the article? It's almost impossible to determine who fled from where and what their ethnicity was - and besides, if people fled Krajina in 1991 and then returned after 1995 should they be counted as refugees? Should we count everyone who had a refugee status at any point during the war or should we only count the ones who are still refugees today? The quote at the beginning of this comment is probably the best guess we are ever going to get and they should be reconciled with what the Croatian government reports say, assuming we can find a full report talking about the registered refugees' origins and/or ethnicity (as opposed to the article in RSP). Timbouctou (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't read everything you had but here are the main points.

This is about the war in Croatia. Therefore I really do not care about the refugees from neighboring countries. They are refugees of bosnia and herzeogvina. If you want to add them in somewhere, go to the bosnian war article.

Sure, but if one substracts 189,000 refugees who came to Croatia from Bosnia then one must also add 150,000 refugees (presumably Croats) who seem to have fled from Croatia abroad (as the UNHCR mid-1995 figures only deal with displaced people on the territory of the Republic of Croatia). Timbouctou (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Those articles about serbs were merely listed to show that in fact that number of displaced serbs is not an overstatement as the nationalist croat had suggested. I did not have any intention of adding that into the article. It's just some food for thought for the other guy here who seems to be very biased. But, just for the record, the number 5.2 million falls into the range of "about five million". So yeah, don't worry, it's just that such jewel articles are priceless, they're good things to bring up. They are a very uncomfortable reminder of how western media was so disgustingly biased back then.

At any rate, you yourself said that numbers were questionable in relation to the serbs. That's beside the point, but you clearly don't seem bothered by other figures that are questionable. Like claims of 600,000 serbs being displaced, claims of 500,000 croats being displaced, or similar myths that 200,000 bosniaks died in the war in bosnia and herzegovina.

Pejkovic was caught saying that in the late 2000s. By then every idiot and his nephew who looked into the situation knew very well that far more serbs were displaced. The guy cut their number in half, which is a very serious problem. The guy clearly is not competent, or perhaps he is doing ideal stuff- the goal being to intimidate and not let serbian refugees to return, becuase you know, amnesty international and many other organizations have documented the lack of rights quite well. Such a person who denies the well known extent of the cleansing is on the level of a holocaust denier. Go ahead and tell some people that neonazis do not have bad intentions when they say that half a million jews perished in the holocaust. Oh wait, the croatian president tudjman said that too, jee, authority must be correct huh. No.

The article has decent sources on the number of displaced people. It is good as is. If someone starts adding that 600,000 serbs or 500,000 croats were displaced, I will be reverting that as it is misinforming people. (LAz17 (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)).

Tim said it all. These are probably the combined refugees. Not just Croats from the RSK. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence/Archive 5
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
447,316 displaced (Serbian sources)[19] International sources: 300.000 displaced[20]	384.207 displaced (Croatian sources)[21] International sources: 247.000 displaced [22] (1993) 196.000 displaced (1995)[23]

Hold on, hold on, I just found ANOTHER problem with the infobox! On the Croatian side, it says there were "221.000 displaced" in 2006, while there were only "196.000 displaced in 1995". This can't be right. Who in their right mind could claim that there were less Croats displaced in 1995 than in 2006?! Look at the source more closely: [24] it was only published in 2006.

Anyway, I don't want you to get the impression that I'm unreasonable. It could very well be that you are right, LaZ, that the 500.000 number indeed refers to the total number of displaced. Ignoring that UNHCR link still bugs me as cherry picking, yet until I can find another source that specifically mentions that 500.000 non-Serbs were displaced, I will abstain from further comments on the issue. So, I suggest we modify the infobox as follows--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It seems I'm on a roll: I just found another anomaly. The Veritas link does not mention 447.316 displaced Serbs. That info was here for years and I'm surprised nobody checked out what it says. So instead of resorting to "not in citation given", somebody ought to find a source for that number or it goes as well.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(quoting Timbouctou:) It's almost impossible to determine who fled from where and what their ethnicity was - and besides, if people fled Krajina in 1991 and then returned after 1995 should they be counted as refugees? Should we count everyone who had a refugee status at any point during the war or should we only count the ones who are still refugees today?

In the end this looks like another case of WP:DISINFOBOX - condensing information into a format suitable the infobox morphs it into a form that makes it harmful. Since it's already demonstrated how the number of refugees of various statuses has changed numerous times, and actually still does to this day, that makes it impossible to quantify in a trivial manner for an infobox and we shouldn't even attempt it. In any case I contend that all refugees of this war need to be accounted for in the article, both those that were refugees for one year, five years, ten, or still are. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Joy here. It would seem kinda biased to list only the number of Serbian refugees and fail to mention that a very similar number of Croatian refugees was produced earlier. Again, I would simply list 200,000 Croatian and 300,000 Serbian refugees created by this war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For anyone interested [25] gives information such as this [26], [27], [28], [29] and some more information. I have to say that closer related to this is debate in Croatia few years ago which concluded that number of 6% refugees that were not registered is underestimated and that ratio is over 10%. Most of confusion in number of refugees is related with term used in croatian language “prognanik” (refugees from territory of Croatia) and “izbjeglica” (refugees from territory of BiH and other territories). For both terms main meaning is refugee. Term “izbjeglica” was name for all refugees in Croatia until refugees that came from BiH in big numbers needed to be separated in rights that are determined in croatian law. Refugees that came in Croatia from BiH could not claim same rights as refugees from territory of Croatia unless they had Croatian citizenship. I´m not sure when this change was made, I think probably during 1993. --Domjanovich (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

quote-Hold on, hold on, I just found ANOTHER problem with the infobox! On the Croatian side, it says there were "221.000 displaced" in 2006, while there were only "196.000 displaced in 1995". This can't be right. Who in their right mind could claim that there were less Croats displaced in 1995 than in 2006?!-unquote - There really is nothing wrong here. The question is how many people were displaced... even if they move back they have been displaced and are thus counted. At any rate, thing a is a reference from one year, while thing b is a reference from another year. They are not too different, one's a bit more than 200,000, the other being a bit under 200,000. That's fair. Claiming 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000, is just absurd. It is very unfair to add in refugees from this other conflict, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (LAz17 (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)).

I guess that there is some sense in removing that 400,000ish figure for the serbs. However, that is a realistic figure. Lets look at another source that was added, [30] it says According to statistics compiled by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as of October 1993, there was a total of 247,000 Croatian and other non-Serbian displaced persons coming from areas under the control of the "RSK" and 254,000 Serbian displaced persons and refugees from the rest of Croatia, an estimated 87,000 of whom were inhabitants of the UNPA's. which means that it is no fair to claim that 247,000 Croatians were displaced. Hence that should be removed. We should be precise. But, the source says that 254,000 Serbs have been displaced by late 1993. (LAz17 (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC))

According to statistics compiled by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as of October 1993, there was a total of 247,000 Croatian and other non-Serbian displaced persons coming from areas under the control of the "RSK" and 254,000 Serbian displaced persons and refugees from the rest of Croatia, an estimated 87,000 of whom were inhabitants of the UNPA's.

I don't see the problem here. They were Croatian citizens and were refugees on the Croatian side. The link clearly makes a distinction between those displaced on the Serbian/Krajina side and those on the Croatian side.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, this includes Croatian and OTHER groups. You ignore the fact that in 1991 the third biggest group in Croatia were Yugoslavs. Many of those were Serbs. Therefore, we are looking for sources that ONLY speak of "CROATIAN" displaced people. The war was between Croats and Serbs.

1. The assumption that pre-war Yugoslavs were in fact Serbs is pure speculation. Maybe they were Hungarians. 2. Check your facts. The war was between SAO Krajina and the Republic of Croatia. 3. Most sources which do exist do not include information about refugees' ethnicity. We can only assume what their ethnicity was based on the direction they were fleeing.

Secondly, you have removed sources from the ICTJ, and HRW. On top of that you removed other sourced data on Serbs displaced. That is very disruptive. Stop that vandalism. Otherwise I will be reporting you. There is no justification to remove that data. (LAz17 (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)).

The data you are referring to was moved out of the info box and remained in the Refugees section. Timbouctou (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

True. But, there are sources that do include information on ethnicity. They are sourced by organizations that are recognized.

Only a small portion of sources mention ethnicity - and even when they do we have no way of knowing if they too are just speculating based on where those people fled to. Timbouctou (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I never said that all the Yugoslavs were Serbs. I am simply stating that it's not fair to group all non-serbs and non-croats in with the croatians. Since the war was between the serbs and croats, we should put those numbers in the infobox. If an accredited organization says that the serbian forces displaced 50,000 non-croats, then that can be included. We need to be specific. We currently have specific accredited sources. It is not acceptable to remove that and add ambiguous data instead. The only question is this - suppose that amnesty international has a report that says that oh 5,000 Hungarians were displaced by Croatian troops. Would it be fair to include them under the serb portion of the infobox? I think no. Perhaps the best thing regarding third, fourth, or fifth groups is to add them to the article's section, but not the infobox.

Again - the war was not between the Serbs and Croats - it was between forces loyal to the government of Croatia and the Serb-controlled Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and local Serb forces, just like the opening sentence states. So all sources really talk about how many people fled west and how many fled east. Since a number of non-Croats fled west I see no reason not to include them with other Croats because they together constitute a side in the war - the one loyal to Zagreb. And besides, there are very few, if any, sources talking about the percentage of non-Croat refugees who were expelled from Serb-held territory. Timbouctou (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove that information from the infobox. Not only did he remove information on the croats - he removed information on the serbs too - information from his source. We can see nationalistic fervor in his posts, trying to insist the insane number of 500,000 - and then trying to always bump up the croatian numbers and diminish the serbain numbers. Selectively picking certain sources and ignoring others is not fair. (LAz17 (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)).

The consensus is here to decide whether there is reason for those numbers to remain in the info box, and we already agreed more or less that this is a case of WP:DISINFOBOX. The info box should contain only the basics, especially since there is an entire section dedicated to this topic in the article already. Timbouctou (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

LAz, you need to calm it down and notch or two. As Timbouctou and I are trying to explain you in a gentleman manner, I haven't removed a single source from the article. Read before you undue, otherwise it makes you look bad. The number of the displaced is in the Refugees section, as well as the varying number of the displaced (i.e. 97,000 displaced Serbs in the early 1995, as the HRW link says). Feel free to report me, since everything is still there in my last edit and I have nothing to fear. You seem to be blaming others for "nationalistic fervor" but you yourself are slowly turning into the most stubborn nationalistic user on this board. I have given up my number of 500,000 a long time ago when I was proven otherwise by others, much sooner than it takes you to drop this issue. The State Department link says that 247.000 people were displaced in the Croatian War (not in the Bosnian war) on the Croatian side (as in Croatia as a whole - sans those Knin guys who declared their own Petoria) and this will not change no matter how long you act immature. Saying "those non-Serbs shouldn't be counted as displaced because they are not Croats" is just like saying that Rahim Ademi was not participating in the Croatian War because he was an Albanian.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is getting somewhat difficult to discuss this if people post in the middle of the discussion instead of at the end. Information was removed from the infobox. It just so happens that the infobox is very important. that is among the first things that a person reads when they see it. So it's important to have good numbers in there. The question amounts to what to do from here. I suggest we take a break for a few days and then come back with a new subsection by starting to extensively exhaust/find sources regarding displaced persons, for both serbs and croats, as well as other groups. I think that's a fair way to go about the problem? If you have another idea say so. (LAz17 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)).

You edited the main page again. You left the number of displaced serbs at the lowest estimates. While putting the number of non-serbs all in the same category and picking the highest number that you could possibly find. On top of that, you picked a source that was from during the war, not a source after the war. That's also very troubling. For some reason the wiki thing doesn't allow me to undo your stuff. Gotta look into how to undo it - it's annoying to do it manually. But, basically you have ruined the infobox which is downright disgusting. (LAz17 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)).

300,000 is the lowest estimate? I don't see a link in the entire article that says otherwise. Other links were for 254,000 (<300,000) and 253,000 (<300,000). One of them was again just a redirect to Operation Storm article and we already have that. So, considering this is a "good article", do the sources some justice and format real sources, not just a reference to another article. The lowest would be if I had placed only 97,000 Serb refugees (HRW link). 300,000 is currently the highest number and it is there. So what are you talking about? And 247,000 displaced Croats and other non-Serb persons of Croatian citizenship is also the highest number and it is there. And how exactly did I ruin the infobox? I said it three times already so I'll tell you the fourth, fifth and sixth time, and again and again, the simplified infobox has difficulties to shoulder so many footnotes, so we just shortened the whole thing to display the highest number of displaced persons. The refugees section covers all. I'm still trying to understand what exactly are you trying to do here. Why do you insist on placing 254,000 Serb refugees in 1993 in the infobox? To show the refugee problem was a constant thing during the war? Who would assume otherwise?

And by the way, I agree you should take a few days off and take a vacation from it all.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I need to remind you LAz17 that refugees that you name “Serbian side” is as term unknown to me. Why? Because war was on Croatian territory, and that war was aggression act on Croatia and refugees that came from occupied area of Croatia are croatian refugees with no distinction in nationality or some else factor. Refugees from Croatia till 1995 more correctly till Operation Storm that came to Yugoslavia (now Serbia) which I presume you mention as “Serbian side” refugees are also croatian refugees because they are/were Croatian citizens. Most of them still have croatian citizenship and use their rights that Croatian law provides for them. Some of them used their right to take citizenship of Serbia and permanently left Croatia and became citizens of Serbia. This misinterpretation of term Croatian side refugees and implementing term Serbian side refugees provides false information in which is told that Croatia intentionally created refugees on “Serbian side” while she even wasn´t under control of territory where most of refugees came from, that territory was under control of rebelled serbs, chetniks and JNA, not Croatian army forces. Have you ever consider the fact that people will leave the area of war conflict in fear for their life in any direction they think is the best at the moment. In this case because there was not possible to leave area trough conflict zone (militarized area) from SAO Krajina to free land of Croatia, people just decided to go on other side over the border of BiH and further to Serbia away from war. I will not even try to ask for that to be changed in article, since that what is in article became a historical fact due to serbian loby and minimizing serbian guilt for all wars in Balkan form 1990s till now. --Domjanovich (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Serbian refugees are unknown to you? That's no problem. A big portion of the Croats are oblivious to that fact. I suggest looking at sources from human rights organizations. On top of that you could also take a peek at the census - that clearly states different ethnicities. Perhaps the best jewel yet is to see the Hague and how the tribunal there is successfully prosecuting Croatian war criminals. While learning ab out this, I wish the best of luck to you bro!

As for other bullshit nationalistic things, such as "minimizing serbian guilt by serbian lobby vs maximizing serbian guilt by the croatian lobby", who started the war, this that and the other... leave that irrelevant discussion out of here. It only distracts from the matter at hand. (LAz17 (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)).

Twisting words or problem with capacity to read with understanding ref. for Serbian side (rebel serbs, chetniks, JNA) = Serbian refugees (innocent civilians losing life and assets because politicians wanted war) is not the same thing? I recognize Serbian refugees in any country, because I recognize the face of victim, because I´m one of them only on other side, “Croatian side” as you would say. I know my history, I don´t need to learn about it. What you need yet to learn about this I have overcome long time ago. I was not proclaiming any nationalistic point of view or distraction away from theme. Thank you, bro! --Domjanovich (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, even when all is said and done, numerous neutral organizations confirmed that more than half of Serb population left Croatia during the war. I'm not saying they were all deported, but when you have 300,000 people who left a country, it is far fetched to say that not a *single* one of them was not victim of deportation. In the Operation Storm verdict, the ICTY confirmed that at least 20,000 were deported.

By the way, LaZ, what was this all about [31]? I haven't removed a single source - read before you undo! I just re-arranged them into the "Refugees" section. The US State Department source is already in the article, you placed a duplicate one in the infobox. Also, it clearly says that 247.000 Croats and other non-Serbs were displaced on the Croatian side. Furthermore, a Wikipedia article *cannot* be a source for the Wikipedia infobox, as you did when you placed "Operation Storm" as a source for the number of displaced people. Learn to format sources - and read them - and then do some editing on your own.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, J&A can you define what you mean by "deportation"? I've seen a LOT of television footage and read lots of reports about Operation Storm and I have yet to see a picture of a Serbian refugee together with a Croatian soldier in the same shot. On the other hand there is copious coverage of Serbian refugees leaving on tractors AND there are well documented orders issued by the government of Krajina ordering evacuation of people. AFAIK very few Serbian refugees actually saw Croatian soldiers in person or had any contact with them. To my knowledge nothing close to "deportation" ever occurred here. ICTY spent most of its time debating whether shelling of Knin was justified and whether recordings of meetings of the Croatian leadership prior to Storm sound like they planned to get rid of Serbs or not. So where's the deportation bit? This is news to me. As for Laz17's edits - it constitutes WP:DISRUPT. Timbouctou (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the serbs were indeed cleansed/deported. They were not crazy to stay, else they would have been slaughtered. Croatian war criminals would not be getting deacdes of time in jail for their ethnic cleansing and other war crimes if this is not the case. (LAz17 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)).

Justice and Arbitration I´m not sure that you will come to understanding from LAz17. :)

Domjanovich, you simply stated the very troubling statement that you are not aware of there being serbian refugees. You then went on to spew nationalist propaganda top try to justify war crimes that croatian criminals got sentenced for.

I have addressed you already J&A. Look a bit above, right above Bomjanovich's rant. I have addressed your other concern just now. Scroll up a little bit and you'll see the stuff. (LAz17 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)).

To address J&A in his response bellow - I have added opperation storm and opperation flash there yes. You say that those are not acceptable sources. I think that it is best like that. Those two links have been added to point people in the direction of articles that deal only with that. They can look through the various sources on those pages. Because there are several sources I took what seemed fair. The number 230,000 is a fair number, for the number of displaced as a result of those two operations. (LAz17 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)).

@LAz, how long have you been editing here on Wikipedia? You seem as if you haven't really studied some ground rules here. An article on Wikipedia *cannot* be a reference point for another article on Wikipedia. Instead of putting a link for Operation Storm and Flash, you should find a source outside Wikipedia for it and then format it (New York Times, BBC, CNN, UN reports...). Links on those two already exist in this article.

The number of displaced people went up and down, up and down and up and down several times during the war. As DIREKTOR and Joy already pointed out, the simplified infobox simply cannot shoulder so many footnotes, so they, and I myself, agree we should just put the highest number of displaced during the conflict for the two sides - and give a detailed account in the "Refugees" section. Nobody is censoring anything - the number of displaced/refugee Serbs will be in that section (explicitly stating that it went from 254,000 in 1993, to 97,000 at the beginning of 1995 and then up to 200,000 by the end of 1995, reaching a total of 300,000). The same will go for displaced Croats and other non-Serbs who found a shelter somewhere on the Croatian side, all 247,000 of them. You see, Croat extremists only conducted mono-ethnic cleansing (against Serbs) while Serb extremists conducted an all-out ethnic cleansing against anyone who was not a Serb (Hungarians, Rutherians, Czechs, Slovaks...). Or to put it other way around, had Croats expulsed Hungarians, Ruhterians, Czechs, Slovaks and others from its territory, and they had found refugee in Krajina, would you count them in as part of refugees on the Serb side or not?

@Timbouctou. Deportation means forcing someone out of a territory. It doesn't necessarily always have to be trucking people out of somewhere. It's been a while since I read the ICTY verdict, but it gave several accounts of people who testified how Croatian soldiers told them to leave. That's about it. You can do it the "nice" way or the "rough" way, but either people are expulsed. I myself haven't ever seen a picture of a Serbian refugee together with a Croatian soldier in the same shot, either, but then again, who would have allowed them to take photos? There were Krajina orders to evacuate, and Slobodan himself told at one of those meetings how they "ran away like rabbits", but at least some of them had to be forced out. Nothing is 100 % clean. ICTY gave a rather clever observational comment: if all these Serbs left volontarily, why did the Croatian government forbid them to return back? Still, deporting 20,000 out of 200,000 people is only 10 %, which means almost all of the rest could not be confirmed. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

An article on Wikipedia *cannot* be a reference point for another article on Wikipedia No worries. By the time you made this other post I have worded it better. Trust me, I'd add more stuff in the infobox but there is limited space. I think it looks okay right now - do see. At any rate, as I said before, do not look at those things as references ,but as links to other pages. I did not use "ref" coding.

There is no consensus to put the highest possible number that one could find. Where did you find that stupidity, really? The infobox does not have too much information. It is fine as it is right now - what do you see wrong with it?

Excuse me, where did you see that the number of displaced serbs went down? The numbers of displaced can only go up. There are different organizations which can give different estimates. Your link for croats and NON-SERBS does not go into much detail. Therefore it is not fair to include those OTHERS into the numbers with croats. It does not say who was displaced to where. For all we know, it could be another 50,000 who were in 1991 declared as yugoslavs. We need the clearest possible sources, that say exactly croats. That is currently up there. Those are fine sources that are up there. Do not remove them. Croats for example displaced some bosniaks, those loyal to abdic. They moved into krajina for a little bit. Anyways, they and any other groups should not be included in total number of croats displaced. You claim that serbs displaced anyone they could. Again, please do source that. From what I know, cleansing of non-Croats was very minor. Those who left did so because of their own decisions (quite frankly, who wouldn't leave), not because they were forced out. Nonetheless, they are displaced. But, the way the infobox is set up it makes it seem like it was solely the serbs who pushed them out. It's not necessarily so. Remember the massive ethnic cleansing, when Croat forces cleansed out almost 100,000 Serbs from western slavonia. Places around virovitica and such... would any non-croat want to be near such stuff? No. Yet, potential displaced people from Croat actions are included in your number with croats. That is not fair. As is clear, the sources are okay as they are right now. Do you have a problem with the current sources? If not stop moving them out of the infobox.

As you said, nothing is 100% clean/clear... so we ought to use the clearest sources where available. We need to make an onbiased account of this. Not an account that favors one side or the other. (LAz17 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)).

Well, the current infobox source for the croats is some report that deals with the figure on October 1993. This was taken over sources that marked the entire conflict. So, I will put the number of Serbs from that same source instead of the current number. Hence, the point is consistency. (LAz17 (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)).

You do realize that you just now reduced the number od displaced Serbs, do you? Instead of 300,000 for the entire war, you have now placed them at only 254,000 in 1993 and 230,000 in 1995. And you were blaming me a few days ago for "putting the lowest estimates"? And by the way, where did you get the 230,000 number from? It seems you decided to add up displaced from Operation Flash with those displaced from Storm, but what if it is a duplicate, who says those displaced from Flash weren't already included in those 200,000 displaced in Storm? One last time, I will kindly ask you to format some real sources for the infobox instead of putting these: [32], [33], which are invalid as sources.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you are the one who wanted to use the 1993 source! I took the number of serbs from that source just like you took the number of serbs from the other source. So what's wrong with that??? You want to use data during the war instead of data after the war... the decision was yours not mine. You have to be consistent. To me it seems that you want to get the biggest number for croats displaced.

For 1995 - I did not include those as sources. I simply included them as links. I was going to write out "operation storm" and "operation flash", but I didn't because I had a feeling that it would be too long. If you prefer them written out then I'll do that. Thought right now I will add "~" in front of 230,000, as some figures go as high as 300,000. (LAz17 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)).

If the biggest number of dispaced is mentioned by a reliable source, then it should be included. Why should we include a smaller number, anyway? The 1993 source is currently the best that we have found for the number of displaced on the Croatian side, if we find a better one, it will take the spotlight. On the other hand, we have a clear source that says how many Serbs were displaced/refugees overall in the war. UNHCR confirms the 300,000 number: 298,800 displaced from Croatia by 1999.

The links for Flash and Storm are already in the article, scroll down to 1995.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

For you, your criteria for best is the highest number of croats that you could find. But, okay, I'm okay with your last edit there. So for now this is settled, though to be honest, I don't think that any of these numbers mentioned in this discussion are good. To me they all seem inaccurate to some degree, and there are so many different ones which really sucks. When there are so many different ones it really becomes worrisome that there is no consensus among the international organizations. I get a feeling that they do not really care. Meh. (LAz17 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)).

When was the last time an international organization actually solved anything in this world? :-)--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you're a Blut und Eisen kind of guy J&A.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember when the Bosniaks claimed that 200,000 of theirs were killed in BiH and the world believed that big propaganda thing, including international organizations? Well, it looks like things are starting to change in Croatia. According to this, [34] the UNHCR is fixing its previous figures. Total displaced has been pumped up to quote=Between 300,000 and 350,000 Serbs were displaced as a result of the 1991-1995 war.=endquote. As time goes on the figure will be 350-400,000 I believe. (LAz17 (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)).

Aeh, but you do realize that you linked a page that explicitly says:

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher.

The actual author is Minority Rights Group International. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah okay. But it's still bringing in higher figures on their website... afterall, it's obvious that over 400,000 Serbs got displaced... just look at the population census between 1991 and 2001. It's only a matter of time until more organizations more frequently bring up higher numbers than this incredibly low 300,000 figure. If you or anyone else see's more such figures feel free to post them. (LAz17 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)).

The 300,000 figure is not that incredibly low, actually. Demographics of Croatia: 581,663 Serbs (1991) - 201,631 (2001) = 380,032 people. However, a substantial number of Serbs might have declared themselves as "Others/undeclared" during the 2001 census since the wounds were still fresh and they wanted to keep a "low profile" for a while. Who knows, maybe up to 50,000 Serbs did not declare themselves as such. The new data for the 2011 census is still not up, but I do reckon that the number of Serbs has presumably risen up again in the meantime, by at least additional 100,000 people.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You forget that some Serbs declared themselves as Yugoslavs. So the census results show about 400,000 less. That is after many returned, so it was somewhat higher than 400,000. To say that there's at least 100,000 more in 2011 is freaky in my opinion, but I guess we will have to wait for the census results. Do you know when they will release them? Perhaps they will come out with preliminary estimates? (LAz17 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)).

I don't understand, did you mean to say that they declared themselves as Yugoslavs in 1991 or 2001? It's hard to pin down how and when someone declared himself as Yugoslav, but since nationalism was already stronger in 1991, more Serbs tended to declare themselves as Serbs, just as more Croats wanted to declare themselves as Croats by that time, and not Yugoslavs. Regarding the 2011 census, the preliminary results were released: [35] According to the link, 4,290,612 people are living in Croatia, yet that's just the total amount of people, they apparently still have not sorted out the population by sex, religion, ethnicity...I do not know when they will calculate those final results, but the link says they "will be published in the first half of next year (2012)".--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Muzej DR.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Muzej DR.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Josip Jović - first victim or not?

The article says: "A monument to Josip Jović, widely perceived in Croatia as the first Croatian victim of the war, who died during the Plitvice Lakes Incident". Why the "widely perceived" line? I heard that someone was killed in 1990, but by that time there was no armed conflict in Croatia, so therefor he cannot be viewed as the forerunner to Jović. Even the ICTY established that its mandate begins with the year 1991. Quarrels should (arguably) not be included here but in the timeline article.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've since moved the data on fatalities of the Log Revolution into that article. If the consensus is that those events classify more as unrest than as war, you can remove the cautious phrasing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations in this article

Another editor has spotted that the line "Between August 1990 and April 1991, almost 200 bombing and mining incidents, as well as 89 attacks on Croatian police forces, were reported" is verbatim from the source cited. Could someone please fix this and review the article for other copyvios? Prioryman (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar featured article nomination

Please note that I've nominated the related Battle of Vukovar article as a featured article candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2. Editors are invited to comment there on whether the article should be given featured status. Prioryman (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:JRV J-21 Jastreb.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JRV J-21 Jastreb.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus to move, conflicting indicators from Books search, web search, and reliable news source searches -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Croatian War of Independence → Croatian Homeland War –

Accroding to the Google Books, there are 1,960 results for "Croatian Homeland War", while there is 853 results for the "Croatian War of Independence".

Also, non of those two is someone's POV, both names are neutral.

According to the WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia should use most common name for the subject in English-language sources. Wustenfuchs 18:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps but this is hardly conclusive. Google results hardly translate into automatic evidence of English usage. This having been said a search for '"Croatian Homeland War" -wikipedia' on ordinary Google yields 159,000 results while '"Croatian War of Independence" -wikipedia' yields 759,000. When I do a Google news archive search, most of the results for "Croatian Homeland War" seems to relate to an organisation called the Association of Croatian Homeland War Veterans, while the same search for "Croatian War of Independence" returns recent articles referring to the conflict in the Belfast Telegraph and the (London) Times. On the balance I'd go for "Croatian War of Independence" and oppose the move. But in any event IMHO, the name Homeland War is vague and rather odd sounding while War of Independence is frequently used self-explanatory. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• After checking out Gbooks, there is an undisputed winner: War in Croatia (77,800), Croatian War (6,570), Croatian Homeland War (1,960), Croatian War of Independence (856). I support a move to "War in Croatia" or "Croatian War" (as per Bosnian War).--Zoupan 00:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. "War in Croatia" is a generic term - Which war do you refer to exactly? BBC seems to use the present title consistently [36], [37], [38], the same is used by The New York Times [39], and the CNN [40]. On top of that a Dictionary of Wars refers to the war under present title of the article. I can see absolutely no justification (let alone benefit) from the proposed move.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per BHL. And "War in Croatia" is highly generic. If you look at WWII books, they also use the term when talking about the region. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets review:

• "Croatian War of Independence" yields 767 sources [41]
• "Croatian Homeland War" yields 1950 sources [42]
• "War in Croatia" yields 77,800 sources [43]

So in mathematical terms, even if we were to assume 96% of those 77,000 hits "do not count" for one reason or another (which is demonstrably ridiculous), it would still be twice as common as "Croatian Homeland War". In short, WP:COMMONNAME is overwhelmingly in support of War in Croatia. Therefore:

• Support a move to War in Croatia. -- Director (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME actually advises to observe usage of major English language institutions, media outlets etc. In addition to the above cited (BBC, NYT, CNN), the present title is used by the Centre d'Information sur les Institutions Européennes (official distributor of official European Union information), UNHCR, United Press International, Australian ABC, European Commission, US Department of State, Amnesty International, Lonely Planet, The Guardian and so on. In this case google statistics do not really matter.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Tomboe. WP:COMMONNAME (unsurprisingly) states quite unambiguously that "Wikipedia prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The paragraph you're talking about states "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data..."

In other words, checking news might help to determine the most common name used in sources, but we're still looking for the most common name. The paragraph is merely suggesting another search engine category to research. The few links you've provided are completely without importance with respect to WP:COMMONNAME, especially so when compared to the huge number of published sources using "War in Croatia". Jusdging from what we've seen thus far, "War in Croatia" is without question the term "most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". -- Director (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you claim that what name is used by the several most influential news outlets, the European Union and the United States are completely without importance, I comprehend your lack of understanding of the problem. Can you tell which "War in Croatia" is referred to by each individual google hit or do you assume that the generic name applies to the Croatian War of Independence only? I understand that the "War in Croatia" is a direct translation of what the war is referred to in say, Serbia, but apparently not the EU or USA, and not by the major English-language media.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

War in Croatia is really a bad title, since according to this, Bosnian war would be War in Bosnia (just see the results) and god nows for how many wars we could use title "War in -----". It's not the name of the war, and very often it is regarding the WW2 or even earlier wars. Croatian Homeland War is way better solution. --Wustenfuchs 12:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is the cited sources use the present title of the article to refer to the war precisely because "war in Croatia" is too generic and not because they conspire to do so or as a result of a direct translation of a local name.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, however, English-language sources more often use "Homeland War" then "War of Independence" as historical name of the war. --Wustenfuchs 12:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, I know you're going to hate me and all, but as far as policy is concerned, you're both just wrong.

• @Tomboe, your proposed option is the least common. The fact that various institutions (you cherry-picked) use it is, again, - utterly irrelevant: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." 77,000 published sources, Tomboe. And even if only 2% of those refer to this subject (and the very thought is laughable), they blow the others clean away.
  You can probably stop mentioning your links altogether: they are non-indicative of common usage.
• @Wustenfuchs, you're here because you want to rename the article into "Domovinski rat", so lets not play these games. WP:COMMONNAME is the least of your concerns, otherwise you would be supporting "War in Croatia" (or is that a "bad title"?). Your position is somewhat strange since your whole argument for your preferred title - in reality indicates that we should use another title. So, all the "its a bad title" stuff aside, you can really either support "War in Croatia", or give-up on "Homeland War", or lose all credibility (or just leave).

Furthermore, the term is not "generic" at all. In fact, its quite unambiguous - War in Croatia redirects here. And even if it were generic (and it is not), we would still have to use, it with disambiguation, - since it is the most common in sources. -- Director (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to War in Croatia. Otherwise there should be a vote on whether to use "War in Croatia" or "Croatian War" as article name - i.e Iraq War or War in Afghanistan.--Zoupan 13:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The layout here is getting dizzying, but I'll voice my opposition to the original and alternate proposed name changes as per BHL and our unregistered friend up there. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh... it is a little over-complicated now isn't it? If this fails I might post a separate RM with the research clearly laid out - 'cuz its pretty unambiguous what the title ought to be as far as WP:NAME is concerned. -- Director (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• War in Croatia is too vague. There have been lots of wars in Croatia. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On the territory that is now Croatia, yes, but no war was fought "in Croatia" since, well, the Middle Ages perhaps - and those have other distinct names (when they have names at all). For the same reason we have the Bosnian War article, in spite of the fact that there are few more fought-over scraps of land than Bosnia.

In short, it is simply not "vague" or "generic". The term "War in Croatia" refers exclusively to this war, and no other. -- Director (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. This war is the current primary topic for that term, but it doesn't mean that the term refers exclusively to it - Croatia as a country has existed since the 7th century, in one form or another, so all wars conducted on that territory can perfectly legitimately be referred to in sources as "war in Croatia", and the search engines are not wrong to classify those as hits. That is the nature of generic titles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

But again, even if it were "generic" (and its not) it would still be the most common name used in sources. Hence, if we're to follow policy at all, we would need to use it regardless. We do not move or name articles based on a subjective feeling of "vagueness" - we follow sources and use the name they use. When its ambiguous (and the one in question is not), we use disambiguation. -- Director (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we're following Wikipedia:Article titles in this case very nicely. The right title is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. "Croatian War of Independence" wins on all of those criteria except perhaps conciseness, but such a small loss of conciseness does not override everything else IMHO. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Google counting can't be used as a substantial argument since at least some sources list both names while giving preference to Croatian War of Independence, e.g.:

"Croatian war of independence, known in Croatia as the Homeland War [...]"[44]

This quote also highlights the central argument against the suggested new title: it's POV. "War is Croatia" was fine for contemporary reporting - it was clear what war was meant by that description - but it is too generic and thus unsuitable for a title in an encyclopedia, especially given the better choice that is the article's current title. GregorB (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. We've had this kind of a discussion before, see the talk page archives. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to Croatian Homeland War - definitely more accurate title. PANONIAN 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Haha.. this is a "retaliatory vote" caused by the current move discussion on PANONIAN's very OWN article. -- Director (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • And which one is that? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, Peacemaker67 (my sockpuppet) proposed a reorganization of PANONIAN's Serbia under German occupation article [45]. I support it, so naturally... -- Director (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support move to Croatian Homeland War. It's correct name of the war. --Wustenfuchs 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Correct"? There are no grounds for the move whatsoever... and aren't you the guy who proposed it anyway? -- Director (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You already indicated your support for this option at the top, please don't randomly spam the bottom of the list. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Opose move to "war in Croatia". Too vague. Homeland war or war of indepence are better titles. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"War in Croatia" is not "vague". No other conflict in history is referred to as "War in Croatia", and War in Croatia redirects here - mostly since Croatia didn't really exist for about a 1,000 years. And even if it were "vague", we would need to use it per WP:NAME, with disambiguation, as the commonname. But again, disambiguation is fortunately not necessary - since its not "vague", no more than "Bosnian War" or "Gulf War" is "vague". I must've said this several times now, so I really don't understand why this "vague" nonsense is being repeated. I believe its a matter politics rearing its ugly head once more against Wikipedia policy, since "War in Croatia" is how the war is known in Serbia (as well as overwhelmingly in the English speaking world [46]), whereas "Homeland War" and "Independence War" is how the conflict is known in Croatia. -- Director (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should work on your comprehension skills, rather than being so obnoxiously repetitive and tendentious? Geez. If you don't immediately get your way, they're all out to get you? Be serious. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.