Jump to content

Talk:Milošević–Tuđman Karađorđevo meeting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article name

moved Karađorđevo agreement to Karađorđevo meeting: There was no any proof that it was the agreement. So it can be only negotiation. -- Aradic-en 10:10, 5 March 2008

  • Moved back because we are talking about common names of certain events, not the real meaning for instance Armenian genocide was probably ethnic cleansing but it's known as Armenian genocide -- 85.158.35.222 18:02, 29 March 2008
    • There is no consensus about this event amoung Croats, Serb and Bosniaks. As well as amoung other authors from outside.

As I wrote :there is no written or any other proof that confirms the theory about some agreement. I included both POVs for that reason:pro et contra. No witness has confirmed the existence of any kind of agreement. So the title can not be "Karađorđevo agreement" . "Innocent until proven guilty! " . when some some solid proof appears for that it can be called agreement! So far "Karađorđevo agreement" is a bigfoot. Nobody can prove its existence! --Anto (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Again,again

  • there are no proofs for the agreement-not written one for sure! Until you find it we can't talk about it as about agreement.
  • Those who talk about the "agreement" were not present the meeting (Mesić ,Ashdown or who else)
  • Calling Tuđman's ruling as "authocratic regime is POV and not allowed here.
  • An article from Slate is a quite negative pamphlet about Tudjman. The author narrates the stories he has heard from somewhere else. A tone of inaccurate statements. Tertiary source an disputable -can not be accepted as "proof". Most important it says only 1 sentence about the Karađorđevo meeting-neither mentioning Karađorđevo by name.

--Anto (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Autocratic is the term used by Encyclopedia Britannica (2008).

Read about Karadjordjevo:

217.75.202.131 (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To Kruško and his sockpuppets:

  • "Authocracy " totally suspicious. Bunch of political oponents worked with no limits during his rule. Lot of newpapers wrote .Some of them were extremely against Tuđman ( see Feral Tribune ) -and nobody had any consequances for that.
  • This "source" is a testimony of person which :1) was nto present at Karađorđevo meeting 2) does not say that any "agreement" was signed
  • I haven not removed any of your sources . but you have removed couple my sources- So stop vandalizing with you POV pushing.

--Anto (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, remain civil. Don't accuse me of something I am not. User 217 is blocked, because of vandalism, I have nothing to do with him, if you don't believe me ask administrators.

Second, I don't understand why you have deleted the whole article?! It doesn't matter do you agree with it, or not, you should not delete something with the source, it is against the rules. It is obvious you like Franjo Tudjman, that's ok with me, but Wikipedia is something else. It is clearly designeted that the witness said something (It is not put as it is verified fact, but the testimony is verified fact): As Okun described it etc. Cheers. Kruško Mortale (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I have not deleted whole article ! Moreover, I have not deleted any source (what ever their reliability is! ) I have just re-shaped the sentences with no sources. As it is! There are no any proof that it was signed something like that.
  • Ante Marković does not mention any "agreement" in Karađorđevo here. Herbert Okun [1] was not present at the meeting . Yes , he said what he said but his claims are second-hand rumours that can not be accepted as solid proofs at all. --Anto (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

3rd version

I will try to write 3rd version with which you both will be happy. My english is not very good so there will be need for you both to work latter on article.

Only for information we are having consensus about sources for articles about Yugoslav Wars. In my thinking you both need to see table on talk page of article Yugoslav Wars.--Rjecina (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem, it is obvious that you are a good editor. We also have another problem with Anto's version. His English is terrrible, I don't even understand some sentences in his version, your version is much better English. For example, this sentence:
Serb and Croat supporters insist nothing concrete was established while Bosnian supporters maintain that the two leaders conspired.
This is not football, there are no supporters. There are just witnesses, some of them are Croats, some of them are Serbs, some of them are international diplomats. For instacne, Blaž Kraljević who supported the idea about Bosniak-Croat unity, was informed about Graz agreement, he publicly discarded it.
I am aware of consensus about the sources, but thank you anyway that you mentioned it. That's the only right way on Wikipedia. Cheers. Kruško Mortale (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Prosecutor statement is against wikipedia NPOV policy because his job is to be POV (this has been earlier discussed on wikipedia).--Rjecina (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, there are some witnesses. Hrvoje Šarinić was involved in Karađorđevo negotiations directly!! Okun and Ashdown or who ever else was not! So , I don't see why their speculation is beeing taken as granted

Hrvoje Sarinic was a member of Tudjman's team. It would be really stupid to incriminate yourself admitting that you participated in the deal. Don't you agree? There is also Ante Markovic, Tudjaman's trascripts, and Croatian president Stjepan Mesic. Tudjman told them what he planned, the problem is they didn't want to participate in it. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Second thing:This was one of many negotitions during war there. Some of them included Bosniak leadership : see Peace plans offered before and during the Bosnian War--Anto (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Karadjordjevo happened before the war. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Ante Marković and Stipe mesić were not present at Karađorđevo. So , their testimonies are second-hand rumouring. bla bla bla the testimony of hrvoje šarinić might not be 100% neutral but it is only direct source. --Anto (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The only direct source is Franjo Tudjman's transcripts, which confirmed the testimonies of Ante Markovic and Stjepan Mesic, and rejected Hrvoje Sarinic, who was also very active in similar dishonest events according to the transcripts. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Those "transcripts" are disputable quality. Feral Tribune is not a source. --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
HAHAHA! ANTO are you kidding me? ICTY has original transcripts, not Feral reprint. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Supplement

What about this sentence?

  • However, during his testimony at ICTY he denied the existing of the agreement

It seems that the source doesn't match the sentence. [2] Which part of the source confirms the sentece? Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just told Anto that! ANTO WHY DON'T you show us where in this source is your sentence?! 217.75.202.131 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ICTY quote

About this ICTY verdict , one quote, paragraph 14 :

Secret discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina were held as early as March 1991. The policies of the Republic of Croatia and its leader Franjo Tuđman towards Bosnia and Herzegovina were never totally transparent and always included Franjo Tuđman’s ultimate aim of expanding Croatia’s borders.

That discussions refer obviously to this one. But, there is no any mentioning of "agreement,pact,treaty..." or something like that. So, I will remove the mentioning that it was really an agreement. As well as I will remove Category:Treaties from this article. Unless somebody provides another verdict where are mentioned specifically words like "agreement" --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Also this article is a column (or to say precisely pamphlet ) and can not be taken as reliable source.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

I have been asked to render a third opinion on the naming of this article. Since there is no recent discussion about the proper name, can both sides please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions and explain why they think their title better fits Wikipedia policy? Thank you --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained before on the previous section... there is no any "agreement" or anything similar. A source (ICTY) says about "discussions" not any king agreement/threaty/pactaccord or smth like that.

Therefore possible logical titles for this event would be:

  • Karađorđevo meeting
  • Karađorđevo discussion(s)
  • Karađorđevo negotioation(s)

etc


--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Refrain from moving the article without a consensus. The ICTY does not dictate the article name, nor does the ICTY mention the word "meeting". Karadordevo agreement is the most used term and not Karadordevo meeting.
Web
"Karadordevo agreement" -wikipedia 463 [3]
"Karadordevo meeting" -wikipedia 38 [4]
Books
"Karadordevo agreement" 6 [5]
"Karadordevo meeting" 0 [6]
Scholar
"Karadordevo agreement" 4 [7]
"Karadordevo meeting" 0 [8] PRODUCER (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are any of these "books" and "sources" acceptable relioable source?? Sources from other wikipedia articles (inserte by other POV pushers)

A consensus was made about sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yugoslav_wars#Consensus_about_sources

ICTY verdict says there were "discussions" in Karađorđevo-not any "agreement"- especially written one. So ,this article name makes no sense. Sources say it was "peer" not "apple".--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your saying 8 editors can determine what sources are reliable for all Yugoslav War related articles? Hell 99% of references used in the article aren't on the list [9].
Again the ICTY doesn't use the word "meeting" nor does it dictate the article name. PRODUCER (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

the ICTY says "discussions"-therefore the article is supposed to be Karađorđevo discussion(s)


read Wikipedia:Consensus!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's normal naming policy is to use the common name it most cases. It doesn't matter if the common name for something is technically wrong. There are countless cases of things being known by names that are technically wrong. Probably the most famous example is the Holy Roman Empire which was neither holy or Roman.

Wikipedia doesn't decide the name of an event, the public/press does. Thus "Karađorđevo agreement" is probably correct here from a policy standpoint. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I am sorry ThaddeusB but your comparison with Holy Roman Empire makes no sense at all. That was the OFFICIAL NAME of the country.This ha no official name of any kind.I thought that common name rule applies only realible sources not to any anonimous "expert" with questionable neutrality. One common accepted source by consensus(ICTY) says that this name is WRONG!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence whatsoever that this event is called anything but the "Karađorđevo agreement." What you have done is argue no agreement was actually made at the meeting. That is probably true, but it is not the same thing as saying it isn't called the "Karađorđevo agreement" by most people.
Also, I am not taking producer's word for it. I am going by what the sources say. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Source (ICTY verdict) says "discussionns"--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

two other problematic Sources

In this edit PRODUCER HAS RECENTLY INSERTED TWO problematic sources

for this statements (better to say hard accusations)

{{At a meeting with his closest advisers and a group of Croat nationalists from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Franjo Tudman stated that "It is time that we take the opportunity to gather the Croatian people inside the widest possible borders." pointing out the opportunity to expand Croatia's border at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina's territory.}}

he gave these sources

  • Madame prosecutor- book by Carla del Ponte-former prosecutor at ICTY. Although this book is her POV as the (former) chief prosecutor there can not be found quotes for this statement.Ans she was banned to promote it [10][11]
  • this source is just the report from prosecution elaboration of indictment-also POV and not valid source. So, I removed them.

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All sources have biases and have a pov (see NPOV), stop removing sources and information from here and from Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, the source is the ICTY which is a reliable source. PRODUCER (talk)
Reliable sorces are verdicts -not indicments which you inserted. Indicments are POV of prosecution-unreliable as the defense statements.

have you ever heard about Devil's lawyer--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

I just saw that user producer unargumentivly reverted all of my work. I'd like an explanation if something is not right. Previous wording had some weasel words and things which were taken out of the contex. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced information and stop reinserting "meeting". PRODUCER (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Producer do behave. All of the sources and links are intact. Do not vandalize the article. And as for the word "metting" do you have any source(s) which would forbade it usage? Plese behave as adult and not as a little kid. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Enough with the condescending tone. This isn't the first you've removed them [12]. The article's name is Karađorđevo agreement not meeting. PRODUCER (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr. PRODUCER's modus operandi is very well known:revert,revert and nothing but revert! No explanatins on talk pages, no edit summaries.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing to explain, when your arguments are "Devil's lawyer" and "Source (ICTY verdict) says "discussionns"". PRODUCER (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, Producer, don't be rude. This is an encyclopedia, not an yelling contex.--Čeha (razgovor) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted to rework the first paragraph to better explain the subject in a neutral fashion. This constant debate over whether the event should be called "agreement" or "meeting" is not helpful, or ultimately very important. Most sources call it agreement and so that is the name we should use. However, I rephrased it to make it clear that this is only what people call the event, not any kind of official name. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, ThaddeusB, I appritiate your's additon, but also think that part about international conference is important and should be mentioned. I'll try to incorporate it into the article.--Čeha (razgovor) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Again to repeat about these sources:

these are prosecution POV. The job of the prosecutor is to collect all incrim inating proofs against the person at trial in order found him guilty( that means the phrase "devil's lawyer " which PRODUCER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.).So, the defense duty is to collect all positive evidence for found him not guilty.Both of the sources are not neutral and unacceptable. the decision of the court where they were found guilty is the only acceptable.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Five pillars

Wikipedia:Five_pillars

This article name is hard violation of 2 pillars

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
  • Wikipedia has a neutral point of view

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also ,the article is full of 2nd hand and 3rd hand sources ...Okun and Mesić statements as well as the others' which are basically:GOSSIP!Innapropriate for this.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

There is speculation that the leaders of two neighbourhood states on that metings discussed on the borders of republics and in also how to redistribute territories of ex-Yugoslav republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in which Croats and Serbs were 2 of 3 constitutive nations between Croatia and Serbia. In that way in BiH Muslims/Bosniaks would get their's own state and territories inhabited with BiH Croats and Serbs (they are constutive nations in BiH), would annex itself to Croatia or Sebia. Speculation also goes that division would be against BiH Muslims/Bosniaks and that they would get only a smaller part of BiH between Zenica, Tuzla and Sarajevo. Serbs would get most of todays Republika Srpska (including prewar muslim populated Podrinje and Eastern Bosnia with Srebrenica and all of areas where Serbs commited ethnic cleansing over BiH Muslims/Bosniaks) and much of western parts of todays Federation BiH, while Croats would get areas with croat majority which are mostly those which were in Banovina with Cazin Krajina. Exact borders are very speculative.

no source whatsoever here

President of Croatia Franjo Tudjman and Croatian goverment denied this "agreement" on numerous occasions stating that in 1991 when Serbs controled all of Yougoslav Army and Serbian rebelion in Croatian with Croatian war of independence just begining. [1]

spelling errors and youtube source?

Even if there is no proof about any kind of agreement, and the blody war in which Croatian and Serbs were the main anthagonsits[2] as the war included Bosnia and Herzegovina as well, people which claim that agreement took place qoute help in politics,army logistics,generals and shared comand of BiH Serbians with Milošević Regime as well as army, politics and logistic help which Croatia provided to HVO and BiH Army [3](which were both parts of regular armed forces of BiH) as "proofs" of some prior arrangment.

again pov nonsense, spelling errors, sourcing "slobodanpraljak" PRODUCER (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please sighn any of the parts separate. On youtube are original statments from television from that time. Spelling errors are not a reason to delete something (you can fix them yourself). As for slobodan praljak, I realy don't see what is your problem here. Are they official documents or not? If they are not than there is something wrong with documents and if they are right, that what is the problem? The guy was (is) a general and had acces to that data. I think there are enough sources given. Of course if you don't belive me you can google it yourself. Also there are much more edits than just those 3 and if you do not agree with them that is not a reason to delete them all.--Čeha (razgovor) 01:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if there is no proof about any kind of agreement, and the blody war in which Croatian and Serbs were the main anthagonsits[4] as the war included Bosnia and Herzegovina as well, people which claim that agreement took place qoute help in politics,army logistics,generals and shared comand of BiH Serbians with Milošević Regime as well as army, politics and logistic help which Croatia provided to HVO and BiH Army [5](which were both parts of regular armed forces of BiH) as "proofs" of some prior arrangment.

Your "source" says nothing about this. Ive gone ahead and removed your speculation and the unsourced information. I've moved the remaining information to their relevant place. PRODUCER (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Source is about help which ABiH receved from Croatia. Do you find anything wrong with it?--Čeha (razgovor) 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For the last time stop reinserting the information you added that is supposedly supported by slobodan prajlak, the source shows nothing but maps, did you come to your own conclusion and add this text? If so thats original research. I have removed the Greater Serbia and Vance Owen plan pics because it isn't mentioned. PRODUCER (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute, you are serious? You are talking about suposed division of BiH between Serbia and Croatia and at the same time deleting map of Greater Serbia?
Wance-Oven plan shows contex of Tudjman talk about BiH in which international community proposed few (I think four) plans of its division.
Praljak source is good as any. If you have a problem with it please argument why?
--Čeha (razgovor) 23:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course there was no mention of Wance Oven plan when you previously deleted it!
Whole of the article is full of speculation and does not have not one of prof. Hrvoje Šarinić denied talking about Bosnia devision on numerous sourced IKACIJE%20O%20RATU/POMOC%20REPUBLIKE%20HRVATSKE%20MUSLIMANSKO-BOSNJACKOM%20NARODU%20I%20ARMIJI%20BOSNE%20I%20HERCEGOVINE%20TIJEKOM%201991.-1995.%20GODINE/4.dio.pdf]. Scans of documents can be found here.occasions, I don't know why do you change it over and over again? (unsourced offcourse).
ICTY part is just accusation, no? So until there is official jugment, that part should be deleted or in the worst time scenario get a POW big as house.
Also if you wish to talk about division of BiH it is a little bit paradoxal if you put a map of Croatia which includes whole of BiH. As for Praljak,it seems to me that you just opened first part. There is a lot more there, try part two an other [13] [http://slobodanpraljak.com/materijali/PUBL I also puted another link to Croatian help.
Do please change all of that stuff, as you can see it yourself that it is full of inaccouraties. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow I cant understand half of what your trying to say but ill try my best to respond. I pulled the Greater Croatia pic from the Greater Croatia article, if there is a more accurate one by all means replace it. I placed the Greater Croatia picture next to where its being spoken about, I fail to see any mention of Greater Serbia under the ICTY section. Again you failed to address my question "Praljak source is good as any" isn't gonna cut it. If you wish to keep that information quote where it says that otherwise stop reinserting original research, I'm removing it because its the conclusion you came to. As for the Vance Owen plan bit, do you think a source so blatantly unreliable as hercegbosna is sufficient? PRODUCER (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed "greater Croatian" picture because even if it might be qouted it doesn't have anything to do with division of BiH (it shows whole of BiH in Croatia).
Praljak source shows the extent and amounts of weaponry which Croatia has given and with which it armed ABiH. Again what is wrong with it?
And that Herceg Bosnia link is a .pdf which shows all of international plans about BiH (internal) division. Nobody from that site medled with it. It is just a list of all of peace plans with details. So the data is good. If you have anything against it I'd like to hear it.
You didn't tell me anything about ICTY prosecution quotes wich are present in the article. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sandžak region

Can someone explain why this region is always included on the maps which reflect Croatian nationalist ideology? What is the significance with this territory and what are the sources? From what I know, that land is characterised by Sers, Montenegrins and Bosniaks; and religiously by Islam and Orthodoxy. I haven't read about it being a region where Croats originally settled, though I may be wrong. I know of a long standing Croatian population in Kosovo but that never features in these maps. Was that map real or is someone simply making false accusations against Croatian nationalists? Evlekis (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The map is basically false. It has numerous errors and was basicly made by some amateur. Sandžak region was breifly claimed for Croatia in a period between ww when muslims was counted as Croats (as maximum possible border, never really "serious"). In ww2 government of Ante Pavelić claimed Sandzak from italian Montenegro as "territories populated with islamic Croats". Never before and never after was Sandzak claimed for Croatian state.
In the latest war most of the persons which came from Sandzak (most of them muslim fate) were warring against Croatia. Also that map shows false borders of Sandzak [14]. Historical Sandzak does not include Andrijevica and Plav (as can be seen in [15].
Also that map is completely wrong. If it wanted to show territories which were wanted by ISC (independent state of Croatia) than is should have included Zemun (part of Beograd north of Sava river in Syrmia), whole of Bačka west of Tisa river, as well as Montenegro and Slovenia (which were claimed onto historical(red Croatia) or pseudohistorical (Alpine Croats) resons).
That map is the sham.
Hower none of it does not have anything to do with this war. Map could eventualy show territories which were under control of HVO [16] plus territories of western Bosnia [17] and Cazin Krajina/Bihać pocket.
User producer, which puted this map into the article is "a bit" biased in this issue and putted a lot of data which are basicaly speculation (there is no evidents about what happened in that meeting, major participants are dead, and most of persons which had some statments about it said a lot of contradictory data (S.Mesić for example) or had something to gain by it. Also as evidence about that "agreement" are quoted latter statements of Croat leaders about internal divisions of BiH on London peace conference). Basicaly, public specualations with a bit of propaganda:)
--Čeha (razgovor) 23:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sandžak was claimed also because it was within Austria-Hungary before it fell apart. Croatian nationalists claimed all South Slavic lands of the Austro-Hungarian crown - sometimes even including Vojvodina, and sometimes allocating Vojvodina to Hungary. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, legacy of Ilirian movement. But Sandžak was rarely included even in those. As for Vojvodina, Srijem (wich is todays southern Vojvodina) was part of Croatia-Slavonia until 1918, and western and northern Bačka had a lot of Croats in it (for example Subotica had Croatian majority untill recently) and was capital of so called "Bunjevačka Bačka". When making borders of today Croatia and Serbia there were suggestions that Bunjevačka Bačka would have been anexed to Croatia as the same had Croat ethnic majority. Hower it was declained due to economic issues and that if ethnical border would have been strickly included it would look like a "overgrown finger" (slijepo crijevo:). That commision also said that that border should be reevalueted if border with Hungary changed and "Baja triangle" (part of pre 1ww Bačka) would have been anexed to Yugoslavia. That was analysis of post ww2 commision. Now is a different state on the ground :/
As I explained befire, nothing of it (nor Bačka, Vojvodina and most certanly Sandžak) has to do anything with this article (unlike greater Serbia map which user Producer removed).
Wishes for Sandžak can, however be attributed to Bosniak nacionalists....
--Čeha (razgovor) 15:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_division_as_part_of_Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_meeting

I puted this into a new article. I think this would be good now? --Čeha (razgovor) 14:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this new "article" other than your attempt at changing the name from agreement to meeting??? PRODUCER (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Karađorđevo meeting or agreement was not just about Bosnia. You can see that in Mesić statments. Part of it were about Ante Marković, part of it were about economics, and part of were just about goverment. There is no evidence that BiH was soley on the table. That's way I think that BiH part should be putted aside in a seperate article (name of that article can be diferent).
I think that we should vote on the issue. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of this article

Also my opinion is that this article should be renamed. There is no proof of existance of Karađorđevo agreement, there are some references about intentions of some of the participants of that meeting (but they to change theirs statments offten as S. Mesić), and google ratio 3:2 is not a valid result. This article should be called Karađorđevo meeting. We should put an query here (anketa) on what do wiki users want and change it as such. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review wiki policies the most common used name is the articles name, the proof and ratio don't matter. PRODUCER (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Give me a link to it. To my experience, when something is very much disputed people vote on it. Or we could ask for advice from some wikipedia administrator.--Čeha (razgovor) 08:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


"the proof and ratio don't matter" Whatt??? Is this supposed to be some joke. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia- not book of gossips or Jokes. the article name as such is hard violation of 1st pillar.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already discussed this with you here Talk:Karađorđevo_agreement#Name_of_article, I'm not going to reiterate myself a thousand times. PRODUCER (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK;then leave us!Goodbye!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on this above. Please see that conversation, as there is no point repeating the same arguments. In short it doesn't matter if an agreement was reached or not - it only matters what the majority of sources call the event. The majority name by a fairly large margin is "Karađorđevo agreement". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Majority of wich sources? ICTY is the most reliable source for this topic. And it uses "meeting". --Čeha (razgovor) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That would make one source, not a majority and actually per above they use the term "discussions". Again, this has all been addressed above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't a most valid source the thing on wich reference should be stated by?
Sorry, that I'm comming back on the subject but producer made one error. It is not "Karadordevo meeting". It is "Karađorđevo meeting". It's one sign "đ" spelled also as dj sometimes (or gj) in older ortographies.
If you look, there are
Web
  • 439 for "Karađorđevo meeting" -wikipedia. (0.32 seconds) [18]
  • and only 175 for "Karađorđevo agreement" -wikipedia [19]
Books
  • 2 for "Karađorđevo meeting" [20]
  • 3 for upit "Karađorđevo agreement" [21]
Scholar
  • and 4 for "Karađorđevo meeting". [22]
  • 5 for "Karađorđevo agreement" [23]
Producer showed false image (probably inantentionaly). Books and schoolar are basicly even and there si 3 time larger number on the web which calls the event "Karađorđevo meeting" + it is the name wich is used in most reliable source ICTY.
Sorry for insisting on this detail, but it stick me in the eyes:) This should be change, due to correct data. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"Karađorđevo agreement" brings up 1,860 not 175 (lol nice trick), furthermore this is english wikipedia I doubt users have đ on their keyboards. If you add up both variants, agreement is in the lead. Agreement is most used and the ICTY uses discussions not meetings.
Web
"Karadordevo agreement" -wikipedia (463) + "Karađorđevo agreement" -wikipedia (1,860) = 2323
"Karadordevo meeting" -wikipedia (38) + "Karađorđevo meeting" -wikipedia (439) = 477
Books
"Karadordevo agreement" (6) + "Karađorđevo agreement" (3) = 9
"Karadordevo meeting" (0) + "Karađorđevo meeting" (2)= 2
Scholar
"Karadordevo agreement" (4) + "Karađorđevo agreement" (5) = 9
"Karadordevo meeting" (0) + "Karađorđevo meeting" (4) = 4 PRODUCER (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"Karađorđevo agreement" brings up 1,860 not 175 (lol nice trick) is a blunt lie. Google says otherways [24].
furthermore this is english wikipedia I doubt users have đ on their keyboards Are you trying to rename this article into KaraDorDevo agreement or?
Karađorđevo meeting is more used than agreement. Shall we count
  • KaraDJorDJevo meeting 432 [25]
  • KaraDJorDJevo agreement 195 [26]
and
  • KaraĐorDJevo meeting 248 [27]
  • KaraĐorDJevo agreement 142 [28]
and
  • KaraDJorĐevo meeting 248 [29]
  • KaraDJorĐevo agreement 157 [30]
In any possible combination meeting is more numerous (2 or 3 times) than agreement.
If we count them all
  • meeting 41+432+248+248=969
  • agreement 175+195+142+157=669
There are more than 300 pages about Meeting. I realy don't know whow you came to 1860 for Karađorđevo agreement, and hope that is some kind of error and that you did not publicly lied here.

--Čeha (razgovor) 22:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of lying? Why would I lie when anyone can check the results. I'm receiving the following numbers. I have no idea how your receiving 175 for agreement.
  • KaraDJorDJevo agreement = 1,830 [31]
  • KaraDJorDJevo meeting = 470 [32]
  • KaraĐorDJevo agreement = 1,720 [33]
  • KaraĐorDJevo meeting = 247 [34]
You are lying. Nice and simple. Or your google settings are such that you check on page over and over. I've checked your links from my home and office, two different web adresses in ie and mozzilla firefox and your numbers are false. Clear and simple. I'd like to ask someone (anyone) to check your data. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


Yes, I Have checked producer's links. None of them Matches the numbers he wrote here.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting article

Producer, please refrain to adding new data into this article. This is the master article and all of details are in

[37]. Put the new data there. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your fork serves no purpose, the main issue of the agreement was Bosnia and Herzegovina, this new "article" is uncalled for and is purely motivated by you trying to avoid negative facts. PRODUCER (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I splited all of data wich is a bit disputed into another article. Stipe Mesić changed his view at least one time (there is a seria of previous statmens in wich he deny existence or even talk about division of BiH). And Herbert Okun and Warren Zimmerman do not say anything about "Karađorđevo agreement" rather they speak about "Tuđman intensions and pretensions on the territories of BiH were Croats lived". Paddy Ashdown spoke about his famous salvete in which division similar to division of BiH on Federation and Republika Srpska was drawed, and in which he latter added names of the places and provinces.
And the "testemony of Ante Marković" is as it seems a forgery. The text is taken from a Serbian nationalistic site.
Map "showing greater Croatia" is a compleate forgery. In Vojvodina, Srijem and Bačka and including Sandžak and whole of BiH... --Čeha (razgovor) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
They all testified that Tudman and Milosevic agreed on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, precisely what the Karađorđevo agreement was about. Where does he deny his previous statements? How do you know what the napkin looked like? Taken from a Serbian nationalist site? Christ its from Novi List a Croatian newspaper. PRODUCER (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
And 3 provinces which were given to Croats in Vance Owen peace plan were almost exactly like borders of Banovina and very similar to borders of Herceg Bosna. Are you accusing international community to be wanting division of the BiH according to those lines?

Ashdown's napkin

Napkin
  • testimony of Pady Ashdown in ICTY I have 15 actually marked in the names so: this is the Dalmatian coastline, this is Zagreb, this is the spot where Belgrade was marked. I have marked in Serbia -- all the annotations, [38]
  • testimony of Mr. Krsnik (ctrl-f for the word "wrote" 2 times you'll find the part about the napkin)[39].

he explained this line and how in 1993, he received 19 this map from Brussels, and given that he is dead, he can't confirm this 20 but this book will confirm this fact, he probably only drew this line 21 whereas Lord Paddy Ashdown, in his own hand, interpreted this as follows, 22 and he wrote down what suited him at the time probably, in the light of 23 the 6th of May, 1995, he interpreted in this light, when the Washington 24 Agreement was concluded, when Dayton had almost been concluded, he said 25 that Tudjman wanted the division of Bosnia, and I don't know why this has Page 8899 1 been presented here. It was the 6th of May, 1995. So who is being 2 deceived here and what do they want to show? This book is going to be 3 translated and all of Tudjman's arguments will be translated too, and all 4 the denials of Lord Paddy Ashdown too, who is now to become the new 5 governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He's already been elected as such. 6 All interviews and all the denials that the late President Franjo Tudjman 7 forwarded with regard to his statement and the interpretation, that will 8 be presented, and we will provide evidence to show that this is false.

  • Mr Nice "Lord Ashdown is lying" (ctrl-f for the word "napkin" you'll find this part.

The evidence in the Defence case through Delic sought, without his 14 being an eyewitness himself from the identified positions, sought to show, 15 bluntly, that Lord Ashdown was lying. It's no less than that.

Here is Tuđman's denial about division of BiH Što se tiče ostaloga, ponavljam jednom zauvijek: nikada nije bilo navodnog dogovora o podjeli Bosne između Miloševića i mene. [40] and the comentary about ashdown napkin.

Here is comenatry [41] of Tuđman's son.

FreeWebs? lmfao not even gonna bother with that, I really cant tell if your being serious with these ridiculous sources you provide. This is the opinion of Kresimir Krsnik a Croatian attorney who's lost cases involving the HVO [42] not an official statement from the ICTY. PRODUCER (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
And you are the judge and the jury ? If a page from Tuđman's son quotes Tuđman's word that should not be in the article? Or the data from ICTY? Just lawyers which wins the casses are speaking truth? What nonsense is this ? --Čeha (razgovor) 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't split this article. The article is plenty short enough as it is and a split would be a pure content fork at this point. Debate what material belongs all you like, but please keep the material in one place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The proper splitting procedure, as outlined at WP:SPLIT wasn't followed so in addition to being a content fork, the new article is not properly attributed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for edit warning, but basicly user producer puted a lot of trash and propaganda in this article... --Čeha (razgovor) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Since you two (Čeha & PRODUCER) were edit warring, I have asked the page to be temporarily fully protected. Protection was granted and will expire in three days. I suggest both of you use this time to calm down and use to talk page for discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

{{editprotected}} The section "Ante Marković" is an apparent copyvio from http://ljiljana-zivojinovic.blogspot.com/2008/08/ante-markovic-testimony.html, (or both are a copyvio from another source, but that one is dated August 2008). It should be removed entirely until rewritten. I already removed the identical text from Ante Marković, added by PRODUCER. No such user (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree blatant copyvio. If someone can propose new text, that would be best of course. I left the refs and some of the direct quotes in place to get that person started. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The section about Ante Marković testimony is from [43] by Novi list dated October 2003 not the source you've provided. PRODUCER (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
And quote from it :

Slobodan Milošević and Franjo Tuđman confirmed to me personally that at their meeting in Karađorđevo

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
So does the name goes to Meeting or ?>:)--Čeha (razgovor) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
In order to change you would need a consensus that such a change is warranted. No such consensus exists at this time, but that doesn't mean there will never be one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry ThaddeusB, but I think that you don't have a point here. As you can see in upper conversation, there is a clear majority of usage of one name over the other, and the other user is openly lying (or his google doesn't work properly) as well as usage of the other name in most of "participants" and ICTY. If someone is openly lying (and I do appologgie if his there is something wrong with his google) where can we make consensus? Can we solve this issue by voting ? --Čeha (razgovor) 14:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Clicking on the links you both provided, the numbers returned match up with PRODUCER's #s, but not yours. I have no idea where the discrepancy comes from. We don't actually vote on Wikipedia - things are decided by strength of argument, rather than number of votes.
I came here as a neutral third party in an attempt to settle the dispute. In my judgment, "agreement" is the correct title per WP:COMMONNAME. However, I am not necessarily correct. If you still wish to pursue a name change the next step would be to file a Request for comment. Personally, I think the exact name of this (or any other) article is a very minor issue and wouldn't put the effort into a RfC, but you are certainly welcome to if you want. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right, you are not necessarily correct ;) Thanks for rfc link, I'll try to put it in ...--Čeha (razgovor) 19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
ThaddeusB, see this gallery of images made by Čeha's search test

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_search_reasults

What a joke, your purposely using .hr for agreement and .com for meeting to skew the results. Proof for my results confirmed by ThaddeusB. "Karadjordjevo agreement" -wikipedia = [44] "Karadjordjevo meeting" -wikipedia = [45] PRODUCER (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

While you people are busy on nitpicking if it was a "meeting" or indeed an "agreement" (I fail to see the big deal), I must point out that the article even fails to link to the proper location of said... whatever. It is Karađorđevo (Bačka Palanka), more specifically Karađorđevo (Bačka Palanka)#Karađorđevo Hunting Ground. Please fix that once (if ever) the article gets unlocked. No such user (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1st and 2nd hand testimonies

Okun, Zimmerman,Ashdown and Marković were not present the meeting so there "testimonies" are retelling others' statements... other word:GOSSIP. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Name of the article

Is the name of the article apropriate for it? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with either name meeting or agreement. They seem to me to be fairly close in usage quantity (in English language sources). It is probably better to keep it as it is for now because the article has been around for 2 years already and there is no good usage reason to change it. Polargeo (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I'd like to call user Producer to not to delete sourced maps, or statments. Greater Bosnian part is part in Zimmerman's story. And the map is from that article, and it is putted similar as greater Croatian map (which did not had anything to do with this war, but it is here :) ). Producer, please stick to the rules.--Čeha (razgovor) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Greater Bosnia" bit is Franjo Tudmans opinion not Zimmerman read correctly and stop misleading. PRODUCER (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[46] Tuđman's claims, page 49. "The Muslims want to establish an Islamic fundamentalist state. They plan to do this by flooding Bosina with 500,000 Turks". Lord Owen, page 52 "Izetbegović is now moving toward a seperate Muslim republic and the realistic talk of keeping Bosnia-Herzegovia is over" It is from Zimmerman's book, Tuđman statment. It is mentioned in Zimmeman book. What part you do not understand?--Čeha (razgovor) 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Better said, Tuđman never said that. We have only Zimmerman statment that Tuđman said that. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, where is your reply? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added it clarifying that is what Tudman thought not Zimmerman. PRODUCER (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That is clear from my text. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, you can not delete maps.
Greater Bosnian concept is something which is documented as Milošević and Tuđmans fear in Zimmerman's book.
Third, last one paragraph is sourced, there was a peace conference about Bosnian division, omg what is Dayton, and you can not delete this. If you do not agree with it. You can put POV sign and we'll go ask for help.
--Čeha (razgovor) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Although there is numerous accusations about agreement of division of Bosnia and Herzegovina in this meeting Franjo Tuđman and Croatian goverment denied this, hower latter Stipe Mesić[6] and some Tuđman advisors (Bilandžić[7][8][9]) have given contrary statments (other like Šarinić stuck to theirs previous statments). Some of the international diplomats also testified that Franjo Tuđman wanted to divide BiH (Zimerman[10], Ashdown). Hower at the time was international peace conference in London where (internal) divisions of BiH were discussed [11].
Moreover it is important to notice that internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina was at last profundly changed and that new internal divisions happened at the end in Dayton."

Mesic source does not work, the last two sources Bilandzic promote his book, and again with the "hercegbosna" source I've already explained. This section is pointless and the background section should be expanded. Stop removing information about a second meeting and info explaining the testimonies. PRODUCER (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's go source by source of which you are deleting.
Mesić link is your link which you previously puted in the article. I'll remove it with a valid link on both places. You can not be a hypokrite. Can you? this was a reference 14. [47]
Bilandžić Links are also taken from upper text and I think that most important from them should be the first [48]. I'll check that also. Let me repeat, all of that links are in the text, and you had not one objection to them.
Hercegbosna link is valid. Official data. Your personal opinion is preaty much irelevant.
And now the things which borders you:
1)map of bih war, you are deleting these because?
2)London peace conference about BiH and internal divisions of it which ended with Dayton?
3)map of big bosnia?
Please do try to answer this questions with some hard data and not just with your opinion.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Muslim state

In part about "Alija pašaluk" should also be;
Some international diplomats like Lord Owen also testified that Alija Izetbegović wanted to create a Muslim republic. Lord Owen, page 52 "Izetbegović is now moving toward a seperate Muslim republic and the realistic talk of keeping Bosnia-Herzegovia is over"

President of Bih presidency and leader of Bosniak side Alija Izetbegović

--Čeha (razgovor) 20:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not related to the Karadjordjevo agreement. Just one of many attempts by Croats to justify their president. Btw, Lord Owen's statement is from different timeline and different context, not at all related to April 1992. ICTYoda (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Former (and decised) president:) Yoda you are such a POV pusher. Article clearly states something called "Alija's pashaluk". This sentence by lord Owen shows latter progress of it, and by the words of the Lord, Alija's acceptance. Those are the facts. The readers should decide the rest. P.S. Do not remove sourced data it goes against wiki policies.--Čeha (razgovor) 21:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me the Lord Owen quote is not needed. It is about Alija Izetbegović being resigned to having to accept a Muslim republic (not wanting one) instead of Bosnia-Herzegovina and is not really about the agreement anyway. Polargeo (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. That is the part about Alija's pashaluk which is underlined in the Graz agreement part. --Čeha (razgovor) 11:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay but last time I looked there was a separate article on Graz_agreement it is a stub and desparately needs expanding. This is not the article for this detailled information. Polargeo (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Map of territory during war

Lots and lots of stuff has happened since the agreement. This is an article on the agreement NOT the ebb and flow of politics since the agreement. So don't stick all this other stuff into the article. The background section should have background to the agreement NOT what has happened since. This is a lack of understanding of what background means and what a wikipedia article is. Polargeo

Not realy. You have an ending sentence in the Background part with a link to Croatian war of independence. As one pictures speaks more than thousands of words...
The map of Bosnian war is significant because the article claims that at the meeting there was an agreement of division of BiH. Yet in the first (and last) phase of Bosnian war most of the fighting happened beetween Croats and Serbs in BiH. So that map speaks about that contradiction.
Also ICTY part does not mention in one word Karađorđevo agreement, it is just comment to Croational politics in Bosnian war (and it does not mentions peace conference wich was active at that time). Should it be also deleted?

--Čeha (razgovor) 11:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes much of it could be deleted but that is another discussion. You have just given an argument for the ICTY part and further information on the Croatian War of Independence not being in this article. This is not an argument for the map being here, it is an argument for more excessive stuff to be removed. If I was assessing this article on GA criteria, which is what a wikipedia article should aspire to then I would apply 'it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail' Polargeo (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Also lets not reproduce Bosnian_War#Course_of_the_war here. that is unnecessay repetition of information on wikipedia which waters down and detracts from the project. Polargeo (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That's your opinion. This article speaks about a peacefull "deal" of BiH division when a violent war (with Croats and Serbs as the main antagonists) was raging. Those two are heavily interconected. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay a new section with your map in it. In the correct place. Is that better?

Warning to all

I am completely non-partisan in this. I am simply looking to make sure the article is accurate and focussed on the topic. I am just as likely to argue against edits by PRODUCER as Ceha if I think these edits are wrecking the article. If people want to hijack this article by going off topic then I request that you please start up your own article on the topic you wish to then you can discuss and put the information in it instead. Let us not reproduce Bosnian_War#Course_of_the_war here. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


I have sent you a message on your talk page!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have tried to make the lead of Karađorđevo_agreement#Testimonies more accurate. However, these testimonies are at least about the agreement and the motives behind it and so should be in this article. It is possible they can be improved though and made more accurate. Polargeo (talk)
Some of testimonies (like Paddy Ashdown) do not speak anything about KA. There is no proof that KA ever happended (bloody war, etc). The name itself is a little bit of an insult to Croatians because it denies their strugle for freedom.
Also Some of the testimonies (Stipe Mesić, Bilandžić) changed during the time. And International conference about BiH division doesn't speaks anything about division of BiH? This is a bit laughable :)--Čeha (razgovor) 19:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay as I said above we will try and improve the accuracy of the statements then. Polargeo (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Ceha. You have slapped a neutrality sign on this article but have not said which bit specifically is not neutral. Therefore editors cannot deal with your request. I will give you 24 hours to say exactly which bit is not neutral. The article's name has no bearing on the contents. Polargeo (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks Ceha I see this is at the cabal! Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-11/karađorđevo agreement Polargeo (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think that some help in editing this article is needed.... --Čeha (razgovor) 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that we can cooperate on making this article better (we still got to see what will user Producer say to all of this though :). My suggestions would be as follow:
  • Greater Croatia map has nothing to with this. If you look at Banovina map, it should be obvious that BiH Croats did not asked for whole of BiH + parts of Serbia and Kosovo in this war. Shouldn't it have to go?
  • ICTY indictment part; as the case is currently active and the judgment is not concluded this part should be shorted into;

It is stated in an amended indictment (Prlic et al. case) by the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), that at a meeting with his closest advisers and a group of Croat nationalists from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Franjo Tuđman declared that "It is time that we take the opportunity to gather the Croatian people inside the widest possible borders." pointing out the opportunity to expand Croatia's border at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina's territory.[5][6][7]

It should be also be mentioned responsibility of the entire war-time leadership of BiH Serbs Biljana Plavšić [[49]], Momčilo Krajišnik [[50]] (which are sentenced) and Radovan Karadžić[[51]] [[52]] (which is currently just acused) to the war in BiH. As I said before, lookin as this article is just one sided, and there are a lot of evidences about it.
Basicly, there should be few short sentences with links about hole of ICTY part (greater Serbia map can stay, as Republika Srpska was in the first time planed to cower whole of BiH territory)
  • Paddy Ashdown part is unnecessary. It does not speaks about Karađorđevo.
  • Herbert Okun part should be reformalised as the guy is not testifing, he just concluded that Croatian and Serbian presidents wanted to annex parts of BiH.
  • Zimerman's part should also be reformalised as it is not part of testimony it is part of relations in BiH and with its neighbors
  • The same goes for Ante Marković part.
  • The only statements which talk about Karađorđevo are those from Dušan Bilajndžić, Stipe Mesić and Hrvoje Šarinić. And Stipe Mesić and Dušan Bilajndžić latter changed theirs statments.
  • in March of 1991 BiH is not an ex-Yugoslav republic. BiH proclaimed independence in October 1991. It should be also important to notice that it could not proclaim it without the votes of BiH Croats. And that the war in the begining were mostly Croats against Serbs (Ravno etc).
And that should be it, no? Just a little bit more NPOV.--Čeha (razgovor) 23:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Large improvment :) Now there should be just a slight revision of ICTY indicment part, as discussed previously, and I think that this article could be NPOV.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And perhaps this could be solved like this?:
* 3.1 Testimonies and statments
Because testimonies and statments do cover more ground? --Čeha (razgovor) 00:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with some of this (about 50%) but certainly not all of it. There is so much here it will take some more looking in to. If you can wait a bit for responses that would be best.Polargeo (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think if you wish renaming to 'testimonies and statements' should solve most of these points. The source on Warren Zimmerman calls it a testimony. I think one problem is that we are getting hung up on testimony needing to be a formal court testimony when actually testimony can mean any 'account of a first hand experience'. I have no problem with removing the Paddy Ashdown bit, I don't think it is needed. Polargeo (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the unnecessary detail on Paddy Ashdown. I still think it is valuable to keep the brief summary of the Ashdown testimony in the lead as it confirms intentions of the president. Polargeo (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think "It is also important to notice that internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina was at last changed and that new internal divisions happened at the end in Dayton" should be removed as it is unsourced POV and not really part of the agreement/meeting. Polargeo (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I have dealt with this by moving it to aftermath and rewording it. Polargeo (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with completely removing the majority of the ICTY section. However, as it is not directly about the talks there is far too much information there for this article. Rather than moving it elsewhere I propose that I remove the large block quotes and summarize them with only short quotes left. Also I would reduce the section to about a third of its current length. Polargeo (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have scaled this down to make sure it is more focussed on territory. I have not reduced it as much as I originally said but it is all sourced and clearly says it is an indictment. Any more reduction would be destructive and I don't think I should do that without backing from all sides. I think it is up to you Ceha (or PRODUCER) to put some information on Serb leaders here to balance it out as you know more than I do. Polargeo (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I puted judgments (and accusations) against Bosnian Serbian leadership, as well as possible indicements of Bosniaks (in the purpose of widening "Alija's pashaluk". You can (Polargeo, not Producer) look it up and rephrase if needed.--Čeha (razgovor) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of division of BiH on that meeting

The section Karađorđevo agreement#Accusations of division of BiH on that meeting is an addition I would expect from a 10 year old. It is very poor, I am not surprised PRODUCER reverted so many additions if they were like this. Also sticking in all of the maps is overkill. There seems to be a love of maps in the former Yugoslavia area. This has gone beyond actually being helpful to understanding and more about whose color is in what area. Image overload. Polargeo (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I shouldn't be so harsh. Can you incorporate the information into the article in a better fashion, sticking to the references? And reduce the number of maps. Polargeo (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem in refraising the last paragraph. The things which I wanted to be mentioned are internal peace conference in London, talks about division of BiH on it and Dayton agreement which did divided and reformulate that state. Also Franjo Tuđman denial about discussing change of BiH borders on Karađorđevo meeting should be there. If you wish, you can refrase it as such.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reworded some of the article, I've removed the Croat nationalist site as a reference and removed the maps per suggestion. PRODUCER (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Producer, from that site is just link of the all of the peace plans in Bosnian war. And that link is compleatly neutral. I find it hard to belive that you can not accept that. Also, I'd like to ask you that you don't just rephrase some of the text because by doing so you are puting your POV. Let the Polargeo try with his version and if it is wrong, we can discuss it here.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Simply put it's an unreliable source, the same goes for the SP source, stop reinserting it. PRODUCER (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution:
   * When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

So, please, preaty please, stop. By your POV behavior you are just fueling the edit wars.--Čeha (razgovor) 20:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Map

The Map depicting the idea of GReater Bosnia needs sources on its description page. Whilst it is a good map, if it is not verifiable, then it will have to be removed Hxseek (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also Ceha wishes to remove the maximum extent Croatia map. I think the solution is to remove all three maximum extent maps. I think they all create confusion in working out the details of the meeting which was obviously not about claiming the absolute limits of any of these maps and much more about dividing along ethnic lines, whatever each individual may or may not have desired. Polargeo (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I would agree on removal of Greater Croatia and Greater Bosnia map. These two do not have a lot with reality on the ground (Croats never tried something remotely similar in this war,maximum was Herzeg-Bosnia and Bosniaks were sandwiched on 10% of BiH). However, I think that greater serbian map should stay. Because in reality rs was in the begining called srpska republika Bosna i Hercegovina and by opinion of its makers it should have included whole of BiH.
What about Herzeg-Bosnia map? (the same is very similar to map of Banovina and vance-Owen peace plan)--Čeha (razgovor) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we should wait for other comments on this. If other editors think the map should remain then it probably should. It is certainly more relevent to the article than the maximum extent map. If nobody feels strongly then I would have no objection to it being removed. Also are there any other editors who have thoughts about putting the maximum serb territory map back in? I personally don't think it is necessary. Polargeo (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but if a map of Hz HB is going to be a part of the article, than also [[53]] should be added, with part of Serb leaders as discussed before.
There is a fundamental difference. In that the BSA map is 'land controlled'. This is already part of the animated map lower down the page and so is unnecessary. The Hz HB map is about extent of land claimed and so is relevent to plans (meetings/agreements). Polargeo (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also if noone objects in some time I would return Greater Serbian map, due to the reasons I mentioned before. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this extreme Greater Serbia was a serious part of the Serb plan at the time? Or was it just a wild aspiration? If there is some evidence then that is a good reason for its inclusion. Polargeo (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Look Vojislav Šešelj data at ICTY [54] onto the page 5. Infamous line at the picture (Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag)Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag_line shows early Serbian goals in Croatian and BiH wars. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Maximum extent of lands claimed by advocates of a Greater Serbia
Then the map is wrong because the source you mention states a considerable part of Bosnia and Herzegovina not all of it. Polargeo (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Line Virovitica-Karlobag includes whole of BiH and 80% (considerable part of) of Croatia. He defined the so-called Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica line as the western border of this new Serbian state which he referred to as "Greater Serbia" and which included Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and considerable parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Here is an error in wording. If someone would conquer a whole of Croatia east of that line and whole of Serbia and Montenegro he would control whole of BiH (it would be sourounded from all the sides). Map is pretty famous, you can ask even user Producer on it:) However, if that's not enough I will gooogle additional sources for it.--Čeha (razgovor) 08:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but was Vojislav Šešelj at the Karađorđevo meeting? And how much control did he have over Bosnian Serb ambitions? Say compared to Karadžić, Mladić, Milošević even. I am sure we could find individuals from all sides with unrealistic goals (the Tuđman napkin for example) but unless this was a goal or negotiating point of the Serbs collectively it is probably no more helpful than the other two maximum extent maps. Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
As can be seen on Croatian_War_of_Independence and [[55]]. That line was Serbian war goal until ceasfire in 1992. And as you can see on animation describing Bosnian war, early part of war in BiH was Serbian battles against the Croats, and Serbians ethnicly cleansing Bosniaks from eastern and western Bosnia.
Šešelj was just one of the paramilitary leaders (his units were the most bloody ones on the Serbian side).
That is one of the things why most of the Croats would denounce any sort of the agreement on that meeting. We had a bloody war after it. And some territories which were part of Banovina (which is suposedly the border which was agreed in Karađorđevo) like Posavina were the first to fall (but again, after heavy fighting). And the Serbs in so called Krajina were deeply in Croatian territories granating and destroying Croatian towns.

Some things in this war were heavy to understand and are very far away from black and white scenario which user Producer is describing.--Čeha (razgovor) 21:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ICTY maps

Yes, my intention when puting this maps were to show actual lines of control. Just a question of focus. That was also the reason because of which I changed map of Herzeg Bosnia to the map of maximum HVO control. If you think that they are surplus I would agree in removing them.
I wanted to to show lines of control and wartime existance of Serbian republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatian republic Herzeg-Bosnia, and "Alija's pashaluk" (or the small republic of Bosnia under owen-stoltenberg peace plan). Feel free to suggest anything if you have some good ideas.--Čeha (razgovor) 08:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they are repetition of the animated map, so I don't think they are needed separately. My view is to try to keep things as concise as we can. We are already deviating a long way from the article's subject, which is the meeting. I know this adds context but there are many other appropriate articles that deal with this context. Polargeo (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok.--Čeha (razgovor) 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER

Please do not do such major individual edits as this across the whole article at the moment. Some of your edit is fine but some of it is not. We may simply end up with a situation where we go about reverting each others edits and getting nowhere if you do this. Polargeo (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Testimonies

Coments from foreign press

I found interesting data [[56]]. Here are few interesting statments that can be found in press: ZAGREB, 25. ožujka (Hina) - Pred predstojeći sastanak šestorice predsjednika republika koji će se održati ovog tjedna, kako je priopćeno, danas su se u graničnom području dviju republika sastali predsjednici Republike Hrvatske i Republike Srbije dr. Franjo Tudman i Slobodan Milošević. U višesatnom razgovoru koji se odnosio na ključna pitanja političke i gospodarske krize, te budućih odnosa u Jugoslaviji razmotrena su glavna pitanja sadržaja predstojećeg sastanka predsjednika republika. Usprkos poznatih razlika o temeljnim pitanjima, a koja se tiču interesa republika Hrvatske i Srbije, odnosno hrvatskog ili srpskog naroda, a uzimajući u obzir da su odnosi Hrvatske i Srbije, odnosno hrvatskog i srpskog naroda od ključne važnosti za sveukupnost odnosa pa i rješavanja državno-političke krize u SFRJ, razgovor je vođen u nastojanju da se odstrane opcije koje ugrožavaju interese bilo hrvatskog bilo srpskog naroda u cjelini i da se traže trajna rješenja uz poštivanje povijesnih interesa naroda. Zaključeno je: - da se odredi vrijeme za rješavanje postojecih jugoslavenskih problema najduže do dva mjeseca, što će biti zajednički predloženo na predstojećem sastanku predsjednika republika, - te da se u uvjetima produbljivanja gospodarske krize razmotre rješenja i prijedlozi po ugledu na prijedlog Privredne komore Jugoslavije o promjenama u radu i sastavu Saveznog izvršnog vijeća u prijelaznom periodu u interesu zaštite zemlje od gospodarskog kolapsa, kaže se na kraju priopćenja sa sastanka predsjednika Republike Hrvatske dr. Franje Tudmana i predsjednika Republike Srbije Slobodana Miloševica Izvor: HINA, Baza EVA, 25. 3. 1991

PARIZ, 27. ožujka (Hina) - Sastanak predsjednika dviju najvećih jugoslavenskih republika, Tuđmana i Miloševića, komentira se u Francuskoj kao dobar znak da je mogućsporazum o preuredenju Jugoslavije. Katolički dnevnik "La Croix" piše da je Jugoslavija "krenula ka konfederativnom modelu", po uzoru na Europsku zajednicu, kao što predlažu Hrvatska i Slovenija. Predsjednik Srbije Miloševic sve dosad se tome "oštro suprotstavljao", istiće taj list. Sada, međutim, "spašava obraz", jer pristaje na konfederativni projekt "sjevernih republika" u kojem će se veze među republikama ograničiti na privredu, diplomaciju i vojsku. "La Croix" objavljuje i analizu poznatog povjesničara za Srednju Europu Francoisa Feuilleteaua: sastanak Tuđman-Milošević ocjenjuje se kao "veliki napredak prema preuredenju Jugoslavije". "Milošević je možda shvatio" - kaže Feuilleteau - "da se mora odreći plana o velikoj Srbiji i prihvatiti konfederalni model Jugoslavije da bi spasio svoju vlast". Svi vodeći francuski listovi - "Le Monde", "Le Figaro", "Liberation" - objavljuju kraća ili šira izvješca o "graničnom susretu" predsjednika Hrvatske i Srbije, s poantom da su se dvije najveće republike složile da u dva sljedeca mjeseca riješe "tešku jugoslavensku krizu". Izvor: HINA, Baza EVA, 27. 3. 1991.

DUSSELDORF, 27. ožujka (Hina) - Njemački gospodarski list "Handelsblatt", što izlazi u Dusseldorfu, susretu dr. Franje Tudmana i Slobodana Miloševića dodijelio je posebne prostore. U uokvirenu izvješću na naslovnoj stranici, uz fotografiju dr. Tuđmana, beogradski dopisnik lista Georg von Hubbenet izvješćuje o iznenadujućem susretu dvojice političkih protivnika, ističući, kako bi - prema postignutom sporazumu - najkasnije za dva mjeseca mogle biti okončane formalne ustavne pripreme za konkretne pregovore o budućem ustrojstvu Jugoslavije. Dusseldorfski gospodarski dnevnik navodi, kako su Tuđman i Milošević također uglavili da će buduća jugoslavenska gospodarska politika biti vođena prema zamislima Privredne komore Jugoslavije, a ne prema reformskom planu predsjednika vlade Ante Markovica. "Prema viđenju Privredne komore, prije svega mora biti olabavljena restriktivna monetarna politika beogradske savezne vlade, čime bi bila povećana likvidnost jugoslavenskog gospodarstva", piše "Handelsblatt i istiće kako nije isključena daljnja devalvacija dinara. Izvor: HINA, Baza EVA, 27. 3. 1991.

At the time there were no talk of BiH division in foreign press.


First rumor of BiH division on that meeting was from President Izetbegović the day before: "Uvjeren sam (a u tom pogledu imam i izvjesne informacije) da će Vam On u bilateralnim razgovorima ponuditi neka parcijalna rješenja, koja bi dijelom bila ostvarena na račun Muslimana u BiH. Molim Vas da takve ponude odbijete. Vi znate da bi to vodilo kaosu koji neke snage priželjkuju. Prijateljstvo hrvatskog i muslimanskog naroda može i sada i u budućnosti svima dati više od bilo kakvih neprincipijelnih pogodbi. Želim Vas uvjeriti u prijateljska osjećanja muslimanskog naroda. Sa osobitim poštovanjem Vaš Alija Sar. 24. III. 1991. In which he claims that he has some proofs that Milošević will offer Tuđman part of BiH.

President Mesić denied some of this in his testimony in Haague: Pitanje: Točno da je nastojanje predsjednika Tuđmana pri odlasku u Karađorđevo bilo da se izbjegne rat - je bio skrivena namjera za dogovor tog sastanka? S. Mesić: Ne znam koja je bila namjera. Ne znam ni koja je bila moja namjera kad sam dogovarao sastanak. Izvor: Predmet Blaškić IT-95-14-A, svjedočenje S. Mesića, 16. -19. 3. 1998. Pitanje: Rekli ste kako je Hrvatska zajednica Herceg- Bosna bila osnovana na sličan način kao i Republika Srpska, kao posljedica dogovora između Tuđmana i Miloševića u Karađorđevu? S. Mesić: Ne znam što je točno dogovoreno u Karađorđevu. Sve što znam je ono što su mi rekli o Karađorđevu. Kakvi su bili dogovori tamo postignuti, ja to ne znam. Samo sam svjestan posljedica. Izvor: Predmet Blaškić IT-95-14-A, svjedočenje S. Mesića, 16. - 19. 3. 1998. (the last 2 line are: What agreemnts were reached there, I do not know it. I'm just aware of its concequences.) ICTY, Blaškić Trial.


Franjo Tuđman (in many interviews): Franjo Tuđman: "Što se tiče ostaloga, ponavljam jednom zauvijek: nikada nije bilo navodnog dogovora o podjeli Bosne između Miloševića i mene" 31 --denial of bih devision.

Slobodan Milošević: Tuđman mi je rekao da želi neovisnu Hrvatsku. Ali se jednostavno nismo mogli složiti – on je htio uništiti savezne institucije, a ja nisam mogao na to pristati. Predlagao sam, kao i prije, promjenu Ustava kojom će se dopustiti samoodređenje. Bilo je nagađanja da smo se dogovorili o podjeli Jugoslavije. Sad vam kažem, da smo to ondje odlučili, mogli smo odmah i učiniti. --(Tudjman told me that he wanted indpendent Croatia. But we coud not agree - he wanted to destroy federal institutions, and I could not agree to that. There were speculations that we made an agreement about division of Yugoslavia. I'll tell you now, if we had agreed there we could have done it right away.)


Tuđman and Milošević statment in Geneve 17.7.1993. 1. Potpuno su neutemeljene špekulacije o podjeli Bosne i Hercegovine između Hrvatske i Srbije. 2. Jedini način za postizanje trajnog mira u Bosni i Hercegovini nalazi se u afirmaciji interesa svih triju konstitutivnih naroda i postizanju suglasnosti o uspostavljanju triju republika u okviru konfederacije. --(1.It is totally unsorsed to talk about division of Bosnia and Herzegovina between Croatia and Serbia). 2. The only way of making lastable peace is in afirmation of intress of all 3 constitutive nations and making a concensuss in making 3 republics in a confederation).--Čeha (razgovor) 09:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A public statement they made in 1993, during the war, is not really going to help us get to the bottom of the content of the meeting. This article is already quite clear that there may not have been a full agreement on the division of BiH but it seems that the weight of evidence is that they certainly discussed the division of BiH as the main content of the meeting and from their actions division of BiH was a major goal of both of them. It is not surprising that they may not have reached a full agreement because they would have had some overlapping conflicting goals, hence the Croatian war of Independence. The article title is simply as it stands because that is a phrase used across the world, I don't think it is helpful to argue the article title again. Let us just make sure this article is accurate. Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes but we do not have denial of the the agreement. Here are some statments from Milošević, Tuđman, Bilajdžić etc. with that data....--Čeha (razgovor) 12:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jović tvrdi: "Verovao sam da je takav dogovor o podeli Bosne Mesićeva izmišljotina putem kojom je nameravao da diskredituje Tuđmana s kojim se bio sukobio". 72. Što se tiče sastanka u Karađorđevu, koji je navodno održan krajem marta 1991. i na kome je navodno razgovarano o podeli Bosne, Milošević mi o tome nikada ništa nije govorio. Verovao sam da je takav dogovor o podeli Bosne Mesićeva izmišljotina putem kojom je nameravao da diskredituje Tuđmana s kojim se bio sukobio. Ako bi se ipak pokazalo da je Miloševic zaista razgovarao sa Tuđmanom u vezi s podelom Bosne, to bi samo značilo da je Milošević to skrivao od mene. U tom slučaju moje mišljenje o Miloševiću bilo bi još pogoršano. Ja nisam verovao u mogućnost razgovora o podeli Bosne zato što to nije bilo u skladu s ciljevima politike srpskog rukovodstva. Bilo je u sukobu sa našim viđenjem načina rešavanja srpskog pitanja u Hrvatskoj i sa našim shvatanjem da treba sačuvati Jugoslaviju. (Razgovor broj 1, drugi deo, str. 6; razgovor broj 3, str 5-6)Izvor: Borisav Jović: "Izjava na osnovu pravila 89 (F),Haag, datum svedočenja: 18. novembar 2003." http://www.danas.org/svjedoci/html/BorisavJovic.html Here Borislav Jović claims that no agreement of bih division took place and that the Mesić made it up just to discreedit Tuđman.


Bilajdžić statment prior to change: D. Bilandžić:Ti razgovori između takozvanih delegacija, bile su to takozvane eksperte grupe, pretvorili su se u oštri dijalog ili konfrontaciju tako da je glavna točka bila jesu ili Hrvatska ili Srbija ili obje ili jedna od njih suglasne oko nepovredivosti rezultata Drugog svjetskog rata. To je bio srž razgovora. Srpska strana nikada nije jasno i nedvojbeno rekla da će poštivati granice postojećih republika, jer da su to učinili, do rata ne bi došlo. Pitanje: Dobro, doktore, sudjelovali ste na sastanku, ispričavam se za krivi izgovor imena tog grada, oprostite Tikves, T-I-K-V-E-S, koji je pored Osijeka, oko 10. travnja 1991., kao član hrvatske delegacije da raspravite mape i odredite koji će dio pripasti Srbiji a koji će dio pripasti Hrvatskoj; je li to točno? D. Bilandžić: Ne, to nije točno. Točno je da se sastanak održao. Ponavljam da se 95 posto razgovora vodio oko priznavanja ustava iz 1974, i granica formiranih kao rezultat Drugog svjetskog rata, a što se tiče mapa i nekih konkretnih podjela, to nije postojalo. Postojale su samo etničke mape, što je normalno da se o tome raspravlja, ali ponavljam, nije bilo drugih dokumenata, koliko ja znam. Mi nismo uopće raspravljali o podjeli u smislu crtanja granica između Srbije i Hrvatske u Bosni i Hercegovini jer ja i moji kolege nismo uopće vjerovali, a to je bilo prije rata, mi nismo vjerovali u realnost takve politike, i smatrali smo da u to uopće ne trebamo ulaziti. Izvor: Predmet Blaškić IT-95-14-A, svjedočenje akademika Dušana Bilandžića 8. 9. 1998., str. 11234. ---Čeha (razgovor) 12:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem we have on wikipedia with this subject is that there has been a lot of back covering by various politicians who do not want to end up in front of a criminal trial, or who are already in front of a criminal trial and who may possibly be trying to confuse the issues. What we need are independent sources, not just a string of denials from those directly involved, we already have some of those denials in the article. We need some academic journals and books that sum up the meeting and possible agreements. I have got a couple of books that I will look at and try to summarize some of the main points of the meeting. It would be best if this article did not become a general forum for politician's denials. Polargeo (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Also Borislav Jović was a political enemy of Mesić. Who unconstitutionally blocked Mesić from taking the presidency. Not the most reliable witness on this matter. Polargeo (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes,all of politicians knew each other and were friends or enemies one part of the time. It would be bias if we would hide some of the statements just because someone was (or was not) somebodies friend.

That kind of generalisation would been harmfull because we could also said that politicians which testified did this for its one usage. I added some new text, and I think that geneva statment should be added in part when Tuđman and Milošević deny theirs agreement in Karađorđevo:
--(1.It is totally unsorsed to talk about division of Bosnia and Herzegovina between Croatia and Serbia). 2. The only way of making lastable peace is in afirmation of intress of all 3 constitutive nations and making a concensuss in making 3 republics in a confederation)Geneva statment 17.7.1993.
--(Tudjman told me that he wanted indpendent Croatia. But we coud not agree - he wanted to destroy federal institutions, and I could not agree to that. There were speculations that we made an agreement about division of Yugoslavia. I'll tell you now, if we had agreed there we could have done it right away.)Milošević
--(And about the rest, I'll repeat once and for all: there was neve suposetly agreement about division of Bosnia between me and Milošević). Tuđman
--(I don't know what exactly was agreed in Karađorđevo. Everything I do now is that what they told me. What agreemnts were reached there, I do not know it. I'm just aware of its concequences.) testimony of S. Mesića,ICTY, Blaškić Trial. 16. - 19. 3. 1998.

I think that everybody mentioned in this book was eather a diplomat, polititian or a soldier. And the smalest thing for NPOV that we could do is to put theirs statments in the article. Did they lie or not that should be for readers to decide.
Also, a lot of the things in the article are concluded over the events on the ground. All of those leaders did participate in discussions of BiH division in London conferency (Geneva meeting was part of it). That does not imply that they did previously reached and agreement that BiH, as a state of 3 constitutive nations should be divided. To my opinion, for most of this data article named Division of BiH. would be more sutable.--Čeha (razgovor) 15:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I agree well sourced statements of anyone who attended the meeting should go into the article but please try to keep the additions concise (just summarize) because huge quotations do not help anyone and try not to add in speculation around the actual statement. Polargeo (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the sources? PRODUCER (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much stop

The ICTY section is either kept concise or separated out of this article, possibly to a new article. This is ridiculous. This is not the place for listing all of the crimes of the war. We will not get anywhere with this article if this continues. Polargeo (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion to reduce the ICTY section and still keep it here would be to remove the lead (added by PRODUCER) and remove the stuff about the Bosnian leadership (added by Ceha). Otherwise this section should be split. I see no sense in trying to merge the whole section into the 'Bosnian War' because it is already big enough for a separate article on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I would prefer to just reduce the section rather than having another article to fight over. Any thoughts? Polargeo (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No:) This is just one proof of Producer's POV. I added Bosniak war crimes, as there is a percentage of war crimes which were commited by Bosniak judged and convicted by ICTY. To me, whole of ICTY part has nothing to do with Karađorđevo and should be putted in seperate article and just referenced (like Graz agreement), do everybody agree? For example; Most of Bosnian Serb wartime leadership were indicted for war crimes and ethnic cleansing in ICTY , most of Bosnian Croat wartime leadership is in an pending process for it, and investigment of Bosniak wartime leadership stopped with death of Alija Izetbegović. With a link of article which includes everything about ICTY and divisions of Bosnia Herzegovina.--Čeha (razgovor) 21:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Polargeo. Ceha, how is investigation against Izetbegovic related to Karadjordjevo agreement?! ICTYoda (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Izetbegović was supposed to be president of Islamic republic of Bosnia (Alija Pashaluk) and as such leader of third party in the war. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


I think we are confusing two issues here. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a state with three constitutive nations, not just one. Wishing for your own selfgovernance is not a crime. Changing state borderlines and ethnic cleansing is.--Čeha (razgovor) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I propose again that we remove the lead of the ICTY section and the unnecessary bit about the 'Investigation of Bosniak wartime leadership'. This will require that neither PRODUCER or Ceha puts either section back in. Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm against it. If we speak about divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina we should not forget about Bosniaks which were promised 1/3 of BiH teritory in peace conference in London with access to sea and rivers Sava and Drina. Such things are never spoken and as such it represents a POV. I'm sorry Producer if that does offend you, but this is an encyclopedia not a forum and our job is not to conceal data.--Čeha (razgovor) 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, clearly I was the one trying to conceal data by creating a a pov fork. lol Polargeo's opinion regarding the edits you added are spot on. PRODUCER (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Denial

I think the denials of Tuđman and Milošević are important for the article but need much better referencing and format. Unless improved and properly referenced they could be removed for risk of innaccuracy. Polargeo (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't mind leaving the Bosnian leadership part in the article as it is sourced. But it is completely unnecessary. The only reason for leaving it in is so that people can say. "Yeh but they weren't so nice either" not really that useful! Polargeo (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Denial of what?? of agreement in Karađorđevo?? "Innocent until proven guilty" plese.

There is no any proof that they have agreed anything there.orally, especially not in written form. That is why this article title against 1st pillar.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ceha added the information on their denials and created the section title 'denial'. I am simply saying this should stay in the article if the references are improved. There does not need to be written, signed proof from Tuđman and Milošević, that an agreement happened for the topic to be discussed. Unless that is some new rule I am unaware of. Does anyone really believe Tuđman and Milošević would come out of a meeting and say "yes we are breaking international law by planning and implementing the division of BiH between Serbia and Croatia" of course they wouldn't. Properly referenced discussion of a possible agreement in no way violates the 1st pillar. Also "innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal construct and does not apply to people who have died anyway. For example are we unable to discuss the acts of Genghis Khan because he has not been found guilty in a court? Polargeo (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Aradic-es have a point. Bad wording on my side. As for breaking international law, those two were in war between themselves shortly after that meeting. From territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia was granated and attacked. Karađorđevo meeting is highy arguable event. There exist no evidence, except for statments of people who were not at the meeting that any deal was made there. Events and statmens from the ICTY and from many witnessess show that they helped military units and structures of their people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe they even show they wanted annexation of parts of BiH (Milošević surely wanted that). But that do not show existance of any kind of deal beetween them.
And war events in 1991 and 1992 to make possibillity for that deal highly improbable. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits2

Polarge, you are making one mistake here. Firstly I don't think that quotes from one book can be valid description. Secondly some of the data is wrong, or better say obsolete. Example is number of victems. Although previusly counted as high as 200,000 recent studies showed there were only 100,000 (97 thousand and something to be precise). I think it can be googled out.

okay so put in the correct number along with the reference please. Don't just change the number! Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay I've done it now. I hope this is better. Polargeo (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for other things. For examples, Bosnians. Name is clearly wrong as citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina could be a Bosnian or a Herzegovian. By nationality he(or she) could be Croat, Serb or BosniaK. Reading this someone can get impresion that all of the victems were Bosniak which is clearly wrong.

Bosnian_War The most recent research places the number of killed people at around 100,000–110,000 (civilians and soldiers), and 1.8 million displaced (see Casualties).[57] Recent research has shown that most of the 97,207[8] documented casualties during Bosnian War were Bosniaks (66%), with Serbs in second (25%) and Croats (8%) in third place.[58]
I just used the source. I left your additional clarification of (bosniaks, croats and serbs) in brackets. I am well aware what all of these terms mean. I may not know as much as you but I am familiar with the subject but your changing this completely was also wrong because it was then talking about Croats and Serbs in general rather than BiH Croats and Serbs as the source implied. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Also Bosnians is a common abreviation used in the West to mean people from Bosnia and Herzegovina (such as in Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat or Bosnian Muslim). I know this is technically wrong to people in the Balkans and can be corrected but it is not completely wrong on English wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay I have improved this. I hope this is now okay. Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also recent edits show just partial situation on the ground. While Milošević had all the power of Yugoslav army (third european military force), Tuđman did not had anything. While some of Milošević plans and actions are planed almost a decade ago (RAM2, SANU referendum), Tuđman policies were incosistent and prone to improvisation. Milošević was reased out from Serbian establishment in Yugoslavia, while Tuđman was a disident.

There is already mention of this at the end of the Karađorđevo agreement#Overview. i.e. "Franjo Tuđman and the Croatian government have denied this agreement on numerous occasions stating that in 1991 the Serbs controlled all of the Yugoslav Army and the Serbian rebellion in Croatia during the Croatian war of independence was just beginning." Please feel free to expand on the inequality of the situation at the end of the overview with more WP:RS :) Polargeo (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added a little bit more about this and the power of the Yugoslav army. I hope this underlines the inequality of the situation. Polargeo (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And for divisions of BiH. Here is a greater minus. Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time was a newly born state, with undefined institutions and wich 1/3 of the state (bosnian Serbs) which did not except it. To further worsen the thing one of the constitutive nations (again Bosnian Serbs) were against it. This is easily overlooked in the text. We need to underline that BiH is not just BosniaK state. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

While the media in west expressed their abhorrence of 'tribal' or 'ethnic' wars, western politicians readily accepted the creation of ethnically pure territories in Croatia and, especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the partion of which was built to the very start of negotiations on its future and continued in ever more grotesque forms to be imposed upon the country even after its international recognition. [59] This line goes to international community, not just S,C and B.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to add some information on this if you wish, there is plenty of criticism of the European and particularly the American handling of the situation. :) Polargeo (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Brendan Simms, Najsramniji trenutak - Britanija i uništavanje Bosne [[60]] Inteeasting book.--Čeha (razgovor) 20:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mesić prior statments

[61] here he denies that any of the talks in Karađorđevo where about divison of Bosnia, and that intention of any talk where to find out what the crook (Milošević) wants. So please change this part.
Also if you check our discussion there is a quote from Bilandžić where he also denies any division of BiH. So please, change that also:) --Čeha (razgovor) 21:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ceha, as long as you have RS then PRODUCER should not get rid of your addition. The fact that certain Croat polititians may have initially denied that the talks were about the division of BiH and then changed their story is interesting but tells us little. There is not really any serious dispute that the division of BiH was discussed at the meeting. It was discussed and claims that it wasn't are a bit fringe. The dispute is about the level/ or lack of any agreement. Now, I think the most likely situation from the sources is there was no realistic agreement on Croatia but there was some sort of agreement in principle on the division of BiH. This is not the same thing as a final complete agreement. Why would it really surpise anyone that they wanted to divide BiH, they both did want to and would have no problem agreeing in principle that it should be done. The details may not have been finalised and possibly no deal was signed. I think we add well sourced data and let the reader come to their own conclusion, rather than trying to push any particluar POV. Polargeo (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Those prior statments do speak of the credibility of the witness. If someone lied once... And especially if he is a politician:) That is called NPOV. We got to show all relevant data to the readers. That they can themselves conclude what happened. So I would like to ask you to put that data for Mesić, Bilajdžić (that formulation some Croatian newspapers is a little bit funny), and Jović's denial.
A lot of data in this article does not have direct link to the meeting. For example ICTY part. It speaks of divisions of BiH, when BiH was being divided in London peace conference and the newborn country was made from 3 constitutive nations. Just to make thing right: any attempt to annex part of the neighboring country and sending army on neighbor's soil without previous agreement of that neighbor is a war crime. Helping your fellow countrymen in logistics and material is not.
Croatia did house about 1 million of Bosniak refugees. It trained BiH army and delivered them war material.
As it stated in the begining of the article, Tuđman's policy to the BiH was not always very transparent. As you can see on the map Croatia is shaped as letter C in which center is BiH. During the war official Croat policy (or it was claimed as such) is that there could not be Serbia on Una (that is the river on the western border of BiH) or on Croat soil. Official Croat policy claimed that it wanted to preserve BiH in its international borders (reasons for wich are above), but that it wanted to helped its fellow countrymen for retaining that status as two other larger constutive nations in BiH and against domination from them (in Federation BiH, at least currently, Bosniaks do dominate federal structures). That was official statment. Which goes against any kind of agreement in Karađorđevo.
There exist one proof which shows that no kind of agreement over Bosnia in Karađorđevo was reached. That are transcripts from F.Tuđman. I don't know if you know this, but Tuđman recorded all of his talks. When Mesić became president he made them public. In many of them military and logistic help to BiH Croats is discussed. Talks about internal divisions of BiH on London Conference are also there. Some of it is very heavy. However there is no trace or mention of any agreement with Milošević (even in principle) on BiH division. No document which would cover that topic do exists.
Milošević did indeed wanted to annex parts of Croatia and BiH (or whole of it). As said before, there exists number of documents which proves that. He had the planing, the motivation and the means (or he taught of such) to accomplish that. Tuđman on the other side, as dissident which came to power did not have anything of that. There is one good sentence of which I forgot the source; If indeed Tuđman wanted to take something out of Bosnia then, circumstances made him a crook that goes for BiH divisions in London, relations of international community to that state (vance-owen peace plan etc).
If Milošević won the war in Croatia he would have conquered whole of BiH. If Tuđman won the war in Croatia he would have been able to won the war in Bosnia also (as could be seen in events prior to Dayton).
In short: existence of any kind of agreement (even in principle) is not proven. Existence of discussing divisions of BiH exist. And almost all of it did happened in London peace conference, under cover of international community. This article should be about events which happened on that meeting and before begining of peace conference. And they should be well sourced, neutral sources. To be sure that everything is NPOV.
I'm going on vacation for one week and then after some days on another two weeks. Do please try to cover everything in NPOV fashion and try to keep out Producer's POV out of it :)
P.S. I'm glad that a reasonable discussion can be reached with you. It is great plus when someone tries to be objective and acts under wikipedia rules. C'ya.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is, you might not realise it and Producer doesn't realise it. You both see this through a filter. If we look at white light through a red glass we see red and if we look at it through a blue glass we see blue. Your arguments are very reasonable but for example I could make a case using good sources that Croatia committed genocide againt the Serbs from 1991-1995, completely backed by Tuđman. Every one of these politicians has a certain political motive and that goes for those calling the others liers. Their political motives change depending on whether Croats or Serbs or Bosniaks are on trial, on whether Milosevic or Tuđman is alive or dead. Obtaining information from Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian media is like looking through a filter, when you look at the actual trial records they never quite say what the news papers claim. The same thing goes for western media although with slightly less bias towards one ethnic group or another. We must try and bring the article away from popular media sources. Hang on I see ICTYoda has come back, better go back to the article! Polargeo (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jović Testimony in the article

This link [62] shows Mesić's testimony. Jović's name is only spoken twice in whole of the paper. I gave you Jović's statments in which he denies any agreement and accuses Mesić of false testimony. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I will check over my mistake. It is very difficult to follow the transcripts of the trial. I notice you and producer are both arguing over the Mesić statements. I will try to have a look at this in the next day or two and see if I can make sure this is as accurate as possible. Polargeo (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. It turns out that it was an Ante Marković testimony. But I thought that as it mentions agreement in principle (rather than agreement, which is a different thing!!) that it is important to this article. All politicians can easily say "there was no agreement" and be essentially telling the truth even if they did agree that something should be done but do not sign a final deal (agreement). It looks like we will never know if M-T agreed a final division of BiH at Karađorđevo but the weight of evidence shows they discussed this and possibly agreed that this should in some way be done. Yes lots happened after this but the common view is that M-T expressed their views/plans to each other and these were implemented in one way or another during the following years. As long as we keep to RS and stay balanced we should be able to express this in the article. In fact I think the article is mostly there, with a few adjustments. Polargeo (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Struggling

I am really having problems, partly because of all the Croatian references which I have to translate, but I cannot see where Hrvoje Šarinić denied 'several times' that there had been an agreement on the division of BiH. Polargeo (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


OK

Najviše reakcija izazvao je onaj dio vašeg svjedočenja u kojem ste kazali kako su se u Karađorđevu Milošević i Tuđman razmišljali o podjeli BiH, ali da nisu postigli konkretni dogovor?

The most reaction were caused by the segment of your testimony in which you calimed that in Karađorđevo Milošević and Tuđman were considering the division of BiH ,but they did not achieve any exact agreement?"

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but "did not achieve an exact agreement" has then been stated on wikipedia falsely as "denied several times there was any agreement" This is not what Šarinić said, this is a poor interpretation of what he said. In court he said that he "did not believe that a formal agreement was reached" Though he also stated that when Tudman left the meeting that Tudjman was happy but Šarinić believed Milosevic "had his fingers crossed in his pocket". Now I interpret this as there was an understanding (or non-formal) agreement reached but Šarinić thought that was no good because Milosevic could not be trusted. This testimony of Šarinić has been twisted to say something it doesn't say and that is there was NO agreement of any kind. Šarinić like a good politician is very careful not to say this. Polargeo (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


the best proof about the existence of agreement were the events that followed it. Hard attacks at Dubrovnik and Vukovar... and massacres that followed them.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
In the previous versions of the article there was a sentence mentioning it... but somebody has removed it. Can we guess twice who??Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is a good source you can put this information back in Polargeo (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of sources and statement

Witnesses:

Ante Marković-political oponent of both of them- was not present at the meeting

Stipe Mesić-political oponent of both of them- was not present at the meeting

Herbert Okun-was not present at the meeting Paddy Ashdown-neutral [63] Brittish politician- was not present at the meeting

It does not matter. The two people who talked to each other were the presidents and they are both dead. So are you now saying we can only have an article that directly quotes the two presidents? All of these people you mention are valid sources of information on this topic. Their input is as important to our understanding as that of the political allies, they should be quoted in this article. If you want an article where everything on Milosevic comes from his allies I think you may find it a long long way from being true. Polargeo (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Valid sources of information- yes if we name article into Bosniak theories of conspiracy about meeting in KarađorđevoAñtó| Àntó (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me but which of those sources is a Bosniak? I will answer. none of them. Two Croat, one American and one British. All people who have valid input on the situation. You may not like it but that should not be wikipedia's problem. Polargeo (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, none of them is Bosniak-that is true. But none of them can be considered as neutral source.

Stipe Mesić-political oponent of Tuđman- was not present at the meeting (I repeat this 100th time!!!), Ante Marković-political oponent of both of them- was not present at the meeting-the irelevant of politician whose leadership cause economic disaster-and disappointment of his irrelevance in new circumstances.Paddy Ashdown- was not present at the meeting and he says nothing about it. his statement about the napkin was given on the beginning of Operation Storm-in order to cause disagreement between Croatian and Bosniak troops (see:Great Britain during Yugoslav wars)--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Summa summarum:article name is hard POV of one side.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right about Paddy Ashdown's motives. But nonetheless it is a first hand account of a meeting with Tuđman and an assesment of the president's motives. This is totally valid in the context of the motives behind this meeting. You may not like Stipe and Marković but they spoke directly to Tuđman or Milosević at the time and so give testimonies of what the presidents were doing. I am personally far more cautious about defence witnesses called by Milosević, they seem to just deny anything Milosević wants them to deny, however, their testimonies are also welcome in this article to give a balanced picture. As to agreement there are many levels of agreement and it seems there was not a full agreement or any exact details but near as we can be to certain there was an agreement in principle to divide BiH. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The agreement in principle (???) would mean that they actually did agree on something but nothing specifically. AIP would mean that they (Croats &Serbs) stopped fighting after that (because the leaders agreed on something). That is off course nonsense because just after that the fights between Croats &Serbs became quite serious (Siege of Dubrovnik, Siege of Vukovar and following massacre) which indicates that all presumptions about any kind of agreement are totally unfounded speculations.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
We are talking about agreement in principle on the separation of BiH. We are not talking about exactly what borders. Nobody claims they agreed borders (not Mesić, not Marković) and nobody claims there was an agreement on the Serb controlled areas in Croatia. You are furious with the idea of an agreement because that is like selling out to the Serbs, but that is simply not what is being meant by agreement in this context. In this context all that the various witnesses are saying is that the presidents agreed BiH should be divided in some way (largely between Serbia and Croatia) with the details to be worked out later. As we now see the details were never properly agreed on and there were many disputed regions. You are arguing against something that is not there to be argued against. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to be discussed (LOL).. What you call agreement in principle is their state of mind, which is not something provable nor verifiable.And it is not the issue of an article which referrs to the meeting Meeting in March 1991.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It is from a reliable source from a key witnesses. What else but reliable sources and key witnesses would you include? Wikipedia is here to reflect the best most reliable information we have on these things. Because we don't have a video recording of the whole meeting or a personal diary of Slobodan Milosević then we have to put together the best information we can. This includes UN tribunal testimonies by key politicians of the time which mention "agreement in principle" and there is absolutely no way this should be removed. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Google.com search test

  • "Karađorđevo meeting"- wikipedia:[64] , Results 1 - 10 of about 437
  • "Karađorđevo agreement"-wikipedia [65] Results 1 - 10 of about 224
  • "Karadjordjevo meeting"-wikipedia [66] Results 1 - 10 of about 430 English
  • "Karadjordjevo agreement"-wikipedia [67] Results 1 - 10 of about 221 English

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • "Karađorđevo agreement"-wikipedia [68] Results 1 - 10 of about 2,700 English pages for "Karađorđevo agreement"-wikipedia. (0.06 seconds) [69]
  • "Karađorđevo meeting"-wikipedia:[70] , Results 1 - 10 of about 453 English pages for "Karađorđevo meeting"-wikipedia. (0.16 seconds) [71]
  • "Karadjordjevo agreement"-wikipedia [72] Results 1 - 10 of about 2,700 English pages for "Karadjordjevo agreement"-wikipedia. (0.28 seconds) [73]
  • "Karadjordjevo meeting"-wikipedia [74] Results 1 - 10 of about 452 English pages for "Karadjordjevo meeting"-wikipedia. (0.24 seconds) [75]
Nice trick, but the space between - and wikipedia in the ("Karađorđevo meeting"- wikipedia) search affects results. PRODUCER (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I am bored of this game. PRODUCER you do get some odd results. Anyway both are commonly used terms. Agreement may be considered offensive to some but I don't think it is necessary to change the name of the article. The article addresses whether there was an agreement or not. People can judge this for themselves. Polargeo (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Such an article name indicates that it is (100% proven)-which is total nonsense.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you about the 100%, but the purpose of the article name is not to determine what they did or did not agree on. Polargeo (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
  1. ^ [76]
  2. ^ http://slobodanpraljak.com/jna.html
  3. ^ http://slobodanpraljak.com/POMOC_RH_BIH.html
  4. ^ http://slobodanpraljak.com/jna.html
  5. ^ http://slobodanpraljak.com/POMOC_RH_BIH.html
  6. ^ http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/021002ED.htm
  7. ^ Jeli (JAZU-)Akademik Dušan Bilandžić postao hrvatski Savo Štrbac?
  8. ^ Algoritam Multimedia Bookshop [novosti]
  9. ^ Zamirzine - Dušan Bilandžić: Kameleon Za Sva Vremena
  10. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=wXooH0vZVd4C&pg=PA47
  11. ^ http://hercegbosna.org/download-hr/ISTINA_O_BOSNI_I_HERCEGOVINI_DOKUMENTI_1991_1995.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milošević–Tuđman_Karađorđevo_meeting/Archive_1&oldid=1209078339"