Jump to content

Talk:Operation Medak Pocket/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendation

CANADIAN-FOOT GOES FORWARD; DEBATE;

THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF UNIT COMMENDATION

The Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendation may be awarded to any unit or sub-unit of the Canadian Forces, or to any similar organization of a foreign armed force working with or in conjunction with the Canadian Forces, that has performed an extraordinary deed or activity of a rare high standard in extremely hazardous circumstances. Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendations are restricted to war or war-like conditions in an active theatre of operations.

The Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendation is composed of scroll, insignia and pennant.

The framed gold-embossed scroll is inscribed with the name of the formation, unit or sub-unit concerned, bears an appropriate citation, and is signed by the Governor General as the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces. The insignia is a gold bar with the Vice-Regal lion in full colour. The accompanying pennant is a permanent symbol of the award and may be flown or displayed as a public distinction. Related Information For more information, please see the Department of National Defence Web site for Canadian Forces Honours and Awards: [2] -- R.E.D. MORT -- 19:10, 5 December 2007

so what your saying is we shouldn't have even been there? GNR. R.E.D. MORT -- 19:24, 5 December 2007 The canadian officers still don't let us speak about the battle so who cares if the croatian government denies the whole thing at least i got a cave and a light socket.(and one of the Commander-in-Chief Commendation's) yay for Canada!?

Image:hon04-ccuc.jpgThe Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendation may be awarded to any unit or sub-unit of the Canadian Forces, or to any similar organization of a foreign armed force working with or in conjunction with the Canadian Forces, that has performed an extraordinary deed or activity of a rare high standard in extremely hazardous circumstances. Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendations are restricted to war or war-like conditions in an active theatre of operations.

The Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendation is composed of scroll, insignia and pennant.

The framed gold-embossed scroll is inscribed with the name of the formation, unit or sub-unit concerned, bears an appropriate citation, and is signed by the Governor General as the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces. The insignia is a gold bar with the Vice-Regal lion in full colour. The accompanying pennant is a permanent symbol of the award and may be flown or displayed as a public distinction. Related Information For more information, please see the Department of National Defence Web site for Canadian Forces Honours and Awards: [1] -- R.E.D. MORT -- 19:10, 5 December 2007

  • so what your saying is we shouldn't have even been there? R.E.D. MORT -- 19:24, 5 December 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy in Ca minor

Since the part on the page is simply retelling a Canadian story that has no substantiation whatsoever (apart from Canadian sources whose veracity is, in Croatian public, virtually nil), and events took place on Croatian soil-this heavily biased article will be- until improvement leading away from fairy-tale fictions & towards reality- NPOV tagged. There were no 27 Croatian "fatalities" in the "battle" that actually didn't happen. The bulk of the article is not only false, but surreal as well in Munchausen-like stories presented as factual truth. Mir Harven 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you actually substantiated your comments rather than just putting on an NPOV tag and leaving the rest of us to wonder what the problem is. I'm puzzled by your assertions, considering that the engagement is very well documented. Take a look at the Canadian commander's testimony, for instance [2] - he says explicitly that "The Croatians reported that 27 of their members were killed or wounded during the fire fights with my battle group during the 14 days in Medak." There are plenty of contemporary media reports saying the same thing. Do you have a source that contradicts what they say? -- ChrisO 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
This fiction is reported in Canadian media only (and, of course, in those relayinf info from them). This "casualties" fairy-tale was never reported in any Croatian history books, media, Army testimonies, overall Croatian casualties list issued by Ministry of Defence- never. And, so you want the general public to believe, as something proven beyond reasonable doubt, in the words of a few officers who had acquired, in the country they had been deployed to as the UN peace-keeping forces, extremely bad reputation for partiality in the role of pro-Serbian co-conspirators & highly unprofessional soldiers ? Who are, in the Gospić area, remembered as the ones who had been covering Serbian shelling that killed ca. 20 people before the Medak offensive by issuing false reports ? Very much like Danish and Russian parts of the UNPROFOR, and very different from Finnish, Jordanian or Argentianian UN. This article is very POVy, based solely on Canadian troops testimonies that are not corroborated by anyone else in the world-most importantly by those with whom these troops claim to have had been involved in a battle. Croatia is a membeer of many international bodies, her media (the majority) are virtually in the hands of a few multinational companies, her Ministry of Defence had passed through at least 3 thorough personnel and "ideological" changes (for better & for worse)-but, not a single "testimony" on this "battle" has appeared in these 16 years. For any rational person, the Canadian story is a pure fiction- or, if we want "audiatur et altera pars", a story that may appear only cautiously referred to as coming from this one, uncorroborated source. Mir Harven 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Btw-this whole fiction, albet stemming from different motives, resembles a small-scale Zaitsev fable about the duel with German master-sniper; a duel that never happened. Mir Harven 09:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
And more, in order to clear the air: a) I respect your edits & attitude b) I don't have anything against Canadians c) but, as I've noted, there is a widespread opinion, which I do share & which is substantiated enough, that Ca UN peace-keepers had been an extended arm of sleazy British policy in the region d) that this article is virtually "unilateral" (or, if you wish, POVy). It tells an extremely one-sided variant of the events. Bottom line-it's, let's be frank: a media manipulation & a lie. Serbian paramilitaries had been terrorizing the Gospić area and killing civilians during more than a year of the UNPROFOR deployment period. The UNPROFOR watched & did nothing. And then, these quasi-colonial occupiers had been defeated & fled. Similar to the French in Algeria, Americans and French in the Vietnam or Greeks in Turkey. This article is devoted more to the political manipulations of the ICTY, than to the event itself: the liberation of Croatia from occupation perpetrated by Serbia through the fifth-column of their ethnic minority. If Czechoslovakia had been able to defeat Konrad Henlein' s forces & the 3 M strong German ethnic minority, amply backed by the 3rd Reich army and the SS-without plunging into WW2-then, this would be the rough, albeit imaginary equivalent of the situation in Croatia. No doubt, Muenchenites would have set up an "international tribunal" to prosecute Czechs and Slovaks for crushing poor Hitler's compatriots who, having failed to annex 30-40% of the neighboring sovreign state, fled to their motherland in defeat. Mir Harven 23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there are really three questions here: did the clash happen in the first place, were 27 Croatians killed and wounded and were war crimes committed?
On the first question, I think the evidence is overwhelming. There's a broadcast documentary about the incident here, which includes contemporary video footage and photos: http://cbc.ca/national/real/off1_021111.smi (requires RealPlayer) and Canadian participants in the incident are discussing it at the moment here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,64.0/all.html. So we have video and photographic evidence as well as the first-hand accounts of the participants, testimony to the Canadian parliament and the accounts of the Canadian government and media. If you were right, it'd mean that they were all lying consistently for the last 13 years. I find that very hard to believe. I find it much easier to believe that (as several of the Canadians say in that forum discussion) some Croatians are in denial about it. It's hardly surprising that the Croatian government would want to deny it given that shooting at UN personnel is itself a crime.
This is your supposition. The UN forces have been shot at umpteenth times, from Lebanon & Israel to various African flash points. Essentially-the UN forces are generally held in pretty low esteem & there are practically no sanctions for armed clashes with them. Since the part of the article essentially retells the Canadian story, it's too POVy. I'll add that the Croatian authorities never admitted as having had a serios "battle" with the UN forces: the weekly Nacional is a marginal source in this matter. Also, the article, although still unbalanced (poor Serbian aggressors, murderers of dozens of Gospić civilians), is now in much better shape than before. Mir Harven 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


On the second question, the casualty figure appears to come from the Canadian Colonel Jim Calvin (see the quote above). It does seem that there's been some confusion over what this represents, though. The claim of 27 dead in one incident isn't borne out by Calvin's testimony to the Canadian parliament, in which he speaks of 27 dead and wounded over a 14-day period (so presumably that includes casualties incurred during the period of the whole operation, not just during the firefight).
On the third question, there's no doubt that civilians were killed - there's plenty of evidence of that - but the question of criminal responsibility is obviously one for the lawyers. We can report what they say but a definitive statement that "this was a war crime" will have to wait for the verdicts to be passed in the Ademi and Norac cases.
I'll amend the article to note the Croatian denials, but seeing that you've not provided any backing at all other than your own personal opinion (which we can't include - see WP:NOR) I'll also remove the NPOV tag. -- ChrisO 07:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In order to be able to clearly view this discussion it is best not to edit inside someone else's speech Mir Harven. it is easiest to view this page if it is in chronological order. view this as any regular polite debate IRL, one does not interrupt while the other is talking. when you answer someone else place your responses in the order he gives his points/counterpoints, that way you do not have to answer inside his speech, and it is simpler, and more polite and civil.

--Jadger 17:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you've removed Mir Harven's additions - you've saved me the trouble of having to do that myself! There were some significant problems with what was added. It might be useful if I highlight them here.
On the other hand, Croatian authorities, both civil and military, during the aftermath of the skirmish with the UN forces and in the years that followed, have never admitted that any serious battle with the UNPROFOR forces in the Medak area ever occurred and claim that Canadian forces's insistence on the higher scale of fighting is completely politically motivated. Furthermore, no relatives or family members of the Croatian soldiers who were supposedly killed in the skirmish with the UN forces, have ever appeared in the Croatian media with their personal stories or confessions
There's no citation for this claim - it's clearly Mir Harven's personal view and (as I said above) statements based on original research are not allowed. It's also not verifiable, so it falls foul of our policy to include only verifiable information. I can't see how you could possibly verify it - you'd have to check every Croatian government and military statement, and every Croatian newspaper and journal for the last 13 years. I'd bet Mir Harven hasn't done that!
in sharp contrast to the extensive sensationalist coverage virtually every aspect of the Croatian war for Independence, both "heroic" and "shameful", has been subjected to.
This bit is purely Mir Harven's personal view and isn't admissible. It constitutes original research and so contravenes our "No original research" policy. It's also an extremely POV statement and doesn't meet our requirement to state a neutral point of view.
In short, the entire passage that Mir Harven has provided is simply not suitable for use on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


As I said-the article is now much better, but still has many faults. 1) it speaks of some kind of "Serbian counterattack". No such attack ever happened & and Serbs laid on their backs with the legs spread. The Medak itself should have been easily taken, but the Croatian forces refrained from it due to public outcry on behalf of poor Serbs they protected (especially when they engaged in criminal activities in the UNPROFOR zones) 2) as far as "the decisive victory" part- it was & wasn't. It certainly eliminated every imagined Serbian possibility to cut Croatia in half-which would be a gain on the strategic, not just tactical level-but, it is doubtful whether Serbs could have done it anytime since 1991. What it certainly accomplished was to make Gospić a much safer city for living, which will be documented by citing casualties list before and after the Medak operation. 3) as for citatomania-it's preposterous to ask a verifiable quote on any contention made. All people who live in Croatia and follow the media every day & week, know that sensationalist stories appear almost incessantly & are noted for their "longevity", media time duration-wise: it's from 2 weeks to sporadic reapearrnce of some macabre stories 3-5 times every year. To support general contentions with quotes is simply laughable- it would be similar to the ludicrous claim to corroborate statements "Tolstoy is, in English speaking world, regarded highly than Dostoevsky" (a rather banal statement, but, there is no decisive way to prove it). 4) on Serbian military losses this text is vocally silent. This is NPOV ? Croatian forces got out of Gospić just for a joy ride, eh ? These, and other aspects of this still POVy article should be woked on, although the text itself is not such a pompous lie it had been before. Now, it's a half-truth. Mir Harven 09:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow Mir Harven, are you God? because you speak as if you were present. perhaps you are God and are omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, in that case, forget giving any sources, whatever you say goes. If you claim it is now a half truth now, that is only b ecause your edits have added more of these lies, oh great omniscient one. Come on, how many times must we tell you that saying that it was in the newspaper doesnt qualify as a source.

--Jadger 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This critique coming from you is hilarious. You lord over things here in your arrogant self-assuredness as if you could even point Croatia out on a map. --AHrvojic 23:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can easily point it out on a map, it is easy to point out, its the only country in Europe that entirely looks like an American ghetto. it's like saying "you can't even point out a black dot on a white page". Of course I know where Croatia is, its the only place anyone with a right mind doesn't care about, and rightly I must say. so OGOO, (oh Great Omniscient One) can you please stop trolling and flaming and get back on topic, or here is an idea: for once try to provide credible sources and evidence.

--Jadger 02:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What have you expected from Canadian UNPROFOR? Who's their witness? Jadger, you don't get it. If they think up this story about the battle, they'll get the medals, honors and stuff. Having lines like "taking part in the battle" and "being in the war" in their dossier will reflect on their salary; the officers will faster climb in the military hierarchy... (higher ranks...). All they have to do is think up a story ( make a false testimony), and all soldiers have to tell the same thing and officers had to create false reports. Croatia is far away from Canada so they can say what they want (who'll go and check out?). For such behaviour with USA they would got a kick in the a*s and Canada would have severed diplomatic relations with the USA. Don't believe every fabrication that comes from Canadian military. If Croatian forces wanted to attack Canadian forces, there would be no leftovers from Canadians, except a bunch of scattered flamed meatballs. All that Croat military had to do is shell them with heavyguns for a few weeks, without need to send any soldier there. Only the cleaning lady afterwards, to clear the dust. Jadger, you're watching too much Schwarzenegger's movies. Soldiers die. There are no superheroes. It was only a battalion there, not ten heavily armored divisions strengthened with phasors and laser cannons. Kubura 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

your argument is flawed and downright WRONG right from the start, it is not Canadian UNPROFOR, since when did only one nation constitute the UN? not to mention that the Canadians were not alone, the French forces had been in the area as well. You cannot even give a correct synopsis of a Schwarzenegger movie, lots and lots of soldiers die in the movies, only the hero remains (who is often not a soldier at all). Your whole argument (if it can be called that, seems more like trolling) is pure stipulation; the Martians could of also landed and aided the Croats in there attack, but wait, I just took away your next point, sorry Kubura.

P.S. your argument about Canada vs USA is incomprehensible to an english speaking person, perhaps try revising it.

--Jadger 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You should've attend English lessons in your elementary school. That's your problem. Don't project on other people the things you've been told. You don't understand grammar, neither you understand text. You should read more. Trolling? Look who's talking. Kubura 09:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed parts

Why were these sections removed: "... althought the "non-military" (civilian) status and loyalty of those persons was questionable - there were strong suspicions that those persons were cooperating with rebels and JNA and/or preparing a "back-stabbing" to Croatian authorities and preparing to rebel, which was often case in surrounded Croatian cities that later fell ..."
as well as inserted comment (OK, article is not for comments, but I inserted it there in order to clarify things)
<!-- Seriously, you can ask any person in Gospić and Croatia at all. But, nobody 'll deny the big possibility that these actions were done without proper processing at civil or military court...."-->
ChrisO, you've removed that part. Why?
Maybe this text needs reformulation, but that was the fact.
We were faster. We didn't allow to happen what happened later, e.g. in Sarajevo (bunch of Serb sniperists, that shot on civilians). And beside these anti-fifth column actions, we still had snipershooters.
Also, who... how to translate... (Tko im je navodio paljbu?)... who gave them the exact coordinates of Croat key operative and tactical points/locations? Who "corrected" theirs artillery fire? Who ignored ...(zamračenje)... turning all lights in the city? And even worse, turned on all possible lights during the night?
And, why was this part removed:
Some foreign authors, like M.Tanner,[1] claimed was owed to the political imperatives of Croatian President Franjo Tuđman, who was facing political difficulties following Croatia's intervention in the war in Bosnia.
Fact is that Operation Medak Pocket had big rallying effect for Croatians, which have been waiting for a liberating action since "Maslenica", almost a year and a half. Stalemate position and inefficiency of international negotiations were getting people unsatisfied and frustrated. Aggression on Croat ethnic pockets in neighbouring Bosnia (which were falling one by one, and flooding Croatia with new refugees) performed by former Bosnian Croat allies, Bosnian Muslims, was increasing the frustration. Additional fact that international community show no interest at all for these cases, had demoralising and frustrating effect on Croats. Croats needed victory, which Operation Medak Pocket was - a relief of Gospić was reached and the enemy "got the jab in the jaw". .
You've allowed in text some foreign allegations, the allegations from a foreigner who doesn't know a thing about things here, but no info from insiders.
Where were living all those authors during and after Operation "Medak Pocket"? They obviously haven't seen thing described in my section "Fact is that ....".
Sincerely, Kubura 09:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, to take your points in sequential order:
1) The line "... althought the "non-military" (civilian) status and loyalty of those persons was questionable" is both POV and unsourced. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources to corroborate it - your other questions like "Who "corrected" theirs artillery fire?" seem to be pure speculation. Likewise, your "fact is" paragraph is clearly your unsourced personal opinion - this is original research and can't be included.
2) The reason I've used "foreign authors", as you put it, is because they qualify as reliable sources - if you can find any reliable and verifiable inside sources, please feel free to include them. But we need to ensure that everything we say in the article is properly attributed. -- ChrisO 10:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, you gave me a homework.
Reliable sources... OK, you're foreigner, it's hard to describe why I (or many Croats) find some of those sources... well, they need a re-check. I doesn't mean that they're wrong, but neither that they are God's word carved in stone with a thunder.
Again a homework for me. I'll have to find "disputable" parts with some of those authors, or to prove theirs ... sideing with someone, or that they were being driven by stereotypes. Kubura 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Non-military persons" and armed civilians

In this section I'll insert the data regarding that. Kubura 08:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

Canadian forces made a report, but without calling Croatian forensicians.
There was a difference in numbers of casualties.
Croatian authorities deny any fight with Canadians.
Croatians gave a number of their soldiers killed in action - in a fight against rebelled Serbs.
Croatians' number of dead in action is lower by 8 persons than Canadian official number of "killed Croats".
Croatian military personnel said (I owe you the source), that they don't know where the Canadians found those numbers and whome they've killed (because Canadians called no Cro. personnel to make common report about killed persons); Canadians can found those "8 Croatians" only among the rebelled Serbs' soldiers or (un)armed civilians. Kubura 08:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent news. A testimony of general Davor Domazet Lošo, from the trial to generals Rahim Ademi and Mirko Norac in Croatia (ICTY's trial that deals with Operations Medak Pocket '93 and cases of killed Serb civilians). Croatian Catholic Radio, 12 Sep 2007.
Domazet Lošo confirmed that Croatian army never had any combat with Canadian battalion of UNPROFOR (although Canadians have given 800 medals to their soldiers for their "biggest battle since Corean war").
He noticed, that it's incredible that the trial to two Croatian generals is in process, although nooone question why was given 800 highest Canadian medals for the battle, for which Canadians claim, that they've killed 26 Croats. Domazet Lošo also said that he's sure that Canadians haven't killed a single Croat.
Also, he noticed, that " if Canadians have killed 26 persons, and those 26 aren't Croats, than it's easy to conclude whome they've killed, because there were no Aboridgins nor Eskimos. He also added that this data can be connected to the fact about 27 killed Serb civilians mentioned in the indictment .Kubura 07:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - are you trying to argue that the claimed 26 Crotatian military casualties were actually 27 Serb civilians just because the Crotatian military claims "no fighting took place what-so-ever with UN forces"? - therefore if the Canadians did kill anyone it must have been civilians?
At this time I would like to point out that the Croatian Military also claims that "no war crimes took place", "no civilians were murdered", and "no Serb houses or villages were razed".
At this time I would like to quote one of the references you guys yourselves provided:
"But the Canadian commander at the time calls Domazet-Loso's claims an attempt to rewrite history, adding his men knew exactly where Croat forces were located when the fighting started.
"We knew who we were firing at," retired Col. Jim Calvin said. "And the Croats knew exactly where we were. They're just trying to recreate history.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=24f6fcb4-43e5-4190-9bcb-ac790d02bb83
... and point out that the Croatian Generals claims of "no battle took place" happened at the War Crimes Trial of one of his friends. Jeeze ... he's got no reason to lie, eh? CraigWyllie (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete info on debunking the Canadians

Please, stop deleting valid contributions in Operation Medak Pocket. The part related with U.N. Officer's Denial of alledged battle is well documented. Ia gave the reference from "24 sata" newspapers (http://www.24sata.hr/news/clanak/ademi-norac-nije-bilo-sukoba-hrvata-i-kanadana/50605/). If you don't like that reference, I can find you the same information in every possible newspapers in Croatia. BTW, this officer is far from lonely in saying that the battle is bogus. Many other UN-related withnesses said the same. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You can't say the firefights never happened just because you have a single (unreliable?) source claiming this in contradiction to innumerable better sources. The claims coming out of certain Croatian sources about this event might be worth mentioning, but they should not be presented as fact. <eleland/talkedits> 10:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well documented only in Extremist Croatian tabloid papers. Please see info about using Reliable sources before readding your "info". If you continue to add, you risk being blocked by Wikipedia admins. Also, as this is English wiki please use English sources. If it is so well documented as you claim then you should find no problem finding English sources.-- Esemono (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
24 sata is not really Extremist Croatian tabloid paper. They were founded by Matija Babic, one of the leftmost (politicaly) people in Croatia. He use to give interviews in T-shirt with CCCP inscription, and is known to be very untolerant to the political right. You don't really sound like someone who knows much or anything about politics of Croatia. Where do you come from? --Ante Perkovic (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding giving reference in croatian, I apologise, you were right. I fixed my contributions based on wikipedia rules about giving credible sources: However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.. I cited Radio 101 and Croatian national TV. I hope this satisfies your criteria (?). --Ante Perkovic (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted your Canadian soldier's account and erased info that you keep repeating from the Croatian Denial section. Again, please see info about using Reliable sources and provide English translations. -- Esemono (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I did provide english translation for all references. I see no problem there. Check again. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In his lates revert, user:Esemono revertes my references to canadian army pages calling it croatian propaganda. Looks like that even the canadain army can be seen as part of croatian propaganda machine it this fits the purpose. I will revert his revert until he invents some better reason for censorship. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Your citation to the Canadian army page supported a single isolated sentence. Your version contains many paragraphs of long rants about how there is no evidence for any battle, and these paragraphs are not cited to the Canadian army; indeed most of them are not cited to anyone at all. Please be serious. <eleland/talkedits> 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also the U.N. Officer's Denial section should be in the Croatia denial section. Why duplicate all that info that is already listed in the Croatia denial section? -- Esemono (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Danish colonel Vagn Ove Moebjerg Nielsen

Just who is this colonel anyway? The general in charge of UNPROFOR was French Lieutenant-General Jean Cot, from June 1993 to March 1994 when Operation Medak Pocket took place. Under him was Colonel Jim Calvin who was in charge of the Canadians. Where does colonel Vagn Ove Moebjerg Nielsen fit in all this? The Dane rank of colonel is NATO OF-5 same as the Canadian rank so there wouldn't have been two Colonel commanding at the same time. If Colonel Jim Calvin was in charge of the Canadians what was Danish colonel Vagn Ove Moebjerg Nielsen was even there at all? Perhaps he was at the UN office in New York? If he wasn't in Croatia how could he know anything?-- Esemono (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a lot of reports out of the Balkans which identified him as a Canadian commanding the battalion, which is of course wrong. I think he was actually an UNMO, not UNPROFOR, a Lt. Colonel, and he was definitely not Canadian. <eleland/talkedits> 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK I will remove that he is a UNPROFOR officer and present during the attack. -- Esemono (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

In any topic, claims and information should be cited to reliable sources. The article statements should stick closely to the sources and their context. Isolated statements, passing mentions and off-topic asides should not be used to support article content. In potentially contentious topics, such as a this one, it is even more important to follow such principles closely. Sources of questionable reliability and isolated comments should not be used to support any claims, especially those that run contrary to the bulk of reputable references. Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

French general backs up CDN account

A forward from the book, Chances for Peace: Canadian Soldiers in the Balkans, which describes the Canadian action against Croatian forces:

the so-called “Medak Pocket Operation,” in Croatia in September 1993. The decision was mine alone, and I personally got involved in it. In this book, Lieutanant-Colonel Calvin gives a detailed account of the operation, which he led. It was the most important force operation the UN conducted in the former Yugoslavia. To carry out the attack, I reinforced the Calvin battalion with two French armoured infantry companies, and an angineering platoon. ... I went to Calvin’s command post on the first day of the action and again later during the operation. ... While we could not prevent the slaughter of the Serbs by the Croatians, including elderly people and children, we drove back to its start line a well-equipped Croatian battalion of some thousand men. Together, the Canadians and the French succeeded in breaking the Croatian lines, and with their weapons locked and loaded and ready, firing when necessary. They circled and disarmed an eighteen-soldier commando from the Croatian Special Forces who had penetrated by night into their location. They did everything I expected from them and showed what real soldiers can do

— general in charge of UNPROFOR, French Lieutenant-General Jean Cot [3]

So is the French General lying too? -- Esemono (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice that Jean Cot didn't confirm that any battle between Cro and Canad. accured there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.12.146 (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The quote is taken from a book describing in detail the attack. Why would Jean Cot write a forward for a book that he thought was a lie? He wouldn't. He wrote the forward because he backs up everything the Canadian commander, Calvin, says happened-- Esemono (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to include this in the article. I don't plan to censor anything, unlike some people here. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadians decorated for bravery

There is reference in the article which I have amended - and I see there is reference on this talk page to 800 Canadians getting "medals" for the action - to Canadians being "decorated for bravery". This is not technically true. The 2nd Battalion PPCLI was recognized 'as a unit' with the Commander-in-Chief's Unit Citation, which was created in 2002 (?) and first awarded for this very purpose. It is similar to the U.S. Presidential Unit Citation/Distinguished Unit Citation. Anyone who was in the 2nd Battalion at the time may wear one even if they go on to other units, and any member of the 2nd Battalion currently serving may also wear it even if they weren't there; it takes the shape of a small pin worn underneath the medals on the left breast pocket of the DEU (service dress uniform), the pin being the Governor General's insignia on a gold bar. This doesn't recognize bravery 'per se' but rather distinguished conduct by the unit as a whole - no doubt, bravery being necessary for such actions.68.145.170.208 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All fair points. IP 68.145.170.208 should consider registering an account and contributing more regularly to Wikipedia as we could use more editors like this. The criticisms are reasonable and justified on the article's talk page - heaven forbid! Debate (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful sources and lies

On the trial to Croatian generals (Gotovina, Čermak...), some of "key whitnesses" of prosecution were Canadian generals (Andrew Leslie, Alain Forand).
(Material removed per WP:BLP, see below)
AFAIK, I've heard that there were some changes in the Canadian military after that shameful defeat at the Tribunal.
And someone takes Canadian sources as "trustworthy"...
I'll give you the links with citations later. Kubura (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral Canadian general" Alain Forand (he told this for the radio show of CBS, on Aug 4): "Unlike Croats, Serbs haven't shelled the cities"[4]. Then who shelled Zadar, Dubrovnik, Sisak, Zagreb, Vinkovci, Vukovar, Osijek, Gospić, Karlovac? Maybe Mars attacked? In fact, on trial, defense attorney showed the reports about Sector South, in which it was said, that both sides continue with artillery attacks, and that two planes are bombing Gospić, and after he presented him that, Forand told a "it looks like it was that way".
Also, an audio record was played in Haague. It was the statement of Commander of Canadian Land Staff gen. Andrew Leslie for CBC News from 2003., in which he estimated that in attacks of Croatian forces on civilian targets, there were between 10 and 25 thousand killed persons. Forand told that he never said that number. [5]. Also, few days later, Canadian TV station CTV News told (report by Tom Kennedy), in its report from trial in Haague, that Andrew Leslie got medals for the event that never took place. [6], International Justice Watch Discussion List.
Also, here's [7] and International Justice Watch Discussion List.
About "innocent Serb civilians": Later, in counterexamination, when Forand spoke about receiving of Serb refugees in his military base, he remembered that some of those had weapons, but he couldn't remember if those were soldiers [8]. Kubura (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you saying this here? I ask because Gen. Leslie is not mentioned or cited in the article, so this material seems irrelevant. From the section heading, it looks like you want the article to use this information to imply that Canadian officers in general cannot be trusted, which would be a violation of our no original research policy, specifically the policy on synthesis. Having said that, thanks for discussing this rather than adding the material right into the article. That course of action could easily lead to an edit war and editors being blocked from editing.
Speaking of policy violations that could lead to blocks, I have removed from the above post statements that Canadian military witnesses lied under oath, since those statements were not supported by reliable sources. See our policy on biographies of living persons for more on this. Such statements cannot be made anywhere on Wikipedia, including Talk pages, without reliable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to "dig" this from ICTY's site. Do you find ICTY as reliable source?
"Canadian officers in general cannot be trusted"? No, I just wanted to point out the quality of their statements, when talking about Croatian War of Independence.
They said one thing when the prosecutor questioned them on ICTY, but after the counterexamination of defense, they changed their statements, or confirmed something that completely opposed their previous words, or ... See the transcripts.
Sorry if my message seemed overgeneralizing for Canadian Forces throughout the whole world, but my only intention was to point out their role and unneutral attitudes when they were in Croatia.
Here're the ICTY's transcript with Leslie [9], [10] (pages 2052 - 2058 are especially interesting, from "1500 shells..." to "This, sir, was being imparted to UN headquarters based on no investigate at all, wasn't it"), [11].
Večernji list Haag: Branitelj Gotovine optužuje glavnog svjedoka tužiteljstva, kanadskog generala, za izmišljotine - Leslie ocrnio Hrvate bez ikakve istrage (Gotovina's defender accuses main whitness of prosecution (a Canadian General), for making things up - Leslie blackened Croats without any investigation)
Slobodna Dalmacija Haag: General Leslie suočen sa suprotnim izvješćima o granatiranju Knina (Leslie confronted with opposing reports about the shelling of Knin)
Jutarnji list Gotovinina obrana 'bombardirala' Leslieja
HRT Leslie završava iskaz
Some related articles Večernji list Leslie's medals: Dolazak kanadskih novinara iznenadio novinarsku galeriju - Budućem šefu vojske lažirana medalja.
Sorry if I made some bad translations; I couldn't find proper word for "izmišljotina" (=thing that never happened, thing that is product of someone's mind, not based on reality).
I've changed the subtitle, if you find it as problem.
Names of these two persons were there, just because "they got on the way". Defense proved something about someone's statements. If these generals were called John Boogieman Crash Boom Bang Doe and Jean Jenesaispourquoi Doé, I'd write about the testimonies of generals John Boogieman Crash Boom Bang Doe and Jean Jenesaispaspourquoi Doé.
So - why mentioning of these two here, when those transcripts and trial are about another case (Operation Oluja, not directly related to Operation Medak Pocket)? Canadian officers were whitnesses on the cases related to Medak Pocket, and some contributors here glorified their statements as if these were the words from the Apostles and the Holy Spirit themselves, "neutral and without any bias", neglecting, ignoring and/or belittleing the statements, testimonies and reports from Croatian side.
Point is also, from my experience, that (unfortunately and sadly) average users from Western World usually don't trust to sources from small countries (especially from "savage Balkans" and former Eastern block), and they also almost blindly trust to sources from Western World, no matter how groundlessly those can be.
I just wanted to calm things down. I hope you understand my intentions now.
Sheffield, was this helpful? Do you find ICTY as trustworthy source? Kubura (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If editors here trust or distrust sources based on nationality, that is bad. We ought to include or exclude sources based on our guidelines on reliable sources - and there is a noticeboard we can post at to get outside input.
However, I do not think that any of the material cited by Kubura can be included in this article. Here's the problem:-
  • Statement A Canadian general Alf made statements about the Croatian War of Independence which were false.
  • Statement B Canadian general Bob made statements about the Croatian War of Independence.
  • Statement C General Bob's statements were false.
Kubura has provided information above in support of statement A. The article itself provides citations in support of statement B. But to deduce that statement C is true - even assuming that the sources are 100% trustworthy, and even if the logic is agreed to be flawless - is a violation of our policy on original research which states "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.". I hope this helps to make my position clear. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those sources, Kubura. But I have to point out that Wikipedia is not here to present "the truth". Our task here as editors is to summarise what others have written about in reliable sources, reflecting the proportion to the extent to which those viewpoints are reflected in those sources, without putting undue weight on minority POVs.
Clearly some people in Croatia believe that the Canadians made up the story about the battle at the Medak Pocket. That's interesting, and it's worth mentioning in the article. But the overwhelming majority of sources endorse the Canadian version of events, and as such, even if we as individual editors disagree with it, we have to give primacy to the mainstream viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the reason why have I put this in the first place here, on discussion, and not on the article.
I've tried to draw our attention to some (news) things that came on surface during the trial in Haague, and that are connected with this event.
We'll have to wait few more years :) till everything relating to this Operation comes out. Kubura (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My changes

I've changed the commons category that directly relates to Croatian War of Independence.
Regarding deletion of category: war crimes might have happened or not, but military operation is not a war crime by itself. At last, if the military operation is done by enemy, than it's the enemy act.
Shall we categorize every military operation on wikipedia as "war crime in ...", just because the existence of war crimes was recorded during particular operation?
If someone thinks differently ("it must be category "War crimes..."), than we'll have to put that category also to Allied operations from WWII (raping of women in East Prussia in '45, southern Italy '43 (marrochinata)...), for current operations in Irak (tortures in prison) etc.. Kubura (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

T-72 tanks

There is one little problem here...Croatia never operated with any T-72 tanks during the Homeland war (Croatian war of independence). M-84 is the type of tank we're talking about here. Slavuj (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Operation Medak Pocket/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==December 2012==

Assessment as a part of 2012 WP:CRO drive, performed on 22 December 2012:

  • B1 (referencing) - criterion not met: The article has very significant shortcomings in terms of referencing. There are substantial parts of prose without any references, prose that cites references but the references do not support some claims (some of those are tagged inline now) etc. It is absolutely necessary that each paragraph contains at least one reference to a WP:RS, hence the criterion is not met. Even though {{cite web}} and similar appropriate referencing templates are not required I'd recommend applying the templates if GA or better quality is aimed at. At present the article employs a mix of the citation templates and bare-url references - which is not an obstacle for B-class in itself.
  • B2 (comprehensiveness and accuracy) - criterion not met: Even though the article is fairly comprehensive it fails to deliver context in some aspects, as indicated on the article talk page. Further background information should be presented in the "Background" section - a couple on sentences about the fact that Croatia declared independence and that the move was opposed, log revolution and JNA intervention occurred, before the proclamation of RSK and before UNPROFOR was deployed. Not much should be added though as all those are fairly well covered by their respective articles, but context must be provided for those readers navigating here from templates/categories providing zero context or articles providing very limited one. Some parts of the article are written like an editorial - especially the "Canadian Denial" subsection. More details are found on the article talk page.
  • B3 (article structure) - criterion met.
  • B4 (reasonably well-written prose) - criterion largely met.
  • B5 (supporting materials) - criterion met.
  • B6 (appropriately understandable presentation) - criterion not met - per above shortcomings in the "Background" section. There are several awkward structures used in the prose which require clarification - those are tagged now.

A lot of work went into this article, but it still falls short of the B-class considerably. Consequently downgraded to C-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Corrected B6.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Marcus Tanner, Croatia: A Nation Forged in War, p. 291. Yale University Press, 1997
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Medak_Pocket/Archive_4&oldid=1044633167"