Talk:Operation Storm/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Links from YouTube

Guys why you delete references? Unless they don't concern article? 212.119.226.91 (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, they are not references. They are listed in the external links section, whose main purpose is to give further information on the subject that is not in the article. Wikipedia policy states that YouTube links may be deleted if the reviewing editor believes that the video at the link is infringing copyright, or is not a reliable source or is not relevant to the article, just as with any other external link. The CNN link could possibly be a copyright infringement and the other link is not reliable or relevant to this article--it is rather poor quality, its source is questionable and the content is objectionable, as in, why this clip as opposed to thousands of others. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember, YouTube is A SOCIAL NETWORK MEDIA website (like MySpace, Facebook, Pinterest, Last.FM, etc.) where ANYONE can upload ANYTHING — even the most absurd theories and claims. It SHOULD NOT be used as a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.237.228 (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede

Major information was not in the lede. Now it is, and we have unbeatable sources for that. I mentioned just the main ones. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing this article without discussing major changes at talk page first. Changing the definition of the article topic is a pretty major change itself, and changing "militay operation" into "ethnic cleansing military operation" is laughably POV-ish. Providing a Telegraph article as a reference for such a claim is dubious to say the least. FYI the article you inserted says explicitly that "the military operation [Storm], which lasted 84 hours was the largest European land offensive since World War II and unleashed a three-month ethnic cleansing campaign to drive out Serbs." So they are clearly not one and the same, even by the reference you provided. I have a hard time assuming good faith here so rest assured you will be reported if you insist on such tampering in the future unless you achieve consensus on the article's talk page. Timbouctou (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If you attack and assume bad faith, that does not mean that you are right. Anyway, one by one. First, why did you removed the image from Refugees section? --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain where did you find the information that the column depicted was 600 km long? Because it doesn't say that in its source page, but it does say that in the image description tag you filled in and in the caption you wrote. Timbouctou (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not the reason to delete the image. You are welcomed to fix or change that one particular information. Ok, do you agree to reinsert this image? We will agree here how long column was. 3, 4, 5 or 6 hundred kilometers, and add reliable sources about that. OK? --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the uploaded image even falls under the scope of fair use so somebody more knowedgable should take a look at it. In any case TinEye search for it yields 34 results, almost all of them from either Serbian mainstream media or Serbian advocacy groups online. All the sources who published and captioned the image only describe it as a column of Serb refugees during Operation Storm, without saying where and by whom it was taken, and without saying how long the column was. So just stick with what you know in the caption and in the image tag you used when you uploaded it. Timbouctou (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, i agree. So, what do you propose as a text? Only Column of Serbs leaving Croatia, or Column of expelled Serbs on their way to Serbia? What do you propose? --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I just removed data in question and we will see if we found a good source about length. Then will add the length. If you are ok with this, we will move to the other things. Please, just confirm me... --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All we know is that the picture shows a column of Serb refugees leaving Krajina/Croatia, so that's what it should say. Timbouctou (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, now below. :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, you might want to check WP policies on reliable sources - because leters written by newspaper readers are not considered to be that. Especially when some of the information stated has been refuted by a number of other sources. "It is a fact that 14,000 Serbian men, women and children were killed in August 1995 by Croatian forces during Operation Storm in the Krajina region of Croatia." - Really? Based on whose research? Because ICTY has spent years investigating it and found that the total number was 324. That's quite a big difference isn't it. Timbouctou (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, my friend, please, one by one. Lets discus only image now. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, i agree, we should not include that source. First, do you agree that aftermath of the operation, 200.000 Serbs away from Croatia must be mentioned in the lede? --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A sentence about Serb refugees should be added at the lede's end IMO, but any figure should be referenced with by data from a very good source, or if they disagree, we should give the span of reliable estimates. But that is a discussion that should involve more editors than just you and me. In my opinion something along he lines of "In the aftermath of the operation some 100-200 thousand(?) Serb civilians fled from the Serb-controlled Krajina towards neighbouring Bosnia and Serbia proper." with something about how many of them have returned. Perhaps a short mention of ICTY convictions should belong there as well. However the wording must be carefully chosen as this is obviously a hot-button topic, so let's just wait to see some input from others shall we. Timbouctou (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, then i will propose sentence, and ask community about it then... --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

CIA and Clinton involvement

According to Globus, allegedly The CIA secretly planned operation 'Storm', which took place in August 1995, at the Sepurine military base, near Adriatic port of Zadar,with the knowledge of then-US president Bill Clinton and top Croation leaders. Did Gotovina put forward this in the Hague?.--Zoupan 20:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We should include this in the article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No conspiracy theories from dubious websites please. You've both been around wikipedia for too long to not be familiar with WP:RS.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The website says they're carrying Globus info through AKI. Just on the face of it, it's not just a dubious website post, it's worth analyzing. It's not necessarily worth including just because of that, since anything gets through news magazines and wire agencies these days. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I simply wanted to ask if there are any excerpts from Gotovina at the Hague supporting this allegation. If there is, only then should it be included ("Gotovina alleged X").--Zoupan 15:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BALKANPEACE.ORG IS A FRINGE, PRO-SERB NATIONALIST WEBSITE THAT DENIES THE BOSNIAN GENOCIDE AND THE NUMBER OF KILLED PEOPLE IN THE SREBRENICA MASSACRE.--201.81.224.11 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

[1]. There might actually be something to this.. Operation Storm was prepared and executed with significant NATO backing. Though whether or not it goes beyond WP:FRINGE isn't something I intend to try and prove. -- Director (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate and incomplete information in the article

IMPORTANT:

1. I repeated more than once before: There is no such region as "Krajina" in Croatia - not geographically, not historically - therefore the term is completely false and misleading. Any reference to the occupied area in Croatia should be made as "occupied area" or put under quotes when referring to "RSK".

2. Translation of Tudjman words which are quoted as "...while on the other hand we feign to guarantee human rights and the like" is completely false and misleading. Tudjman said "mi ćemo garantirati tobožnja ljudska prava". Word "tobože" cannot be translated as "feign" but only as "quasi" and secondly there is different order of words which completely changes the meaning: the literal translation would be "while on the other hand we guarantee quasi human rights". From such formulation it is impossible to derive unambiguous conclusion since it is a fact that they did "guarantee" and that they guaranteed some sort of human rights - and it is not clear which or which level. And only then we can discusse what were human rights for the former Yugoslav Army General educated in communism and that it all happens in 1995, not 2012.

3. In the section "Background" it is stated that there were about 400 ethnic Croats residing in sector South and 1500-2000 in sector North. For clarification, it should be stated also that, according to 1991 census, before the war in mentioned sectors lived 70 000 Croats, since this effectively means that this was the biggest ethnic cleansing after the WW2, with the clear grounds for genocide accusations (for which Croatia sued Serbia).

4. Information under 3 is of great importance for the section "Serb exodus". When stating the numbers, it needs to be stated that, again, according to 1991 census, before the war in sectors South and North lived less than 170 000 Serbs. Taking into account that also number of Serbs left 1991-1995 it is therefore phisically impossible to support claims of the Serbs or BBC on number of refugees (even UN number is more than questionable).

5. Section "War crimes" needs to be re-written since it is clearly tendencious and falsified i.e. is written as per accusations made by the ICTY and first level decision which both does not reflect the truth and was COMPLETELY NULLIFIED by the ICTY FINAL APPELAS PANNEL. conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.114.137 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Nonsense. There is a region unofficially known as the "Krajina", or at least there was at that time.

2. "Feign" is exactly the correct translation. And in general your proposed translation is inferior and less accurate than the present one. Basically all your assertions here are plain wrong.

3. You need direct sources for that.

4. Again, that is highly unlikely, and you need a direct source for the claim. According to the 1991 census, about 581,663 Serbs lived in Croatia. It is hard to believe only 170,000 resided therein.

5. Nope. The relevant information referenced by the 2011 verdict has not been overturned by the 2012 verdict, merely the complicity of the accused in said crimes.

-- Director (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is acting as a director, your answer is rather ignorant. 1. There was NEVER a region, geographically or historically, known as Krajina. This is a matter of fact. There was "Vojna krajina" or "Military Border", created in completely different context. The term "Krajina" is created for the purposes of "Greater Serbia" and that should be clear. Any non-interpretation or misinterpretation of the term is utter nonsense, lie and falsification, and you as a director should go and research your sources before stating it.

2. Your answer is particulary ignorant and plain wrong. I stated very precise explanation of:

a) translation of the specific word used - as a native speaker, I know very well what "tobožnje" or "tobože" means, and in what context it is used in the conversational language. If you don't know, you can use dictionaires or you can inquire with relevant translators, and not state explanation for wrongly used english word.

The exact mistake in the translation is that the word can never be translated only as "feign" in the sense of "to lie", "to completely pretend", but is of milder meaning e.g. it is normally used also as "quasi" or "seemingly".

b) word order of the quoted sentence - the exact MISTAKE of the ICTY translation is that the word order is wrong, changing the MEANING of the sentence and the statement. Therefore, as I said, the literal translation is (and this is not even a matter of a dispute!): "...while on the other hand we guarantee quasi human rights". By saying this, Tudjman did not say that they "feign to guarantee" something that is clearly defined and is as such called "human rights". He exactly said that they WILL GUARANTEE, something that is called "human rights", where he himself did not have exact clue what it (human rights) was. To put in the context, again, Tudjman was former communist military general with no progressive democratic knowledge or ideas. Tudjman had general idea that human rights are something secondary for any person or country, and about human rights he often spoke contemptuously, regardless of talking of Croatian people or any other. And this is why he uses the word "tobože" in this quote (and, nota bene, he used "tobože" a lot, regardless of the fact he actually needed to use the word).

Mentioned explanation is extremely important since it significantly changes and denies any possibility to derive unambiguous conclusion from Tudjman quote. We can say many things about this sentence and Tudjman: that he was ignorant, stupid or did not care for democracy, but we cannot derive meaning that is put in his mouth by misinterpretation of the prosecutors. And please don't argue with me again on this issue, but consult your lawyers for any further questions and clarifications, since this is clearly matter of legal interpretation with huge consequences. This quote is, nota bene, one of the biggest absurdities and tendentious accusations in the "Gotovina/Markač/Čermak" case.

3. You can check the sources: there is Wikipedia article that uses ICTY as a source: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republika_Srpska_Krajina, with nice explanation. For specific calculations, you can use Croatian Statistic Service: http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/pxweb2003/database/Naselja%20i%20stanovnistvo%20Republike%20Hrvatske/Naselja%20i%20stanovnistvo%20Republike%20Hrvatske.asp, or this article (although I haven't checked it's sources): http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0038-982X/2008/0038-982X0802023B.pdf

4. Same sources as under point 3. And, of course, it is not unlikely. Sector North and Section South area was not very populated before the war, and secondly, many Serbs lived in Slavonia and bigger Croatian cities outside occupied areas - in total more than 250 000 Serbs in 1991 lived in big cities (Zadar 11 000, Osijek 23 000, Rijeka 19 000, Sisak 12 000, Šibenik 4500, Karlovac 14 500...)

5. I will specifically mention couple of points, but my comment was referring to the context this section was derived from (i.e. it was derived from the point of view of the ICTY prosecution) and the message it sends. Namely, the facts are that: a) Operation Storm is legitimate military action. b) Operation Storm is not joint criminal enterprise. c) During Operation Storm there was NO ACTION WHATSOEVER that could be interpreted in any way against points a) and b). During Operation itself 04-08 August, no war crimes were commited as a plan. (Individual war crimes are not specifically mentioned). d) Particularly, in the aftermath, there were war crimes and attrocities. But, as such, they are the subject-matter of the Aftermath, not the Operation Storm itself. And this is also what final ruling of the ICTY is pointing out.

Therefore, in order to reflect the reality, at first the facts are to be stated, and later, if necessary, particular (and dismissed) accusations.

Some of the particular statements: - "The verdict also directly identified President Franjo Tuđman as part of a joint criminal enterprise dedicated to expelling Serb residents of the country's Krajina region" - overruled - there is no joint criminal enterprise. - "Rather the judges ruled that some aspects of the military offensive violated international law" - overruled. - "Later in August at least a further 20,000 people were the subject of deportation by way of forcible displacement due to crimes and inhumane acts.[66] The Trial Chamber states that "members of the Croatian military forces and the Special Police committed deportation as a crime against humanity of more than 20,000 Krajina Serbs".[66][74]" - If trial in Gotovina/Markač case is discussing Operation Storm (05-08 August) and they are prosecuted for Operation Storm (05-08 August), then any reasonable Trial Chamber acting legally, and not politically, cannot refer to the actions committed "later in August". This statement of the Chamber is absurd from the legal point of view since it a) determines state of events outside the scope of indictment, and b) adjudges and convicts defendants for the events that happened outside the scope of indictment. This is even further absurd, knowing that e.g. Gotovina was phisically ABSENT from Operation Storm areas (even more, he was in honeymoon, and later fought in Bosnia). Therefore, this paragraph should be completely moved out of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.114.200 (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So I took out my Anić: "tobožnji" = "koji nije onakav kakav se čini da jest ili se predstavlja, koji nije pravi, nije istinit; prividan, lažan [~ liječnik]". So, contrary to what was said above, "tobožnji" implies deception or at least misrepresentation, and "feign" seems to be an adequate translation. GregorB (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

- Excellent, now that you checked it, you saw that "tobožnji" also means "prividan" or "seemingly", not necessarily "feign". So, we cannot, beyond doubt, confirm that Tudjman said or meant "feign" - you say that it is at least misintepretation - and this is exactly what I am pointing out - you are not sure that it is "feign", but you are perfectly ok with the fact that something that you are not sure of can be interpreted as "feign". That is not impartial or objective - this is extremely suggestive. But this issue is less on literal translation of "tobožnje" and more on the WRONG word order and thus the whole interpretation of the statement.

I am now replying now for the second time to the comments made by you and Director. And you have in both occasions deliberately not referred to this issue of wrong interpretation caused by WORD ORDER, not translation of "tobožnji" - therefore, your comments are obviously tendencious and not objective, and disregard the subject-matter of my point and of the discussion. They further derive conclusions by not taking into account all facts, which is very problematic and tendentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.114.200 (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The translation is perfectly accurate, both in terms of word order and translation of specific words. I've nothing more to say as regards the rest. Get sources for your personal claims - then we can talk about "objectivity". Kindly contain your outbursts and keep to WP:NPA or you'll probably be reported. -- Director (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your answer is again not dealing with arguments, but goes ad hominem (talking about outbursts?). Problem is that you as person have the exclusive right to both translate and interpret HISTORY. This is highly non-objective. So, the translation is as you say it is, no matter what is the reality.

If the dictionary sais a) and b), you have chosen a) and that is how it is because you say so. If it changes or formulates history, that is fine with you. And then you threaten with reporting me? I will report you for being tendencious, ignoring factual truth and stating non-objective claims. Your logic is incorrect and tendencious. If there are more possible interpretations, we CANNOT state one as a ultimate truth. As this is matter of fact here. For logic argumentation on the specific matter, I suggest you use logic textbooks, as YOU are the one with authority to publish. I don't have to prove anything and I can criticize what is made public whatever and whenever I want - YOU HAVE to HAVE ARGUMENTS - and you don't have them. You can use simple explanation also in following article: http://hrsvijet.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19110:neven-sesardi-haag-je-u-krivu&catid=28:povijesni-identitet&Itemid=112

And, nota bene, you did not answer on any of other claims I made.

It is plain to see that you found yourself personally attacked by my claims. But that is not my problem. You are the one that is creating history and you cannot let yourself to act this way - even if someone actually attacks you personally (which I haven't done, I only stated mistakes and misinterpretations - it is your problem that you think this is personal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.114.200 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr IP, please consider this a warning: do not talk about other people. Talk about content, not the contributor. Do not presume that you can "analyze" other users and disregard them based on your opinions. People do not appreciate having to read cockamamie comments of that sort, and you will end up reported should you continue.

Now, if you wish to contribute here (and on this project in general), please read WP:V and WP:CITE. Then, provide properly cited, scholarly sources for each and every one of your claims. Any posts without such sources will be ignored on my part. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

FACTUAL SIDE:

I have repeatedly warned on following 5 issues:

1. Term "Krajina" - Inacurracy in the text - text in incorrect, tendencious and is not based on the facts. Text is talking about made up term, not describing, or falsely directing to completely out-of-context historical term. Therefore, the text is not in line with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V and I have no idea how it was published at all. It is not up to me to prove this (although it is provable by ANY HISTORY BOOK), but it is up to the author to prove the source for the term and support it with verifiable and reliable source.

2. Tudjman quote and interpretation - inaccuracy in the text - I have stated factual evidence that this quatation is either wrong or not provable. It is therefore tendentious and incorrect; further, it is taken out of the context and directly supports ideological tendencies that are not-objective. Therefore, it is not in line with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V.

3. Section "Background" - information provided is incomplete and I suggest supplementing it. This is of high improtance since it puts "background" of the Operation Storm in completely different perspective - since this effectively means that this was the biggest ethnic cleansing after the WW2, with the clear grounds for genocide accusations (for which Croatia sued Serbia). I have stated 3 reliable sources for my claim.

4. Section "Serb exodus" - information is incomplete and does not reflect reality. Therefore, I suggested supplementing it. I have stated same 3 reliable sources as under point 3. Information is of great importance since taking it into account, it proves a) that it is phisically impossible to support claims of the Serbs or BBC on number of refugees (even UN number is more than questionable) or b) that the number of people actually living there was increased by populating mentioned areas with Serbs not living there before the war (which, it could be implied, have illegaly settled in the habitats of banished Croats). It also means that the section as it currently is, is not in line with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V.

5. Section "War crimes" - parts of the information provided is incorrect and tendencious. Also, the article as a whole is tendencious and goes in favour of Serb side, therefore, the article is not neutral and not in line with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V. I stated clear and undisputable arguments, and the source is http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/acjug/en/121116_judgement.pdf. Also, I have specifically stated which parts are to be removed as they were found unreasonable and was COMPLETELY NULLIFIED by the ICTY FINAL APPELAS PANNEL.

I have written my argumentation now for the third time, while so far you did not answer properly to any of it. Even more, your answers were unsupported, non-objective and tendencious. Finally, they were rude. I repeat, please don't answer that I am not correct - you have stated in the public article something that I find tendencious and incorrect - it is your obligation to justify and support it. Therefore, if I don't get appropriate response, you will be reported.

Further, instead of talking about the content you repeatedly talk of the contributor (me), while using verbal artifices to accuse me of that same issue. Please take into account that I noted number of personal attacks on me, as well as personal insult on the page WikiProject Croatia. I will also report you for abuse if any of this happens again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.114.200 (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea where to start replying to this, so here goes - I've moved the 'Tuđman feigned human rights' stuff to the ICTY trials section to avoid the inference that the contested ICTY jurist opinions constitute universal (interpretation of) facts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Response

I'm going to address the above points 1 through 5:

1) "Krajina" does not exist as a region

See Krajina#Political_regions and Croatian Military Frontier (Hrvatska vojna krajina). The term was arguably not in current use in the 20th century before being revived in the 1980s. This new definition roughly refers to Lika, Kordun, Banija and Dalmatian hinterland. The article, however, seems to use the word "Krajina" as a shorthand for the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Either way, this does not clash with the established practice in English and, indeed, Croatian sources, even "highly patriotic" ones.[2] On the other hand, the use of scare quotes is not justified and is not compatible with established practice of naming the self-proclaimed states in Wikipedia.

2) Tuđman's words were mistranslated

There are two major errors here. The first is to say that '"tobože" cannot be translated as "feign" but only as "quasi"'. This is demonstrably not true, given the fact that Anić's dictionary defines "tobožnji" as "koji nije onakav kakav se čini da jest ili se predstavlja, koji nije pravi, nije istinit; prividan, lažan [~ liječnik]" (as already noted above). This is pretty much what "feign" means in English as a verb.

The second error is quoting the Tuđman's original statement as "mi ćemo garantirati tobožnja ljudska prava". What he actually said is "Znači, na taj način im dati put, a jamčiti im tobože građanska prava i tako dalje".[3] Note he used the modifier "tobože" not when referring to human rights, but rather when referring to the act of guaranteeing these rights, i.e. it is an adverb rather than an adjective. That's why "quasi-human rights" (or even "so-called human rights") is absolutely not a valid translation, and the meaning should thus be clear to every native speaker: we'll pretend to guarantee human rights. Žužul's attempt to explain it away in his testimony is therefore extremely strained, if not downright laughable. (There are additional aspects to this issue that make it even more of an open-and-shut case, but I feel this is enough for now.)

3) No information on number of Croats before the war

I agree here. To provide full context, one would have to say that the majority of Croats left the area as refugees, some (c. 700, if I remember correctly) were murdered, etc. Of course, reliable sources are needed for all statements. However, that was not "the biggest ethnic cleansing [in Europe, presumably] after the WW2" (surely that would be Bosnia and Herzegovina). I'd leave the genocide qualification out of it, though, for a variety of reasons. (I could give further arguments for this if necessary.)

4) The number of Serb refugees is overestimated

This is possible, but it needs to be supported with reliable sources. At any rate, there are multiple estimates, i.e. a range of figures.

5) The "War crimes" section is tendentious

If anything, the section is understating the facts, is substantially incomplete and therefore "favorable" for the Croatian side. (Could give further arguments for this. By "favorable" I don't mean it's deliberately biased, hence the quotation marks.) Also, "During Operation Storm and its aftermath, the ICTY has concluded that a total of 324 people, both civilians and soldiers were killed." - I don't think there's anything in the final decision that contravenes this. GregorB (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Kudos, Gregor, for taking the time to respond to all of the above :). -- Director (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What is particularly annoying is that Mr Director main business is praising himself and other moderators and insulting or subtly making fun out of others, while at the same time preaching about "wiki rules" and so on. What, my arguments are so stupid that Mr Gregor needs to receive Kudos for taking time to answer the ludicrous claims? You are just below any level.

Second what is annoying is taking critic (right or wrong!) as a personal insult, rather then correcting mistakes or dismissing unjustified critic. I repeat - you are moderators for wikipedia. In 2013, this effectively means that you ARE creating history. Therefore, your responsibility is enormuos and you have NO RIGHT to get personally offended or talk this way, no matter if I am right or wrong, no matter if anyone even insults you or not.

Shortly back to the subject: I saw that parts of the text are changed, which I welcome.

1. - on the subject of "Krajina" - I see that we finally agree that "Krajina" has nothing to do with "Vojna Krajina" - therefore, it should be made sure that this is clear in ALL wiki articles, and that there are NO LINKS to "vojna krajina". In the response, Mr Gregor says that using "Krajina" for "RSK" "does not clash with the established practice in English" - well, first, this is not supported by any relevant document/source/law and therefore completely irrelevant and unacceptable. Even if it was, there is absolutely no reason why any "practice" should be non-critically accepted - particularly in this case. Namely, as I mentioned earlier - the problem is that the term is highly ideological in the sense that it creates misperception that this area was actually a historical/geographical/serb region and that there is some historical right for Serbs to claim it. Even Mr Gregor says that the term showed up in the 1980s - well, it didn't just show up - it is related with the idea of Serb region in Croatia and Greater Serbia. Now, taking that in the account, in my opinion, such ideological terms are detrimental for Croatia and should not be used at all in ANY media, particularly not because "it is easier/shorter to say so" - (if we wanted to shorten it, why not to use the acronym "RSK" then?) - or because "it is widely excepted in international media" or because some minor Croatian extreme right media used it - this does not justify it. If Croatians stop using the term "Krajina" for "RSK", this will be a good step for all others to stop using it. Nota bene, I don't think it is objective to approach any side calling them "highly patriotic". Is it to make fun of the patriotism? Or to say that patriotism equals extreme right wing? What are the quotes for?

2. Indeed, you are right about the order of the words, my source was wrong. However, you are not right about the translation. You quoted Anić in tobožnji meaning also "prividan" - and I feel that I am repeating this now for the third time - this means that "tobožnji" can be translated as both "feign" and "quasi". Any native speaker knows well the (subtle) difference. It is also a well known fact that "tobožnji" is indeed in many (most) of the cases in conversation used as "prividan" and not as "feign". But whatever, since it effectively means both "feign" and "quasi", we cannot simply say it is "feign" and provide me at the same time (!) with the quasi argument that this is "pretty much" what "feign" means in English as a verb"! And then, why would the sentence "garantirati prividno/quasi ljudska prava" not be translated correctly? This statement is just not correct. The correct translation in this case would be "We quasi guarantee them human rights" and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that the formulation that includes "feign" implicates that they intended to slaughter all the people that stay. The "quasi" sentence in milder, and historically correct, since there was no plan of slaughter or ethnic cleansing, which has been proven by historical events and the ICTY. If we cannot agree - I suggest you officialy contact historians, but also the linguists, and let them express their opinion. In the meantime, again, if we cannot agree, I require that in the text, at least it stands "feign/quasi", with the link to exact wording in Croatian.

3. and 4. Of course, but BiH came after Croatia - this is why I wrote it was the biggest ethnic cleansing after WW2. Next, I could understand some arguments for leaving "genocide" out - but, again - your arguments are contradictory. In this case we have official claim in the International Court for genocide Croatia vs. Serbia - and this itself is reason enough to include this information as such (there are many unsupproted claims from the other side which are mentioned in the text). Secondly, why is genocide not mentioned here, but there are mentioned some rediculuos and completely unsupported numbers and claims of 200000-250000 serbian refugees (not even in the text ANY references or sources are provided for that number)? So, if the Serb mass propaganda repeat saying there were 500 000 refugees, are we going to state that number as well? And, I am sorry, but I provided 3 reliable sources for the number of Serbs living there before the war - you forgot to take into account and respond to that. I strongly believe this should be taken into account since it is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT proof for determining possible number of refugees (and/or other migrations 1991-1995) - (and the excuse that it takes time to calculate the number of Serbs based on Census is not acceptable) - if moderators don't have capacitiy, I am sure the Institut for Statistics or History could find time.

5. I welcome the changes in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.85.245 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 1): it is very easy to show that "Krajina" is an established term in English publications: https://www.google.com/search?q=krajina+%22operation+storm%22&btnG=Pretra%C5%BEi+knjige&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=hr. If the term were "ideological", i.e. if it implied a some sort of Serbian claim over the region/territory, then why on Earth Hrvatski fokus, a Croatian right-wing/nationalist magazine is using it? (I used "highly patriotic" with quotation marks because I do not believe that "right wing" equals "patriotic". In terms of perception and self-image - maybe, but in real terms? I submit I was being a bit ironic.) Note that I'm not claiming that "Krajina" is the best term (it is imprecise, for one thing), my point is only that it is in reasonably wide use, and is reasonably neutral.

Regarding 2): if you're a native speaker of Croatian, then I believe you'd agree that there is a crucial difference between "tobožnji" and "prividan". Namely: "tobožnji" necessarily implies misrepresentation, while "prividan" does not. If I were to say to you "Plava kuća je prividno veća od zelene", you'd understand me as "the blue house appears to be larger than the green house; it looks that way, but GregorB thinks this is actually not true". If, on the other hand, I were to say to you "Plava kuća je tobože veća od zelene", you'd understand it as "someone told (or otherwise communicated to) GregorB that blue house is larger than the green house, but he thinks it is not true". Even if we put this distinction aside, the fact remains that "we quasi guarantee" is agrammatical in English; "quasi[-]guarantee" works only if "guarantee" is a noun. Therefore, it cannot possibly be a correct translation. And, if "quasi" could be defined as "having a likeness to something; resembling: a quasi success", then I'd understand your translation - grammar aside - as "we'll do something that might appear to someone as if we're guaranteeing human rights, but we will actually not guarantee human rights". Why is that so much different from the "feign" translation, and why do you think "feign" implies a some kind of "slaughter"? Why Tudjman bothered to insert that one extra word (when he could obviously have gone without it), and what is it that he was trying to say? GregorB (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Improvement

You should expand the part at the end concering the appeal process. Nothing is written there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.76.172 (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A fair bit is indeed written about the appeal process, but the last paragraph was making it seem everything was written in a purely chronological manner, which wasn't the case; I fixed it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Civilian casulties

324 was number from prosecution, but of these only 44 is finaly proved during trial. And second number ( 677 ) is from HHO document which is dissmissed by court as invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.146.54 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for the Court dismissing the HHO document. GregorB (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well this information is provided to public by Mr.Gotovina Lawyer during Political TV Talk show, i can provide link to the show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoblecrdvNI , iam not sure is that enought...especialy becouse it's on croatian. There he explained why ICTY used 324 list on trial and not HHO victim list. ( basicly HHO had no evidence for their list ). If this is not enough i guess somebody will need to dig on ICTY documentation.

HHO collects data, does field research, but does not conduct investigations. The ICTY, on the other hand, does not aim to enumerate all victims, as their objective is prosecution, not statistics or history. There is a popular misconception that the casualty figure put forward by the ICTY somehow "proves" HHO's numbers are wrong or even fraudulent. Gotovina's lawyers certainly did want people to think that way, all in the interest of their client - they were doing their job, of course, but that's precisely what makes them unreliable, whether they said it in Croatian or not. GregorB (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right that Gotovina Lawyer never said that 44 is final number of civilian casulties. But nevertheless...fact that procecussion could not prove anything form HHO list, and only 13% of the second list is indication that those lists are not good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.149.131 (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

But IIRC HHO's list is a list of all civilian casualties, including collateral ones. That's why I don't think it makes sense to speak of percentages or a "hit rate" - the lists don't have the same purpose, so they must diverge significantly. The article should clarify that: 677 in the HHO's list doesn't mean they claim 677 people were murdered. GregorB (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem is not just with with that...i will cite Mr.Gotovina Lawyer..actualy not cite but rather very freely translate his word about it and shot little bit...original is in provided link: "when Mr.Puhovski come on court to testifie, he told that HHO don't have any prove that list is valid, there is no background material from which court can analyse what is true from list and what is false...that's why ICTY disimissed that list." So it's not problem that HHO saying...this is list of 677 civilian victims, but we don't know which victim from that list are murdered and which are colateral victim...but HHO basicly saying ( on court ) : we don't have a clue from where we get this list!!

I don't agree with this analysis. Not being able to determine the circumstances of death does not mean that the list fell from the sky, especially if people in it are dead. GregorB (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The HHO report is indeed controversial - on one side Mr Čičak claims that it is more than correct, and on the other hand we have Mr Puhovski testamony and the following verdict of the ICTY: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/tjug/en/110415_judgement_vol1.pdf (p.30) "50. Exhibit P2402 is a report entitled “Military Operation Storm and its Aftermath,” published by the Croatian Helsinki Committee and edited by Žarko Puhovski.110 The report contains un-sourced statements and double entries.111 Furthermore, during examination of Puhovski in court it became apparent that there were errors in the book.112 For these reasons, the Trial Chamber decided not to rely on exhibit P2402 in relation to information described therein if uncorroborated by other evidence."

The question is can number of 677 killed stand as reliable at all (it is written in the box at the beginning of the article)? Further, even if it stays, in my opinion, it should be stated that 677 does not make any difference between casualties-of-war and war-crime-victims. 188.129.85.245 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

If you quote source number 218 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-16/un-war-crimes-court-frees-croatian-generals/4377178) as reliable, then you certainly also want to qoute in the section on "Refugee crisis" that prosecutors claim that "close to 90,000 Serbs were forcibly displaced". In the box at the right hand side at the beginning of the article, in the section "Casualties and losses", you also want to change "Refugees: 150,000–200,000 Serbs from the former RSK" to "Refugees: 90,000–200,000 Serbs from the former RSK". Am I right?

00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

324 killed

The problem is that - again contradictory to rules of supporting documents and reliable sources - the text says that "ICTY has concluded that a total of 324 people, both civilians and soldiers were killed.[10][180". This information is not correct based on the sources. Namely, reference no 180, which is the Judgement of the Court NOWHERE mentions 324 killed. Reference no 10, is actually an extract at the ICTY portal, which states that "The three stand accused of aiding and abetting the murders of 324" - therefore, this is a prosecution number and NOT that the Court confirmed the number.

The sentence below states "Before the numbers were official..." - but we can see that the numbers are not official or correct.

Secondly, it is stated that "At least 150,000 Serb civilians left the Krajina before the operation.[181" - there are two problems with this - one is that there is NO article at reference 181 - and second, even if it was - why would this source be reliable and based on - again - what reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.85.245 (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Further, mentioned source no 218 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-16/un-war-crimes-court-frees-croatian-generals/4377178) states that prosecution claimed there were 324 civilian deaths. This source is contradictory to the ICTY indictment (http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/ind/en/got-ai040224e.htm) from which it is obvious that actual prosecution number of murders by Croatian army is "at least 150 Krajina Serbs", and further, specifically referred to in Indictment are 32 murders. Further, actual number of "killing incidents" by prosecution was later set to 37 (http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/ind/en/got-coramdjoind080312e.pdf). I would like to point out that number of "324 civilian deaths" (even if correct) implies that there are "324 civilian Serb deaths, caused by Croatian army", which is obviously not correct. So, I recommend that text is changed accordingly. 188.129.39.22 (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Carl Bildt

Since Carl Bildt is well documented Serbian advocate and the person who, among other things, accused Croats and Bosniaks for Srebrenica massacre, and the person who advocated Milošević that people should be taken out of RSK before the Operation Storm so that Croatia can be accused for ethnic cleansing, I strongly recommend that his quotes are removed from the text as biased and unobjective. If we go this way, we could easily quote also Vojislav Šešelj about the Operation Storm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.85.245 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Add Agim Çeku as commanders on Croatian side

Various independent sources write that Agim Çeku was one of the most important commanders of Operation Storm.

For instance: http://www.balkanstudies.org/blog/agim-ceku-war-criminal-not-wanted-canada

"By summer of 1995, when Croatians launched the massive offensive, code-named Operation Storm, to fully reclaim the Krajina, Ceku had completely recovered, been promoted to brigadier-general and was the commander of all Croatian artillery."

Another source from Government of Kosovo: "In 1995 Mr. Çeku was appointed Chief of Staff of the Military District of Gospiq. In this position he commanded forces of this district in the offensive operation called “Stuhia” (“Storm”) as well as other operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina up to the Dayton Agreement."

Invitation by government of Croatia: http://www.kosovapress.com/?cid=2,92,150647

"Minister Çeku was invited by the Government of the Republic of Croatia to participate in this anniversary, as one of the key persons in this operation by which Croatia liberated its territories occupied by Serb army at that time.

Central manifestation connected to this event will be held in 04 and 05 August in Knin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.175.27 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding the balkanstudies source - it is not a WP:RS - it is a blog. The Kosovo Govt source is simply wrong - Çeku was 3rd in command in Gospić Corps (Norac was commander then, Ademi was his deputy, then Çeku) see Ministry of Defence source (Davor Marijan: Oluja, page 82). As the 3rd in command of any HV corps, Ademi would normally be invited to participate in the celebration.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the artillery billet, Çeku was corps artillery commander in sector S1 (see this source, page 65) since 1993--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

It is not uncommon to see newspaper articles saying in a headline that someone was commanding artillery (implying all of it) in the Operation Storm, like in this case, when it was simply not so. In this case the article is an interview with Brigadier Marko Rajčić, who held a similar post as Çeku, except that he was artillery commander in the Split Corps (see here).--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Storm/GA1 for details on this articles GA review.

I have put the article on hold until improvements are made.Retrolord (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Operation Storm#Order of battle: Croatian special police

Were the "Croatian special police" listed in this section actually the Lučko Anti-Terrorist Unit? This unit is listed as being created in 1990 and "was the first Croatian fighting unit in the Croatian War of Independence" according to its WP article. I noticed that the articles weren't linked as part of a requested major copyedit. Thanks! - ʈucoxn\^talk 00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Lućko ATU is one of the special police units involved. As a matter of fact each of the twenty counties in Croatia had a special police unit attached to the county police command. The Lučko ATU was assigned to Zagreb and Zagreb County. There's simply no way of knowing from the sources of otherwise which articular unit(s) were there, but on the other hand, most of the special police units were grouped at the Velebit Mts (except maybe one or two). In short, linking Lučko ATU would be wrong there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Krbava Polje

There seems to be a bug in template:lang that is not permitting the following to parse correctly in mainspace:

"approaching from the opposite side of the Krbava Polje (Croatian: Polje or karst field)"

Here is the code: "approaching from the opposite side of the [[Krbava|Krbava {{lang|hr|Polje}}]] ({{lang-hr|[[Polje]]}} or [[karst|karst field]])"

It's parsing correctly in user space, talk space, and usertalk space.
Hopefully the bug will be repaired soon.
- ʈucoxn\^talk 01:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm finished with the copyedit. Please accept my apologies for taking so long to complete it. This is truly a very good article! - ʈucoxn\^talk 04:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Qualification of "Ethnic Cleansing" and independent experts' opinion

That is not Marie-Janine Calic's (a German historian, of Croat ethnic background; herself also with a personal insight working for the UN in Croatia in 1995) personal opinion, as supposedly presented in Tomobe03's comment. She was only in the leader of a team of many authors which worked under her on that chapter. Many other historians and other experts worked on that chapter - Americans Elazar Barkan, Elissa Helms, Cathie Carmichael, James Lyon, Norman Naimark and Lana Obradović, Austrians Horst Haselsteiner and Georg Kastner, as well as France's Jacques Sémelin; and a number of other experts from across the world.

Therefore, it cannot be considered as Calic's personal viewpoint in no way, she being just among the team coordinators of those in the research team associated for investigating the ethnic cleansing which had occurred during the Yugoslav Wars in 1991-1995. I reckon that it does warrant enough to be included already in the introduction, because the Scholars' Initiative led by US historical experts Charles W. Ingrao and Thomas A. Emmert, engulf a vast international project numbering over 170 social studies experts from across the globe with an effort to try to avoid the many biased points of view and controversies with an objective as possible, at least so far (them themselves admitting that before not long most likely a new version is to be expected with the resurgence of some new facts and new sources). This a unique such project and therefore deserves considering all the facts a significant place in this article, especially due to the NPOV aims. It cannot be said that the participants of the project are not sufficiently relevant, and their position especially cannot be perceived as being somewhat pro-Serbian one; AFAIK if the participants from Serbia who took part in the project are observed, we can rather claim something completely different due to the mere fact that some of them are quite controversially and unpopular persons in Serbia, due to their demystifying and highly critical approach to the country's policies during its darker past in the 1990s; this goes especially more for their Western colleagues.

The current composition of this article is biased, sharing too much a Croatian POV of Operation Storm and the encircling events. Operation Storm still today remains one of the major controversies of the 1990s Yugoslav wars, and a short notification of a personal opinion of EU emissary Carl Bildt does not do it justice. I've already mentioned the troubles of presenting this as Calic's personal point of view, but rather the result of a decade-long research on the part of a major (and individually speaking largest, in the world of humanities unprecedented) international initiative aimed at an effort to sum up the most recent professional literature and try to give an as much objective and expert explanation on the story behind the complex issue of SFRY's dissolution. Nothing less preposterous is putting up Galbraith's opinion, regardless how individually very important for the article overall it is, as some sort of a counterweight to that which is most definitely not Calic's personal opinion.

The article should neutrally reflect that for the Serbs it is almost unanimous that Operation Storm had constituted ethnic cleansing, a position expressed widely by experts in the issue, the political elite as well as wide-spread public opinion. According to Serbian historian Miloš Ković, PhD, professor at Belgrade's Faculty of Philosophy, Operation Storm also is to attain the key element of the modern Serbian national identity (in accordance to the theory of major suffering being the backbone of a nation's construction). The Serbian position is also clearly presented with the Genocide Convention violations raised against Croatia recently over at the International Court of Justice. This article also contains no reference at all to the Thematic debate on the role of international criminal justice in reconciliation, which was precisely initiated by the President of the United Nations General Assembly Vuk Jeremić due to the ICTY Appeal Chamber's judgement. While the open discussion has raised a considerable amount of controversy in itself (as a manifestation of those who want to somehow revise the decisions of the ICTY - which in its effect it actually is), it does show that there is also a considerable amount of those who are not Serbs and who view the acquittal of Gotovina and Markac scandalous - and who do consider Operation Storm as being an example of "ethnic cleansing".

It should also be noteworthy that such an opinion is significantly shared by a number of independent scholars, which includes of course most notably Ingrao's Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies. I am not saying that the article should point out that Operation Storm is a text-book example of ethnic cleansing, comparing it somehow to the ethnic cleansing operations committed by the Serbs' paramilitary and military forces during the early 1990s against non-Serbs (Croats and Bosnian Muslims), in any sort of an effort to attempt to somehow balance the Croatian and Serbian sides in the war and thus present an artificial point of view which is not in the encyclopaedic traditions I think should be (are?) also valid in the Wikipedia. Not even all of the 150-200 humanities experts that took part in Ingrao's project share the opinion and I think a number would even perhaps oppose the presentation of the operation as "ethnic cleansing". However, that won't change the conclusion reached by Calic and her team-members, researching the "ethnic cleansing" of the early 1990s Yugoslavian wars.

The independent team of experts is not the only one, as there are even, more and more, examples from the Croatian side upholding that Operation Storm was an ethnic cleansing campaign, e.g. notable humanitarian Žarko Puhovski. The opinion is to some extent shared by the University of Split professor, Nikola Visković, PhD, who rather points the deeper roots of the campaign of ethnic hatred that was a basis for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs all the way to the beginning of the war in the early 1990s. The list also includes lawyer Anto Nobilo, who considers that ethnic cleansing was a "secondary goal" of the military offensive, also if I recall well noting that while both the Croatian and Serbian genocide charges at the ICJ have absolutely no chance, the Serbian case has due to precisely Operation Storm some more validity containing some elements of genocide. Although I have no doubt the Appeal Chamber's overturning final verdict will slow down this trend, it appears that as more and more time passes various individuals in the Republic of Croatia are prone to either think again about their previous convictions, questioning them again, or speak out their opinion that Operation Storm had indeed constituted ethnic cleansing.

This article grossly violated the attempts to maintain a neutral point of view, adopting a Croatian POV and misplacing a neutral middle for a Serb POV. The article is supposed to be an academic channel of thought relying on available sources in an effort to present a neutral opinion, and is not a judicial body obligated to follow previous verdicts. The reader could not find from the article the fact that the Appeal Chamber's verdict is probably the most controversial of all of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia's trials, but would be mislead to think that the Appeal Chamber had unanimously overturned the initial Trial Chamber's verdict due to some error originally made. However, that is far from the case, as the Appeal Chamber had brought this verdict with a very thin majority of 3 to 2. This verdict is unique due to the amount of public voice the two dissenting judges raised, as well as the harshness of their dissenting opinions; both Judge Carmel Agius and Judge Fausto Pocar have expressed grave concerns that the Appeal Chamber's Majority has willingly ignored blatant evidence and has endangered their own legitimacy to continue to work at The Tribunal. The Wikipedian article on Operation Storm should neutrally not ignore the fact that the ICTY Appeal Chamber had acquitted the Croatian generals and overturned the original perception of the "joint criminal enterprise", but as an academic source of information it should not ignore the plain fact that five out of eight international legal experts at the ICTY, meaning a majority, do not share that opinion but rather agree with the perception of ethnic cleansing being a manifestation of Operation Storm. This goes along with the clearly quite critical position of the ICTY's Office of the Prosecutor, currently led by Serge Brammertz, which maintains a legal obligation to acknowledge it but notes that it does not agree with the verdict and upholds that the criminal responsibility and the JCE have been proven - something the ICTY Prosecution seldom, if ever, does. The Wikipedian article on Operation Storm should also include the allegations that Brammertz might apply for a review of the final verdict as per demanded by independent analysts and Serb organizations, if some new evidence emerges. Significantly relevant should also be the opinion of former ICTY chief prosecutor and the one who drafter the indictment against Gotovina, Čermak and Markač, Carla Del Ponte, who viciously criticized the controversial judgement and in hard words expressed her shock at it. The final point which especially marks the acquittals a controversy, none can definitely deny, is the recent accusations publicly raised by Judge Frederick Harhoff, claiming that his colleague at the ICTY President Theodore Meron had personally influenced the outcome of the verdict, arguably due to outside political pressure. According to Harhoff, there was a majority in favor of an upholding verdict but virtually in the very last minute had Meron managed to convince Judge Mehmet Güney to change his mind. There is obviously some truth to this, since it is clear that the ICTY Appeal Chamber verdict, just some 50 or so pages long, was very hastily written, whereas the original two-book Trial Chamber judgement was a very long and elaborate document numbering almost 1,400 pages. And lastly but not the least importantly, some of the documents released by the Wikileaks might incriminate Meron's judicial independence and show at least some credibility to Harhoff's claims. Judge Harhoff is also among people of credible voice who consider that ethnic cleansing had occurred in Operation Storm.

This, or better said most of these problems, all shares the Trial of Gotovina et al article too. Neither of these articles acknowledges the huge controversy that surrounds Operation "Storm", thus also presenting a very biased point of view. It is also very problematic to leave the controversy for one paragraph in the end and omit its neutral presentation in the intro too - which, if I may add, is even currently not the case, the entire controversy boiled down to a statement by an EU representative, which is shared by Marie-Janin Calic (the latter being, as I've explained to the above, false). And yet, this very article mentioned in the Background section the Krajina Serb-committed ethnic cleansing campaign during the early 1990s as an objective and undeniable fact - which, despite being truthfully sources and not disputed by me, compromises the article's neutrality because of the aforementioned reasons. In a comparison's effort, the Bosnian Genocide Case article not only underlines that the judgement was not unanimous, but also in short summarizes the opinion of one single man, one of the 2 of the total 15-member Panel that acquitted Serbia of its implication in the Bosnian genocide - and yes, already in the introduction.

In short, the article offers a significantly biased article that could lead to the genesis or spread of misinformation on this very controversial event. It undermines the significant amount of controversy that the ICTY Appeal Chamber's problematic verdict had erupted, reactions from prominent intellectuals to NGOs, e.g. the response of Nataša Kandić's Fund for Humanitarian Law. It should be as presented in this Pescanik article - a big controversy remains over whether Operation Storm represents ethnic cleansing, with the Croats continually reminding that the Appeal Chamber's verdict that in a way absolved their nation-state leadership's responsibility, and the Serbs not less constantly reminding that a majority (5 out of 8) of the ICTY judges considers that ethnic cleansing had indeed occurred under it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurdueIngrao (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk about walls of text... let's get back to basics: with articles of non-trivial length, the lead section serves to summarize the article content. You don't plaster it with whatever particular view using a specific reference that is not already used in the article, especially a known non-consensus view, and then edit-war to keep it in [4][5][6]. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, invoking all those other articles, including the thematic debate on the role of international criminal justice in reconciliation so early (apparently "a thinly disguised Serb complaint forum"), makes me think you need to shed some bias of your own. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the great length of text, I wanted to present my case clearly and seriously; I would have chosen fewer words if I knew they could've been clearer and made a more significant impact (and considering the time that you Wikipedian authors take to actually write and especially follow all these articles, it is also understandable that my lengthy exposition is quite time-consuming).

I understand your comment and understand that the intro serves for the purpose of summarizing the article. I do not have the free time, or even necessary experience to overtake a significant rewrite which this article much needs, and in addition to that if I started an ëdit war" over just one little sentence think what could happen if I actually started to edit large chunks of the text, including a major review of the War crimes subsection. The whole post was more the sort of a guideline for those who have the time, will and experience to correct the article and by reducing Croatian POV, to which it is currently significantly aligned, make it more neutral. Perhaps you would be willing to assist?

Of course I admit that I am biased and that I need and will continue to shed some bias as I have done so in the past. We are after all students our entire lives. It is my will to gain a more neutral and scientific observation on the 1990s wars as well as Operation Storm in specific, but I cannot pretend that I am somehow not biased. Due to my life-long personal experience, including direct environment as well sources of information I've picked, it would be plausible to say that I might present a Serb POV rather than a neutral one. It is one of the reasons why I am a bit hesitant to undertake the article's partial rewrite; even before considering such a thing you have already on the Talk page questioned (and most probably rightfully assumed) that I share a biased point of view, in many ways towards the Serbian side in the conflict. I think it is natural to assume that because of similar reasons you are also biased, probably in at least some ways leaning towards the Croatian side of the coin. We are biased most of the time that we would not even think, and that is e.g. especially what the authors of the Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies: A Scholars' Initiative noted in the preface as a specific problem in attempting to find the truth somewhere in the middle.

However your comment about the possible indications of my bias is a bit misplaced. While it is true that I have selective chosen different links, that all together combined could very easily paint the image of Operation Storm being a military offensive with a criminal underlining goal conceived by the Croatian state and military leadership, in the aims of solving the Serb national question in Croatia through use of ethnic cleansing - the assumption you've made drives that fact out of context, and the context is that the sources (many of which are relevant) I've linked in my text prove that the current version of the article is greatly biased and in essence presenting a Croatian POV of the military operation, instead of a neutral one.

I have no idea what you meant by my invocation of the Debate at the UN GA. I merely pointed out that such a major event and the direct results of ICTY's Appeal Chamber's verdict are not in this article at all and they should be - along with the not in any way insignificant denouncements which dismiss it as a Serbian revisionist attempt, initialed due to anger at the most recent ICTY judgements. I in no way hinted that the held debate somehow proves some precise fact about Operation Storm; I merely wanted to point out that this article omits it. The way you react to my writing, it seems almost as if you're opposed to this data's inclusion merely because it does not align with the Croatian POV. The debate was not disguised at all; UN GA President Jeremić had clearly indicated that the reason for its scheduling was the acquittal of Gotovina and Markač, in what is arguably ICTY's most controversial trial to date. Various relevant political factors which are non-Serbian have expressed more or less a similar view to the Serb when it comes to the acquittals of Gotovina & Markac. A number individuals, who are not Serbs or come from Serbia, wrote in support or directly participated at the debate, including a member of Appeal Chamber from the Gotovina et al case (Judge Fausto Pocar). The political motifs of the leadership in Belgrade and the Serbian UN GA President that might lie in the roots of the debate, but it still does change the mere fact that the debate itself shows that there is a considerable amount of people who do not agree with the ICTY Appeal Chamber's final judgement, or at least question it to a major extent. It alone, in combination with a number of other factors I've mentioned, such as the international Scholars' Initiative headed by Ingrao and Emmert, serves to prove that Operation Storm is one of the most controversial events of the entire 1990s Yugoslav wars - according to one interpretation it was an offensive against a secessionist entity that reintegrated those areas into the mother-state, and led to a relatively (proportionally?) tolerable number of individual incidents that constitute war crimes; according to another, it was an ethnic cleansing campaign... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurdueIngrao (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the encyclopedic description of these interpretations needs to start with the basic description of who thinks exactly what, as opposed to saying "some consider it to be exceptionally horrible" + 1 ref. See WP:WEASEL and WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

I'm not even saying that your main source is bad - heck, it's already used in the article. But it needs to be presented in a neutral manner.

I personally don't think the article is currently slanted towards a "Croatian" point of view - it primarily describes the military operation itself but it doesn't omit the description of the aftermath, the refugee crisis, or the war crimes prosecution. Perhaps that's slanted in and of itself, but if the article title clearly defines its scope to be the specific military operation, then that's what it should focus on.

Earlier, I also suggested we start making new general articles about the aftermath, and indeed the Trial of Gotovina et al article was created exactly in that vein - it focuses on that particular aspect. I wouldn't see any problem in starting a new article called, say Aftermath of Operation Storm. Heck, now that I see you added the exact same phrasing in the Operation Flash article, it's fairly clear that your main goal was to describe Croatian war policies as the common denominator of these individual operations - so this should be generalized into Aftermath of the Croatian War of Independence. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, thank you for coming clean about your biases, but it's really the way you present these sources is what is controversial - Marie-Janine Calic's chapter of that book clearly talks about numerous other examples of, in her opinion, ethnic cleansing during the Yugoslav Wars, yet you made it a point to add her only in these two articles. If you had added the same information to all those other articles, it wouldn't be seen as improper. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your prose is quite hard to follow, and this post is a bit WP:TLDR. Could you provide half a dozen dot points that explain what it is you think should be included, along with the source for each (including page)? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the lead, it is mentioned that the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) did not intervene in the battle, and yet in the infobox it is listed as a combatant. Why is this? 23 editor (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

sources for the evacuation of civilians

The Croatian War of Independence article, which generally tends to be overly verbose, currently says on the topic:

Many of the civilian population of the occupied areas fled during the offensive or immediately after its completion, in what was later described in various terms ranging from expulsion to planned evacuation. Krajina Serb sources (Documents of HQ of Civilian Protection of RSK, Supreme Council of Defense published by Kovačević, Sekulić, and Vrcelj) confirm that the evacuation of Serbs was organized and planned beforehand. According to Amnesty International, the operation led to the ethnic cleansing of up to 200,000 Croatian Serbs, the murder and torture of Serbs—both soldiers and civilians—as well as the plunder of Serb civilian property. The ICTY, on the other hand, concluded that only about 20,000 people were deported. The BBC noted 200,000 Serb refugees at one point. Croatian refugees exiled in 1991 were finally allowed to return to their homes. In 1996 alone, about 85,000 displaced Croats returned to the former Krajina and western Slavonia, according to the estimates of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants.

• Kovačević, Drago; Linta, Miodrag (2003). Kavez: Krajina u dogovorenom ratu (in Serbian). Belgrade: Srpski demokratski forum. ISBN 86-83759-04-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
• Sekulić, Milisav (2000). Knin je pao u Beogradu (in Serbian). Nidda Verlag. UDK: 3 355.45(497.5-074)"1991/1995". {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
• Vrcelj, Marko (2002). Rat za Srpsku Krajinu: 1991–1995 (in Serbian). Belgrade: Srpsko kulturno društvo "Zora". ISBN 978-86-83809-06-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

This seems like it would merit at least a partial move here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

background section sourcing

The Transaction Publishers book certainly seems like something that should be referenced, but the issues are serious: it talks of Tuđman as an advocate of a country "inhabited exclusively by Croats", unspecified "openly discriminatory laws", implies that Croatian media also "demonized Muslims", a "new national coat of arms [with] a design very similar to that used by the Ustasha", and talks of "atrocities perpetrated by Croats" being used to "create fear among Bosnian Serbs" prior to the Bosnian declaration of independence. This level of factual inaccuracy while making such serious claims is most troubling. Tuđman was certainly a nationalist, but the described level of national exclusivity would necessarily imply genocide not only of Serbs but of all the other minorities, none of which actually happened; the laws stuff is probably a reference to the controversial constitutional changes discussed in independence of Croatia; the Muslim demonization implication is probably sloppy wording (the latter would not happen before well after 1991); the checkerboard coat of arms was a consistent symbol of SR Croatia, and this controversy is debunked in Coat of arms of Croatia; the extent of the actual atrocities against the Serbs during the first phase of the war in Croatia can't be described without context (including converse atrocities committed by Serbian forces in a significantly wider scope at the time, and fake incidents such as the Vukovar children massacre), otherwise it's left unsaid how much of a propaganda feat this actually was. Overall, the war in Croatia is treated more as a prelude to the war in Bosnia in this source, which might help explain the sloppiness, but it doesn't really excuse it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/trans/en/090323ME.htm http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=article&articleid=14318. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits made by User:23 editor

As someone who believes in RS you should actually post one before introducing such claims about direct US involvement. Where is the source claiming that the US had participated directly in the Operation? Shokatz (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Citing the Navy Times, Aranas 2012 states: "US airstrikes on August 4, 1995 against Serb missile sites [...] were in the same area the Croatians were attacking as they began "Operation Storm". The airstrikes were said to have been initiated because of a request by Pakistani U.N. peacekeepers who said Croatian artillery fire was hitting too close to their posts. Despite that, U.S. aircraft targeted and hit Serb positions instead of Croatian targets." This was cited in the article until you removed it, saying "How were NATO and US strikes part of the Operation? Where are the citations?" a) No one mentioned NATO and b) you just removed the citation! Furthermore, direct support and general support are two different things, though it can certainly be argued that airstrikes targeting Serb positions constituted direct support. Even if they don't, it's virtually undeniable the U.S. supported the Croatian offensive. It trained Croatian soldiers and provided the Croatian Army with weapons in violation of the U.N. arms embargo (see Glenn P. Hastedt, Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy p. 107). According to Carole Rogel, Croatia had about 100,000 U.S.-trained troops at the time of the operation (see Rogel, The Breakup of Yugoslavia and the War in Bosnia p. 37) If NATO didn't support Croatia, the US most certainly did (both covertly and, at least in the case of airstrikes, overtly). 23 editor (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Navy Times? Seriously? It's a weekly pundit, not a reliable source. I am sorry but I missed the citation, can you repost it here again so we can see it...all I saw was a link to a google books page where no citations were present, only a summary of the book in question. Nothing on the subject. Still I don't see a reliable source which can without any doubt confirm that US was a belligerent in that conflict or that it directly participated. Sure, the Croatian army used those air strikes, but were they coordinated? I smell a conspiracy theory since AFAIK both the Croatian and US government blatantly rejected such claims. Shokatz (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think Navy Times is an unreliable source, then open a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The citation can be found here . As I said towards the end of my post, the airstrikes don't have to be coordinated to be included under support (a good solution would be to include a line separating the HV and ARBiH from the U.S. in the infobox), though there is no question that providing military advisors and shipping weapons did directly contribute to Croatia's increased military capability, and thus to the operation's (and the war's) eventual outcome. This in of itself qualifies as "support", though the WP:RS do appear to indicate that several airstrikes were also carried out, hence the phrase "limited airstrikes", which was present in the infobox before you removed it. 23 editor (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The infobox section called "Belligerents" is for one purpose only and that purpose is exactly to the meaning of that word. Belligerent = a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law. The role of US cannot be part of that section on infobox since US was not a side directly involved in the conflict but a third side overseeing the situation on both sides. The fact Croatian army used the US air strikes to their advantage has absolutely nothing to do with the military operation at all and at best would/should be a part of some other section called "circumstances" or whatever. I've looked on quite a few articles regarding military operations and battles (historical or contemporary) and never have I see anything similar to "support" as you tried to install here. And btw the reference you posted says nothing about US being directly involved in the conflict supporting Croatian side...all we have is mention of one person writing a letter to a daily pundit (NY Times) in which that person stated his opinion. Shokatz (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Not true. Look at the Syrian civil war infobox, or better yet, the Iraq War (2014–present) infobox. Both list Iran, for example, despite the fact that Iran doesn't actually have soldiers engaging in combat on the ground. It has personnel training and advising both the Syrian and Iraqi armies, provides weapons, supplies and intelligence to both and has bombed ISIS on two or three occasions in Iraq. Again, military training, providing weapons and equipment and limited airstrikes are exactly how the US contributed to 'Storm'. So if you're implying that there aren't precedents on Wikipedia, you're wrong. Second, you've completely ignored the part in Aranas where US military personnel are cited as confirming that US airstrikes were indeed carried out. Indeed, you merely cherry-picked the first passage, where a retired USAF colonel is described writing to a newspaper (the Washington Times not the NYT) rhetorically asking why the US bombed Serb targets if it claimed to be neutral. I suggest you read sources more carefully, as you didn't even get the name of the newspaper right. Your dismissal of reliable sources such as the Navy Times and the New York Times (using the dismissive term 'daily pundit') is rather unsettling. Both sources, especially the latter, are cited on numerous en:wiki articles.

Furthermore, your definition of belligerent is wrong in the context of modern warfare. The U.S. is a belligerent in the Middle East, yet it denies being in a state of war with any party and constantly says it doesn't have "boots on the ground". It most certainly did not have "boots on the ground" during 'Storm', but as two sources clearly state, it did carry out airstrikes against one side and not the other—not to mention the military training and weapons provided to the HV without which it is doubtful the offensive would have succeeded. To deny U.S. involvement against the RSK is ludicrous. 23 editor (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The difference between the current conflicts in Iraq and Syria are completely different from a military operation which refers to a much smaller scale conflict. Your claim that US was somehow directly involved in planning and carrying out that operation is unsupported by official sources and borders on WP:OR and speculation. US never trained anyone...if you refer to MPRI they only had a consulting role and a minimal one at that...plus the fact that MPRI is NOT a US govt. agency of any kind but a private company. And also US never provided any weapons to Croatian military at any point during the wars in the 90s, if that was the case Croatia wouldn't be forced to smuggle weapons in and use obsolete Soviet-era weaponry. You should have direct quotations and reliable source for everything you just stated if you want to be taken seriously. Shokatz (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Alleged US support through "limited airstrikes"

The biggest issue I have with 23 editors change is that, although the incident did occur, the article misinterprets the events. First of all, the "limited airstrikes" which are being implied were a mere two missiles fired on one ocassion. An incident, maybe, but hardly an airstrike aimed at supporting one of the belligerents. The second (bigger) problem is that it misinterprets the casues as to why it happened. Using the sources quoted below, I hope to show that the idea of US air support for Croatian forces is a far-stretched construct with no foundation in historical facts.

The August 4 event in which four NATO aircraft attacked a Serb SAM position had nothing to do with helping the Croatian war effort, rather they were acting in self-defense as shown in an United Press International article reporting about the incident.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 -- U.S. pilots who fired at a Croatian Serb missile site were acting in self-defense as a radar device locked onto their planes while they were flying over the embattled area at the request of U.N. military commanders, a NATO spokesman said. The NATO warplanes fired AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles, or HARM, at the site near Knin, the stronghold of the Serb rebels. NATO spokesman Jim Mitchell in Aviano, Italy, said the pilots were acting in self-defense and fired after their planes were illuminated by a radar from Serb surface-to-air missile system. Under present rules of engagement, NATO warplanes can fire without permission from the United Nations if they see a perceived threat.

The same situation was mentioned in a Human Rights Watch report from August 1996.

NATO threatened to attack Croatian forces in retaliation for their assault on U.N. positions. However, the only NATO attack during the operation was against a Serbian surface-to-air missile site near Knin that had locked onto two NATO planes dispatched in response to U.N. calls for support.

Tom Ripley mentiones this as well in his book "Air War Bosnia - US and NATO Airpower" on page 82:

Croatian troops launched Operation Storm to drive the Serbs from Krajina region on 4 August and on the same day Krajina Serb radar illuminated US Navy jets, who responded by firing AGM-88 High Speed Anti-radiation missiles at the site.

So based on three credible sources, two important things are explained: US aircraft were not operating in the area because they were planning on aiding Croatian forces, but were instead called in by UN peacekeepers on the ground because of the Croatian attack. Second of all, the reason why they opened fire on a Serb position was not to help Croatian forces (which they were actually supposed to deter), but because they were threatened by it (the Serbian illumination of the fighter jets while they were responding to a call by the UN peacekeepers). Keep in mind that just two months before that, Scott O'Grady was shot down over Bosnia. So if they didn't arrive there to help the Croatians and they didn't fire on the Serbs to help the Croatians, I don't see how the mentioned event is proof of US support for Croatia using "limited airstrikes".--Saxum (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. But these airstrikes should at least still be mentioned in the body of the article under the date when they occurred, since we have five sources (including Aranas and the Navy Times) to back up that assertion. 23 editor (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It happened during the operation and it happened in an area affected by it. Not to mention the reason they took off in the first reason was because of the actions of the Croatian military. I was merely trying to explain the context of the event so it doesn't read as if there was some kind of an air campaign launched to help Croatian forces in Storm. That, and that it gets mentioned in the right place, not the infobox but in the text with the rest of the events of the day.--Saxum (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mass graves unearthed after March 2012

The number of mass graves and victims end in March 2012. There are some new findings, such as one in Zadar, and another one in Gornje Selište.--Zoupan 21:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Problem with inexperienced editors quoting primary sources

There's a reason why Wikipedia uses secondary sources. I've deleted a part of the text in the article. Let's see what the article says and what the source says.

Article : "The court ruled that a substantial part of the Serb population fled the RSK as a direct consequence of Operation Storm. The Croatian authorities were aware that the operation would lead to mass displacement and even predicated their military planning on such an exodus, which they considered not only probable, but desirable."

First the court did not make a ruling. The paragraph that is being used as a source here starts with "In the present case", relating to the "The only question facing the Court is whether genocide was committed during Operation “Storm”. The forced displacement of a population, even if proved, would not in itself constitute the actus reus of genocide"

There's a big difference in the tone of the source and the context this article puts forward. Person reading this sentence would think to himself: "Serbs left as a direct consequence of Operation Storm -> The Croatian authorities were aware that the operation would lead to mass displacement and even predicated their military planning on such an exodus, which they considered not only probable, but desirable -> ethnic cleansing has happened -> Croatian leadership wanted it, they planned the action and so on...". That of course would be wrong.

Let's see what the source says:

"It further notes that the transcript of the Brioni meeting, to which it will return later (see paragraphs 501-507 below), makes it clear that the highest Croatian political and military authorities were well aware that Operation “Storm” would provoke a mass exodus of the Serb population; they even to some extent predicated their military planning on such an exodus, which they considered not only probable, but desirable (see paragraph 504 below)."

Let's go to paragraph 504:

504. The Court is not persuaded by the arguments that Serbia seeks to derive from the Brioni Transcript. In the Court’s view, the passages quoted above, which are taken from the transcript of a meeting which lasted almost two hours, are far from demonstrating an intention on the part of the Croatian leaders physically to destroy the group of Croatian Serbs, or the substantial part of that group constituted by the Serbs living in Krajina. President Tudjman’s reference — on which Serbia places so much emphasis — to the aim of the Croatian forces being “to inflict such blows that the Serbs will to all practical purposes disappear” must be read in context, and specifically in light of what immediately follows: “that is to say, the areas we do not take at once must capitulate within a few days”. Taken as a whole, that sentence is clearly more indicative of the designation of a military objective, rather than of the intention to secure the physical destruction of a human group. The fact that the President subsequently asked the meeting to “remember how many Croatian villages and towns [had] been destroyed”, while pointing out that this was “still not the situation in Knin”, does not establish an intent on his part to destroy the Serb population of the Krajina. Similarly, the concern expressed by the Croatian Head of State that the Serb civilians should be left with accessible escape routes, “[b]ecause it is important that those civilians set out, and then the army will follow them”, in no way suggests any intent to destroy the Serb group as such, but is better understood as an aspect of military strategy. And it is clarified in particular by the final part of the same sentence: “and when the columns [of civilians and soldiers] set out, they will have a psychological impact on each other”. The same applies to General Gotovina’s reply, where he foresees that there would not be many Serb civilians left in the area once the Croatian military offensive has begun, except for “those who have to stay, who have no possibility of leaving”. Although not directly linked to any strategic considerations, that remark in no way suggests an intention physically to eliminate the Serb population. Furthermore, the remark by Miroslav Tudjman (“When . . . their forces [have] pulled out, then they can prepare after ten days. In that time we will clear the entire area”), while containing a certain ambiguity, which the context cannot dispel, does not represent sufficiently persuasive evidence of a genocidal intent.

Finally, President Tudjman’s statement that he would be “in favour of destroying everything by shelling prior to advancing” — if the Croat forces “had enough” ammunition — was made in the context of a discussion on the need to use the military resources available to those forces with restraint. It cannot be interpreted as reflecting an intent on the President’s part to destroy the Krajina Serbs as such. 505. At most, the view might be taken that the Brioni Transcript shows that the leaders of Croatia envisaged that the military offensive they were preparing would have the effect of causing the flight of the great majority of the Serb population of the Krajina, that they were satisfied with that consequence and that, in any case, they would do nothing to prevent it because, on the contrary, they wished to encourage the departure of the Serb civilians"

So the quote used in the article does not represent a "ruling". Late in the referenced paragraph it is explained that :

At most, the view might be taken that the Brioni Transcript shows that the leaders of Croatia envisaged that the military offensive they were preparing would have the effect of causing the flight of the great majority of the Serb population of the Krajina, that they were satisfied with that consequence and that, in any case, they would do nothing to prevent it because, on the contrary, they wished to encourage the departure of the Serb civilians"

However, that "at most" view is hypothetical. The overall context of this whole section is the following: Croatian leadership has planned a military operation , they predicted that the Serbs will retreat and that the population will go and they planned their military action according to that prediction. In no why there was any ethnic cleansing "ruled", but quite the opposite.

Sorry, but I'm against the direct quoting of primary sources. I'm also against any quotes from media. Anything can be found in media, and even the quote placed in the article. If there is some literature that directly deals with this matter then it should be used. Putting such quote in the "War crimes" section is just manipulating with someone's opinion. 141.138.31.170 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC) 141.138.31.170 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence in that paragraph: "In February 2015, at the conclusion of the Croatia–Serbia genocide case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dismissed a Serbian lawsuit which alleged that Operation Storm constituted genocide,[220] ruling that Croatia did not have the specific intent to exterminate the country's Serb minority, though it reaffirmed that serious crimes against Serb civilians had taken place.[220][221]" Is enough on this matter. Crimes have happened, but not as a part of "genocide" or any "planned ethnic cleansing". 141.138.31.170 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to talk about this in the talk section after reading​ in the article that "Serbs flead as a direct result of Operation Storm", which only confirms to me that readers will indeed assume cleansing took place to displace these civilians. I'm amazed you received no response on the issue. Article is not matching the source. Comes across POV pushing. What would you say would be the better phrasing for that part of the article? 108.54.93.183 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I've opened a RfC and already edited the article. The sentence :" ruling that Croatia did not have the specific intent to exterminate the country's Serb minority, though it reaffirmed that serious crimes against Serb civilians had taken place" is pretty much what the judgement is. There were war crimes but only linked to individuals. 89.164.164.212 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a edit few months ago. But I agree with you and thanks. Sadly there are some on here looking to spin the article fore their own biases. It is important to be neutral and factual. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Using primary sources

Should the sentence:"The court ruled that a substantial part of the Serb population fled the RSK as a direct consequence of Operation Storm. The Croatian authorities were aware that the operation would lead to mass displacement and even predicated their military planning on such an exodus, which they considered not only probable, but desirable." stay in the article? The problem is that this is a direct quote from a primary source and there's a reason why Wikipedia is using secondary sources.

Furthermore, the sentence "In February 2015, at the conclusion of the Croatia–Serbia genocide case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dismissed a Serbian lawsuit which alleged that Operation Storm constituted genocide,[220] ruling that Croatia did not have the specific intent to exterminate the country's Serb minority, though it reaffirmed that serious crimes against Serb civilians had taken place.[220][221]" is in clash with the mentioned, following sentence.

Also, "The court has ruled" is not supported by the referenced source. The court have made no such ruling, but it addressed a claim. Reading the source one can read a response to a claim :"At most, the view might be taken that the Brioni Transcript shows that the leaders of Croatia envisaged that the military offensive they were preparing would have the effect of causing the flight of the great majority of the Serb population of the Krajina, that they were satisfied with that consequence and that, in any case, they would do nothing to prevent it because, on the contrary, they wished to encourage the departure of the Serb civilians" "

For more info read the upper topic. Bilseric (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• No. The sentence shouldn't be in the article. The previous sentence says it all :"Croatia did not have the specific intent to exterminate the country's Serb minority, though it reaffirmed that serious crimes against Serb civilians had taken place". There's no need to manipulate with a primary source to get an incorrect thesis into the article. Bilseric (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. In this particular case, direct quote from a primary source is not a problem; on the contrary, precisely the fact that it is a direct quote makes it so. From WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Now, the quote in question is a "straightforward, descriptive statement" and it is furthermore a direct quote, which means there is no interpretation whatsoever. That makes it compatible with WP:PRIMARY.

The second sentence you mention ("In February 2015", etc.) is is not in clash with the first because an intent to cause (or a deliberate failure to prevent) mass displacement does not necessarily rise to the level of genocide.

Finally, while IANAL, I'd say that the sentence in question is properly called a finding, not a ruling, and your objection in this respect is quite valid. GregorB (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all. Thanks for your answer. May I ask, what is your opinion on the following. The sentence which is used here as a quote refers to the paragraph 504. There one can see the court addressing Serbian claims and rejecting any suggestion of a planned ethnic cleansing...and so on. At the end we have a sentence: "At most, the view might be taken that the Brioni Transcript shows that the leaders of Croatia envisaged that the military offensive they were preparing would have the effect of causing the flight of the great majority of the Serb population of the Krajina, that they were satisfied with that consequence and that, in any case, they would do nothing to prevent it because, on the contrary, they wished to encourage the departure of the Serb civilians". So, as you can see, the court is using "At most" construction because that "most" is still not enough to sustain Serbian claims. I agree that the quote in the article is a direct quote, but it is taken from a different context of the primary source and put into a different context into the article. That is an implicit interpretation and a long known method of manipulation. End with the remark you want people to remember. By first saying that Croatia had no specific intent to exterminate the country's Serb minority. Then by saying that serious crimes against Serb civilians had taken place, then that the Croatian authorities were aware that the operation would lead to mass displacement and even predicated their military planning on such an exodus, which they considered not only probable, but desirable. This is very different context than the source suggests. The source starts with the mentioned quote (while the article finishes with it), then it dismisses all claims on planned ethnic cleansing or genocide and finishes with the sentence: "At most, the view might be taken that the Brioni Transcript shows that the leaders of Croatia envisaged that the military offensive they were preparing would have the effect of causing the flight of the great majority of the Serb population of the Krajina, that they were satisfied with that consequence and that, in any case, they would do nothing to prevent it because, on the contrary, they wished to encourage the departure of the Serb civilians". So we have two very similar quote. One is the "finding" and the other is "at most" construct. By choosing the first quote an interpretation is made. By mixing the order of the quote and putting it at the end, and interpretation is made.

So my question is. Why is it used a quote which comes at the beginning. The quote is pointing to a paragraph where the all claims on ethnic cleansing dismissed. Then we have a similar quote which says "At most...."..and then pretty much the same as first quote? It is a direct quote if you view it by itself, but there's a broader context. The same goes with the quote that the Serbian side used to prove that Tudman ordered ethnic cleansing:“to inflict such blows that the Serbs will to all practical purposes disappear” while the court has addressed that claim with the:"taken as a whole, that sentence is clearly more indicative of the designation of a military objective, rather than of the intention to secure the physical destruction of a human group". Could we possible use "Serb to disappear" quote by neglecting "taken as a whole" address by the court? Can we use the first quote from the article and neglect the whole two paragraphs that quote points to. Paragraphs which reject every single Serbian claim and later using hypothetical "at most" construct. As I said, then which one is it "finding" or "at most" (hypothetically). In my opinion these are all interpretations. Mixing the order and finishing with the last thing you want to be remembered is a well known way of making something subjective. Bilseric (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid your question is a bit too complex for me to answer.

Let me add that presenting conflicting facts in the article would definitely be a problem, but presenting conflicting opinions would not. Also, while using direct quotes is a way to avoid interpretation and subjectivity, that doesn't mean that bias can't be introduced this way. On the contrary, I've seen quite a few articles where the bias stemmed from the way quotes were selected and arranged. GregorB (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but doesn't that just go in favor of the argument that WP:SYNTH has been used? ICJ judgement is just too complex to be used in such a way. My suggestion to you is to read the referenced passages once again and then read the article. My opinion is that someone reading this article may get an impression that Croatia had committed ethnic cleansing or that civilians were targeted, which is totally wrong. Bilseric (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No. The sentence shouldn't be in the article as presently written. I tried to read the above discussion, but from what I could see, this is WP:SYNTH by selective quoting. Omitting the 'conjectural' elements and turning this into a final 'ruling', rather than part of an argument. The alternative could possibly be 'stiffened' or expanded, but I'm not sure how at present. Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I can specify, and easily choose quotes from the source to depict it as if Croats committed genocide, by selective quoting. That is what someone did here, and took advantage of that. I honestly expected better vetting by Wikipedia... 108.54.93.183 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Primary sources aren't verboten. L3X1 (distant write) 15:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes This does not look like a primary source problem to me, actually, but just a way-about for something else. Anyway, YES, this info should stay as it is in article. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• No Primary sources out of context are not useful for a neutral article. If looking for straightforward information, then the origina text must match. Unless one has alterior motives. Regaurdles, NO, the qoute should not say at it is being misrepresented. I'll explain, as I don't think yes voters looked through the source.

Article : "The court ruled that a substantial part of the Serb population fled the RSK as a direct consequence of Operation Storm. The Croatian authorities were aware that the operation would lead to mass displacement and even predicated their military planning on such an exodus, which they considered not only probable, but desirable."

This quote doesn't exist in the document. Not a direct quote at all. Whoever says yes, did not read the documents.

Original:

502. "According to Serbia, several passages from the transcript demonstrate the intention of the Croatian authorities, at the highest level, physically to eliminate the Krajina Serbs." (This paragraph is where the rephrased quote, no longer a direct quote, came from) 503. "Croatia disputes Serbia’s interpretation of the Brioni Transcript. According to the Applicant, the Brioni discussions related exclusively to military and strategic issues: it was a matter of planning Operation “Storm” in the most effective way, rather than settling the fate of the Serb population living in Krajina. Only a biased reading of certain passages taken out of context could suggest — wrongly in Croatia’s view — the existence of a plan aimed at destroying the civilian population. Croatia further contends that this was the conclusion of both the ICTY Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber in the Gotovina case in regard to the meaning and scope of the Brioni Transcript. 504. "The Court is not persuaded by the arguments that Serbia seeks to derive from the Brioni Transcript. In the Court’s view, the passages quoted above, which are taken from the transcript of a meeting which lasted almost two hours, are far from demonstrating an intention on the part of the Croatian leaders physically to destroy the group of Croatian Serbs, or the substantial part of that group constituted by the Serbs living in Krajina."

Serbia claimed the above article quote. The courts stated they disagree. Simple as that. Just because there is a quote made by someone, does not mean it is credible or the absolute truth. Hence why primary sources can be dangerous and used to mislead. Article quote shouldn't stay for the sake of neutrality and accuracy. Hope this wraps up this old post. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are you still arguing whether "it" should stay in the article or not when "it" is not in the article? 141.136.223.156 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Because there are people still recently posting about it and it was never determined if it is to stay or go? Someone could try to bring it back. I made the argument for the sake of future reference. Why are you specifically bothered by my post and not the other recent ones? Please not, I ask not out of contempt but out of curiosity. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it in the article and that's how it should stay. I'm not bothered. I just want to conclude this discussion. Both you and I agree that primary sources can not be used in such way. 89.164.128.11 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• This topic is old. If anyone wants to edit the article I suggest that a new topic is started.141.136.223.49 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Translations in lead sentence

The reason that Operation Storm is translated into Serbo-Croatian with both alphabets is because the operation involved both Croats and Serbs (on opposite sides), therefore if someone is looking for the operation name using the Serbian alphabet, they can. Reducing it to only Croatian is not neutral and is unhelpful. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hypocrisy - number of refugees, number of civil victims, C. Bildt

First: This is great example of hypocrisy. I quoted ICTY (the same article that was used previously as a source) where it is mentioned that more than 90.000 people fled, and post is being repeatedly deleted.

On the other hand there is NOT ONE proof that there had been more than 150.000 refugees (which is more or less accepted UN number), and there is still figure of 200.000 mentioned numerous times. People, don't be hypocrits: - either you accept article states 90.000-200.000 - or let's put "around 150.000" and qoute only UN.

Second: I put EXACT REFERENCES from ICTY - and there are at least 3 IPs that are deleting changes without any explanation and reporting me for vandalism. That is a disgrace.

Third: I made changes to number of confirmed or claimed civilian victims, citeing directly ICTY. That has also been deleted without any explanation.

Fourth: I have deleted statements from Carl Bildt, since this man is known for being friend of Milošević and the one that does not recognize Srebrenica massacre and is not reliable. That has also been deleted without any explanation. It is a particular insult to any human being on the deepest level of humanity to refer to such people. It is a particular insult to any human being citeing a man who is capable, after the Serbs ethnically cleansed over 90% of non-Serb population of occupied areas of Croatia and BiH literally 3 years ago, saying that Operation Storm was biggest cleansing after WW II (hypocritically knowing that he himself instructed Milosevic that Serbs should flee in order to present Operation Storm as ethnical cleansing). This is not a question whether it was or it was not ethnical cleansing. It is a question that, on the deepest level of humanity, I ask not to cite this man Carl Bildt.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.55.200 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes, one more funny thing - the article citeing UN stated that there were 150.000 refugees, and than that other 10.000-15.000 stayed in Banja Luka area, whereas actual source reads: "...OUT OF WHICH 10.000-15.000" stayed in Banja Luka area. I don't doubt any second this mistake is intentional so I also deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.55.200 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And to be clear, by all means, this is a call for dispute settlement (if dispute exists). But please, let's hear the arguments and agree on the subject, and don't delete changes made by reliable sources without explanations and accompanied by false accusations of vandalism.

The parts I deleted were clearly POV and bias. I could have qouted 100 people stating it was not ethnic cleansing. Quoting people that thought it was or it was not ethnic cleansing - and then qouting 4 who think it was and only 1 that disagreed is clearly biased.

Also, I repeat invitation, either we accept reliable sources quoting 90.-200.000 or we state "around 150.000".

The same goes for HHO report. HHO report was dismissed by the Court as not reliable. And we keep it in the article?? This is first controversy. So, OK, we may agree that the report is not completely useless, it must have certain value - but then, let's be fair, and either: - we state that HHO report does not make any difference between civilian and military deaths - nor, as a matter of fact, does, by any means, even confirm deaths are Serbian or Croatian - or - we delete mentioning HHO report completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.55.200 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree about Carl Bildt. His personal opinion about something that we know is factually wrong is not important and it should not be in the article. It seems that the article doesn't contain his opinion, but I'll check later to see whether someone added it. I must add that War crimes section is very well written. In the past some editors tried to introduce POV by cherry picking from primary sources. I hope that is over now and I'll watch over that to make sure no one adds something in without consensus. 89.164.165.55 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Operation Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=vijesti-clanak&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=175551&cHash=5a41649d1d
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/11/Region/1169142/%22Oluja%22+pred+ameri%C4%8Dkim+sudom.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/13/world/rebel-serbs-list-50-croatia-sites-they-may-raid.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dw.de/prijepori-oko-broja-%C5%BErtava-oluje/a-15296561
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/26/world/2-yugoslav-states-vote-independence-to-press-demands.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028092334/http://www.jutarnji.hr/kresimir-cosic--amerikanci-nam-nisu-dali-da-branimo-bihac/234966/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/kresimir-cosic--amerikanci-nam-nisu-dali-da-branimo-bihac/234966/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Language, again

Two scripts does not mean two languages. Kindly refer to the article Serbo-Croatian and Talk:Serbo-Croatian. Please do not use Wikipedia to further nationalist nonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. This is an unnecessary nationalist throwback from the 90s. What is next? Bosnian Lang template as well? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This is nationalist nonsense. (Neo)Yugoslav nationalism, when pushing the Serbocroatist agenda. Croatian is Croatian language only, and this is military operation that was organized by Croatia, plans and orders were written in Croatian language, not by Serbia and not in Serbian language, not in inexistent "Serbocroatian", so it must stay the name of Croatian language only. Leave those Serbocroatist daydreams behind.--Chiartop (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no Serbo-Croatian agenda. That is the name of the overarching pluricentric language, of which there are four standard varieties, one of which is Croatian. Because this operation affected people that use three of the four standard varieties and two alphabets, we use the overarching Serbo-Croatian template. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

NATO participation ? Why not mentioned ?

In an (meanwhile archived) NATO link one can read: On 4 August 1995, NATO aircraft conducted air strikes against Croatian Serb air defence radars near Udbina airfield and Knin in Croatia. - so why NATO is not mentioned in Infobox as warring party ? --88.217.96.190 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

NATO participated not only through airstrikes, but also provided refueling, satellite imagery, military advisors, logistical support, etc. I tried to add NATO as a supporting participant a few years ago but three or four other users ganged up on me and had it removed. 23 editor (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

NATO was not a warring party during Operation Storm. Those airstrikes were carried out in support of the UN no-fly zone resolution, which included dealing with ground-to-air threats to the policing of the no-fly zone. The Croatian Serbs were detected turning their air defence radar onto NATO aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, and were attacked for that reason. What are the reliable source(s) you are using for NATO providing other support to the warring parties? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If you look from Serbian viewpoint, where it has Croats attacking, you can't expect that they will view NATO strikes in different light. Your point may be correct if viewed from one side. This side has it's box. NATO doesn't have to be listed in Croatian box. Serbian side has it's own box and NATO can be listed there, as that box represents their viewpoint. It doesn't have to be symmetrical. Bilseric (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

23 editor. I see no reason not to put NATO as a warring party if what you are saying is sourced. Can you direct me to sources so I can review them?Bilseric (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We use what the reliable secondary sources say. You needs reliable sources that say that NATO was a participant in Operation Storm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm sure that there are many Serbian sources saying so. The article can mention their viewpoint. I see no problems with that. Bilseric (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That may be true, and it can be mentioned in the body of the article as a (likely biased) Serb perspective if that is the case, but what is the academic consensus on it? Unless it is the academic consensus position that NATO were a participant, it should not go in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, 23 editor would you agree?Bilseric (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Didn't notice that you said biased. I disagree with this word being put into article. It is their opinion, no need to mark it as biased. Bilseric (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I said that it would (likely) need to be treated as a biased source, which recommends in-line attribution of the author and due weighting of the view. In my experience this is common in articles covering the former Yugoslavia, and I therefore prefer to use sources unconnected to the various warring parties. To be clear, I would say the same about a Croat source on Operation Storm. Please read the link for an explanation of how we treat biased sources on en WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You can't argue that Serbian sources are biased just because they are Serbian. Each source has to be valued based on the content and not based on blood cells of the author. You are now putting a presumption even before you have seen the source. I can't agree with that. When I see the source I'll be capable of evaluating it by myself. If I or someone else disagrees and thinks the source is biased or cherry picked, they can post their own sources. Bilseric (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm engaged in another time wasting discussion , so I don't have to search for sources. If someone posts sources, I would be willing to participate here so you can ping me. Bilseric (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)