Talk:Saborsko massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

2007

This article is hopelessly biased and is pure hate speach and croatian propaganda. Wermania 19:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles can not be speedied for problems with POV. Discuss on talk page and fix the article. DGG (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

DGG, don't feed the trolls. That user, user:Wermania, has purposely registered himself. His first and only three contributions were adding of these tags.
Below, there's a material from ICTY. Kubura 08:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

advice about NPOV

It was correct for you to have reverted the article back to its original state. the material that was added does seem to be in most part totally unsourced negative material, and the repeated addition of such material is considered as vandalism. However, it does seem fair to add a NPOV tag to the article--this is not a reflection of the accuracy of the views one way or another--it is normal for such a tag to remain until there is some degree of consensus.

With respect to NPOV, my advice is to further source the material. It is usual for material of this sort to be supported by specific in-line references for the facts of the case, and in particular for the specific use of the phrase "war crime" by some neutral part. It is also usual for allegations about the overall motives not to be elaborated on--they are generally made and sourced in the more general articles about the conflict. If they do remain in the article, they must be specifically referenced to a third party source, such as an international investigation. Opinions vary on how best to present this: I suggest phrasing such as "considered by so-and-so to be a whatever [reference[]. this is not considered a case of weasel words.

I am about to make some additional changes that I think tend towards NPOV. I have added appropriate request for citations to indication where specific references are required. I have made further comments in a way that wil show up in the edit view only, using the <!-- --> markup. Personal opinion about the accuracy and sourcing should not be inserted in such a way that it is visible in the actual text.

It is not usual to block for this sort of edit on what is known to be a contentious topic even from a SPO unless they are repeated more than once, but no editor should ever introduce unsourced material or opinion into the article. The re-adddition of material such as has been removed should be preceded by a discussion of these edits on the talk page; should this method fail, my advice is that WP:THIRD might be the best course to pursue. DGG (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

References

I'll speak about references in English.
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/bab-ii031117e.htm is initial indictment (6th of November 2003) of Milan Babić (later convicted). The header of the document is "The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY - the prosecutor of the tribunal against Milan Baić - indictment.
Milan Babić was charged with crimes against humanity and violations of laws or customs of war. Kubura 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide ICTY transcripts of sentencing judgments for Milan Babić and Milan Martić. Kubura 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Saborsko is explicitly mentioned in the sentence judgement in the ICTY site, on the www.un.org (UN's site).
A shorter version, [1] is titled "Milan Martić sentenced to 35 years for crimes against humanity and war crimes", on the same site.
This should be the "third party". Kubura 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On ICTY's sentence judgement page (the case of Milan Martić), says:
"The Trial Chamber has taken particular note of the fact that the attacks on predominantly Croat areas during the autumn of 1991 and early 1992 followed a generally similar pattern, that is: the area or village in question was shelled, after which armed ground units entered. After the fighting had subsided, acts of killing and violence were committed against the non-Serb civilian population who had not managed to flee. Houses, churches and property were destroyed, and widespread looting was carried out as part of the forcible removal. On several occasions, the SAO Krajina police and TO organised transport for the non-Serb population in order to remove it from SAO Krajina territory altogether to locations under Croatian control. Members of the non-Serb population would also be rounded up and taken away to detention facilities, including in central Knin, and eventually exchanged and transported to areas under Croatian control.
Thus, the threat clearly expressed in Milan Martić's ultimatum in Kijevo was carried out in the territory of the SAO Krajina through the commission of widespread, grave crimes. This created an atmosphere of fear in which the further presence of Croats and other non-Serbs in the SAO Krajina was made impossible. The Trial Chamber has therefore concluded that the displacement of the Croat and other non-Serb population which followed these attacks was not merely the consequence of military action, but in fact its primary objective. "
This should be helpful. Kubura 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On that same page Martić's sentence, says:
"The attack on Kijevo marked a turning point in the JNA's role in the conflict in Croatia , and from that point, the JNA participated in attacks on majority-Croat areas and villages together with SAO Krajina MUP and TO forces. From August 1991 and into early 1992, these combined forces attacked several Croat-majority villages and areas, including Hrvatska Kostajnica, Cerovljani, Hrvatska Dubica, Baćin, Saborsko, Poljanak, Lipovača, Škabrnja and Nadin. The evidence shows that the attacks were carried out in order to connect Serb villages and areas across non-Serb areas. During these attacks, the crimes of murder, destruction, plunder, detention, torture, and cruel treatment were committed against the non-Serb population. ". Kubura 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit

well I hope I have offended nobody by taking out the "against non-Serbs" piece. Of course, they targeted their opposition, and that meant probably the bulk of the Croatian population, and it may have even dragged in other ethnicities who were opposed to the Serbs. This is the situation across the board; there is a difference between a nation who expells/kills another group for being actively opposed to it; but another to comit atrocities just for the sake of those people people non-members. The latter is more serious, and in truth would not stop at simple little territories, it would affect the whole of the region where the agressor nation is based. So any Serbian plans to expel non-Serbs would have started in Vojvodina, where a third is non-Serb, then they'd get down to the farther reaches. Until we can prove that there were "plans to kill non-Serbs in Saborsko" followed by a rational explanation as to how it is "OK for non-Serbs to live in Subotica", for any other reason than the entire non-Serb population posed a threat Serb rule, it is inadequate. Saborsko is small, to my knowledge there are only Serbs & Croats there and given than all parties involved in the conflicts had non-members highly ranked and among the fighters, it is not fair to accuse anyone of discriminating its non-members. I take a strong stand on this issue not only with Serbs but with all nations, outside the Balkan too. Please check my edit before responding or reveting. Evlekis 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What kind of comment is this one [2] "note to state that the points are as said by ITCY, so they cannot stand as solid fact.". What's next? Nürnberg trial? Kubura 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to make things milder. "The event of the day was considered "... What? You want to say that this was "just an event", but some naughty ICTY said that it was a war crime? Kubura 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mild" Vojvodina had its share of ethnical cleansing. Where did tens of thousands of Croats disappeared in 1990's? However, don't make original researches here. Tell your stories about "not an ethnical cleansing" to those slaughtered Croats in Saborsko. If you want to say "only Croats, but not other non-Serbs were the target of attacks", read the names of killed defenders of Vukovar, Pakrac, Baranja... Kubura 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Point Number 1: The ITCY did indeed make that claim. The ITCY is not however, universally accepted. In other words, you believe in it, I don't, and the whole entity is funded by and staffed by collective governments each with their own interest. My argument is not so much that the ITCY stating something means that it never happened: it is to do with "how" the ITCY puts its message across. In every scenario where Serbs have been accused of certain atrocities, it has always been against the "non-Serb" population. Now that is a strong remark. To be more direct and say that they attacked Croats in Knin, Albanians in Prizren and perhaps Muslims and Croats in Sarajevo is perhaps more precise. If there happened to be other nationalities, say the Roma for instance, and they too shall we say found themselves on the receiving end of Serbian hostility, it does not mean that their purpose for being in that situation was that they were non-Serb. There were Serbs too who were victims of Serbian atrocity when they sided with the opponents, likewise there were non-Serbs who sided with the Serbs. Svilancanin currently in the Hague is Montenegrin, don't say it is the same thing, it is no more the same than Franko Simatović, a Croat who led Serbia's secret police under Milosevic. In World Affairs (including International Criminal Courts), the agressive ethnic group harms its non-members; in truth however, two conflicting authorities are at war over control of a territory where the civilians split along ethnic lines. This doesn not mean that everyone from the RED side is a RED, and those from the BLUE side are all BLUEs. Sometimes RED policiy is more agreeable to the BLUE and vice versa. That way, Jovan Divjak was a Serb who fought against Serbs. Naturally, we wasn't down as being a Muslim, but Muslims of BiH did only fight for an independent BiH: Divjak on the one hand mightn't have supported an Islamic state for the obvious reason, but he did support a BiH which was neither controlled by Belgrade, nor an independent Serbian entity. So, to state that the Serbs expelled many civilians, most of whom were Croat - that is true and it says everything. Ofcourse, they may not have all been Croat, but then to make the "non-Serb" claim stay (as I said was strong) - is so strong that ir requires a source containing TWO pieces of information: 1) that the region was emptied of all non-Serb nationals (by providing a list of names of everyone who remained, along with their declared nationality, I told you it was impossible), 2) NO Serbs were expelled themsleves (otherwise it will further rubbish the claim that it was just non-Serbs in the firing line). The term "most of the non-Serb" population is meaningless. It's either the non-Serb people or it isn't, if one remains who isn't Serb - then whatever the reason the others were harmed, it isn't that they were not Serb. As for Vojvodina Koruba, well I am sorry that I don't know anything about the missing Croats from the region during the 1990's. If you know something I don't, please bring it forward: I know that there was a fidget with the statistics, in that the number of Croats dropped but a sudden rise in Bunjevs and Sokci emerged; but then in earlier censa, such as before World War I, towns like Subotica had a Bunjevac relative majority: as I said, I don't know who declares what, Croat one year, Bunjev 10 years later? Who knows? But if you are claiming that Serbia waged a war on non-Serbs under its control, then regardless of any anti-Croat Vojvodina theory, I will inform you without sources that Serbia is only two thirds Serb, and that there are about 70,000 Croats in Serbia, mostly in Vojvodina. So I wasn't softening anything, I am just trying to raise the facts. Of course, I take a dim view of Serbs stating that they were victims of non-Croat atrocity in Gospic and the other spots. When I run across any anti-Croat, anti-Muslim or anti-Albanian sentiment as such, I will assert myself there. RSK is no longer, Croatia is independent, long live the peace. Evlekis 12:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Evlekis, you've said above:"The ITCY is not however, universally accepted. In other words, you believe in it, I don't...".
Neither do I agree with all ICTY's decisions, but I have to respect it. And so the others.
So, don't make original research.
Shall Wikipedia tolerate neonazi disacceptance of Nurnberg trial? No chance. Wikipedia cannot allow itself such things.
Also, when you're literate that enough to write so big paragraph, then you can write my nick properly: Kubura.Kubura 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Koruba - that is not what I meant - the ITCY page lists its critisisms; it cannot be compared to a domestic court within a country. First of all, I didn't mean "just you and I" don't believe in it, but whole nations don't believe in it or its associated projects for other conflicts around the world. The point is, that the "court finds something" or it "states something". And that is the fact; (ie. the court saying something). This is not original research; it is down to the individual reader to determin what he or she believes; remember, there is a difference between primary and secondary evidence. Primary is what is totally factual, and the only way you can know that something is factual is to have first-hand experience. On this online encyclopaedia, we are not allowed to publish first-hand experience; we can however create our own websites, which mean that anyone else can use our information to edit on here. But, then it becomes secondary, and in truth, the editor himself is not 100% that what he is writing is correct. We don't say that "Jack shot and killed fifty people" here, we say that "Jack was reported to have killed 50 people", followed by source-links; the fact is that it is reported and that isn't original research, because you have provided sources. Just remember something, the ITCY calls Ante Gotovina a suspected war-criminal. You try telling peasants in Croatian villages this and see if they agree with you; why should they? Can we call a paramilitray organisation "terrorist" because they commit acts of "terror"? Not to those whose interests they advocate we can't; to them, they are "freedom fighters", but again, can we call a group "freedom fighters"? Perhaps so, but will families of their victims accept that? I doubt it. If we adopt a new policy to state that the ITCY is gospel, so we can go ahead and repeat its findings as though it were engraved, then one needs to explain why do we do this. It exists not because the 6,000 million world inhabitants think that it is a great thing; but because certain people in certain places with the financial means and personal interests can yield enough influence to set the wheels in motion. They call it "international", but I hardly think that Malaysia, Fiji, Nicaragua, Burkina Faso or Papua New Guinea care much about the problems in Nagorno-Karabagh, Iraq, Rwanda or the Comoros. On Wikipedia, we can only say that "Reports say this", "A court has found that" or "Tamil Tigers claim this [source], but Sri Lankan authorities claim that [source]", what you choose is up to you. But if one organisation is allowed to be gospel, then they all must be: we'll be presenting stories of how a democraticly elected leader was a reformer who was repsonsible for peace, but how he was also a dictator who siezed power, caused poverty and incited wars. Google will give you sites with descriptions of things which are more varied than this one: we can use them as sources here, but we cannot make one overshadow the other "because we like the sound of it more". Evlekis 11:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Respect ICTY, Evlekis. If that tribunal is a body of the United Nations, then respect it. Like it or not, we must respect its decisions. It's an international tribunal. We're not here to question it. Where will we end if we continue to question the tribunal's decisions? I'm warning you for the SECOND TIME, don't twist things, don't distort data, don't relativize things. Don't spread your personal attitudes here. Forget the attitudes like "...and there is no argument now"., as you did in your comment here [3].
You want to mess with articles that speak about war crimes, questions the decisions of a tribunal established by highest international body, UN, and at the same time you don't know to write properly "ICTY", but ITCY. Show us that you know to read and ... write.
And stop behaving childishly. Wikipedia is for serious persons. You've continued to write wrongly my nick ("Koruba" instead of "Kubura"), despite I've notified you. If you're that infantile, go play in the sand. Kubura 09:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kubura, but you don't respect it quite when it talks about atrocities over Serbs. :X --PaxEquilibrium 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pax, you're lying. Go write your lies somewhere else. Go to Serb nationalist forums and write your myths and wishie-wishes there. I do respect ICTY. I may disagree with ICTY in thousand things, I may "sent it to hell" thousand times, but I have to respect its decisions. It's UN's body. I don't vandalize the article like Paulcicero does. I don't play dumb. Have you ever see me writing blatant ignorant stupidities like "it's not mentioned in the text" (or ignoring UN's links)? Kubura 12:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're still far away from learning civility, aren't you? :) I have no myth nor wishie-wish - I could just easily say the same thing for you, but that would be inappropriate, so I will not refrain to your language. Yes, I have seen you ignoring such things, on the questions of atrocities committed against Serbs (mostly in Operation Storm and Medak Pocket). You shouldn't pick, truly. --PaxEquilibrium 18:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I still see that you don't read what I write.
Regarding atrocities committed against rebelled Serbs during Operation Storm - we've discussed that long ago. An army regular has no time to leave its unit (that's deserting) and go around the battlefield, especially when you don't know if there're guerillas, hidden resistance pockets/points and cut-off forces (about whose existence and position neither their commanders know, or know approximately), minefields, "surprise mines" in houses and other objects.
Regarding atrocities committed against rebelled Serbs in Medak Pocket - somebody kept the bodies few weeks away from Croat forensicians. The bodies that were in the area of UN forces control, where Croat forces couldn't go (the officers of that UN battalion boasted with that). And that "somebody" later blamed Croats for atrocities committed on area (that same side boasts with "repelling of Croat forces", "Croatian forces couldn't pass near us"). And, at last, the number of killed Serbs matches with the number of "Croat soldiers that UN forces have killed". And you still believe that socialists have set the Reichstag on fire? Kubura 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Serb-led JNA

Of course it was Serb-led. It wasn't led by Clingons. I have to accentuate that; someone might think that it was the army of all Yugoslav citizens, that every nation equally influenced. Kubura 09:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's important to accentuate the situation with leadership (Serb-led JNA) and with "main body" (largely consisted of Serbs).
In historiography there was lot of cases, when the army was consisted on one ethnic/social group, but led by other group.
In this case, we have to accentuate the Serbs' share in leadership and in "main body" of JNA army regulars/reserve/professional forces (ročne, pričuvne i profesionalne vojake). Kubura 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebelled Serbs

We are speaking about rebelled Croatian Serbs.
It's not fair towards the Croatian Serbs that remained loyal to Croatia/Croatian government.
Many of those loyal Serbs were even killed by Serb extremists, when they refused to take the weapons and used it against their motherland Croatia (e.g., case in Voćin).
Rebelled - as it's known to persons from former Yugoslavia, local Serb leader Jovan Rašković exclaimed on the "miting" (a "meeting"; I think it was in place Srb) "Ovo je pobuna srpskog naroda" (This is the rebellion of Serb people!"). Kubura 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Paulcicero, discuss when making reverts. Use the talkpage. You've engaged in the edit-war on the article Saborsko massacre. You've made two edits, without any explanation.
Till today, 30 Aug 2007, 13:40, you've made three edits (of reverting nature), without any explanations on the talkpage, till this very day.
This [4], on 24 Aug 20007.
You've changed the line
"Serb-led JNA (mostly consisted of Serbs)" to
"Serb-led JNA".
Second time, [5], on 28 Aug 2007 at 10:03.
Your comment with edit was "how many times does it have to say serb?) ".
You've changed the line
"Serb-led JNA (mostly consisted of Serbs)" to
"JNA (mostly consisted of Serbs)".
Third time, [6], on 29 Aug 2007 at 09:40. You've engaged in edit-war, with reverting to Evlekis's version [7].
You gave no explanation on the talkpage, you've engaged solely for edit-warring.
You're warned for the FIRST TIME. Kubura 11:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't behave like a gunman, Paulcicero.
You cannot delete and later ask questions (you do even worse, you delete and don't ask anything).
And again, you still haven't explained your action on the talkpage, despite being explicitly warned on your talkpage and on this talkpage.
This edit on the article Saborsko massacre is ordinary vandalism. [8] (comment: "saborsko wasnt mentioned in the reference").
You've just waited to find some stupid excuse, in order to remove it.
Paulcicero, the reference to ICTY's judgement [9] you've removed, was there to explain the usage of expression "war crime".
In the indictment (that wasn't beaten, and it was proved that Martić was guilty), Saborsko was mentioned. Don't play dumb.
This change [10] (your comment:"that quote wasnt in the reference".
Paulcicero, read the talkpage. Talk:Saborsko_massacre#References. That paragraph contains short sections from the summary of judgement, whose link(s) you've removed [11] and [12]. Paulcicero, that quote was in the reference, in descriptive version. Descriptive version of the term "ethnic cleansing".
Stop playing dumb.
You're vandalizing the article by removing references to third, neutral parties, that gives right to your opponent
Paulcicero, you're warned for the SECOND TIME. Kubura 10:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kobura, your warnings mean NOTHING to me, you are not an admin and you are not a guard in a ustasa extermination camp so you cant do anything. My edits arent vandalism, I just question your references since you seem to interpret whatever you want from ICTY although nothing is written to support your text. Paulcicero 10:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore your references arent offical documents, they are "(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)" Paulcicero 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are using double standard. First is for Serbian crimes and second is for crimes of other nations in ex Yugoslavia. In article Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991 1 of source (source number 7) which speak about bad Croats are words of witness for defense in Milošević trial. Judge Bonomy has discovered that this witness is lying [13] but this statement of lying witness is good enough source for wikipedia when we speak about bad Croats. In Saborsko massacre article you are speaking that court SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT FOR MILAN MARTIĆ is not good source. Can you please explain how statement of lying court witness is good in article Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991 (you have worked on this article) and court summary about Serbian crimes is not good source ? It will be pleasure to read your answer. Rjecina 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now my english is little better. Rjecina 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont even know what you are writing about, your english is terrible. Paulcicero 17:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you writing about the riots? If you feel that you want to discuss the sources on that article do so on the talk-page about the relevant article. The reason I removed ICTY as a reference was not because it was´nt credible (although it is not as neutral as you try to state) but because Koboba quoted the reference and the quote DOES NOT EXIST on that link! Paulcicero 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Paulcicero, these documents are official. Sentencing judgement is official. Stop playing dumb.
Second, you've wrote here [14] :"your warnings mean NOTHING to me". It will, believe me, it will. You won't get away with ignorance and trolling. Admins don't have to run around every vandal and troll and their edit's, but that's why are other responsible users here.
I'm not an admin, wright. That doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want in front of others that aren't admins.
Text you've wrote "your warning mean nothing to me" is an evidence against you. I wrote it with friendly intentions, in hope you'll stop POV-ize text and start to constructively write the text, but you've ignored it once and reverted the text, then I wrote you the second warning, and then you've wrote your "who-gives-a-damn-about-what-you-say-I'll-do-it-my-way". That proves you're a vandal and troll.
You've wrote in that same edit"you are not a guard in a ustasa extermination camp so you cant do anything". Oooh, what a language, child! Weasel words? Are you trying to discredit me? Paulcicero, I'm now in free independent Croatia. The times of Serb hegemony in Yugoslavia and suppression and persecutions of Croats have gone. Forget the times when you could send rosey stories about Yugoslavia in the world, while at the same time Serb-led secret services and police imprisoned, tortured and killed Croat opposers.
You've wrote: "I just question your references since you seem to interpret whatever you want from ICTY although nothing is written to support your text" (????).
Paulcicero, that's called "playing dumb", "playing stupid", blatant ignorance. Combined with editing the article(s) in that ignorant spirit, that's trolling.
If your IQ is under 64 and you cannot comprehend the text, than don't edit on Wikipedia, go play in the sand. If you cannot recognise text in italic, underlined words, bolded text, and the navigation notice that user gives you, than you're having problems. If you're dislexic, ask someone to read you the text.
I'll repeat it to you here, that reference, it's descriptive version of the term "ethnic cleansing". Again I give you the link, sentence judgement page , the case of war criminal Milan Martić.
"...Thus, the threat clearly expressed in Milan Martić's ultimatum in Kijevo was carried out in the territory of the SAO Krajina through the commission of widespread, grave crimes. This created an atmosphere of fear in which the further presence of Croats and other non-Serbs in the SAO Krajina was made impossible. The Trial Chamber has therefore concluded that the displacement of the Croat and other non-Serb population which followed these attacks was not merely the consequence of military action, but in fact its primary objective".
Further in text stays:
"From August 1991 and into early 1992, these combined forces attacked several Croat-majority villages and areas, including Hrvatska Kostajnica, Cerovljani, Hrvatska Dubica, Baćin, SABORSKO, Poljanak, Lipovača, Škabrnja and Nadin. The evidence shows that the attacks were carried out in order to connect Serb villages and areas across non-Serb areas. During these attacks, the crimes of murder, destruction, plunder, detention, torture, and cruel treatment were committed against the non-Serb population ."
You obviously don't read the neutral third-party sources (UN, ICTY) I gave you.
You ignore them before and after my notifications.
You still do engage in editing and reediting. Kubura 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wooow Kebab! You really went to great lengths to discredit and patronize me. First off I want to make it clear that I most certainly have a higher IQ than you think, maybe my english isn´t perfect but I do have a MBA. I also want to make it clear again that your warnings MEAN NOTHING TO ME!. Your warnings weren´t friendly as you put it, they were intended as a threat to me. I think it´s kind of funny how you write that i "play dumb" and things like that when you yourself don´t even know what POV means. I haven´t changed anything to my on opinion, I question your use of referencing. You know this sign " ", it means that the text inside those signs is a direct quotation from a source, NOT descriptive as you want. And regarding if your sources are offical documents: ARE YOU BLIND?. Look at the top to the right and you will see a sentence that will shock you! Paulcicero 18:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Paulcicero, UN is a third party, neutral party (especially the tribunal).
It cannot be more neutral party than that one.
If you question that, that's your problem. But if you want to disrupt the creation of Wikipedia articles by questioning the UN and the decisions of an UN's body, a tribunal, you're doing wrong.
Wikipedia is not that. Wikipedia is not a place to questions court's decisions, neither to make your private wars.
Paulcicero, on that page says it's a release for media, "not an official document".
That's a kind of disclaimer, so that way someone cannot use it against tribunal's decision or even annulate tribunal's decision/proves it invalid, because of some "word game" in a press release. They have to protect themselves against such bloopers.
If you don't understand English, I'll explain you in Croatian:
Moradu se zašćitit od glupo primljenih golova. Ne moredu si dopustit da zbog glupe igre riči im netko sruši sudsku prisudu i tako pokaže da ne vridi, samo zato što se nisu na vrime ogradili da onaj tekst je izdanje za novinare. A službena isprava je pokriće za to izdanje za medije. Inače bi netko već tužia UN i dobia tužbu.
UN can't write anything (just like that) in its releases for media. These have to be firmly backed up.
Otherwise, a lawsuit could be started against UN's body (you cannot say for someone that he's a war criminal/he committed war crimes just like that). You have to "cover" yourself.
To remind you, in ICTY's judgement for Milan Martić said:
"The Trial Chamber finds you, Milan Martić, GUILTY pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute on the following counts:
Count 1: Persecutions, a crime against humanity
Count 3: Murder, a crime against humanity
Count 4: Murder, a violation of the laws or customs of war
Count 5: Imprisonment, a crime against humanity
Count 6: Torture, a crime against humanity
Count 7: Inhumane acts, a crime against humanity
Count 8: Torture, a violation of the laws or customs of war
Count 9: Cruel treatment, a violation of the laws or customs of war
Count 10: Deportation, a crime against humanity
Count 11: Forcible transfer, a crime against humanity
Count 12: Wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity, a violation of the laws or customs of war
Count 13: Destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education or religion, a violation of the laws or customs of war
Count 14: Plunder of public or private property, a violation of the laws or customs of war
Count 15: Murder, a crime against humanity
Count 17: Inhumane acts, a crime against humanity
Count 19: Attacks on civilians, a violation of the laws or customs of war
Do you think that all this above isn't the war crime, Paulcicero?
Do you think that UN's spokesmen haven't backed up themselves for what they've wrote in media release?
Don't play dumb.
I'll take that your message "your warnings mean nothing to me" is ignoring of friendly notice on your behaviour, for the "SECOND TIME" (1st time, your message [15] from 31 Aug 2007, 10:07, 2nd time, your message [16] from 3 Sep 2007, 18:29). Kubura 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don´t you stop playing dumb, in the reference for "war crime" saborsko isn´t mentioned. In the reference for the "ethnic cleansing" the word cleansing isn´t mentioned, so why use them in the article? Why should you be the judge of how we describe the judgement? And AGAIN i tell you stop warning me because it really means NOTHING to me! Paulcicero 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And please stop saying that i question the court, becuase i have left out my opinions of the tribunal. I question YOU and you "descriptive editing". Paulcicero 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So the UN and its excrements are a third party and they are neutral are they? Now I've heard it all. The only reason conflict develops in a region in the first place is that there is no existing state of neutrality. Why is there not a UN presence in Denmark? Keeping peace between the citizens of Jutland and the islanders? Precisely because a state of neutrality exists: the Jutlanders see Copenhagen as their capital and they in turn compose the key population along with the islanders, in the name of Danes. Neutrality=No Conflict. When there is conflict, be it RSK or Kosovo (or should that be Kosova), two political groups are battling for sovereignty of the region, and in the end - it can go only one way - yours, or mine. So for a third party to put in the boot; take military action, organise trials, but most importantly, deem to which party the disputed territory goes, they cannot be neutral. Which world organisation was neutral when it did nothing to prevent Israel occupying territories of other countries? Your UN is a congelation of governments, each with their own interest, the direction in which it goes is down to who can yield more influence. If the permanent security members are agreed upon a certain action, it doesn't matter one bit what the other 186 member states think; they will go ahead willy-nilly. According to Kurds, they were legally allowed to have their own land after World War I. It didn't happen; when the UN was created in 1946, it did nothing to reverse this "legal issue". Try convincing the families of murdered and missing Kurds in Turkey that the UN is neutral, when they have spent decades crying out to them. As for your beautiful criminal courts, until we see trials for the perpetrators of the Palestinian refugee massacres in the Lebanon in 1982 by the Maronites, in what was "allegedly" masterminded by Sharon of Israel; until we see atleast one man stand in an international court for the obliteration of countless villages in Vietnam in the early 1970s, and until we hear of Allied War Crimes investigators for the period in which surviving opponents are still being dragged from their residential homes to stand trial; there will be no talk about neutrality of third parties. The UN is neutral when it suits you. Most Croatians I know started off like you (UN is good), until they saw themselves condemned internationally for the Oluja chapter, then they rubbed the muck out of their eyes and saw that the whole project is yet another political chapter, in which the US and the pseudo-friends of Croatia such as Germany, have finally shown you that they do not care one bit about the Republic of Croatia, nor the Croat population; you were the good guys when you fought against Milošević, but he has gone - and been replaced by a more agreeable Serbian administration (ie. one who "agrees" with the beautiful countries). Why is it only you who still believes in the "Croatia & International Friends vs Serbs" dream of the 20th century? It's finished; the Democrats of the US who arselicked France and Germany fell from power in 2000, Iraq is the big one now. Turkey is a member of Nato, and can massacre Kurds at will - they've been doing it for years and apart from Human Rights reports, nothing has happened; Croatia commits slightly less atrocity, and is standing trial. Examine this one for UN neutrality. As we say in England Kubura, wake up and smell the coffee. Evlekis 10:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Kubura, you seem to know your facts, so I am going to make a deal with you. I want you to provide a list of names and corresponding nationalities of persons connected to the Saborsko killings and expulsions. Not the victims, but the persons who remained after the event. if you can produce a list of people, and can prove that every one of them was Serb, I will gladly relax my stand on the "against non-Serbs" line. Without it, you are pushing to present a fact without sources. I don't mean give me a link to where the ICTY have stated this - they are a law unto themselves - I mean give me all the survivors and see if each one was Serb. If there is one, just one non-Serb who was let to live in their controlled territories, then there is no argument in favour of "attacks on non-Serbs". You can just as easily say that the victims were non-Japanese. Because if there were just one non-Serb living under Serbian administration after the operation, then whatever his reason for doing so - it is not because he is Serb. One more thing, if you can consolidate the ICTY as gospel; please ammend the articles Wikipedia Category:People indicted by the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia. All you have to do is find the names of those whose trials finished and were sentenced (eg. Biljana Plavčić, Momčilo Krajišnik, Milan Babić etc=, and switch the "was indicted by the ICTY for War Crimes" to "...is a War Criminal". Change them all, and we can remove my part which states that the ICTY stated it. I am sorry to say that my diplomacy has ended, I made a switch ' it wasn't popular with you, so I changed it, and then I changed it a second time ever further from my original, twice I've shifted, now it is your turn to play a fair game. If we cannot solve this - we will need to involve non-Balkan admins. At the moment it is fair, it speaks what happened. Evlekis 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, forgive my spelling muck-ups, I have dyslexia and I type fast... Evlekis 12:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Evlekis, I stick to the text that ICTY wrote. I know the list of persons that Serbs killed in Saborsko. Here it is in the initial indictment against Milan Babić, Annex I, VICTIMS SABORSKO - PARAGRAPH 15 (a) (ii) (Plus 2 Unidentified Deceased). Surnames are from Croats. But how do you know if somebody's wife wasn't some other nationality? Mixed marriages did existed (not in that amount as in some other areas, but still...). Kubura 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the same thing - I meant something else. Can we not atleast keep the paragraph stating that the "Court found the following details to happen"? It really is less POV. Trust me. Evlekis 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My question for you Evlekis is will you change article Gospić massacre in similar way. In this article are writen confirmed lies but I really do not want to enter in another revert war with Serbian users. in part of this article which speak about killings is writen that :"unit rounded up local Serbs in Gospić and the nearby towns of Karlobag, Pazarište and Lipova Glavica, [5] pulling them out of communal bomb shelters and loading them onto military trucks. They were taken away and killed..." In latter part of article which speak about court is writen that less of 50 % of victims have been Serbs (24 out of 50). It is clear that people killed are person which has not supported HDZ goverment of this region and that this has not been Serbs killing. If you will not change that article we are not having what to speak about this article because you thinking is POV. Rjecina 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Event of the day"

(also posted on the talk page of user:Evlekis)
Evlekis, it's not nice to name war crimes with introductions like "the event of the day was considered as war crime". Think. It sounds too relativizing. Ask someone else for opinion, if you find me "too incited about the matter". We don't need to loose our precious editing time. At last, Wikipedia should be place for fun (but serious), not a war place. Greetings, Kubura 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced some of the original sections with slight modification. In the section in which the victims were "Croats and other non-Serbs" which I accept comes directly from the sourced indictment, I switched it to just "non-Serb". For one, it mentions "most of the victims were Croat" above the list, but more importantly, the term "non-Serb" covers everyone who is not Serb; so I'm just avoiding tautology. I have lessened the impact of the "ICTY" forming a part of the original text. That is ultimately the source for the citation, so instead, I just put the note "is said to have". That is, said by the source which soon follows. That too can be altered if it sounds too weak. I don't think there were any disputes farther down the list. I hope this comes closer to suiting the other users too. Evlekis 08:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mild intros, Yugoslav wars, Serb-led

I've made a revert, because:
- article Gospić massacre begins with "...was a war crime", and Saborsko massacre begins with mildened intro???
- Yugoslav wars? What Yugoslav wars? We had nothing in common with Macedonian-Albanian fighting. Croatia and BiH had problems with Serbo-Montenegrin aggression (Serbo-Montenegrin campaign of military conquest/Serbo-Montenegrin military campaign against Croatia). To simplify: use the term "Croatian War of Independence".
- Serb-led. Not just "Serbs based in Belgrade". Person that doesn't know the circumstances, might blame the Serbs from Belgrade solely, and that wouldn't be fair. The Serb leadership of JNA came from various places.
Just when I thought, I'll close my eyes, bite my tongue and go further, I saw those things. Kubura 13:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I know what you are trying to say about Serbs; I can see why you want it to be written twice - once to represent the clerics, people like Milosevic and Babic etc. and the other to represent the actual fighters. If they were mostly from Serbia and Montenegro, whereby the ethnic Serbian population was 60-70% then it is likely that most ground soldiers would have been Serbs too. I think we need to find a way of getting this across; that needs to be revised because Jesuislafete was right to assume "it is all the same thing". It's the context. Perhaps you can try to stretch the whole statement out so as to keep the second mention of "Serb" farther away from the first. Just my advice. Evlekis 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Paul's edit [17]:
I give him right to give complain (regarding "mostly consisted"), but he cannot say "stop making stuff". JNA from 1991 wasn't the one from 1975 (especially when last big generations of Croatian soldiers ended their military obligation in September '91; Slovenians were rare already in 1991).
Regarding his "displaced" - that's not wrong, but not complete. Can you find the word, that encompasses both displacing and killing?
I've used the word "eliminated". Do you know better word? Kubura 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Kubura I know you hate Serbs but you don´t have to make it that obvious in your edits. People will undestand that it´s a "serb"-army if you just write serb-led, you don´t have to put serb in every sentence just to demonize them. And regarding "eliminated", well we don´t have to make up a word, we just follow the reference. If we write eliminate then readers might think that the plan was to just kill non-serbs, which wasn´t the case. It is you who is so fond of ICTY so just stick to their rulings. Paulcicero 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Paulcicero, watch your language. You've said to me: "you hate Serbs'"?. Don't blame me for writing about the things, where Serbs've done things which they shouldn't. Blame those Serbs who scr*wed up, not me. You'll have to live with the fact that Serbs've done bad things here, and that'll never be forgotten.
But, Paulcicero, as I see, you came here to relativize or even deny the Serb war crimes committed against Croats, as well as all Serb attempts of ethnical cleansing of Croatian areas.
About your sentence "If we write eliminate then readers might think that the plan was to just kill non-serbs, which wasn´t the case.". Oh, really?
Tell that to the Croats and other non-Serbs that Serbs killed. Those Croats and other non-Serbs, who went in refuge, did so under the threat of death. Kubura 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately here in Wikipedia we have to have a reference for the things we write in articles. So it doesn´t really matter how bad you think Serbs are but what neutral sources say, and ICTY say that the goal of the operation was displacement of the non-serbs. If you wan´t to write about fear and murder you sould turn your head against your own people and write about the atrocities you committed during WW2 or the hundreds of thousands Serbs you displaced with Op. Storm. Paulcicero 10:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding operation Storm, cry and live with the defeat. Live with that. You've lost from the Croats whome Greater Serbian propagandist machinery belittled. You've lost from Croats that had only hunting rifles and museum weapons, while you had all the armored divisions, air forces and navy forces.
Regarding "displaced" Serbs, that was the organised evacuation. Rebel Serb authorities prepared that evacuation years before. Here's some reading material for you. It was written by the rebel Serb minister, Milisav Sekulić. Book was called "Knin je pao u Beogradu". [18].
There are some documents of rebel Serbs' Civile Protection (Civilna Zaštita), that speak about an already prepared and predicted evacuation of population (I'll dig that out later), but, as a first step, here are some sources (Serb sources!) that speak about planned evacuation of population of rebel areas:
This order is given from the rebel Serb top authority on the day of Operation Storm. 5. August 1995.

• RSK, Vrhovni savjet odbrane, Knin, 4. avgust 1995., 16.45 časova, Broj 2-3113-1/95. Faksimil ovog dokumenta objavljen je u/The faximile of this document was published in: Rade Bulat "Srbi nepoželjni u Hrvatskoj", Naš glas (Zagreb), br. 8.-9., septembar 1995., p. 90.-96. (faksimil je objavljen na stranici 93./the faximile is on the page 93.).
  

Vrhovni savjet odbrane RSK (The Supreme Council of Defense of Republic of Serb Krajina) brought a decision 4. August 1995 in 16.45. This decision was signed by Milan Martić and later verified in Glavni štab SVK (Headquarters of Republic of Serb Krajina Army) in 17.20.
These orders are given two days before the Operation Storm, 02. August 1995.

• RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-82/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
  

This is the document of Republic headquarters of Civil Protection of RSK. In this document it was ordered to all subordinated headquaters of RSK to immediately give all reports about preparations for the evacuation, sheltering and taking care of evacuated civilians (evakuacija, sklanjanje i zbrinjavanje) (the deadline for the report was 3. August 1995 in 19 h).

• RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-83/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., Pripreme za evakuaciju materijalnih, kulturnih i drugih dobara (The preparations for the evacuation of material, cultural and other goods), HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
  

This was the next order from the Republican HQ of Civil Protection.
It was referred to all Municipal Headquaters of Civil Protection. In that document was ordered to all subordinated HQ's to implement the preparation of evacuation of all material and all mobile cultural goods, archives, evidentions and materials that are highly confidential/top secret, money, lists of valuable stuff (?)("vrednosni popisi") and referring documentations.

• Drago Kovačević, "Kavez - Krajina u dogovorenom ratu" , Beograd 2003. , p. 93.-94.
  

Note: Drago Kovačević was during the existence of so-called RSK the minister of informing and the mayor of Knin (the capitol of self-proclaimed state)

• Milisav Sekulić, "Knin je pao u Beogradu" , Bad Vilbel 2001., p. 171.-246., p. 179.
  

Note: Milisav Sekulić was a high military officer of "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army).

• Marko Vrcelj, "Rat za Srpsku Krajinu 1991-95" , Beograd 2002., p. 212.-222.
  

Note: Marko Vrcelj was a military officer of JNA (later named: Vojska Jugoslavije - Army of FR Yugoslavia). During the wartime 1991-95, he was on the various military functions in "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army). Now you have it. Kubura 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "displacement goal". You play dumb, Paulcicero.
What I gave you in the text above, in the section "references"? You don't read what I write?
From the sentence judgement page (Martić case)
: "The Trial Chamber has taken particular note of the fact that the attacks on predominantly Croat areas during the autumn of 1991 and early 1992 followed a generally similar pattern, that is: the area or village in question was shelled, after which armed ground units entered. After the fighting had subsided, acts of killing and violence were committed against the non-Serb civilian population who had not managed to flee. ..." From the page of Martić's sentence:
"From August 1991 and into early 1992, these combined forces attacked several Croat-majority villages and areas, including Hrvatska Kostajnica, Cerovljani, Hrvatska Dubica, Baćin, SABORSKO, Poljanak, Lipovača, Škabrnja and Nadin. The evidence shows that the attacks were carried out in order to connect Serb villages and areas across non-Serb areas. During these attacks, the crimes of murder, destruction, plunder, detention, torture, and cruel treatment were committed against the non-Serb population ." Kubura 08:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the WW2 and ethnical cleansing of those areas, you've let the genie out, Paulcicero. Why don't you write about the war crimes (killings) committed by Serb chetniks, against the Croats, and how some areas of Croatia (and in neighbourhood) because of that, became "pure Serb populated". Kubura 08:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your ignorant ramblings shorter in the future, I don´t really have the will to read your propaganda. All I have to say is that you didn´t beat "armored divisions, air forces and navy forces" IN OP. STORM but tired croatian Serbs with their own hunting rifles. You don´t have to spread propaganda to me because i know the truth. But enough of that, this article is about the saborkso massacre and the ICTY said that the goal was to DISPLACE, maybe they killed a couple of people too, but the primary objective was to DISPLACE! Paulcicero 10:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, really?
Yeah, really, Paulcicero, poor rebelled Croatian Serbs' were in 1995 with arches and bows and living in the caves, few days before they've just discovered the fire and the wheel.
Be quiet, Paulcicero, if you don't have anything smarter to say.
Whose artillery shelled Croatian cities? Clingon?
Of course that rebelled Croatian Serbs had no navy forces. Serbs don't have the sea.
Air forces. Yes, and Croatia probably had 10 aircraft carriers, with 75 F-254 fighters and 50 B92 bombers.
"Maybe they killed a couple of people"??? Paulcicero, don't mock with the victims! Read those lists of killed persons. You have it provided on ICTY's links. That's not "a couple of people".
Propaganda? Paulcicero, live with the fact, that Serb sources speak against you. If we, Croats, wanted to make ethnical cleansing, Serbs wouldn't go away with full tractors and other agricultural machines and vehicles. When you, Serbs, have expelled us, Croats that remained in Vukovar (and other cities and villages) till the bitter end (if not killed right on the spot), we've left our homes with that what we wore on ourselves and what we could take in a small plastic bag.
Nas Hrvate Srbi potrali ća, a moga si ić samo s onin na sebi i što ti je stalo u najlonsku (ako si bia sriće da te nisu smakli, a Srbi sa prinatrpanim traktorima i inom poljodilskom mehanizacijon se organizirano evakuirali (navodno su tribali na Kosovo).
Again, don't play dumb. "...the crimes of murder..." were committed by Serbs.
If you want to "dig out" the WWII... than you have to know a little about the ethnical cleansing of E Lika, Krbava, W Bosnia, Banovina, committed by Serbs (both chetniks and "partisans"!), in which Croat populations were exterminated. The survivors (if any) had no right to return, even after the war has ended.
If you don't believe me, read the material from chetnik sources, in which they boast about that "they've killed Croats in those villages".
These are mostly the editions of, at that time, chetnik emmigrants. Otvoreno se hvalidu kako su pobili nas Hrvate u tim selima. Uglavnom su to izdanja ondašnje četničke emigracije. Kubura 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant fool, this article is about saborsko massacre, I know what happened during the war you don´t have to tell me your personal views. Stop with your croatian nationalist rantings because it doesn´t belong here. If you have such severe inferiority complex you should consult a psychiatrist. Paulcicero 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Paulcicero, how low can you go? I'm trying to explain you something, but all you do getting more rude. Choose your words.
Why do you need all this? Why are you belittleing this war crime?
Why are you trying to relativize things?
What do you get from all this? Are you trying to belittle the things where you (or someone close to you) seriously messed up? Is your conscience clear?
This wasn't just "Go away!"-crime.
This was killing crime (in a cruel way). Human beings are killed, do you get it? Not just innocent "displacement". We aren't talking about displacing of inhabitants of flooded areas by rivers Danube and Sava.
This crime wasn't the case of "leave, or you'll be killed" (person A makes threats to person B, with possibility/options of saviour for person B, if an condition is fullfilled).
This crime was the case of "kill someone anyway, so the others can see, and if they don't leave, the same awaits them" (no "safe" option).
But "leave me alone, I'll leave, just spare my life and let me go" wasn't bringing any saviour. Perpetrators of this crime wanted to kill someone anyway.
Further, please, don't blame others for talking about other things. You've begin first with mentioning out-of-the-topic things (WW2 things). You're the one that started to draw the talk on the other topics. Maybe that was what you've wanted, but still, don't blame others, if discussion went the way you didn't want, because unwanted things began emerging.
If you don't have anything smarter to say, Paulcicero, please, stay away. Instead of being quiet, now you've began insulting [19].
Rather go fishing on Morava river or breathe oxygen on Kopaonik. That's healthier. Kubura 09:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"JNA mostly consisted of Serbs"

At that time, Serbs' share in JNA was very high, because of the fact that "big class" of soldiers from September of 1991, had no fullfillment from Croatia, and the generation that served its regular military obligation had ended its obligatory service previous month (Croatian one among them).
Also, many Croatian Croats have deserted the army. Same case was with the Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina. In those republics, many Croats have found the way to avoid/postpone the regular military service.
High share of soldiers from left the army earlier, because of "medical reasons". That was also the case with the soldiers that weren't from Serbia and Montenegro (though, in lower percent).
The "big class" from March 1990 had very few soldiers from Croatia.
The "small class" from December 1990 was the last one, that had, more or less, the share of Croat soldiers, as usually was previous years.
Slovenians have regularly left the army earlier (all classes), before the summer, so they had no need to escape. Some kind of agreement was made between Slovenia and JNA.
Same was with the professional military personnel. Many Croats and Slovenians have given the request to leave the army, some had to desert.
In other republics, many future recruits started to search the way to avoid/postpone the serving the army.
Add the fact that Serbs and Montenegrins had highly overaverage share of officers and other professional military staff.
Add the fact, that military reserves fullfillment (that was declared in 1991), was mostly from Serbia and Montenegro. I'm not sure about Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
And so you got the "mostly consisted of Serbs" picture. Kubura 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why have you done this, Paulcicero [20]?
With the comment "(this article isn´t about the JNA)"???
Are you trying to be sarcastic? With the victims of the war crime?
"...not about the JNA". Yeah, wright. JNA has only committed that war crime, nothing more.
Also, I don't know why have you changed the bolded form "Saborsko" to capital letters-form "SABORSKO"?
Are you familiar with the basic internet rule - avoid capital letters (it gives you the feeling that the author is shouting)?
However, that removing of the whole section (that described the circumstances) that you've done is maiming of the article.
This behaviour of yours is ordinary disrupting of Wikipedia. Kubura 12:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I´ve changed the Caps, and if the reader wants to know about the JNA he or she can read about it on that article. And please stop commenting on what you think of me as an editor, you have been warned about this earlier by DGG.Paulcicero 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is having very little number of articles about Serbs crimes in Croatia. For example of that I will give this link [21] . On other side there are article about every little crime commited by other sides. This crimes against Serbs has been called pogrom, Kristallnacht, deliberate attempt to "ethnically cleanse" the region even when nobody is killed (example Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991) ?? Simple example of double standard. Rjecina 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okey?? Paulcicero 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Some things to consider

1) The very long quote of the (martic) sentencing needs to be introduced and explained properly. Right now, it just kinda sits there.

2) Does the "Militia of Republic of Serb Krajina" have a link? Were they irregulars or organized militias (like Arkan's Tigers or Dragan's Knindze)? That needs to be explained, it's rather vague in the article.

3) What happened to the year? All it says October 12.

--Jesuislafete 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

language

Recent language is inexcusable. Further insults regardless of previous provocation will bring blocks. I suggest you all refer just to the edits themselves, and never to each other, and certainly not using each others' names or mentioning each others' ethnicity. It will help a little. Restricting the discussion to this particular event will also help. I'll keep watch.

I very strongly urge a similar approach to other articles. The events of the recent years are bad enough, and can only be described fairly with a great effort at objectivity, which is best obtained by writing as impersonally as possible. I know it's easy advice to give and hard to follow, but it really is the only way. It has been attained on other topics.

as for this article, I think it is relatively descriptive now, and most un-involved people would indeed accept the ICTY as at least a relatively neutral source. I altered one change you made in the lead which is awkward--and does not really add anything--the responsibility is clear enough without that phrase. Lede paragraphs should not attempt to resolve all specifics. Not worth arguing over, frankly.DGG (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

May there never more be such events. that is the primary thing, after all. DGG (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)