Talk:Towns in the Former RSK

Town Names

It is Hrvatska Dubica and Hrvatska Kosajnica, not Srpska Dubica or Srpska Kostajnica. Why are people such fools to create these names for cities that do not exist? And furthemore, one of those is in R.S., not Croatia. (LAz17 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)).

Erasing?!?!

What the hell is this, for some guy to be erasing the entire page and make it redirect to the R.S.K. page?! This is their IP... 89.172.237.119 (LAz17 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)).

Relevant link

I think that this is the discussion in which it was decided to create this article, which had previously been a category. There was a great deal of discussion, and disagreements on both sides, so this is clearly a controversial area. Therefore, major changes should be made only after seeking consensus, and not be the decision of a single anonymous user; if our IP user wants to log in and use AfD or this talk page to seek consensus, it would be more useful than just trying to remove the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that was concluded there is that the category should be deleted. Some people suggested it should perhaps be listified but majority said nothing on the subject. This "article" is a mere list of towns which were occuppied by Serbian forces, if anything it doesn't not satisfied the conditionas when something warrants an article on Wikipedia. What is next? "Article" with a list "Former Towns of Nazi Germany"? Come on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.198.245 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The closing admin read the consensus as 'listify.' If you think it should be deleted, use the process. I don't know enough about Serbian history to have an opinion, considering how little actual explanation of the issues involved is in the discussion or in this article. Log in, go to AfD, and explain why it should be deleted. You have that right, and if you are in the right, the discussion will probably go the way you hope. But it's not obvious enough for you to make the decision alone, when we have a perfectly good process that will allow the community to share in the decision-making. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think I would have any problem with Countries in the former Nazi Germany or similar. They were bad; that doesn't mean they're necessarily non-notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what value does this "article" has? Name me just one? I don't want to log in because I don't have an account and I don't want to create one. This "article" is just stupid, it's not an article, it's a list of towns which were occuppied by an illegal entity. In fact what I think I will do next is to create an "article" (a list actually) about "Former Towns in Nazi Germany", I am sure this "article" will be welcomed with open arms. There is an article named Republic of Serbian Krajina and you can find out everything you need to find out about the occuppied parts of Croatia and settlements there. There is no need for this list that pretends to be an article, if anyting this list if it really needs to exist should be part of that same article and should not exist on it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.198.245 (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to create an account, you're right, you won't be able to nominate this article for deletion, and so you will have to accept its continued existence, unless someone else nominates it. I recommend against using Former Towns of Nazi Germany, because there were a huge number of towns and cities annexed by that country, and your list would become unreasonably long. Territories, or countries, will probably work better. By the way, you need a user account in order to create new articles, so you'll need to register. But I'm afraid that the fact that you aren't willing to become a registered user doesn't mean that you can work outside of Wikipedia's process. You'll have to choose whether it's worth registering in order to be able to create a new article or request deletion for an existing one. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I do not want this "article" to be deleted, I want it to be redirected and merged with Republic of Serbian Krajina where it actually belongs. What is next? Is Wikipedia going to create additional "article" for each section present in every article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.198.245 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are not planning to add this information to that article, then what you are requesting is the deletion of this article. You recently tagged this article for deletion, if you recall, and only started redirecting it after I declined that tag as not meeting the speedy deletion criteria. The effect of your change is to delete the article. And maybe that's the right thing, but the right way to achieve it is through AfD, not by simply blanking and redirecting. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not requesting the deletion of this article. You rejected it so what I am asking is redirection and merger, the reason why I asked for speedy deletion in first place was that I think Republic of Serbian Krajina provides more than enough information on this subject. I don't know nothing about "AFD" or whatever that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.198.245 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can learn more about Articles for deletion and how to request deletion by reading the Articles for Deletion page, a link which I have posted to this conversation and to the talk pages of your various IPs quite a few times. AfD, not speedy deletion, and not simply redirecting to a different article, is the appropriate path to deletion for this article. You are now in violation of Wikipedia's 3RR policy, so you could read that policy after you've read more about AfD. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to be deleted

This fascist entity that was never recognised by anyone was made by murder,crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.It's was an illegal entity.So thise page needs to be deleted.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007 July 29#Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95.
1) LAz17 created this article on 5 Aug 2007, as he saw that he'll lose the discussion (see link above), and it was obvious that that category would end in deletion. Before any conclusions ("conclusion" was on 6 Aug), he imposed new solution, on 5 Aug.
2) Important to note: user LAz17 has acted through sockpuppets to win this discussion Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17 (user:124.177.49.44).
3) Another sockpuppetry (user:Semberac, user:Fkzeljo, user:Benkovac). user:Nikola89 [1] (??)
4) This is the same as creating "Towns previously owned by Nazi Germany/Former Towns of Nazi Germany 1939-45", "Former cities of Fascist Italy" (and including French, Croatian, Slovenian, Greek, Ethiopian cities), "Former cities of Bulgarian Empire 1915-1918" (and including Serbian cities in that) etc..
5) All these settlements aren't towns at all. Most of them are villages.
6) Last, but not least. The votes.
Delete - 15
Keep - 7
Listify and delete - 6
Breakdown by users:
Keep (7):
Petri Krohn, LAz17, Koppany, Avala, Nikola Smolenski, TheFEARgod, Peterkingiron
Note: Petri Krohn is banned user [2], by ARBCOM decision (period of 1 year, starting from 21 Oct 2007).
Keep (unregular votes) (1):
130.194.13.105 (IP's are not registered users, their votes are not valid).
Keep (Puppet votes):
Semberac, FKzeljo, Nikola89 [3](??), Benkovac, 124.177.49.44
Delete (15):
Johnbod, No.13, Duja, DIREKTOR, Digwuren, Zenanarh, Jesuislafete, Postlebury, Piotr Mikołajski, Bbik, Rjecina, Æthelwold, Dr.Gonzo, Kubura, PANONIAN
Delete and listify (6):
Xtifr, Garion96, Tefwik, Asterion, Ante Perkovic, GregorB
This was not supposed to be listified, but deleted. User Kbdank71 made a mistake. Result of discussion was delete. 15 is more than 6. 15 is more than 7+6.
So, we must act as it was decided in voting. Kubura (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll restore the tag "speedy deletion", since I've seen no discussion regarding the removal of the tag, and this propagandist article is still here, despite the discussion results (see above). Kubura (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if User:Kbdank71 made a mistake or not, the decision was made. And I see that another admin has also weighed in on this above. So to delete the article will require an AfD. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are not based on voting but on Wikipedia:Deletion policy which states that "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." So Kbdank71 will have made their decison on the arguments presented. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

People, use some brains and realize that the decision was to delete a category, not an article. The category itself was deleted. If your racism can't stand this, then try to get it deleted by the proper channels, and if even that does not work then you're out of luck with your agenda. Now, if for some reason this article reminds you of the crimes that your people did back some time ago, then too bad. Germans are faced with same problems with articles existing about holocaust and about hitler and nazi germany. So yeah, follow my advice, go through the proper channels if you want to try to delete this. Otherwise you cause needless confusion and problems. In fact it won't surprise me if you are a sock-puppet of that deleted no13 user. (LAz17 (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC))

Ustashe (croat nazi fascists) trying to delete this

The Croats want to complete the genocide on the serbs by deleting all our Krajina pages on Wikipedia. This here is merely the start of a bigger project aimed at the erradication of anything to do with Krajina. It has been explicity decided that this page is going to stay. It was decided that the category will be deleted, totally deleted. However, at the same time it was decided that it will be listified instead of deleted. This page is the result of that ruling.

Furthermore I am no sockpuppet holder. This has been determined here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LAz17 - evidently they are sock puppets of some other guy. They did an IP check and all, so your aspirations of trying to demonize me are false.

Lastly, all those who claim that this was a fascist entity are fascists themselves. This entity, RSK, was a response to fascist hatred against the serbian minority in croatia.

(LAz17 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Furthermore, the "category" page was listed as being needed to be "deleted". It was deleted. Therefore there is nothing wrong with the decision. There was no vote on deleting this from a topic, and it therefore remains here. If you want to fight against this existing in a topic, then you should open a new debate for deleting this. However, the former category was deleted, as had been decided. Keep in mind that this entire page could be put back, on the republika srpska krajina main page, if need-be. It is far more efficient and better to have it like this, but as a last resort it technically could exist in the republika srpska krajina page, if in case you guys delete this page, which has no chance of being deleted as long as correct procedures are followed. Of course, you guys are the type that would delete this entire page and then list it as needed for deletion... and you guys might be able to do it that way, but that's not via correct procedures, just like your recent attempt was not under correct procedures either. And one final thing, you speak of some sockpuppets voting there... but you do not mention croat sock puppets like n13 or something like that, who was deleted later on. Clearly you guys have a biase and are not trustworthy in your opinion. (LAz17 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Wow! Croats want to complete the genocide on Serbs by deleting Krajina related articles!? Really? I would suggest to you to never again accuse anyone on this project of having aspirations of genocide towards other contributors or anyone else in general. If you wish to contribute to the conversation dealing with the improvement of the article and not discussing the topic in general, you're welcome to do so. However, any more of this kind of hateful political soapboxing and I will report your behaviour to uninvolved administrators and ask that you summarily be sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC. It's entirely unhelpful to accuse people of being "Ustashe (croat nazi fascists)" and wanting to "complete the genocide on the serbs" in an already sensitive subject. Please refrain from such personal attacks and incivility in the future.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reason why I said that is because they called the Krajina entity a fascist entity. Why do you not go after him but go after me? It is well known that Croatia's president was a fascist, and that they are the most fascist country in Europe in various ways. Their paranoia against this topic makes me conclude that they're just a bunch of extremist nationalists. As we see what the griffin guy wrote, "This fascist entity that was never recognised by anyone was made by murder,crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.It's was an illegal entity.So thise page needs to be deleted." - this is what provoked my reaction. So go after him, or admit that you are biased against Serbs. (LAz17 (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)).

Pointing fingers back and forth and claiming a right to call someone fascist because they called you the same thing is not conducive to a collaborative environment. Furthermore, it is not "well known that Croatia's president was a fascist, and that they are the most fascist country in Europe"; that statement is absolutely absurd. However, even if it was true, it's entirely unrelated to anything that could be considered an improvement to this article. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines specifically states that "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views" in nice bold letters. Article talk pages are here for the sole purpose of discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the subject itself. I will not warn you again to stop calling Wikipedia editors fascists. There is a thick, fat line between being passionate about a subject on which you are knowledgeable and making outright personal attacks against people with whose views you disagree and you are way over that line right now. If you have a legitimate point to make about the article (again, not about the subject in general or the editors but the article itself), feel free to make that point known but please remember to stay civil and refrain from making personal attacks while doing so. If you can't do that, then I suggest that Wikipedia is not the right place for you and you should go find a political blog where you can vent your frustrations about anyone or anything you want. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal battleground to right any perceived wrongs. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What outright bothers and insults me is that you selectively criticize people. I only reacted to what this person did. Now, I admit that I should not have reacted that way... but in the first place, the original party has been the provocator and the real problem here. If this talk page is not supposed to be about personal views, then could we please clean it up so that we get rid of the anti-serb hatred on here? You seem to support the attacks on serbs because you have not criticized it, but criticized me for reacting to it. Therefore in some ways you are collaborating with these people who are trying to get rid of this needed topic. (LAz17 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)).

Typical defamation tactics of Serbian hegemonists. In the times of Kingdom of SHS/Yugoslavia, Croat resistance to greaterserbianist terror was described (by Serb hegemonists, ruling class in that country) to world community as "Communist" (because at the time, that was the worse thing to defamate someone), than as "restauration of Habsburg Monarchy", and after WWII, as "fascist, nazi".

Live a life, LAz17. You cannot change borders. Other nations from former Yugoslavia didn't want to be with Serbia in the same country. Live with that that you cannot annect the territories of other countries, just because your minority lives there.

Opposing to romanticizing of territorial conquest of other country is not anti-serb hatred.

"It has been explicity decided that this page is going to stay". It was not. Where was the voting for "keep"? None. Please, respect the results on the voting on the category, see link above. Kubura (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's unbelievable that GreaterSerbian ideology, which started Yugoslav wars, created first concentration camps in Europe after WWII etc, now produces the priests who use "croat nazi fascists" for the user or users in Wikipedia who oppose their glorification of an unrecognized puppet state formed by etnic cleansing. This article is for deletion. Zenanarh (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Both you guys have some paranoia with this article. You accuse me of supporting secession, when in fact my own views are against secession of this territory because places such as Knin are historically Croatian. Furthermore, Croatia as a state should exist, but it can not feasibly exist without Krajina due to the important infrastructure (highway and railroads) that cross Krajina. Therefore independence is out of the question. It is not related to this article in any way. Your paranoia for some reason makes you think that I support this. Now, I do not condemn the actions of the Serbs in the early 1990s, as they were merely logically reacting to fascist neo-nazis in mainland croatia, who openly denied the genocide and who made constitutional amendments to make the serbs second class citizens, not to mention glorifying the genocide done to the Serbs in World War Two. What is this talk about groups not wanting to be part of Yugoslavia? This article is not about that. I don't care any less if they wanted or did not want to be. Krajina did happen, and that is why we have this topic here. Kubara, please solve your problem to understand that this is not a category. Kubara, you speak of lack of rights in Yugoslavia during the monarchy before world war two. And what is your point here? We know this very well. I personally am disgusted by what happened. But to say that it was an organized operation to systematically suppress croatians by labeling them as communists is very wrong. There is a book called "liar's poker" by michael collon which explains anti-communist purges. In fact, belgrade was purged of communists. In many places across yugoslavia the communists rose to popularity because of the hardships that the people were under. The regime quickly sought to dispose of such people, and most of these organizations were in fact led by serbs. You also ignore that the Croatian Banovina was created after Tzar Aleksandar died, which is proof that the monarchs saw that these lands deserve to break off. (LAz17 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC))
To address this other guy, Zananarth... your post there smells of propaganda and trolling. You came to post that on purpose to put more fuel to make the fire bigger. Anyone who is not stupid enough to follow what their fellow ethnic politicians claim can easily see that there is a whole host of reasons as to why Yugoslavia broke up and as to why the wars started. To put all the blame on the Serbs is not right at all, and is very controversial. Calling Krajina fascist is more point of view attacks, and to call the expansion of knowledge as support or glorification is absurd. Mr. SWik78, could you give this user a lesson like you gave me please? Or maybe you prefer to watch as serbs get slammed and won't dare say a word against a fellow croat. (LAz17 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm not here to give anyone "a lesson". When you started this soapy thread, you must have expected this sort of a response rather than someone saying "yeah, you're right about everything, I will change my nazi-fascist ways because of your neutral yet illuminating insight". I'm not about to go around chasing everyone who says anything political in response to another political statement because that's not my job; as a matter of fact, that's not anyone's job on Wikipedia. Your opening thread was very inflamatory and I felt a warning was due so that focus can be shifted away from the topic and back onto the article. Just leave it be, this argument does not need to be won by anyone. To demonstrate that I believe that, I will not respond to this thread anymore no matter what anyone else writes about me. I will only respond if it's directly related to article improvement. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, kid, you must be kidding.

places such as Knin are historically Croatian. It was always Croatian, whatever Croatia was, kingdom or province. What historically are you talking about?

Croatia as a state should exist, but it can not feasibly exist without Krajina due to the important infrastructure (highway and railroads) that cross Krajina. Therefore independence is out of the question. You think that a part of Croatia should be a part of Croatia because of the railroads? Indenpendence sentence LOL.

as they were merely logically reacting to fascist neo-nazis in mainland croatia, who openly denied the genocide and who made constitutional amendments to make the serbs second class citizens, not to mention glorifying the genocide done to the Serbs in World War Two. What is this? 1st class Greater Serbian propaganda? Šešelj's favourite one. What neo-nazis in mainland croatia? In 90's? Serbs 2nd class? Slaves? Or what? Are you sure you know what you're talking about? How many classes do you have in Serbia? What class are Croats in Serbia?

You speak about Alexander's dictatorship in Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It was Serbian political expansion to the territories out of Serbia, first Montenegro, then to the west. You mention banovina like proof that Krajina was not a part of "Croatia", and Croatia didn't exist...? So this administrative detail isolated from context should prove something which happened in 1991. How?

Thanks for addressing me, LAz1t7. I came here because YOUR writing in every sentence smells of propaganda and trolling and fire and fuel... Including the general idea that you can list Croatian cities and villages as "Towns in the former RSK" even if it means "Croatian towns occupied by the Serbian paramilitaries and Serb-controlled-JNA, ethnically cleansed, used for 4 years long artillery aggression to the rest of Croatia, and all of it in the last episode of Serbian expansionism to the west, after final Yugoslavia decomposition". Do you understand that this list of towns connected to RSK should be a part of a military project, page, article whatever concerning the war in Croatia? RSK was organized by people who made crime, it was not recognized "state". In fact this article should be titled "Croatian towns occupied by Serbs during the Homeland War".

It's really interesting haw you use "legacy" when you mention Banovina of Croatia and then you don't use it when it comes to RSK.

Swik you think your insight is neutral yet illuminating??? And I have nazi-fascist ways??? Do you deny existance of Serbian concentration camps where Croats and Bosniaks were taken care of? Zenanarh (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OMFG!!! Please read the entire thread carefully to see that I was the one to chastise LAz17 for using the phrase nazi-fascist. I was defending the people to whom that was directed and now you're attacking me? I'm defending you and I'm the one saying that no one here has nazi-fascist ways! To re-iterate one more time, I specifically told LAz17 that he is wrong for using that phrase to refer to other editors here. I haven't directed a single negative or derogatory comment towards you. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I read your comment too rapidly and didn't catch your sarcasm. Sorry. Zenanarh (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

merger suggestion?

Should this topic be merged with the Krajina page? This suggest has come up, and I am not sure. It is an unrecognized entity internationally, but here is another page which is somewhat similar... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipalities_of_Kosovo (LAz17 (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I said this previously, this can be the part of the article about so-called RSK.

Second, I see some sneaky propagandism. Don't use this topic as means of inflammation or for general discussion.

If you think that Kosovo is internationally unrecognized, dream your dream, but wake up when you reach the international border of Serbia with Kosovo, Croatia, Hungary, Montenegro, Macedonia and Bulgaria. Don't use Wikipedia for propaganda. Kubura (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What propaganda are you talking about??? Lets keep our discussion in the above part of this talk page, and not mix it with this part.(LAz17 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

I request that all people in the voting be monitored for IPs. In previous voting that I have been in I have had the unpleasant experience to deal with some user called No.13 who kept on accusing me of being a sock puppet when in fact he himself was one and got deleted. To prevent sock puppets, lets please check IPs here. (LAz17 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Allow me to remind everyone that this is not a vote: "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care." - Regards, Ev (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge Both articles would be better served by merging them together. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge This is too much information to be put into the regular Krajina page. Actually the regular Krajina page lacks a geography section, so I think that I will make that in the coming week. IN pages there are categories, and there is a link that directs people towards "Main article:". This page should be one of those main articles. Under the Croatia page we can see a section of Counties, and then people are directed towards these two: 1)Main article: Counties of Croatia, and 2)See also: List of cities in Croatia. Therefore I believe that this page should follow something along those lines. We should follow Croatia's example. (LAz17 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)).

As it stands right now, the size of this article is 883 bytes including the merger proposal tag. I don't think that there is too much information in this article to prevent it from being merged with the RSK article simply because of its size. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, how is the number of bytes relevant? This can easily be increased by adding some photos. The point is that it takes up a lot of room on the main page, thus it would be overemphasising this part in the main page. (LAz17 (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Your reationale for opposing the merger was that there was "too much information". Whether it is preferred to measure the amount of information by words, number of settlements or bytes, I don't think this article is too big to be merged by any of those measuring standards. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What kind of photos would you use to increase the number of bytes, LAz17? You mean tanks and armed paramilitaries? Zenanarh (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For example, a map of municipalities? Nikola (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

LAz17, I agree with SWik78. I have taken the liberty of copying the list to the main article on the RSK, to show how it would fit there. In my opinion, not only is it not too much information, but it clearly enhances that main article. - Regards, Ev (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge.THis articles is just a Serbian right-wing propaganda.Otherwise ,we should put the list of Towns in the former Belgrade Pashaluk: Užice, Požarevac, Šabac, Smederevo, Kragujevac, Čačak itd. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is not propaganda, it's a list. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Propagandist things always start in sneaky ways, "neutrally", "innocently", with "it's just a list". Kubura (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda can start any which way, yes. As of right now, it is just a list, nothing else. What sort of "evil" entity this list may become in the future is just pure speculation. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete. This is a list of occupied Croatian towns during Croatian War of Independence. It fits the statistics the best. Like how many people were killed on both sides, how much money was lost in economy,... It could be enriched with other Croatian towns and cities damaged and demolished by the war with adequate statistics etc... Zenanarh (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Expand to Subdivisions of RSK or similar. RSK did have some subdivisions, and I'd honestly want to know what were they? Did it use Croatian municipalities or made it own? How did it govern municipalities that were partly in Croatia? This article is a good starting point for that article. Nikola (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Rename and expand. I agree with Nikola here. This article could serve as a base for something like Administrative division of RSK. Alæxis_¿question? 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Rename and expand per Nikola and Alexis. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -- I returned to this article as a result of some one asking me to. The prime objection to a merger is that this would make the article on the Republic even longer. However the present name for the article is unsatisfactory. I would suggest "Towns formerly in Republic of Serbian Krajina". I hope that this form of the name is both accurate and inoffensive to Croationa sentiments. Though not internationally recognised, this Serbian held border zone did exist as a polity for a few years. If it had subdivisions, the towns might usefully be grouped by those subdivisions. Deletion should not be an option, as a list the extent of the former self-proclaimed republic is certainly appropriate to have in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. This is a list of occupied Croatian towns during Serbian aggression on Croatia. Are we going to encourage such projects? What's next? "Towns in former Third Reich"? Will you dare to provoke the Poles, French, Austrians, Slovenians, Dutch, Belgians, Luxemburgers, Czechs? Kubura (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll say this openly, I won't hide: I'll inform the users engaged on previous discussion (deletion of category Former Towns of RSK 1991-95). It's not fair to make this behind their back. Finally, where did all these pro-Serb users came out? Do we have canvassing here? As far as I see, thse weren't engaged in this talk before this voting. All of a sudden, Alaexis, Nikola Smolenski, TheFEARgod... appeared. Kubura (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. As I said in previous disscussion such catgories or articles should be deleted. This and similar articles have little or no value and can be misleading for less educated users.--Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• If reliable sources on the subject are found, an article on the administrative divisions of the Republic of Serbian Krajina -as proposed above- could be interesting. However, it would be something entirely different from this simple list of towns. Its potential creation & writting would be entirely independent of this list's existence as a separate entry.

  Currently, this list would be of more help to our readers if placed within the main article on the RSK (at a future time, it could always be moved to a potential new article on the administrative divisions). I have taken the liberty of copying the list to the main article, to show how it would fit there. Feel free to revert me :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed Ev's addition of this list to the RSK article and I think it's well placed and informational. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have a strong opinion here one way or the other, so I'll abstain. However, I don't like phony arguments - the "offense" argument in particular. Since Wikipedia is not censored, and not liking the article is not an argument, if someone feels offended - well, that's too bad. Also - and this is without prejudice whether RSK was "fascist" and/or "illegal" or not - I'd like to remind you that we already have plenty of articles on fascist and/or illegal entities. This article is marginally useful, and would be better off as a section in the RSK article, but it would have to be improved beyond a naked list. But as I said: I don't really care, and that's about it... GregorB (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This particular territory was ethnically cleansed by Serbian paramilitaries supported by JNA. There were no real borders of RSK, but there was fluid fire line. Position which lasted the longest was around 26% of Croatian territory occupied. From that territory and from that fire line wide areas of the rest of Croatia were shelled. There was a war and it directly covered more than a third of Croatia. Listed towns were in Croatian municipalities hit by the war. Expanding this list with "RSK municipalities" is really ridiculous idea. In the territory used for military actions and maneuvers, people related places rather to the names of the military units and strategic regions than to some imaginary municipalities. Not even one valid document ever came from any office of these "municipalities". This is all a little bit unreal. I can't see objectiveness here. Zenanarh (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ACtually, this particular territory was completely ethnically cleansed by Croatian army supported by NATO. Nikola (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually this particular territory was completely ethnically cleansed by Serbs themselves twice, 1st time in '91 and 2nd time in '95 when they ordered their own people to leave Krajina otherwise "bloodthirsty Ustashe will kill them". Unbelievable auto-exodus. Operation Storm was quick and successful but also very weird action. Krajina was empty when Croatian Army came there. However many Serbs returned to Croatia and their homes in Krajina after the war, to their properties repaired in the programme of "Obnova" financed by the Croatian Ministry and some international institutions like NPA (Norwegian People's Aid) or German one etc. On the other side Croats expelled from Serbia (especially Vojvodina) and Posavina (northern Bosnia where clown-state RS/pardon Serbian entity in Bosnia seats now) never returned there. Their houses are occupied by Serbs now. In Croatian cities there are many of Bosniaks. In my home city there’s quarter we use to call “Mala Bosna” (Small Bosnia), settled by Bosniak refugees (’93, ’94). Their original homes in northern Bosnia are occupied by Serbs now. Just a miniature about the last ethnic cleansings in the Western Balkans. Zenanarh (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You are seriously claiming that hundreds of thousands of people left everything they owned, without actually being in any danger, and not return there for more than ten years? A number of Serb civilians who haven't left were murdered by Croatian army making your story not only unbelieveable but a complete lie. Nikola (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Borders or rebel Serb-controlled area, according to their greaterserbianists, weren't to be final. Rebel Serb leadership was explicit about that. Only resilient Croatian resistance, as well as quick Croatian arming (despite the arms embargo, buying the weapons at incredibly high prices) prevented the greaterserbianist expansion. Greaterserbianists declared many Croatian towns as "eternally Serbian", "being Serb from the very beginning". Have you forgot that Milan Martić explicitly named Croatian cities like Zadar as the target, although the frontline was stabilised for months? Have you forgot the bitter battles for Zadar, Šibenik, Gospić, Pakrac, Lipik? Have you forgot the words of Veljko Kadijević, written in its book? They wanted to conquer whole Croatia. Kubura (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fairy tales might have higher impact somewhere where there are no people who know they are bogus. Nikola (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

They're only fairy-tales when the Serbs lose, right? They're own politicians, leaders, and army betrayed them, yet it's everyone's fault but their own. They started the quest for Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag line, because they refuse to live in a free Croatian state. Where was Martic during Oluja? Babic? What was Slobo doing? Where was the oh-mighty Krajina army? --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Krajina could have totally fallen in 1993, or even late 1992. The army of RSK was only like 30,000 people spread over a big border. It's no question that it was only a matter of time until it fell. Nobody was crazy enough to even want to waste resources defending the pile of rocks that most of krajina is. (LAz17 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

• Merge or Delete Having been a part of a similar discussion a year back and being well familiar in these articles, I feel that this list is inadequate and not informative on a page of it's own. First off, I noticed that several well known villages of ethnic cleansing such as Kijevo and Skarbrnja were not included on this list, hmmmm. Moreover, the main reason behind this page is puzzling--how do you decide which towns/villages go here? The war lasted 4 years; some towns and villages have changed hands, all were eventually returned to Croatian control following their victory in the war. This list seems to me as sloppy already and put up for the sole reason to benefit the esteem of those who still dream of an RSK.

  Truthfully, I already feel sick at the title of this section, and the inflamed words being tossed around and the accusations flung around. This feels more like a chat board discussion, with terms like CroatianNaziFascists want to kill all Serbs, etc etc. In my opinion, we don't have pages describing GreaterSpanish claims on Portuguese towns or FormerFrenchColonialist towns in FrenchColonySudan. Moreover, the history of the towns of RSK is not such an impactful one that that warrants it's own page. I am willing to have calm discussions with anyone willing to speak respectfully. Cheers to you all. --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with canvassing

LAz17 was selective in informing about this discussion on deletion.
I've annonunced that I'll inform all sides that participated in the discussion about the deletion of category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95.
I went cronologically. Suddenly, I've noticed that someone has already informed only one voting side, but not the opponents.
Please, see this. Here's LAz17's edit history. Special:Contributions/LAz17. See edits from 24 October 2008.
Here, LAz17 invites almost exclusively the users that were on his side (the sole user that LAz17 invited, that previously voted "delete", is Serb, PANONIAN) . See section "Krajina Towns Again" Petri Krohn, Koppany, Xtifr, Avala, TheFEARgod, Nikola Smolenski, Peterkingiron, Asterion, PANONIAN.
Users, that LAz17 informed, previously voted:
Keep: Petri Krohn, TheFEARgod, Nikola Smolenski, Peterkingiron, Avala, Koppany
Delete: PANONIAN
Listify and delete: Asterion, Xtifr
Where're 14 users that voted "delete"? You are not allowed to be selective, LAz17. Kubura (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

LAz17, don't do this again, please. It is inappropriate canvassing, since "editors should [...] keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions."

Kubura, regarding your messages, at the end of the discussion the closing admin clearly stated that "[t]he result of the debate was listify to Towns in the Former RSK." You may disagree with his closing, but it nevertheless remains the basis for subsequent actions.

In any case, this is not a vote: "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus." I can assure you that in this exchange of ideas mere votes & diatribes, from either side, will be given only as much consideration as they deserve :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, that admin wasn't counting well. 15 users voted delete, 7 users voted keep, 6 users voted listify and delete. 15 is more than 13. Kubura (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Kubura, most likely the closing admin wasn't counting at all, because it was not a vote. :-) Instead, he probably was considering the different arguments presented, and doing so focusing on what option would be most beneficial to the readership of an online encyclopedia. – As the deletion policy states, "[t]hese processes are not decided through a head count". - Regards, Ev (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me just point one thing here (although it's not really important now): the Towns in the Former RSK article was created before the CfD discussion was finished - I noted this in the rationale for my vote. This means there would be no difference between Delete and Listify and delete anyway, and the closing admin probably took that into consideration when making a call. GregorB (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea that there is anything called canvasing. Now I know. I know that in the past people like the banned croat user No.13 did this. It was done against me and this hysteria about this just being about the vote made me do this. Thanks for clarifying that this is not a vote, nor was the former discussion a vote. Now I know wikipedia's policies better and am better prepared to engage in discussion with people who find acceptable articles not acceptable to their personal tastes. (LAz17 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

This is a good point about what goes in. When I opened this thing I only included municipalities, thus subdivisions. Some other people added other information, like smaller places. (LAz17 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

POV

Just a point: "Do not compare RSK to Third Reich. Local Serbs lived here for some 300 years (if I am not mistaken), and were majority there. Saying that they "occupied" their own homes is inappriopriate." I am definetely against deleting this article. Words like "occupation" and "serb invasion" are POV which should be discouraged from wikipedia. Szopen (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that even introducing this subject into discussion is detrimental, because it is of no relevance here and only encourages flame wars. GregorB (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I second GregorB's comment. - Ev (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Discussion should be about the article, not the subject in general. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GregorB, but anyway I must react on Szopen's comment.

Local Serbs were not really majority in all that territory. According to the censi in 19th century Orthodox people made not more than 39% of population there (Serbs and Orthodox Vlachs). This territory was divided into 10 counties, Serbs made majority only in 3. Saying that they "occupied" their own homes is inappriopriate." - this comment is inappropriate, since nobody talked about occupied homes. Territory of Republic of Croatia was occupied, so it includes meadows, wells, rivers, hills, mountains..., not only someone's homes. Don't forget that there were also the homes of many Croats. These local Serbs were the citizens of Croatia, not Serbia! Also Serbian paramilitaries were not only local Serbs, many of them came from Serbia and B&H. And there was JNA controlled by Slobodan Milošević and his Serb expansionist political machinery. What happened with JNA was a sort of military strike. Members of other ethnicities massively deserted. If an army controlled by the political structures of another state performs military actions, like massive attacks with the tanks, clean the area by ethnic key and keeps on "conquering" the rest of the territory, how would you call it if not "occupation"??? Zenanarh (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You should really look at the maps of those counties. You can notice that the counties included land that was not in RSK. For example, the counties are here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kingdom_of_Hungary_counties.svg and you can see that a place in northcentral krajian were part of Zagreb's county. Jee, no wonder that's so. Your 39% is for the entire population, not just of krajina. Thanks, you helped us prove that the serbs have been reduced. Do you have a source for that 39%? I think it's good information. The JNA stopped existing in 1992. (LAz17 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

????????????? What? Counties of Hungary? What are you talking about? Zagreb? Who's talking about Zagreb? Key words for you: Austrian census, 19th century (1857 I think), 10 counties which were exactly the territory of the ex-Military Province (Vojna Krajina) - Croatian part of it, not Bosnian!!!! Your mythomania and Greater-Serbanist-imagination are unbelievable! Zenanarh (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem? I have found the map of the subdivisions of the former Austrohungary. There we can see municipalities that do not correspond to the borders of RSK. If you have more info then show it, and stop talking about things that you dreamed up. (LAz17 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)).

My problem is that you try to escape what I'm pointing to. I repeat: Austrian census in 1857 - population! Map that you have shown only proves that you don't understand what you're writting about or you want to hide something, so I'll try to make it somewhat clearer to you.

Ottoman expansion meant danger for Austrian monarchs, so the parts of Croatia and Slavonia (historical Croatian Kingdom was Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia - Croatian lands) were administrativelly organized to Vojna Krajina (Military Province) in 16th century. The rest of Croatia was called "Civil Croatia". When Ottomans were defeated the main political issue in Croatia was reunion of the Croatian lands. However, there were certain problems that prolonged this reunion. There was political struggle between Vienna and Budapest in 19th century which resulted with crise in Habsburg Monarchy in 60's and final succesful Hungarian introducement of dual ruling system in Monarchy in 1867/68. So it appeared that because of Vienna's and Budapest's unresolved relations, some Croatian lands were kept within Vojna Krajina for no reason, since there was no danger anymore coming from the east and Vojna Krajina was frozen in status quo for a 1st half of 19th century. In 1867/68 Civil Croatia and Slavonia (also called Provincijal) came under authority of the Hungarian crown (Dalmatia was already under Austrian one).

Well, this is exactly what is shown in a map provided by you: Hungary + Civil Croatia and Slavonia. Info for that map says: Map of late 1870s Hungary counties. It's not Austro-Hungary. In that moment Vojna Krajina still existed administrativelly, but it was logical that Croatian parts of it also come to jurisdiction of the Hungarian crown and not Austrian. By Croatian-Hungarian agreement in 1868, Croatian reunion was defined, but its realisation was gradual, regiment by regiment and finalised 15 years later.

As you can see that map shows only Civil Croatian and Slavonian municipalities added to Hungary and in transition period. It's completely out of topic and only you know why it's here (!?!?).

I've pointed to Austrian population census in 1857, concerning 10 Croatian counties that were a part of Vojna Krajina. 10 counties that were transformed to 10 military regiments during war with Ottomans:

• Lika
• Otočac
• Ogulin
• Slunj
• 1st Banovina
• 2nd Banovina
• Križevci
• Đurđevac
• Gradiška
• Brod
• Petrovaradin (the most part of this regiment is not Croatia)

According to the 1857 census population there (675.817 settlers) was 58,8% Catholics, 40,3% Orthodox and 0,8% Evangelists (by religion). You can find these percentages about ethnos in related sources: 57% Croats, 38% Serbs, 2% Germans, 1% Hungarians and 2% the rest (this is without Petrovaradin part which fell into Croatia).

Serbs made majority only in 3 counties: Lika and 2 Banovinas. Croats were majority in Otočac, Križevci, Ogulin, Đurđevac, Brod and Gradiška. Slunj was fifty:fifty, while Petrovaradin with Serbian majority was mainly out of Croatia.

Also it's important to accentuate that the Orthodox immigrants who came in 16th and 17th century to this region were the Vlachs by etnicity in a large majority, while Serbs made only minor part. However, the Orthodox Church and numerously small portion of Serbian citizenship there Serbianized these Vlachs (Orthodox religion), mainly in 19th century. That's how Serbian minority originated in that part of Croatia. You have a plenty of scientific works in the net about it.

When Serbian paramilitaries from Croatia, B&H and Serbia and Serbianized JNA started their "sacred war" in Croatia in 1991 to form Greater Serbia, they didn't count only on this Croatian Krajina, their appetite went for anything that they were able to occupy in that moment. Croats were defending their own country and 10.000 of them were killed in that war.

It is not Serbia that we're talking about, it's Croatia. Serbia is 1.000 kms to the east! Zenanarh (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What your problem is I do not know. You speak of areas which were never part of RSK, such as Slavonski Brod, and a number of other ones. We have no borders of your subdivisions from 1857, so without a map I may as well say that you are lying, as there is clearly no nothing that shows what you are saying. I never saw any administrative division of the former military krajina that existed under austro-hungary... I furthermore do not see what that has to do with anything that this topic is about, as that land clearly did not correspond or look remotely similar to what RSK was. I feel that you are lying about vlachs and such theories. Your fantasies are not my concern. Lastly, the war in croatia could have gone on, but the serbian leadership told the units to stop. Western writers have documented this, as it is well known that nothing stood in the way of taking over zagreb, after vukovar fell. All of this is irrelevant to what this topic is about. If you are obsessed with this stuff I would be willing to talk with you though, but it would be better to do so on individual talk pages, not here. (LAz17 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

I strongly feel that people's nationalism is blinding them to this topic. They call this entity fascist and all sorts of stuff. The reality is that they are just repeating the rhetoric of their former president Tudjman, and that they are incredibly biased. For example, it is a fact that Tudjman, croatia's president, was a neo-nazi. He was an aggressive holocaust denier, and got booed when the was at the hollocaust museum. He openly said thank god that my wife's not a jew or a serb. Furthermore, he stripped serbs of their rights in 1991. It is a well known fact that Serbs became second class citizens under Tudjman, and people like Kubara aggressively deny this. This is not me saying it, this is human rights watch saying it : http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/c/croatia/crosrb99.pdf
[quote]Despite positive developments in terms of the repeal of some discriminatory legislation, and a generally stable security situation, Serbs remain second class citizens in Croatia. They are frequently unable to exercise the most basic rights: to live in their own homes, to receive pensions and social security benefits after a lifetime of work, to be recognized as citizens in the country of their birth, and in many cases, to return to and live freely in Croatia. As a result of discriminatory laws, and above all discriminatory practices, Croatian Serbs do not enjoy their civil rights as Croatian citizens. This is particularly true for Serbs living in the four former United Nations Protected Areas (UNPAs) in Eastern Slavonia and Western Slavonia, the Krajina, and Banija-Kordun (former Sector North), which formed the self-declared ARepublika Srpska Krajina,@ and which are the focus of this report.[/quote]
Kubara furthermore supports well known lies, such as that there were fewer serbs in croatia before world war two than after world war two - simple observation of census data shows that he does not know what he is talking about. He suggests also that not only croats in the krajina region being reduced in peacetime, but albanians too - something that is proven totally incorrect according the census data from 1931 to the present.
Kubara is using plainly abnormal ideas about serbs displacing croats in croatia since 1918. We can notice that this is not true, based on the austrohungarian data - the number of serbs has only been decreasing.
He calls chetniks nazi collaborators - something very provocative, because it is well known that the West supported the chetniks and gave various awards to them even after world war two. Anyone who looks into it knows that any collaboration was merely in fighting the partizans, which the chetniks were at war with too.
Kubara also speaks of decline in croat populations in times of peace, between 1945 and 1991. We can notice the exact opposite. It is the serbian populations which decrased, not the croat ones. As a percentage, the croats remained for the most part the same percent in these municipalities between '45 and '91.
This was recorded at my talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LAz17#Towns , and is outright proof of what kind of individuals we are dealing. We are dealing with holocaust deniers and people. They know very well how the serbs suffered at their genocide, and that is why they do not want any knowledge about this to be expanded. It is in their interest to totally remove as much information on the former krajina region as they can, and to remove as much information about serbs in Croatia too. Wikipedia is about knowledge, and spreading knowledge. If people have a problem with geography, as these people here do, then that is too bad for them. (LAz17 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)).

LAz17. First, learn the nick of the person you're discussing with. I'm Kubura, not Kubara.
Tuđman "neo-nazi"? Dear child, do you know what those words mean? You obviously don't.
"he stripped serbs of their rights in 1991". What rights? Tell us, what are those "stripped rights"? We want references, not just "he stripped" and "it says that" in some gibberish magazine.
"human rights watch". Of course, they have to make up things. That way they'll get more money and spend their time in Croatia, having vacation for free. That way they don't have to go into the countries of the Third World, where real problems with human rights violations exist. You know, in countries where dangerous diseases. Why should they risk their health in the stinking hotel with tze-tze flies, yellow fever, malaria, or having in mind bird-sized mosquitos, knowing that AIDS is widespread disease in these countries? In countries where someone'll kill them for a chocolate bar? Instead, they say lies about Croatia and spend their time in the country that's more safe and healthier than any western country.
"Missing Serbs" were colonized from passive areas of Croatia into fertile areas in Vojvodina (Croats weren't, or in unproportionally smaller numbers). Before WW2 and after WW2. Kolonizacija. Do you remember? (those Serbs settled before WW2 were during Hungarian occupation expelled from Bačka; these were known as "bačke izbjeglice". Some of these Serbs have returned to areas of their origin, including southern central Croatia, around Srb, Benkovac... You can find that term in the WW2 literature from former Yugoslavia).
Further, where're your references?
Finally, learn to respect the territories of internationally recognized countries. Don't use Wikipedia to spread the toponyms invented by the country that occupied the 1/3 of territory of Republic of Croatia. Don't spread the terminology of an expansionist regime. Occupied areas of Croatia are not the region called "Krajina". That's not a region at all, but several different regions. LAz17, that's Croatia. Live with that. Kubura (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okej Kube brate. Dal je uredu da te zovem Kub il Kuba? Tudjman stripped the serbs of various rights - like using the cyrillic alphabet, and many other things. He was an active genocide denier and wrote that genocide is a natural phenomenon that should not astonish people. Excuse me, but Yuogslavia was the third world, a leader of it. Furthermore, those human rights organizations are accredited and not bogus organizations. You are clearly a messed up person if you believe those stories about the third world. I know people who have gone to volunteer and do research there, and they are VERY safe over there, safer than the locals actually. Actually we can see census data show the region of krajina had lost lots of people, both serbs and croats actually. It's also well known that serbs have gone to vojvodina, but many more have gone to vojvodina than have gone back to croatia. Far more. What is your problem to accuse me of not regonizing countries? I recognize Croatia. Where do you have the idea that I do not? Krajina is a region. It depends on which region we talk about, because it refer to a few. We all know that Krajian in this discussion refers to the RSK entity which was doomed from the outset of its creation. (LAz17 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)).

Cyrillic alphabet? What do you want to say? That every person in every part of Croatia must know to read Serbian Cyrillic? Sorry, to respect minority rights doesn't mean that majority and sole constitutive nation in his own country has to be terrorized by requests (better to say:izvoljevanja) of a certain minority (minority, that was privileged in socialist Yugoslavia).
"Genocide denier"? That's very heavy word. Learn a difference between mythomania and scientific research (with purpose: fighting against abuse of victims of genocides). Abuse of those data is a prelude to military aggression. You cannot say: in Iraq 40 millions Serbs were killed, and every person that wants to check that is "genocide denier". For your further claims, give us references.
Yugoslavia "a Third World country"? Speak for yourself. SR Croatia and SR Slovenia were like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland.
Yugoslavia "leader of Third World"? Maybe to the countries of British Commonwealth? Does having so many Third World countries from Africa and Asia makes United Kingdom "a Third World country"? Learn geography.
Third World so good? Yes, of course, Europeans and Americans are staying in lines in front of transoceanic ships. Every day the Coast Guards of Sudan and Kenya has to deal with illegal immigrants from Europe that search better life in those countries. Rwanda and DR Congo regularly send humanitary help in food and medicines into France and Germany, since those countries starve and suffer from malaria, yellow fever, explosive rate of AIDS spreading...
Region of Krajina that you're speaking about, doesn't exist at all. Political forgery of greaterserbianists, created in order to lay claims on that territory as Serb territory.
Serbs gone to Vojvodina? Of course, I've told that. Serbs were colonized into fertile plains, in former German households (after WW2), or in completely newly created villages, near Croat and Hungarian villages and towns, to change the ethnic structure of those areas (creating Serb majority, or decreasing the percentage of non-Serb nationalities). Still, the areas in Croatia, that those Serbs left, haven't changed their previous ethnic structure (Croats weren't colonized into those villages). Kubura (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am saying that at the minimum, Serbs should not be denied to have education in their cyrillic alphabet. Letting the group use their alphabet like they always have is different from enforcing the alphabet in the entire country. Minority rights for education are just one of the many things that was done.

Read for yourself what tudjman said about the genocide... it's a well known fact that he said that less than a million jews were killed in world war two, compared to the well known over 6 million figure.

No, you learn some geography. Let me clue you in... the First world was the US and its allies. Second world was the soviet union and its satelites. The third world was everything else, and that includes Yugoslavia. I am proudly from the third world. Not only am I, but we were the leader of it, one of the first three that orgnized the group of 77, tito naser and nehru...

I do not get what you are trying to say with your migration to vojvodina. We seem to agree on it. Is there some problem with this? In croatia it is well known that the genocide done on the serbs in ww2 depopulated many serbian areas. As for the population structure of croatia, we can see that the percentage of serbs went down over time, after ww2. The population of serbs has been going down continuously in Croatia over the past 100 and more years. (LAz17 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).

renaming to subdivisions and fixing of content

The subdivisions of RSK are the municipalities of 1981 and 1991 census. I included only municipalities in this page when it first came. Now, the issue is that there are many more croat municipalities now. Therefore we have to identify exactly which municipalities are to be used. I'll get on this task. In fact I think that I will go about making some map. (LAz17 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

Problem solved. Geography of the Former Republic of Serbian Krajina Now we can get about deleting this page and work on improving that other one. (LAz17 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

Interesting. LAz17 always declares problem as "solved" by creating the new article (and problems is: article for speedy deletion!!).
Problems is, that such articles shouldn't exist at all! And LAz17 calmly spams with new articles. This topic is seriously problematic and controversial. This kind of articles shouldn't exist at all; they are propaganda of occupation of other countries and promotion of expansionistic behaviour. LAz17 shouldn't play with fire, and admins are supposed to recognise this.
Also, which towns and "towns" LAz17 counts here? Every village that he declared as "town"? Or should here go the towns that greaterserbianists wanted to occupy (but they haven't managed to do so, although they laid their claims on those cities and had them as military goal)? You know, the towns that Radio Petrova Gora openly declared as "not Croatian". Kubura (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We had the discussion where it was decided that this will stay. If you have a problem then go through the correct way to get this deleted. I have no idea what petrova gora radio is, and I feel that you need to accept that these articles in no way threaten croatia in any way, nor do they aim to do any harm of any sort to croatia. You seem to be influenced by nationalism, rather extreme nationalism, perhaps hate too... and so you can not stand the sight of these articles. Well, that is not my problem. Go through the proper ways to delete this if you want. Stop spamming the talk page. (LAz17 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

Everyone, please, before discussing this new entry -and all Wikipedia articles- take a deep breath and read carefully our talk page guidelines and our No Personal Attacks policy: comment on content, not on the contributor. Keep on topic. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views – article talk pages are not fora to discuss political issues. Keep discussions focussed on how to improve the article's content (and that of Wikipedia as a whole).

Take the time to review again our No Original Research and Verifiability policies: material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. – Cite your sources.

Take the time to review again our Neutral Point of View policy: all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

Regards, - Ev (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking a lot about this stuff here in the last several days... the more I think about the more silly it seems - this was just a list of settlements. What is needed is a list of real municipalities, not settlements. Therefore the step should be to make a list of municipalities as has been suggested here a while back. (LAz17 (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).