This is an archive of past discussions about Yugoslav Wars. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
==The move was in part triggered==by a provision in the new Croatian Constitution that replaced the explicit reference to Serbs in Croatia as a "constituent nation" with a generic reference to all other nations, and was interpreted by Serbs as being reclassified as a "national minority".
This happened much later,after the shooting begun.So it's not even an excuse for war.
Serb nationalists and revisionists use this phrase to make themselfs feel better about killing thousands of people.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Consensus about sources
Because of never ending edit warring in articles about Yugoslav Wars we have created consensus about sources for related articles. Sources in this list are not only sources because we are free to use any NPOV source but this one will be very hard to defeat with other sources.
From vote it is possible to see that only Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations Security Council resolutions, United Nations General Assembly resolutions, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Helsinki Watch, ICTY court decisions, ICTY Self-incrimination, Report of Secretary-General to the Security Council, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has not recieved negative vote so we are having consensus about them.
It is important to notice that using for ICTY Self-incrimination is valid only like guilty plea or if there has been latter court action against Self-incrimination person.
USA - Bill Clinton
UK - Tony Blair
Ok they are leaders of countries, but i highly doubt that they are military commanders. We need to find out who are the real military commanders of the USA and UK in the Yugoslav wars. For example in 1995 the UK took part in NATO operations and Tony Blair wasn't even PM back then, so he was not the military commander. It just needs sorting out Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Military commanders, nowadays, respond to political leaders. That's why I think it's right for Blair and Clinton (and John Major as you suggested) to stand there in the table.--Dans (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has cleary been written mainly by non-native speakers of English, which is especially revealed by the omission of 'the' in numerous cases where it is needed in English. This is the English versio of Wikipedia and should be in standard English. I have tried (incompletely) to put this right in the article on Serbia, but don't have the time to do the same in another long article like this one. Incidentally, the faulty, Slavic English confirms my impression that the article is an exercise in competing propaganda by representatives of various Balkan groups. This is not what an encyclopedia should be about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawebster (talk • contribs) 09:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is horrible
If I had the time I'd try to help out but this is ridiculous, as are all the articles I just recently checked about the former Yugoslavia. People, you need references. Plain and simple. This article reads like a fifth grade book report written from memory. If it can't be referenced it can't be in an article. That would very much help with your edit wars. Every major international news source (so long as it's not an op-ed piece) can be used as a source. You don't need concensus on this. The BBC, NYT, and CNN can be used as sources no matter what some editors personal opinions may be. And it's quite obvious personal opinion is the only thing going into this article. You can't put something in an article because you heard about it, know somebody who was there or even experienced it yourself. You are not notable. You are not verifiable. This isn't your soapbox.
A way to improve the article? State only what can be verified, even if it contradicts another verifiable source. That's fine so long as both are referenced. Simply refer to them in language such as "so an so claims" or "so and so asserts" and reference such claims. You are not trying to write absolute truth. That's not the job of an encyclopedia. Only what can be verified. Please reread WP:VERIFY again and again. Then read WP:NOR as that is what most of this article is and lastly WP:SOURCE. Good luck, because this thing is in a horrible state of affairs.Capeo (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
For the table in the subsection titled "Goat busters" at Sayings of Chairman Pratt (currently the third subsection of the Politics section) I need a citation for a war for which Slobodan Milošević can be held accountable. I've been relying on this Wikipedia page, but its continuing inability to shake itself loose from the prominent warnings at the beginning is driving me in search of a less warning-laden page on the web describing any Milošević-fomented war. Suggestions greatly appreciated! --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to check your sources before you 'report' the existence of something as serious/crazy/sick as 'rape camps' mr. SasiSasi. The following comes from your own source (and the only source that refers to the existence of such camps):
"Human Rights Watch said its research 'did not confirm the allegations that Serbian and Yugoslav forces had set up "rape camps" in Pec or Djakovica. The organization criticized NATO, the U.S. government, and the British government for spreading unconfirmed information about rape while the NATO bombing campaign was underway."
I added a nuance to the text, although in all honesty, given the extremely thin evidence (I went through all your sources) and the seriousness of the charge, I believe that the whole section ought to be either removed or completely rewritten, as it clearly reads as biased anti-Serb propaganda. As for the majority of your sources, do note that, following academic standards, a journalist referring to an allegation does not necessarily constitute a factual 'source'. 188.103.180.152 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your quote "The organization criticized NATO, the U.S. government, and the British government for spreading unconfirmed information about rape while the NATO bombing campaign was underway." is from here [1]. This article is talking about Kosovo not Bosnia, don't be misleading. ◅ P R O D U C E R(TALK)15:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad, it was a quick edit. Thanks for the correction. However, I still think that the 35 000 women, 'rape camp' story is far fetched, and it needs cleaning up. I looked up the original reference:
This in its turn after a brief mention (as long as the piece on the wiki page) refers to a publication in Dutch.
Blom, J.C.H., Srebrenica, een ‘veilig’ gebied. Reconstructie, achtergronden, gevolgen en analyse van de val van een Safe Area. J.C.H. Blom, Peter Romijn e.a. Amsterdam: Boom, 2002. 7 dln. + cd-rom (+ handleiding) ISBN90-5352-716-8 (3 dln. hoofdrapport). ISBN90-5352-745-1
However, there is no confirmations of the existence of such large scale 'new generation of Serbs' projects anywhere in that book. If there was, don't you think it would find its way to every news channel? I also can't seem to find any website of this Women's group Trešnjevka that came with that allegation (except a series of websites referring to them making the allegation). Thin, very thin for such a bold claim.
Consequently, this paragraph reads like a selected collection of allegations. While many women were raped, this whole story about ethnic camps is completely unverified. Yet here, it is written as if it is verified. As for being 'misleading', do note that you added three individuals that were sentenced for these crimes right after the entire 'Serb race' camps story, which makes it read as if they were charged for locking up 35 000 for the purpose of creating of a new Serb generation, which again, is nonsense. So I leave it up to you since you are so proactive to nuance this piece. Note that, apart from that quote, you also removed my nuances (reported <=> alleged, etc.) in your reversion.
I'll also leave these discussion comments here for anybody who, like me, finds the claims a bit hard to believe, and wants to see if anybody objects. Good luck with improving the page on the Yugoslav wars.. and by God it needs improvement... 188.103.180.152 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the article certainly needs alot of improvement. The book is referring to this report [2] (it mentions the Women’s Group Tresnjevka in Part 1 Chapter 9) by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation. The Women's Group Tresnjevka certainly is not the highest authority on the matter, I agree. The Commission of Experts' Final Report (UN) [3] however mentions separate camps, hotels, and similar facilities used for rape and says:
"Common threads run through the cases reported whether within or outside of a detention context:
Rapes seem to occur in conjunction with efforts to displace the targeted ethnic group from the region. This may involve heightened shame and humiliation by raping victims in front of adult and minor family members, in front of other detainees or in public places, or by forcing family members to rape each other. Young women and virgins are targeted for rape, along with prominent members of the community and educated women;
Many reports state that perpetrators said they were ordered to rape, or that the aim was to ensure that the victims and their families would never want to return to the area. Perpetrators tell female victims that they will bear children of the perpetrator's ethnicity, that they must become pregnant, and then hold them in custody until it is too late for the victims to get an abortion. Victims are threatened that if they ever tell anyone, or anyone discovers what has happened, the perpetrators will hunt them down and kill them;
Large groups of perpetrators subject victims to multiple rapes and sexual assault. In detention, perpetrators go through the detention centres with flashlights at night selecting women and return them the next morning, while camp commanders often know about, and sometimes participate in, the sexual assaults;
Victims may be sexually abused with foreign objects like broken glass bottles, guns and truncheons. Castrations are performed through crude means such as forcing other internees to bite off a prisoner's testicles."
I added the bit about the convictions because the HRW source did not support the previous claims that were there and did so for the sake of keeping the source in, I had no insidious intention and pointed out that it was in connection with the Foca massacres. ◅ P R O D U C E R(TALK)20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Manjaca camp.gif
The image Image:Manjaca camp.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia. Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JEhrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used. Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national statesolely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it. Kubura (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"Civil war" and aggression on Croatia
Why have I removed that line? Here's the section from the book "Serving My Country" of Hrvoje Kačić[4] (Cro. original title is "U službi Domovine"), that deals with "civil war" and aggression on other country.
In this case, comments by English parliamentarists are also useful [5], as well as of some English university professors [6] :
"Arbitražna komisija dana 4. srpnja 1992. donosi Interlokutornu odluku kojom se utvrđuje neosnovanost žalbenih navoda i odbijaju se svi podneseni prigovori. Naime, Arbitražna komisija utvrđuje da ingerencije i nadležnost svojeg rada ne temelji na Brijunskom sporazumu, nego na uvjetima kako su određeni zajedničkom deklaracijom prihvaćenoj jednoglasno na ministarskoj konferenciji svih država EZ, održanoj 27. kolovoza 1991, radi postizavanja mira, ali i sa svrhom uspostavljanja arbitraže. U ovoj odluci Arbitražne komisije utvrđuje se da su uvjeti kako su utvrđeni Deklaracijom o Jugoslaviji bili prihvaćeni od svih šest jugoslavenskih republika, već prilikom otvaranja Konferencije o miru, te da su ti uvjeti stupili na snagu dana 7. rujna 1991".
"U obrazloženju donesene odluke, Arbitražna komisija se također pozivala i na odluke Međunarodnog suda pravde u Haagu. Datum 7. rujna 1991. ima svoj poseban značaj, jer se svi sukobi nasilja do tog datuma tretiraju kao unutrašnji sukobi ili građanski rat. Međutim, nakon utvrđenog datuma svi sukobi, a osobito oružana suprotstavljanja i ljudske žrtve, te rušenje odnosno nanošenje imovinske štete na teritoriju Hrvatske, spadaju u režim Međunarodnog sukoba. Činjenica je da su beogradski (velikosrpski) sateliti vožda s Dedinja upotrebljavali oružanu silu i sudjelovali u agresorskim operacijama od postavljanja kninskih balvana (kolovoz 1990.). No moramo prihvatiti da je autorativno tijelo Međunarodne zajednice utvrdilo da Srbija vrši agresiju na Hrvatsku od 7. rujna 1991. na dalje. To najbolje pokazuje i dokazuje primjer žrtava i rušenja Vukovara.".
Note: Hrvoje Kačić was a participant on Peace Conferences on former Yugoslavia (Brussels, London...), he's international expert for the maritime law, former President of External Affairs Committee of Croatian Parliament. Also, Hrvoje Kačić was Olympic silver medalist (waterpolo, 1956).
Translation in English. My knowledge of English iurist terms isn't the best one, so feel free to ask, if anything confuses you.
"On July 4, 1992, Arbitration Committee (in further text: AC) has brought the Interlocutory decision, that ascertained that the appeals are unfounded, and with that decision, all objections were rejected. Point is, that AC has ascertained, that ingerentions and jurisdictions of AC weren't based on Brijuni agreement, but on conditions determined in joint declaration, which was unanimously accepted on the conference of all ministers of EEC countries (conference was held on August 27, 1991). The aim of declaration was achieving of peace, but also the establishing of arbitration. In that decision of Arbitration Committee it is ascertained that, the conditions, in the form they were ascertained with Declaration about Yugoslavia, were accepted from all six Yugoslav republics, already by the opening of Peace Conference, so these condidions came to power on September 7, 1991.
"In the explication of the decision, AC has referred to decisions of International Court of Justic in Hague. The date of September 7, 1991 has special significance/importance, because all violent conflicts till that date are treated as internal clashes or civil war. But, after that date, all conflicts, especially armed confrontations and human victims, and destructions, and making of damage on properties on the territory of Croatia, belong to regime of International conflict. It's the fact, that all Belgrade's (Greater Serbian) satellites of vožd from Dedinje (translateor's note: S. Milošević) 've used the armed force and participated in aggressive operations, since laying of tree-logs near Knin in August of 1990. So, we must accept that authoritative body of international community has concluded that Serbia is doing aggression on Croatia since September 7, 1991, and onwards.. The best example and proof for that are the Vukovar's victims and the destruction of Vukovar.".
Prof. Zvonimir Šeparović gave his arguments, in which he claims that this "borderdate" should be moved back even more. I'll give you the text and source, as soon as I find it. Kubura (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This was the news from HINA from March 10, 2004, published on the site of Hinet (later called HTnet and now T-portal, www.t-portal.hr). Unfortunately, it's not available anymore on that site, so I am giving it here in its full form. Agresija SCG imala je međunarodni karakter rata u RH od proglašenja neovisnosti 25. lipnja 1991, izjavio je nekadašnji hrvatski ministar vanjskih poslova i pravosuđa, umirovljeni profesor Zvonimir Šeparović ZAGREB - Šeparović je to rekao komentirajući tvrdnje 'prijatelja suda' koji su na suđenju bivšem predsjedniku SRJ Slobodanu Miloševiću zanijekali da je oružani sukob u Hrvatskoj imao 'međunarodni karakter' od uspostave hrvatske neovisnosti 8. listopada 1991, kada je donesena Odluka o raskidu državnopravnih sveza s ostalim republikama i pokrajinama SFRJ. Hrvatska je od proglašenja neovisnosti 25. lipnja 1991. postala država: imala je svoj teritorij, demokratsku vlast i svoje stanovništvo, navodi Šeparović i dodaje kako je 'pokušaj 'prijatelja suda' da umanje krivnju ratnog zločinca Miloševića, proziran i neutemeljen'. U prosincu 1990. prihvaćen je novi demokratski Ustav, zatim je 19. svibnja 1991. proveden referendum o državnom položaju Republike Hrvatske te 25. lipnja 1991. prihvaćena Deklaracija o proglašenju suverene i samostalne Republike Hrvatske. 'Hrvatska je tada postala suverenom nezavisnom državom. Međunarodno priznanje (koje je uslijedilo kasnije) nije neophodan element za postojanje države, da bi država postojala činjenično, de facto', smatra Šeparović. Tvrdi da se međunarodni karakter nekog rata, prema međunarodnom javnom i običajnom pravu, određuje prema međunarodnopravnim činjenicama na koje međunarodnopravni poredak nadovezuje učinak. 'Takva je činjenica i rat i oružani sukob kojima se bavi i međunarodno kazneno i međunarodno humanitarno pravo. Početak rata Jugoslavije (Srbije i Crne Gore) protiv Hrvatske, za ostvarenje plana Velike Srbije, po nekima je započeo u kolovozu 1990. pobunom Srba u Kninu, po drugima je taj rat započeo 3. ožujka 1991, kada je Borisav Jović kao predsjednik Predsjedništva SFRJ prihvatio zahtjev tadašnjeg ministra obrane Veljka Kadijevića za oružanu intervenciju JNA u Pakracu. Uzimaju se i drugi datumi: 2. svibnja 1991. kada su u Borovu Selu ubijeni hrvatski policajci', podsjetio je. 'Čini se najlogičnijim uzeti 3. srpnja 1991 - dan kad su srpske snage protiv osamostaljene, nezavisne države Hrvatske izvršili širu vojnu akciju zauzimanja područja Baranje. Od toga dana postoje svi elementi međunarodnog karaktera rata u Hrvatskoj. Rat je dobio međunarodni karakter i po tome što je vanjski svijet, odnosno međunarodna zajednica, započela svoje nastojanje za uspostavu mira', navodi Šeparović i podsjeća da je tako Europska zajednica brojnim rezolucijama i posredničkom ulogom EZ-ove trojice tretirala Hrvatsku kao državu. 'EZ je pozvala srpsku stranu da prestane s promjenama granica i osvajanjem teritorija silom, sazvana je i Mirovna konferencija koja je i održana 7. rujna 1991. u Haagu. Tako je na četvrtoj plenarnoj sjednici mirovne konferencije zaključeno - prvo, postupno priznanje nezavisnosti republika koje to žele, drugo, suverene i nezavisne republike mogu se udružiti u 'labavu asocijaciju', treće, potrebno je osigurati ljudska prava i prava manjina, i četvrto, nema jednostranih promjena granica. 'Pokušaj 'prijatelja suda' (amici curiae) da na Haškom sudu umanje krivnju ratnog zločinca Miloševića, proziran je i neutemeljen', izjavio je Šeparović. Steven Kay i Branislav Tapušković, prijatelji suda (amici curiae), iznijeli su stajalište na suđenju Miloševiću da je rat u Hrvatskoj 'postao međunarodni u jednom trenutku između 15. siječnja i 22. svibnja 1992.' te su zatražili od Raspravnog vijeća da utvrde otkad sukob u Hrvatskoj smatra 'međunarodnim' (prvi je datum priznanja Hrvatske od tadašnje EZ, a drugi kad je primljena u UN). Po Šeparovićevim riječima, Jugoslavija (Srbija i Crna Gora), koju je vodio Milošević, izvršila je u međunarodnom sukobu agresiju na Hrvatsku i stoje sve kvalifikacije koje su postavili tužitelji toga suda u predmetu Milošević. I tužbom pred Međunarodnim sudom pravde (ICJ) i Bijelom knjigom hrvatske Vlade iz 1999. dokazali smo da je protiv Hrvatske izvršena agresija bivše Jugoslavije i JNA, zaključio je. Zvonimir Šeparović (1928) bio je dekan zagrebačkoga Pravnog fakulteta, rektor Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, jedan od utemeljitelja Svjetskoga žrtvosolovnoga društva i njegov predsjednik, ministar inozemnih poslova i pravosuđa Republike Hrvatske i prvi hrvatski veleposlanik pri UN-u.
Translation to follow. Kubura (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
What's the problem with this sentence?
"They mostly have in common Greater Serbian campaign of military conquest of neighbouring countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) as well as violent suppression of Kosovar Albanians revolt on Kosovo, autonomous province in Serbia, whose rights were abolished by Greater Serbianist regime since late 1980's.". Greater Serbianist militant, warmongering circles in JNA, Serbia, Montenegro (and among rebel Serbs in Croatia and ones in Bosnia-Herzegovina) stood behind all that.
Others (SLO, CRO, B&H) simply had no means nor any sane reason to start the war. Kubura (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The above statement mentions nothing about "starting war", and SLO CRO B&H have never done anything sane, so entering the theatre of conflict is nothing surprising. As for "Greater Serbia", that and Montenegro don't go on the same sentence. In the meantime, here is a nice little source to help you bolster your case, try using it, it is 1000% reliable. [8]Evlekis (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Kubura, there are indeed many problems with your sentence, though I appreciate what you're trying to point out. The goal of the wars in Bosnia and Croatia was undoubtedly the creation of "ethnically clean" Serbian territories that would potentially unite into a larger Serbian state. However, the issue of Montenegro again "saves" the matter for the Serbian nationalists as its independence is contrary to the idea of a united (unitarianist) Greater Serbian state. There is no doubt that many if not most of the Serbian troops were fighting for that ideal, but the question still remains whether or not it was the goal of the Serbian leadership(s). It was certainly not publicly announced.
However, it would not be an incorrect statement to write:
"The ideal of a "Greater Serbia" was the perceived goal and primary motivation for many of the Serbian fighters and volunteers that engaged in the conflict, especially for the members of Serbian paramilitary units involved in the fighting. The Croatian and Bosnian sides in particular claimed that the establishment of such a state was the end ambition of the Serbian leadership, and included this claim in their respective wartime propaganda campaigns."
Evlekis, the concept of "Greater Serbia" played its part in these tragic conflicts and its mention cannot be excluded from a complete version of the article.
This is difficult for me, since I started to write this, someone on the terminal which I was using hijacked my account and blanked this page twice. I wish to declare that I, the real Evlekis, am innocent, if need be, I will start a new account, but just to confirm, "I" did not blank the page, and I do not vandalise.
Direktor, your above statement concerning Montenegro is half right. It is correct that its mention is not compatible with the Greater Serbian ideology, however, the disproval does not end with Serb nationalists, it stretches to everyone. Take me, I am not a Serb nationalst, nor a Serb for that matter; but be warned, I am not a Croatian/Bosniak/Albanian or NATO apologist either. You see, if I were to give a Montenegro sceptic the benefit of the doubt, how does one equate the concept of "Greater Serbia" with Belgrade's decision to recognise an independent Republic of Macedonia? That region too is claimed by the Serbian right wing; the present-day border between Macedonia and Greece was drawn by Serbia and Greece in 1912; had ethnic Macedonians been the influencial party, that border would have been several kilometres south, the Aegean Sea to be precise; furthermore, there would have been a northern border too, with none other than Serbia. I believe that we all should stop dropping the name of "Greater Serbia" on every occasion because it promotes ignorance when people use it and they themselves are not entirely sure what the concept advocates. The aims of its enthusiasts are to create a Monarchist state (not a republic) that encompasses various territories which a) Serbs are permanently settled in, b) Serbs originally settled in, and c) Serbia once ruled. As the concept is mentioned more often by anti-Serbs, people take "Greater Serbia" to mean any old affair in which Serbs have fought for self-determination. The areas which they held and where they once fought (including Dubrovnik) are nothing more than a rough outline along part of this imaginary frontier. There is no evidence in this world to suggest that the regions would one day join/rejoin Belgrade. People were screaming this in 1991/1992 when the entities were created and in 1995, there was no sign of it happening. Does anyone out there honestly believe that these occurences are limited to the Balkans? If so, they should rub their eyes a bit, so let's examine cases outside the balkans. 1) Nagorno-Karabagh, a region within Azerbaijan populated by Armenians, a bitter war errupted between 1988 and 1994 taking over 20,000 lives and displacing many more, the relationship between Yerevan (Armenia) and Nagorno resembles Zagreb/Herceg-Bosna and Belgrade/RSK. Greater Armenia? That's what the Azeris said, and 20 years later, it is still a self-proclaimed entity. Transdniester? In 1991 it too declared itself independent of Moldova, it would be an entity which served its Russian population. A return to the Soviet Union? 2008 and not yet. Serbs and Macedonians claimed that Albanians fought for "Greater Albania", so now that they have Kosovo, why don't the two entities unite? No evidence exists concerning the RSK and Belgrade. Now to analyise SFRY: late 80's, the League of Idiots (Communists) meet, and fall apart when it is realised that they have different ideas. When four out of six opt for independence, what is left for the one million Serbs scattered throughout Bosnia and Croatia? Is their desire to - if not remain with Serbia - exist outside of the new proposed countries intrinsically wrong? Would it have been rational for Belgrade to ignore the Serbs of Bosnia and Croatia, particularly now that it had a Serb characteristic to it which everyone knows was down to everyone else leaving rather than one being more dominant? And to call this "Greater Serbia"? Please! And even the "ethnically clean" element; since when did any Greater state have to be ethnically clean? According to the ICTY, every belligerent involved in the Yugoslav Wars has had a minimum of one representative stand trial for their role in expelling their "non-members" at times from certain regions, but in truth (again, I say this here, not on any article), each party goes about removing its dissidents, and often that means members of its own population whilst not harming the other ethnicity, but then if you don't harm the other ethnic group, it is for a reason, and that ethnic group itself will bring harm to those untouched by you, as to them, they are "traitors"/"collaborators". But every warring faction around the world has them, always has done, always will. There is no theory that any nation's irredentism involves an ethnically pure state. To take an example, United Russia of Vladimir Putin is a right-wing Russian party and yet even it advocates sharing a country with equal partners of various ethnicities, hence Mr.Kadyrov of Chechnya (former rebel) is himself a member of the very same United Russia. In a nutshell, one's desire for self-determination and unity with transnational communities is not always nationalism; whilst nationalist administrations themsleves can raise the profiles of minorities, and even occasionally appease dissident populations by awarding them autonomous privileges. I thank you. Evlekis (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Evlekis, please, try not to write epic works.
Try to write your answers shorter, otherwise the discutant may loose interest or any wish to read it. In a way, loooong answers are the way of torturing the other discutants. And IMHO, a very refined way of trolling. Remember, trolls' final goal is to draw away the attention of the constructive users.
If you cannot avoid epics, please, try to use paragraphs. It's much more readable. That way the interested user may focus him/herself on the particular paragraph. Kubura (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Look! It's not that difficult to read!!! Besides which, I lost interest several months ago. I confine myself these days to less controversial issues (but you know how they can lead to bigger rows). Whilst on the subject, I see that the initial reference to Greater Serbia (which I gave up on months ago) has been deleted by another user. I won't be interfering here, but as you were once a keen supporter of keeping that phrase in place, it may be worth you asserting your opinions on the latest section currently at the bottom of the talk page. As for me, I'll only be keeping an eye on this page to revert blatant vandals. As for you Kubura, I assure you that I will never contest nor amend the content of any of your edits. That's a gesture of good will from me to you. Evlekis (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In my thinking we need to change few things in this section. For example speach about Croatian autonomy in Austro-Hungary is not needed, because we are having 23 November 1918 decision (point 1) of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs about creation of Yugoslavia which is clearly saying that new Yugoslav constitution will be voted by 2/3 majority. Serbia has refused that and new constitution is voted with simple majority which is without any question source of all later fights between federalist (Croats) and unitarist (Serbs).
Other needed change is role of USA in destruction of Yugoslavia. We are having National Security Decision Directive 133 and NSDD 54 which are clearly calling for "silent" revolution in communist states. NSDD 133 is still top secret document and only 1/3 has become public knowledge. Then we are having Yugoslav president Raif Dizdarević (1988-89) which is calling for end of American operations in Yugoslavia and last Yugoslav prime minister Ante Marković which is called by BBC in 1989 Washington man in Yugoslavia.
Why Macedonia is in the side of the box with Serbia? For sure Conflict in Macedonia in 2001 was part of the yugoslav wars, but this way some can get idea that Macedonia was with Serbia during wars, which is not correct. Conflict in Macedonia should be regarded as a separate conflict not connected with others (besides as being on teritory of former Yugoslavia).
Good point. Despite the "common problem" being Albanian terrorists, there was not alliance between Serbia and Macedonia Hxseek (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there are only two pockets for space. The wars were complicated but it would look strange if Macedonia were placed on the left and its Albanian opponent on the right; although Macedonia and FRY were not part of a joint enterprise, they were not strict enemies either. A change in name placement may look as though the FRY and the Serb factions were allies of the Albanian rebels in Macedonia; who were in turn enemies of the KLA and the Preševo rebels! See how confusing it would look? The other thing is, that even though every conflict involving Albanians (Kosovo, Preševo, and Western Macedonia) all involved many of the same clerics, sponsors and volunteers, they were for each conflct technically a separate faction fighting for a separate cause. The infobox is somewhat incomplete anyway. There is no mention of the Bosniak forces loyal to the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia who could only appear on a side against the ARBiH, which in turn lies on the same side as the Croatian Herzeg-Bosnia which - whilst existing as a warring faction until 1994 - also led its campaign mainly against the ARBiH. It would be too complicated and involve far too much rebuilding to create something accuracte. Even then, only people from the Balkans would be able to follow it. The box needs to be intelligible to all non-affiliated people reading the article, and that may occasionally mean, being somewhat inaccurate. Evlekis (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I just think a two-side box would never fit with Yugoslav wars. So, either we remove it, either we add somewhere in the page a graph defining all the relations between warring parties. For the moment, I'd suggest to remove the Macedonia flag from the FRY side: since it's inaccurate anyway, let's have it clear, at least; Macedonia was not on FRY side.--Dans (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
By now, I've de-blocked the Belligerents/Commanders table (it had an error inside) and separated FRY and MAK on the right side of the losses table. I think it would be clearer now. Any comment is welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dans (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Greater Serbia
Hi, please provide sources for those statements from the lead: ... the conflict has in common a drive towards the establishment of various "ethnically clean" Serbian areas within SFR Yugoslavia, and their eventual preferred union with Serbia proper, thus creating an enlarged state populated by a vast majority of ethnic Serbs. The ideal of a "Greater Serbia" was the perceived goal and primary motivation for many of the Serbian fighters and volunteers that engaged in the conflict, especially for the members of Serbian paramilitary units involved in the fighting. --windyhead (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Not every sentence on Wikipedia needs to be sourced. This wording was brought on by editor consensus established during an earlier discussion. look it up --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, hi. Firstly, "you are to understand" that WP:V is not a "rule", it is policy. Second, I'll repeat that not all sentences on Wikipedia require a source. This is concise wording used to describe the goals of the Serbian side agreed-upon by consensus. We are not required to copy-paste exact words from sources, indeed, this would be against the law. --DIREKTOR(TALK)22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Drawn here by a posting at WP:NOR/N. While not every sentence needs to be cited, this one makes some potentially controvercial claims and so probably should be. That said, I note that the sentence is in the lead... and, thus, it may be a summary of things that are fully cited elsewhere in the article. If (and this is a major if), the sentence is a summary of things that are fully discussed (and cited) in the main text of the article, then it is fine to leave it without a citation in the lead. If not, then it definitely needs to be cited in the lead to show that this is not OR. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I agree in principle, and to be frank I don't know if the sentence is sourced below. However, you must understand that the reason this sentence was agreed-upon and wasn't seriously contested by either side is that its contents are pretty-much common knowledge. It is generally accepted that the goal of the Serbian side was to unite (keep together) all areas in which Serbs form a majority. This is indisputable. Such a united state is known as "Greater Serbia". --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the info you added is unsourced and POV based. Would every Serb confirm it is true? Please understand that there are rules, or policies, set in wikipedia. If you want to edit articles you need to conform to those. Either bring sources confirming info you added or don't add unsourced info here. Thanks. --windyhead (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Serbian radicals didn't hide their motivation, it's the same almost for 100 yrs. Typical and usual Milošević's claim was that "all Serbs must live in the same state". Any objective analysis mentions it. Zenanarh (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"...goal of the Serbian side was to unite (keep together) all areas in which Serbs form a majority...". DIREKTOR?? Hey! Greaterserbianists wanted much more. Original aim was to "keep Yugoslavia", but to make it into a Serb country. Obviously with no non-Serbs (proved on the cases of so-called Republic of Serb Krajina and Republika Srpska - both almost completely ethnically cleansed) Do you remember the sentence: "Slovenians may leave Yugoslavia, but they won't take the territory with themselves.". As war results haven't followed greaterserbianist appetites, they've gradually adjusted their war aims. So that sentence turned into "Slovenia may leave, go away". Kubura (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Kubura, you're living in a fantasy world. How do you suppose the Serbs planned to ethnically cleanse Split, Zagreb, and Ljubljana? Its not possible, not without being pulverized by NATO at least. Ethnic cleansing is not viable on the scale of the entire country, we're talking about almost 10,000,000 people. Only idiots in Serbia could have theorized about what you're saying, certainly not pragmatic realists such as Milošević.
You're also confusing the JNA with the Serb nationalist army of later years. In the "early days", the JNA really was trying only to keep the country together, but Kadijević (a half-Croat) had no way of standing up to Milošević's popularity (he reportedly advised him to resign if he wanted to keep Yugoslavia together, Slobo naturally refused and threatened to simply form the "Army of Serbia" and finally dissolve the JNA). The JNA's goal in the early attacks in Slovenia and Vukovar was to remove the secessionist parties from power, namely the HDZ, Kučan and the Slovene Christian Democrats: not to ethnically cleanse all of Croatia and Slovenia. Which is completely impossible in any context. After Vukovar fell, the JNA had a clear run for Zagreb but was stopped by Milošević, who did not want to restore Yugoslavia at that point, but wanted to create a huge Serbia. If the JNA captured Zagreb they would have installed Croatian communists and there would be no reason for the secession of Serbian-held territories (the Krajina Serbs would consider the "Ustaše" defeated). Yugoslavia would have been under Milošević's grip, but it would have been intact (no Greater Serbia) ...its very complicated :P
In essence it is completely impossible for the JNA to move in, oust the HDZ and Kučan, and start evacuating 10,000,000 non-Serbs to... Austria? Italy? Think about it, they could form a new country in the EU :). Its science fiction (though I would let them evacuate Dubrava :) --DIREKTOR(TALK)01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing doesn't just happen through murder or forced migration. It also happens by destroying cultural and religous icons, and pretty much anything tangible that shows a group having a separate history and culture. Over-time, it forces people to forget their identity and disassociate with their past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.177.82 (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
A destroyed Croat home
I doubt the validity of this photo [9]. First off there is no source confirming the photo and its description. Second off, there is no signs of window / door frames or roof structure. It can be seen that window / door frames were intentionally removed completely. Undamaged bricks are lying accurately on 2nd floor. If we look at the backside, an unfinished construction can be seen there. This can be result of war, or the house can be simply abandoned or unfinished. I. e. no source linking that photo to war. --windyhead (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you an expert? Actually this is almost a prototype of a house burnt down during the Yugoslav Wars with typical Serbian signature: cross with 4 C's, Cyrilic script massages or personal signatures and specific insulting conclusions about the Croats - obviously a house of a Croat burnt down by the Serbian paramilitaries.
Heh well, intentionally removed window / door frames is another typical sign: Serbs were robbing Croat houses before they set it on fire, which included even windows and frames (if brand new or higher quality), believe it or not, nothing was sacred. Roof is not up there since its construction is usually and traditionally made of wood in Croatia, obviously it dissapeared in flames and "unfinished construction" seen "at the backside" was obviously a part of a porch, roof misses above there.
Hi, where you take this info from? and how do you know that the house on the photo is what you are talking about? --windyhead (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How do you know thar green color is green color, or that blue is blue? I live here, in Croatia, in a city that was under heavy Serbian attacks from '91 to '95. I was a participant of that war, around my city there are still hundreds of the houses, like this one (many houses are still not repaired). As I already said above, what is written on a house walls is identification card of what is shown on the photo. It doesn' need some special info, it's info itself! Zenanarh (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reference fabout the location of the house? I.e., was it taken in Croat territory? Can you translate the graffiti and put the translation in the photo information? this would ease things for SH/HS-0 people. Thanks.--Dans (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
1) There's a Serb Orthodox cross drawn on the house, four C's (Serb nationalist symbol) around the cross, message in Latin letters: "Ustashis have sh*tted their trousers", Cyrillic text: "Red Star champion", "God protects Serbs", "SAO (Serb Autonomic Oblast) Treba?a". Writing Serb nationalist symbols and messages on burnt Croat house. Typical marking of conquested territory by humiliating the opponent (through dishonoring of its property).
2) What is SH/HS-0? Kubura (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Kubura is right. It is almost certainly an abandoned Croat home burnt by Serb nationalists. The phrase "Usraše se Ustaše" (meaning "The Ustaše [Croats] have been scared sh*tless") refers to the fact that the terrified Croat inhabitants of the home fled away. --DIREKTOR(TALK)00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. For sh/hs-0 I was just meaning people not speaking serb-croatian/croato-serbian. It could be useful to report on the image text the 4Cs meaning, along with something like "anti-croat insults"--Dans (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it ok for you if the text of the image be changed with the words A destroyed house in Croatia, with Serb nationalist symbols and messages written on the walls. There's a Serbian cross drawn, with the four C's symbol. Message in Latin letters: "Usraše se Ustaše", referring to the fact that the terrified Croat inhabitants of the home fled away. Cyrillic text: "Red Star champion", "God protects Serbs", "SAO (Serb Autonomic Oblast) Treba?a". Typical marking of conquested territory by humiliating the opponent through dishonoring of its property ?--Dans (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me... "Red Star champion" would probably be better translated into "Crvena Zvezda is the champion". The false impression may be gained that these people were communists. We should make it clear that they're referring to the football club. --DIREKTOR(TALK)07:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
{{Multiple issues| citations missing = July 2008| grammar= July 2008| histinfo = July 2008| cleanup = July 2008| expert = Military history/Balkan military history task force=February 2009|POV=March 2009|date=May 2009}}
Hi, I'd like to have some info from you about this article, so as to be able to help somehow:
which part of the article is disputed for neutrality?
What were the reasons of the overhaul of the intro, i thought it was fine, and better then it is now. Lets open up for disscussion. --Nirvana77 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, the original gave five different names for the conflict(s). I left two of the most common; the Yugoslav Wars and War in the Balkans, but there may also be room in the article to describe it as the Third Balkans War.
Secondly, the original lead lacked a narrative of the causes of the war. The sentence, "Beginning in 1990, Yugoslavia was on the brink of disintegration..." solves this to some extent. The rest of the second paragraph in the original I have reserved for later on in the lead; (" They were characterized by bitter ethnic conflicts between the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between Serbs on the one side and Croats, Bosniaks or Albanians on the other...")
Although the lead gave a chronological account of the wars, I though it necessary to describe some the outcomes, such as Slovenian independence or the Dayton agreements after the Bosnia War. I must also note that the article was in need of some attention from some one with a bit more knowledge of the subject, and the information I have added enriches the article, I believe. The link between the Dayton agreement and the Kosovo War was missing in the original, for example.
Furthermore, the link between the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia, and the Kosovo war was made. The original did not allude to this, suggesting to readers that the two events were not connected.
I finished the article with the main talking points of the war; ethnic cleansing, the fact that it was the bloodiest war in Europe since WW2; and the war crimes trials that came as a result.
I believe the lead is better with the changes I have made. This is not to suggest that there is no room for improvement. On the contrary, there is a need to mention the long term affects of the war, such as Kosovo's independence declaration or Croatia's accession into NATO, etc.
I don't mind the new lead; I took back a paragraph on terminology which I think may be useful. By the other side, I think that the chronological paragraph is quite confusing, and I would prefer the old list. Btw, what is the actual link between the Dayton agreements and the Kosovo? Issues were completely different. Thanks to everybody for your work, hope to hear from you soon.--Dans (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The issues were not different mate. The Dayton agreement failed to take into consideration the Albanians in Yugoslavia, who had been trying non-violent protest for years. As a result, the KLA initiated attacks on police stations, etc, to get their point across. There is room to add a list, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)).
Beginning in 1990, Yugoslavia was on the brink of disintegration. At the Communist party conference in Belgrade, the congress voted for an end to the one-party system, but when Slobodan Milošević refused to agree to other reforms, the Slovenian and Croatian delegations walked out, leading to the break-up of the party[1].
I don't like this much this paragraph. "On the brink of disintegration" does not really explain anything. I will try to put down a brief paragraph with the main causes of the war.
I have re-introduced the list, but now it doubles the paragraph of Interestedinfainess. If anybody has good ideas to integrated them, is welcome. --Dans (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The two intros/leads in question are:
Previous:
The Yugoslav Wars were a series of violent conflicts in the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) that took place between 1991 and 2001.The Yugoslav wars were comprised of two sets of successive wars affecting all of the six former Yugoslav republics. Alternative terms in use include the "War in the Balkans", or "War in (the former) Yugoslavia", "Wars of Yugoslav Secession", and the "Third Balkan War" (a short-lived term coined by British journalist Misha Glenny, alluding to the two previous Balkan Wars fought 1912–1913)[2]. They were characterized by bitter ethnic conflicts between the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between Serbs on the one side and Croats, Bosniaks or Albanians on the other; but also between Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia and Macedonians and Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. The conflict had its roots in various underlying political, economic and cultural problems, as well as long-standing ethnic and religious tensions. The civil wars ended with much of the former Yugoslavia reduced to poverty, massive economic disruption and persistent instability across the territories where the worst fighting occurred. These wars were the bloodiest conflicts on European soil since the end of World War II. They were also the first conflicts since World War II to have been formally judged genocidal in character and many key individual participants were subsequently charged with war crimes[3]. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established by the United Nations to prosecute these crimes[4].
New:
Beginning in 1990, Yugoslavia was on the brink of disintegration. At the Communist party conference in Belgrade, the congress voted for an end to the one-party system, but when Slobodan Milošević refused to agree to other reforms, the Slovenian and Croatian delegations walked out, leading to the break-up of the party[5]. The Ten-Day War in 1991 ended with Slovenia becoming an independent state. This was followed by the Croatian War of Independence from 1991 - 1995. The Bosnian War of 1992 - 1995 culminated in the Dayton Agreement and the end of the war. The agreement however, failed to consider political aspirations of the Albanians in Kosovo and ultimately led to the Kosovo War of 1995 - 1999. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 ended the war. There was also a brief war fought in Macedonia (see: 2001 insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia), as well as an Insurgency in the Preševo Valley which ended in 2001. These wars were the bloodiest conflicts on European soil since the end of World War II, characterized by mass War Crimes and Ethnic Cleansing[6]. They were also the first conflicts since World War II to have been formally judged genocidal in character and many key individual participants were subsequently charged with war crimes, including Serbian President Slobodan Milošević[7]. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established by the United Nations to prosecute these crimes[8].
I think comparing the new intro and the previous intro, i think the previous intro meets quality standard much better then the current one does. It gives a better general view of the war and the causes then the new one does that simply beginns with "Beginning in 1990, Yugoslavia was on the brink of disintegration". It doesn't feel like an intro and perhaps should be in the background section in the article itself. The different names of the conflict should also have maybe it's own section or be placed in an existing one in the article. I would agree with Brutaldeluxe to change back to the previous one. --Nirvana77 (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The new one does not start off "Beginning in 1990, Yugoslavia was on...". I can see why it would be awful if it did though. Background is necessary, see other war articles for examples.
I want to recommend an article written in 2000 for editors interested in this article. It's written by Dr Janez Drnovšek, former Prime Minister of Slovenia and President of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1990 and can be found here. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)).
Any suggestion on how to resolve this? I would agree to an compromise that all sides would be satisfied with. I would suggest to revert to the previous one and work out the differences from there. Unless anyone else have a different approach to this. --Nirvana77 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following in bold, "The Bosnian War of 1992 - 1995 culminated in the Dayton Agreement and the end of the war. The agreement however, failed to consider political aspirations of the Albanians in Kosovo and ultimately led to the Kosovo War of 1995 - 1999." The Dayton Agreement is not related to the Kosovo War, stop reinserting this. PRODUCER (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I reverted to the previous intro as i believe it's a proper introduction and meet Wikis quality standard much better. I got the impression that Interestedinfairness alone redid the whole intro without a proper discussion and alone thinks it's better then the previous one. I believe there always should be an discussion on the talk page before redoing whole sections. Theres ways to improve the article without doing an overhaul. --Nirvana77 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the article taking into consideration all that was said. I've not gone for a "complete overhaul" as was advised against; I've kept much of what was already in the lead, and fixed up some bits which were necessary.
I don't think we should divide the conflicts in to three groups (as was the case on the original). This is because the NATO bombings are clearly linked to two "other" conflicts (Kosovo and Bosnia respectively).
The two groups suggestion (Slavic and Albanian), I feel, complicates matters for the lead. However, I won't disapprove of that distinction being made in the rest of the article --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Slovenia not first
As you wish, Direktor. I have no particular bias towards Slovenia, only felt it was clearer to sort actors not only in chronological but also in geographical order.--Dans (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Its not that I have a "particular bias" towards Croatia, its simply that I wanted to list the combatants on this side of the conflict with respect to their military input, i.e. military strength. The 10 day war compared to the wars in Croatia and (particularly) Bosnia is a minor skirmish, with about 50 casualties. With all due respect and admiration, it makes no sense to list Slovenia as the main combatant. The only question as to the main "anti-Serbian" combatant is Croatia or Bosnia, as both have good arguments. I listed Croatia because of the larger military forces that were engaged. (There was no "chronological" or "geographical order" in the previous version, as Croatia entered the conflict prior to Bosnia, is further north, but is listed after. In either event, it is military strength that is usually used to determine the "main combatant".) --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to jostle over this guys. Just put them in chronoligcal order.
Another thing, the term "Albanian factions" is misleading as there was no unified "Albanian" resistance during the Wars.
We need to work out a good system for naming combatants, because its pretty complicated and not very accurate at the moment. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)).
Um, what? A chronological order makes no sense, for more than a few reasons. Slovenia is a minor belligerent, the war there lasted 10 days and hardly any pitched fighting took place. Its a minor chapter compared to the slaughter of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Croatia. Listing it at the top gives a misleading impression that it was the main belligerent against the opposing side. Furthermore, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence on the same day, they seceded and entered the war at the same time, so who should be listed first?
Without the slightest hint of bias in my thinking, I must affirm that listing Slovenia in the top is simply misleading. --DIREKTOR(TALK)20:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of pragmatism, we should go for alphabetical order. The problem seems to be that the belligerents are not correctly defined. Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, did not exist during the Wars, therefore it cannot be classified as a belligerent. We need to work these issues first, I think, Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, there are quite a few problems, but alphabetizing would turn the infobox into a shambles. The combatants are grouped, you can't just mix them up. Again, military strength directly translates to significance. Listing them by troop strength is the only "non-misleading" way. --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The Bosnian war and Kosovo war were the two most recognizable (maybe significant?) wars that errupted as a result of the the break up of Yugoslavia, yet the KLA was significantly weaker (and smaller in size) than the Croatian army.
Furthermore, It's erroneous to group the Albanian groups into one, for the same reasons that I had a problem with the original lead. Grouping the NATO bombings together, as apposed to linking them to either Bosnia or Kosovo is also as wrong, for obvious reasons. We should think about this for a while and see what we come up with. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)).
I would agree with DIREKTOR that putting Slovenia first would be misleading, also, Slovenia and Croatia entered the war on the same day. Military strength and involvement in the conflicts makes them a more significant belligerent. I also fail to see how the Kosovo war would be the most significant of the conflicts. --Nirvana77 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that. The Bosnian + Kosovan war involved the biggest crimes and mass movement of peoples. In that sense, they are both more noteworthy than Croatia. But like I said, we need to work out who the actual belligerents were first of all, in order to proceed about the ordering of the belligerents. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)).
Croatia, and particularly CR Herzeg-Bosnia, were major belligerents in the Bosnian war. The war in Bosnia ended with a major Croatian breakthrough in Bosnia, with Croatian forces routing Serbian defenders and stopping just short of occupying the de facto capital of the Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka. The belligerents do not represent wars, they represent, well, belligerents. Croatia, CRHB, and RBiH were all involved in the largest conflict, the Bosnian war. Except that Croatia and CR Herzeg-Bosnia were also involved in the war in Croatia.
The belligerents are worked out. The "Bosnia and Herzegovina" is in fact the "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (the current state is only "Bosnia and Herzegovina"). That's the name of the state Bosniaks were fighting under for most of the war. Then we have the "Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (1994), which united Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks. In other words, "CR Herzeg-Bosnia" was merged with the "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" into the "Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina".
This is a huge issue. The last state of affairs is usually to be represented, but it is not very correct. The Federation is not listed anywhere as a combatant, even though the war was effectively ended by an alliance of Croatia and the Federation. How are we going to insert it into the infobox? --DIREKTOR(TALK)08:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Friend, I think we need renewed discussion on here, because all of this points to the fact that the War (s) are very complicated.
My imput on the issue would be that the Albanian "factions" bit needs to be removed. KLA, NLA etc, need to be put separately as the word faction implies a unified goal, which was not the case.
Um, how does listing them as "Albanian factions" imply they fought for the same goal? From what I can see, it implies that they were factions, and that they were Albanian. --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree on the word "factions", and for the rest I have to say I consider the topic of this discussion (chronological, alphabetical or strenght order in the table) pretty ininfluent: anyone is good. The thing about the Republic of Bosnia, by the other side, is to be worked out more--Dans (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As for me, I've no problem with changing the word "factions", if that's the issue. I just don't think we should go into any further detail.
Concerning BiH. The matter at hand is the crucial difference between the following (particularly the first two):
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a primarily Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) entity, it does not represent Croats and Serbs. In fact, Croats and Serbs populated the vast majority of Bosnia and Herzegovina's territory and constituted the majority of its population. The Republic was supported only by Bosniaks, and existed only on territory held by them.
Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the modern, post-war state. It encompasses all three Bosnian nationalities.
The question is simply that of clearly differentiating between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We must make clear the difference between the two, and we've solved the problem. The complications arise from the fact that legally, the modern Bosnia and Herzegovina is a continuation of the wartime Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina... its not that simple, but I suppose its good enough for the infobox. --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I like your clarification of the Bosnian and Croatian sides of the war. I also like the use of the word beligerents for the Albanian "factions".
However, another proposal that could do with you guys input. I think we need to split the info box into a chronological order, to clearly define apposing belligerents. At the moment, it looks like Kosovo supported Slovenia, or that it apposed Macedonia in the 2001 war. This would also solve who comes first in the box, and be more precise and clear to viewers.
What do you guys think? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)).
Well, the infobox isn't perfect, but I don't see how we're going to split the infobox chronologically? Can it be done :P? --DIREKTOR(TALK)23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If Macedonia was not involved in the wars apart from fighting a few Albanian rebels then it should be listed under the separatist side, not the JNA side. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Separatist side? There were no "separatists" and "unionists", that's a common misconception (except in the 10-day Slovene war). Essentially, the war was fought against the formation of a "Greater Serbia", which would unite all territories occupied by Serbs into one state. The trouble for the Serbs was that the Bosniak-populated areas make their new state look kind of silly - stretched out and full of holes, while the Croat-populated areas blocked the way to the Adriatic. So once they rebelled and took control of all the territories in Croatia and Bosnia their people populated, they attacked Croat and Bosniak-populated areas to make the new state make more sense geographically, and of course to make it bigger :). There's the Serbian side, and there's everyone else. Why am I saying all this? Well, the Serbian side is listed second, usually meaning it was the one that was on the defensive (which is nonsense), it should be listed first.
As for Macedonia, we either list it there or we don't list it at all. It makes no sense to place it alongside the only belligerent they actually fought, plus they never fought against the "Serbian side". This is why I added that note and separated them from the "Serbian side" with a line. --DIREKTOR(TALK)07:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That is WP:SYN, following your rationale, is this the symbol of all Germanic people? Have you read Flag of Albania? It says "The national flag of Albania is a red flag with a silhouette black two-headed eagle in the center." The national flag of Albania, not the flag of all Albanians, I'm not sure that Arbereshes use it. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you disputing it is the symbol of the Albanian people? I mean that's public knowledge. (Why are you mentioning Germany, I never said this is so with all states and peoples? The above comparison is not really an argument.) --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The mention of Germany is to give an example of ethnic populations spread over different countries using different flags, for example, Arbëreshës use a different flag. I think my objection really is to do with the fact that the KLA, etc. do not represent the country of Albania so we should not use the flag of that country to identify them, even if they are ethnically Albanian and even if it happens that the flag is also used to identify all Albanians. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The flag of Albania is representative of all ethnic Albanians, just like the Croatian checkerboard coat of arms, the flag of Germany apparently is not. It just happens to also be the flag of Albania, so we should be careful to exclude the possibility of such an implication... --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we could add a link to Macedonia, (it already has that tiny "a" after it), so when a user clicks it it could read something like; "was only involved in fighting against the NLA and not on the side of Serbia" (Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).
According to this, having Macedonia as |combatant3= seems to be suitable for this case, alternatively, |combatant3a= puts it into the bottom right corner, maybe it should be grouped with Croatia et al, but at the bottom.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That is not suitable, as it wouldn't solve anything. It wouldn't look like Macedonia was allied to Serbia, but it would still look like it was in conflict against Croatia, Bosnia, etc.., except that now it would also seem as if it engaged Serbs in a fight as well. The only real solution is more than one infobox, or a custom one... --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I would go for a custom one, since this wasn't a single war, but a bunch of them. Not that I personally have any clue how to make one... BalkanFever15:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Its a simplification, but the conflict can be separated into 1) the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, 2) the Albanian-Serbian conflict(s), and 3) the Albanian-Macedonian conflict. Perhaps we could create sections in the infobox for each? --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The CND logo, designed by Gerald Holtom in 1958. It later became a universal peace symbol used in many different versions worldwide
Date
9/9/99 to 10/10/00
Location
xxx
Status
jjj
Territorial changes
xxx
Belligerents
xxx
yyy
Commanders and leaders
uuu
iii
Strength
100
200
Casualties and losses
50
500
phase2
Location
xxx
Territorial changes
xxx
Belligerents
xxx
yyy
Commanders and leaders
zzz
phase3
Location
{{{place}}}
Well, here's a template I (slowly) put together, with three examples to show what could be included in them, it remains to be seen how it would affect the lay out, but that could be fixed. With the information available in a similar infobox I don't think there could be any confusion on who was who in the wars. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Good work, but I think there's too many participants to list them all in this way. The second template looks good, but instead of using the "sub-templates" for individual participants, I think we should use them to describe the three parts of the conflict in the same way as the current infobox in the article (with two columns listing the individual belligerents). --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Then, since the article is about more than one conflict, we need the original top template, plus three identical templates below, which would look like this. Only the result and total number of casualties should be given in the first template (the top one with the picture of the tower), and perhaps a picture should not be included for each phase, but maybe a map showing changes of territory could be part of it. Given the size of the templates, maybe one could be included for the special case of Macedonia. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Now I can finally (non-ironically) say "excellent!" :) Just one more thing, I fear it'll get too big and cover the whole right side of the article if we add images for every conflict. If the whole right side is covered, then there won't be any space for the (smaller) article thumbnails, which will force us to use sandwich text between the thumbs to the left and the template(s) to the right. There are two more problems that need to be addressed:
1st issue. I suggested three separate infoboxes above, but I forgot the Slovene 10 days. We're faced with two options:
Option a)
(1) The Yugoslav Dissolution Wars: Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia. Two columns: Serbs on one side, Croats, Bosniaks, and Slovenes on the other
(2) Albanian-Serbian conflict (Kosovo and the like)
(3) Albanian-Macedonian conflict
Option b)
(1) The Bosnian War and the Croatian War of Independence (this is the main conflict, by far the largest and most significant). Three columns: Serbs on one side, Croats on the second, Bosniaks the third (we'd be going into more detail).
(2) Slovene 10 day war. Two columns: JNA on one side, Slovenes on the other.
(3) Albanian-Serbian conflict (Kosovo and the like)
2nd issue. The Croat-Bosniak War (1992-1994). Croats and Bosniaks were enemies for most of the conflict (up to 1994), when they became allies. This is why the Bosnian War infobox has three columns, however, in the last state of affairs (1994 and 1995) Bosniaks and Croats were allies. So how do we convey this information in the first main conflict infobox? The two belligerents on one side of the template actually fought bitterly for years, and yet were allies in the end?
I suggest we try to find a way to seperate three columns (Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs) horizontally with a line, so that below the line the separation between Croats and Bosniaks no longer exists (they're in one column), while they remain separated from the Serbian column. This would automatically solve a long-standing issue with the Bosnian War article infobox as well. A doubly useful solution, if we could bring it about. --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I tried adding a horizontal line, but the template does not support it. I will play around with it a bit more or look around for other templates. Your option b seems good.
There is another option (and an easier one): we could discard the present template, the one displayed now, and replace it by importing an adapted template from each of the articles on the conflicts, keeping only the most salient points on each (ie:one commander only for each side, no "part of" bar, no picture), this would still add more information and flexibility than is available now. It would also be easier for the reader to decide which conflict to read on depending on the information he/she is seeking.
Kosovo was part of the process of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. I Added the connection between the NATO bombings and said wars; Bosnia 1995 and Kosovo. I also made the distinction between the less violent and bloody wars in Macedonia and Southern Serbia both of which has received less media coverage and less scholarly attention than the other wars. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).
I must say I disgaree. The war in Kosovo had little to do with the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The state dissolved completely when Kosovo finally declared independence, and even the rump "Yugoslavia" ceased to be called that long before. The war in Kosovo in no way resulted in the breakup of Yugoslavia, nor was it caused by it. It was a war in "Yugoslavia" (even though "Yugoslavia" generally refers to the SFR Yugoslavia in this context). --DIREKTOR(TALK)22:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I would have to disagree. Kosovo's status prior to Milosoviq reforms was that of a de facto Republic (de jure province of Serbia within a Yugoslavia). It was because of Milosevic that Slovenia and Croatia wanted out, for the same reasons the Albanians wanted out. A good article on the issue can be found here. For the mean time I have to insist on the Kosovo war being referred to as a part of the break up of Yugoslavia. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).
Yes I know all that. Fact is, however, they didn't get out. In other words, the Albanian attempts to "break-up" Yugoslavia were unsuccessful while that state existed in any form. Only after it fell apart did Albanians achieve a form of independence from Serbia. Therefore, the war in Kosovo is not and can not be associated with the actual breakup of Yugoslavia, as much as Albanians would like that it could be. --DIREKTOR(TALK)23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Lets not make this an issue, but Yugoslavia did not break up until 2006.
Find me one article that refers to the break up of Yugoslavia and does not mention the Kosovo war, and you can have your way.
How am I supposed to look for something that isn't there :)? The FR Yugoslavia is already not really a "Yugoslavia", the SiCG is certainly not a "Yugoslavia". It is incorrect to say that Yugoslavia existed up until 2006, but even if I grant you that, Kosovo never managed to secede from any form of South Slavic union. I.e. it never actually "broke-up" any such state, unless you wish to call Serbia "Yugoslavia" :)? Mentioning the Kosovo War in the context of the Yugoslav wars is only natural, but it does not prove much. It certainly doesn't prove Kosovo broke-up Yugoslavia in any way... it simply didn't. It broke away 2 years after the last form of what you may call Yugoslavia disappeared. The UNMIK period is not a secession from Serbia in any legal way. --DIREKTOR(TALK)23:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The Kosovo war was part of the process, it was part of the Yugoslav wars. What I "may" or "may not" call Yugoslavia is completely irrelevant. Yugoslavia included Kosovo. Kosovo fought a war as a result of the other wars prior to it. It has declared independence from a former Yugoslav Republic, just as Croatia and Slovenia did.
Are you trying to argue that Albanians did not form a constituent people of the former Republic?
The sources do not agree with you that the Kosovo war was not a part of the greater Yugoslav Wars.
In fact, the Kosovo war and the Bosnian wars were the two most important parts of the war.
This is not a matter for sources, and SAP Kosovo's status in SFR Yugoslavia has no bearing on the 1996/1998-1999 period. Read the article text: you want to list the Kosovo War, which took place as late as 1999, as a "war during the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". Note: it does not say "Yugoslavia", or "FR Yugoslavia", the category specifically refers to wars erupting around the fall of the SFRY, the Kosovo War took place long after the SFRY was dead and buried - even after Dayton. With all respect, I don't see your logic. --DIREKTOR(TALK)00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
According to your logic friend, the SFRY ended in 1992. So the Bosnian war does not belong as part of that process?
I don't understand your logic, according to the SFRY article "War between the rival ethnic factions of the former SFRY would continue throughout the 1990s, with the last major conflict being between Albanian nationalists and the government of Republic of Macedonia reduced in violence after 2001".
Have a look at the BBC article about "Yugoslavia" here.
All of these wars in fact were part of the break up of Yugoslavia, with every ethnic group claiming some sorts of rights, either to split or for more freedom. Seriously, are we going to continue this discussion?
Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The Albanians had been mobilizing for years before 1996, thus according to your own reasoning, it was indeed a part of the break up of Yugoslavia.
In fact, Slobodan's speech in Kosovo in 1989 and his reversion of Kosovo's privileged status in the federation earlier in the decade actually precipitated the break up of Yugoslavia as it alarmed Slovenia and Croatia to a possible Greater Serbia plan.
Stop putting words in my mouth, you've tuned me into some Serbian nationalist attacking you or something. Events and tensions in Kosovo were an extremely important part of the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia, just not the Kosovo War which took place long after the state disappeared off the face of the Earth. This is about the war, 1996-1999. Kosovo was a part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and now its independent, but the Kosovo War did not take place "during the breakup" of a long-dissolved state. Milošević's "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" is NOT the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, despite his claims to the contrary. It was never recognized as the continuation of the SFRY, and its no more or less a successor to the SFR Yugoslavia than Slovenia, for example.
My own research?? Forget research, by the laws of time and space how can a war take place during the existence of a state, when the state ceased to exist at least 4 years beforehand? --DIREKTOR(TALK)00:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh brother... how do I get myself involved in these kind of discussions (instead of working on the infobox)... Anyway, my work piled up so I'll be on a Wikibreak for the next couple of days. Be back by Saturday to finish this up. --DIREKTOR(TALK)01:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Bro, you make some interesting points and hopefully in the future you write a great book.
But at the moment, there is no text book that divides the wars in the way you are suggesting.
I see where the problem lies now though, but the article is called Yugoslav wars, not Wars during the break up of SFRY.
The solution? I would like to remove the sentence: "The Yugoslav civil wars can be split in two groups of several distinct conflicts"
Instead we can just give a chronological list of the conflicts. Then we can move on to background
I think we should keep making our way down the article, improving everything about it, but firstly lets see if we can gain a consensus about this.
I don't understand why I'm repeating myself constantly. 1) I didn't divide the wars in this manner in the article (I just placed the NATO bombings under their respective wars). 2) I never suggested the Kosovo War is somehow not a part of the Yugoslav wars. "Yugoslav wars" ≠ "war during the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". "Yugoslav wars" just refers to the recent wars that took place on the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
All I am saying is that it is physically and logically impossible for the Kosovo War (1996/1998-1999) to be listed under the category "war during the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" if the SFRY lasted only up to 1992. This is the plainest most obvious logic imaginable, and yet it is opposed. All I keep getting is you refuting things I never even stated or claimed in any way.
It makes sense to place the three Albanian independence-related conflicts in one group. Unless there's a source with a different organization of these six conflicts, I am inclined to support the current organization. --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's the essential question, please answer it: How can a war that takes place four years after a state ceased to exist, take place during the breakup of that same state which was already broken up four years beforehand? --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, your not reading my edits. Firstly, I think you will find that it was me who suggested, and changed, the NATO bombings to be linked to the respective wars.
Secondly, the ordering is ridiculous, all the wars, including the "Albanian" ones, were part of the dissolution of Yugoslavia.
Your being very hard headed and missing out several key points that I'm trying to hammer home.
Let me say it again - all the wars were part of the process of dissolution of Yugoslavia the first war was in Slovenia and the last war was in Macedonia.
Dividing them into two lists implies that Kosovo or the Albanian constitutions of Yugoslavia were not part of the process of dissolution or that the "main" wars" were the ones featuring "Slavs".
OMG, for the twelfth time: YES "all the wars were part of the process of dissolution of Yugoslavia", but all the wars did not take place "during the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". The difference is there, and it is crucial. The state known as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia disappeared because of the first three wars, but not because of the last three which took place long after it ceased to exist. --DIREKTOR(TALK)12:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how the conflict in Macedonia was part of dissolution of Yugoslavia. Macedonia had (peacefully) seceded from the SFRY 10 years before its conflict began. BalkanFever12:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The insurgency in Macedonia in equally as irrelevant as the Kosovo War with respect to the long-dead state of SFR Yugoslavia. I am talking about the state of SFRY itself, with its Presidency, Executive Council, JNA, etc... Interestedinfairness is talking about its "ghost", apparently. He's quoting a phrase he apparently misunderstood
States and entities that were formerly part of the 1992-dissolved SFRY are still declaring independence from states like the SiCG and Serbia. This brought on the phrase that "Yugoslavia is still breaking-up" and that the process of the breakup of Yugoslavia is "still not complete" (or "just recently complete"). This is not to be taken literally, Interestedinfairness. This is not to mean that the Socialist Federal republic of Yugoslavia somehow still exists. --DIREKTOR(TALK)12:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to get all hot headed my friend. If you ever read a history book you will realize that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke up because of Milosevic. Specifically, his speech made Kosovo in 1989 aroused the suspicions of Slovenia, which led to the war. I fail to see how you don't see that.
Simply put, the way you have divided the wars is ridiculous. You have to realize it was a chain reaction --- a domino affect if you like --- that sparked off all the wars. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)).
How am I not supposed to get "hot-headed"? I've already told you I fully understand the "chain of events" that started with Milošević's "Nitko neće Srbe da bije!" at Kosovo Field (see my statement above: "Events and tensions in Kosovo were an extremely important part of the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia"). How do I explain to you that the "Kosov War" does not equal "all events that happened in Kosovo". Its a war that took place between 1996 and 1999. Milošević's speech and the tensions that took place in Kosovo (1989) were instrumental to the collapse of SFRY, but they are NOT the Kosovo War (1996-1999). The Kosovo War took place after the SFRY ceased to exist. --DIREKTOR(TALK)12:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The SFRY did not break up after the Dayton agreements, it broke up after the Slovenia war, which would mean everything that came
after was part of the same process. You are erroneously making the assumption that the SFYR broke up after the Bosnian war and the
Dayton agreements, probably (not your own fault btw) because you are not aware of Kosovo's status under the SFRY. Kosovo was on an
equal footing to Croatia and Serbia according to Tito's 1974 constitution. The wars in the SFRY were started because of Slobodan's
illegal rebuttal of that constition.
I can understand what your problem is though, because we know that if we do change the sentence "the Yugoslav civil wars can be
split in two groups of several distinct conflicts", then we will then have to change the rest of the article. Fine by me, this
article has the potential to be great, you just need to accept that the war (s) cannot be split into two neat "Slavic" and
I am exceptionally well informed on the 1974 constitution, thanks very much. And I know exactly how independent SAP Kosovo was (almost all rights besides still remaining a de jure part of Serbia, and not having the right to secede from the federation). You're putting words into my mouth again: nowhere did I say the SFRY broke up after Dayton, it broke up in 1992.
Either way, your statements continue to be irrelevant. The independent status of SAP Kosovo is irrelevant in this discussion. And it does not matter whether Yugoslavia broke up in 1991, 1992, or 1995, its still well before the Kosovo War (1996-1999). This is not about the "equality" of Kosovo you seem to be bent on defending, this is about the fact that the Kosovo War simply took place long after the SFRY dissolved. --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It has everything to do with the 1974 constitution.
As well informed as you seem to be, there is one thing I have to pick you up on. You claim that Kosovo did not have the right to secede from the federation, this is false. On matters related to the constitution (which included secession no doubt), Kosovo had equal voting rights as all the other members. The whole territory under the Kosovo constitution, which had been adopted by virtue of the Federal Constitution upon which it was based, could not be altered without Kosovo's consent. Even a change in the external borders of Yugoslavia, guaranteed by international law, required the consent of Kosovo.
Thus, my point is that the disintegration of the SFRY did not occur until Kosovo "split" from Serbia, as it did after the Kosovo war.
I don't see why your hell bent on keeping the current format, all it does is separate the wars into two seemingly un-related events.
The article is called "Yugoslav wars" which clearly implies that they are linked. Your format seperates the "Slav" conflicts
against the "Albanian ones" and no other authors seem to be making this distinction.
I think we should try and gain some consensus here.
Just to let you all know, there is about a 7000 deaths difference in the infobox from the one given at Kosovo War, and no reference for the number given over here. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't have time now, but we have to find a way to unite two columns into one. The issue is too sensitive... --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yugoslav wars template
Started work on the Template:Infobox Yugoslav wars all help and input appreciated. I used a smaller lead image than the Vukovar thing, we need to keep this as concise as possible to avoid swamping the right side of the article. --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll help filling it in, but only when you're offline otherwise we'll keep getting edit conflicts. So, let me know when you log off.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I left a post at WikiProject Military History, hoping they might help or point us towards someone knowledgeable in syntax [11]. Logging off :) --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent job, but guys lets not turn this into a fight over "who's war is better" :P. We agree that Macedonia and Preševo aren't very significant (minor confrontations)? And if we agree that Slovenia was important politically, then we have four wars to depict. By scale, these are #1 Bosnian War, #2 Croatia, #3 Kosovo, #4 Slovenia.
Now, Bosnia should get two out of six squares, maybe Dayton and the Grbavica suburbs of Sarajevo (see latter image here).
Croatia is best depicted by the Vukovar tower, which could take up two squares since its kind of big (probably in the top right corner).
Kosovo'll have any image Interestedinfairness wants I guess :)
And Slovenia should probably get the cool-looking JNA tank column.
When I say "Bosnia", "Croatia", "Kosovo", I mean the wars, not the states. The images depict the conflicts. the JNA tanks are "Serbian", Grbavica is a Serbian suburb, Dayton is everyone's. The Vukovar tower is a symbol of a battle Serbs won, and... what's the Kosovo image? Pick a "cool"-looking, neutral one if possible. --DIREKTOR(TALK)20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In the place of the Dayton image, maybe we can use the one with the tank and the soldier PRODUCER used already? --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
First represents the 10 day war, second represents the Croatian war,
third represents the Bosnian war, fourth represents all,
Yes I got that, but could you just replace that ruined house and the NATO bombing image with the Vukovar tower then? I feel too much emphasis is given on the NATO bombings, they were minor campaigns compared to the actual war that was fought everywhere. --DIREKTOR(TALK)22:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so we all seem to pretty much agree on the new lead picture, but what about the new infobox? Where can we edit it now? Are we still carrying on with the new template? And, has anyone noticed that the new template showing now spans too much? Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Interestedinfairness, it's not just me that is opposed to your rewrite of the lead, I also already briefly explained to you the mechanics of lead sections in the past (in a section that you chose to delete on your talk page), so I think you should drop your attention grabbing lead edits and get into the co-operative spirit of Wikipedia. Again, leads should only be rewritten when a tag requesting a better lead has been placed. You take up too much of editor's time on talk pages, again and again requiring full explanaitions on simple little things, so don't wonder why I won't respond to you anymore and why I place "don't feed the trolls" pics after you come out with some of your delirious comments. You don't need blocking, shunning will work just as well until you change your ways. Allright? You have one more chance to communicate with me, but after that I won't respond anymore. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are not learned enough to make serious comments or edits on some of the topics you are criticizing. You know nothing about the mechanics of the Wars but you try to hide your ignorance by citing Wikipedia rules. I suggest you take a look at the Ignore all rules page.
Besides, lead is already being discussed on this page, and I await comments on the revised version which combines the previous version with some of my changes.
To reiterate; just because you have no background knowledge whatsoever on the topic, does not give you the right to call any one a troll or "attention grabbing". So please refrain from personal attacks on a talk page that is reserved for the Yugoslav Wars".
Interestedinfainess ("IF" in the following txt :), here's what I see:
1) You made an edit that you knew was contested by users.
2) That edit was reverted (see WP:BOLD) because of the legitimate concerns voiced by other users.
3) You continued to push this edit with edit-warring (see WP:EW), while stating that the previous revert was made "for the sake of it" (which is obviously misleadingly untrue).
and
4) now you're trying to discredit both User:Brutaldeluxe and myself as persons with "no background knowledge whatsoever", which is arrogant as well as untrue. In our previous discussion, you claimed that I did not know a number of facts, while I kept repeating that I do indeed know everything that you mentioned and a lot more. Regardless, you kept ignoring this and repeated that, for example, "I do not know how independent SAP Kosovo was" or "I don't know about the significance of Kosovo in the rise of Serbian nationalism", which are both absurd. It can be concluded from this that you have an unreasonably high opinion of your advantage in knowledge over other involved users. Do not be so quick in presuming your "superiority" over others.
Brutaldeluxe, while your position in the article is correct (in my opinion), your stance here on the talkpage is flawed. "Do not feed the trolls"? The man is here to make an edit in the article, you are opposed to that edit, so you just post "Do not feed the trolls" and wait for him to do it before you join the debate? He's not a behaving like a "troll", and neither am I. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand your actions, but lets concentrate on the issue... --DIREKTOR(TALK)12:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Interestedinfairness, the impression that a person gets from your posts is that you somehow think you are "defending" the equality of the Kosovar struggle with that of the other wars addressed in this article. You seem to think that others are trying to diminish the importance of the Kosovo War by placing it into a different category with the Bosnian and Croatian wars. This is not so. Objectivity is a quality I hold in high regard, and I'm sure other involved users are not at all biased.
That said, there isn't a single reason why your edit should be pushed through simply because you "fancy" it. The previous organization has been here for quite a while, and is by no means "wrong". If other users are opposed to your edit, I ask you to please do the honorable thing and help "defuse" this situation by returning the previous version until we've concluded discussions. Discuss proposals for controversial changes before making them. In the meantime, could you please explain why your opinion here is better than that of others?
Let me assure you, unless you can convince people here and gain consensus on the talkpage, your edit won't stick. --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Interestedinfairness, there is no need for that "...including Kosovo" in your edit. Also, as I see from Yugoslavia article, it wasn't a republic. And there is no agreement it is a republic now. --windyhead (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Windyhead, I agree with Interestedinfairness as far as NATO bombings are concerned. These are campaigns, and are part of the conflict in who's context they took place. It is arguable wether they should be listed as seperate "Yugoslav wars" at all. --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This Slavic-Albanian distinction in the "grouping" of the wars I have never seen been made before. But if we can't get passed that then it will have to stay in the lead. I have highlighted some of my proposed changes to the lead which I don't feel are too profound to arouse opposition:
The Yugoslav Wars were a series of violent conflicts in the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) that took place between 1991 and 2001.
Beginning in 1990, Yugoslavia was on the brink of disintegration. In the midst of economic hardship, the country was facing rising nationalism amongst its various ethnic groups. At the last Communist party conference in Belgrade, the congress voted for an end to the one-party system, as well as economic reform, which prompted the Slovenian and Croatian delegations to walk out and thus the break-up of the party.[9] The Yugoslav wars may be considered as comprising of two sets of successive wars affecting all of the six former Yugoslav republics, including the territory of Kosovo. They were characterized by biter ethnic conflicts between the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between Serbs on the one side and Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians on the other; but also between Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia and Macedonians and Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia.
I for one applaud your show of good will, Interestedinfairness. It is not often one finds Users willing to compromise and acknowledge other points of view. Your proposed lead changes seem perfectly alright to me. How's the current state of the infobox? I'm thinking "good enough". --DIREKTOR(TALK)23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I would have to disagree, pointing towards my earlier arguments and that i feel it isn't an improvement, rather the opposite. --Nirvana77 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Background info is necessery and my edits are legitmiate according to Wikipedia rules of making edits after gaining a consensus.
Your edits defy logic because the bulk of my revision kept the article the same, all that was added was more info that other users would agree is necessary.
This article was in need of some attention from users with more knowledge and you cannot be all cavalier about it and just revert without explaining your reasons.
If I may, I'd like to hear feedback on the current state of the infobox. I've fixed it up and separated it into the two periods in which combat takes place: 1991-1995, and 1998-2001.
On a related note, PRODUCER, could you put together a lead image without the ugly Krajina house, and that includes the Vukovar tower? The bombed house in Belgrade isn't really of significance either I'd say, and I was hoping for a lead image in which two squares would incorporate that tower. I don't think a burnt house represents the war in Croatia very well. --DIREKTOR(TALK)23:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the images but if we're gonna let a war use two squares, I think the image to the right would be better than a water tower (two long pics would'nt look good). PRODUCER (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right, its a legendary pic - a symbol. How's this: we insert both.
Um, the second link is dead, and I can't see how the first image fits in. It shows actual celebration of one side of its victory over the other. Its too "biased" in my opinion. It certainly doesn't trump Albanian/Serbian combat footage from the war(s). --DIREKTOR(TALK)01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Give me a day or two to look for a good one. The one your proposing is related to the Presevo war (as you know), and does not represent the main Albanian engagement in the war (s). Besides, the image isn't all that exciting, I'm sure there are really good ones out there, give me a day or two to look for a good one. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)).
War rape
Please give source for states like:
"The majority of the rape victims were Muslim women raped by Serbian soldiers."
"Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosnian Muslims, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs. There are few reports of rape and sexual assault between members of the same ethnic group." - Nations Commission on Breaches of Geneva Law in Former YugoslaviaPRODUCER (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Please help me by translating the word treba?a. Do SAO refer to Republic of Serbian Krajina?--Dans (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
the symbol of all Germanic people? Have you read Flag of Albania? It says "The national flag of Albania is a red flag with a silhouette black two-headed eagle in the center." The national flag of Albania, not the flag of all Albanians, I'm not sure that Arbereshes use it. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnic_Clensing.JPG){kind=link}
