Talk:Croatian War of Independence/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Images should not sandwich text on both sides

Per GA criteria, images should not sandwich text on both sides. I have fixed nearly all problems during the process in these past days, but some problems still remains in sections: 'Escalation of the conflict' & '1995: End of the war'. I will delete two pictures from the article: 'Shelling of Osijek by the Yugoslav People's Army' & 'Map of Operation Flash'. There are some space in '1993: Croatian military advances' (left-below), and in 'First armed incidents' (left-below) if somebody want's to return these two images, although that is not thear appropriate section. Kebeta (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think those images "sandwiched" the text to such a big extent. Maybe we can achieve a compromise and use a double image of Osijek and Dubrovnik with a text that talks about the shelling? On a different note, I consider it a mistake to remove the table with the timeline of events. I understand it was done to shorten the article, but it was useful to have an overview of the events.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the Osijek image is really worth the trouble - if it were a better one, then it would be a worthwhile effort.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I also don't think that one building in Osijek (a big picture showing little information) can be compered with UNESCO city of Dubrovnik. If there is some better image of Osijek ruins, or .... then.... Kebeta (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with it. Unless you want the Dubrovnik image to be larger. Maybe you could let the Dubrovnik image stand alone and let something else be done in a double image with Osijek. It illustrates that the war zone also spilled over to the territories that did not fall under the Krajina control in 1991.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The image of the damaged building in Osijek is not problematic per se, but it is a far cry from other images already in the article (Vukovar, Dubrovnik). If there was a dramatic image of damage in Osijek - say destroyed bridge across Drava - that would be fine. Which brings me to another issue would a scanned non-free image of that bridge (destroyed) be acceptable as fair use? If so, I'll get one... As far as the present image of Osijek goes, I'd like to remove it, if there's no serious objection, until we have an equally good image of Osijek for the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can remove it if you insist, since you managed to replace it with a far better one, that of Dubrovnik. As far as the destroyed bridge image is concerned, is it your own photo or from someone else? There could be problems with licensing if it is not a public domain image.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I also replaced the infobox image since it was inaccurate - it showed no occupied territory around Dubrovnik. Furthermore, the new image is a SVG map, so the article shall probably load a bit faster. The toponyms selected for inclusion on the map are all mentioned in the article, to allow better understanding of the geographical references to readers not familiar with the region.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem with simple images is that they are simple :) The RSK map described RSK at circa 1995. To make things match the entire war, you need a time scale. Just like the Dubrovnik situation, SAO WS once covered much of Papuk and Psunj, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
True. That's why I opted for January 1992 situation, as that's when the front lines stabilized for the best part, and that period represents the greatest territorial extent of occupation (apart from short-lived occupation of areas north of Pakrac, you mentioned). To recap, I believe this best serves to illustrate the article as subsequent territorial changes in 1992-1995 (pre Flash/Storm) are relatively minor and the aforementioned occupation of W Papuk was fairly short lived - anyway all of those are detailed by this article and dedicated articles. Again, this is a simple image serving as illustration - nobody will drive according to this map :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and the greatest motivation was to put the toponyms used in the article on the map to allow readers not familiar with geography of the region to put the geo-references in some context.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Great new image, both accurate and simple. Tomobe03 really made small wonders out of this article.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but if there ever was a truly group effort, this is it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Territorial changes...

...are described in the infobox as "Croatian government gains full control of Croatia". I see two problems:

  • Croatia gained independence in the war (hence its name), not just "full control" (as if it already had it before).
  • It is a bit of a tautology, because, ultimately, Croatia would consist of whichever territories the government gained full control of. Here, "full" means "exactly the AVNOJ borders, i.e. the territory of SR Croatia".

I may be nitpicking a bit. It would be somewhat difficult to explain all this in the infobox anyway, so perhaps an annotation would be in order here.

BTW, that's an excellent progress with the article... Haven't scanned it fully, but it looks pretty advanced. GregorB (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a bit confusing. I guess the problem is that when the war started (March 1991 - according to article), parts of Croatia (or AVNOJ borders of Croatia) were already occupied by SAO's. Hence, "Croatian government gains full control of Croatia". Feel free to improve it. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that's tautology and potentially confusing. Let's face it, the best answer to question "What were territorial changes resulting from the war?" would be: "Independence of Croatia from SFR Yugoslavia". An annotation may explain that the borders defined in 1947 were preserved. On the second note if that is (and I believe it is) the correct phrase on territorial changes, shouldn't the infobox specification of belligerents include SFR Yugoslavia (after all JNA was army of SFR Yugoslavia, no matter who influenced/controlled it - the article has details on that issue). Finally, speaking of the belligerents, is there a point or purpose of division of the belligerents into 1991-92/1992-94/1994-95? There's no clear cutoff for either of the periods (apart from the last one) and all of those that are not involved throughout the war are explained in the annotations, which may be expanded to say which exact periods those are concerned with. After all, WW2 has no such divisions. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the second question, I'm also not sure why (S)FRY is not included as the belligerent. Naturally, when the army of one country is involved in a war, that country is the beligerent. It would be like stating that the UK, France, USA, Denmark, Germany and others never attacked Serbia in 1999, just NATO. In the Bosnian War infobox, FRY is included, not just the Yugoslav People's Army. Regarding the third question, I guess it's all right because it gives an overview of when the Yugoslav People's Army ended its involvment in the war in 1992.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
JNA ended its direct involvement in the war in 1992, which is an important fact. The exact year might be: 1) spelled out in the infobox, 2) mentioned in an appropriate annotation, or 3) left for the article proper. I'd say 1) or 2) is preferable over 3), but, frankly, all three choices are acceptable.
SFRY was a belligerent, that's abundantly clear, although our esteemed colleagues at hr.wikipedia disagree... GregorB (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, reliable sources referenced in the article clearly state that the SFRY presidency clarified an ultimatum to disarm and directed at least strategic movements of the JNA, therefore SFRY involvement is as clear as it gets.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, it should be noted that the statement is actually not correct. Croatia did not, in fact, gain full control of its borders by the end of the War - we're forgetting UNTAES and eastern Slavonia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right. And there's Prevlaka on top of that, so the entire story is much too complicated for the infobox. GregorB (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. How about having the infobox say simply "none"? If that's OK, I could change that and explain UNTAES/UNMOP in an annotation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
After a more careful consideration, perhaps it would be the best to say two things in that place: "Dissolution of SFR Yugoslavia; No changes to borders of Croatia"... That avoids the "full control", UNTAES/UNMOP and related issues, requiring virtually no additional annotation. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Even though the change recently made in respect of this issue contains accurate information (expelled forces, UNTAES), those specified are not territorial changes - therefore I disagree with this solution.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with DIREKTOR's change. "Croatia expels the rebel Serb forces..." is not a "territorial change". What the infobox should state is: "Croatia gains sovereignty and control of its territory" with the annotation that the Eastern part was reintegrated in 1998, but was made possible exclusively thanks to its victory in the war.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that sovereignty should be kept out of that too and we should stick to territorial changes. Once again, comparing situation before and after the war to determine territorial changes, one can only conclude that SFRY dissolved (situation on the ground and the Badinter Arbitration Committee point to the conclusion) and no changes to the territory of Croatia occurred (situation on the ground and provisions of Erdut Agreement indicate so) - and those two are the only issues pertaining to territorial changes. Other issues, no matter how accurate, should not be in the field that says "territorial changes" - UNTAES/UNMOP may be specified in an annotation to the field as they pertain to control of a part of the territory, but since their mandate was stipulated as provisional they do not really amount to territorial changes.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but SFRY didn't dissolve only because of Croatia's independence, but also due to Slovenia's. The territorial change is thus that it became a sovereign state. That's my only grip, I agree with everything else what you wrote.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that SFRY did not dissolve only because of Croatian independence, but that was an integral and very significant part of the dissolution (it might be argued that if there were no Slovenian and Croatian independence declarations, which were coordinated, at least in terms of timing, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Macedonia would not declare independence either) and should be listed as a territorial change (properly annotated). Sovereignty over territory is tautology since Croatian government would have sovereignty over whatever territory is included in borders of Croatia, and territorial changes really apply to changes of borders IMO. Similarly, UNTAES and UNMOP should be mentioned in an accompanying annotation as provisional limits of such sovereignty.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: had Krajina and Republika Srpska gained independence, that would also qualify as dissolution of SFRY. SFRY did beak apart, but the republics kept their borders intact. So maybe something like "Dissolution of SFRY, Croatia's borders remain intact" would be better suited.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what I proposed seven paragraphs ago :) I'll change that shortly if nobody has a better idea.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sake...

  • This war was a consequence of the breakup of Yugoslavia, certainly not vice versa.
  • Slovenia's declaration of independence is virtually insignificant in comparison to Croatia's, it was frequently commented by observers that Yugoslavia was entirely feasible without Slovenia or Macedonia, but certainly had no future if one of the three core republics, Croatia, Serbia, or Bosnia and Herzegovina, were to leave. I don't want to offend anyone's nationalist sensibilities here but in all objectivity, Yugoslavia broke-up with Croatia's secession. However - this fact is entirely without significance to the discussion at hand.
  • "Croatia's borders were intact"? What does that even mean? Croatia's legal borders remained the same since 1943 and remained the same throughout the war, they never even came into question. The only change that took place with the war was that Croatia gained control over most, but not all, of its territory. In 1995 you still have the rebel Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia in Croatian territory, which only came under UNTAES control in 1996, and was integrated into Croatia as late as 1998.

The outcome(s) of this war are as follows: 1) Croatian government gains control over the vast majority of Croatian territory held by rebel Serbs, with the remaineder coming under UNTAES control; 2) Serb forces are expelled and the majority of Croatian Serbs leave Croatia; and 3) Croatian forces rapidly advance into Serb-held regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina forcing an end to the Bosnian War.
That's it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We can tripple the amount of information in the infobox, but that won't make it better, just messed up. Most wars leave a bunch of consequences, but we should name only the most important ones. Territorial changes - clear, SFRY was dissolved and Croatia gained sovereignty/ full control of its territory/ its borders remained unchanged (compared to the one it had in SFRY). Croatian Serbs did leave Croatia, but that is already mentioned further down in the infobox, which meantions refugees on both sides. DIREKTOR, you should not mistake "Territorial changes" with "Outcome". I certainly agree with Tomobe03's edit: it is valid and gives a good overview of what happened after the war. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As for 1) Croatia declared independence after the first armed conflicts. It is true that the war escalated after the declaration of independence, but it was certainly in existence before Croatia formally declared independence. As for 2) I agree that Yugoslavia could have went on without one or more republics, but the situation on the ground was that four out of six republics declared their independence during the war (events not necessarily linked to the war, but arguably influenced by it) and the Badinter Arbitration Committee said that in November 1991 - January 1992 SFR Yugoslavia dissolved, inter alia, due to Slovenian and Croatian independence votes. As for 3) that means that they did not change when situation before March 1991 and after November 1995 is compared. Of course the borders are the same since 1947 (by demarcation committees, not in 1943) but the first two dates specified are important here. Erdut Agreement and UNSC resolution 1037 define the territory as Croatian, the UN mandate as temporary and define the outcome as transfer to Croatian control. Furthermore expelling forces, civilians or troops leaving a country and UN mandates do not constitute territorial changes and should not be in this field at all. All of these issues are quite comprehensively addressed by the article itself.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What are we talking about? Yes, the war came before Croatia's secession but that does not mean the breakup of Yugoslavia came about as a consequence of it. In fact it does not make sense. The Breakup of Yugoslavia is a HUGE process taking place long before the joint Croatian/Slovene secession. Its a complete reversal of the cause-effect chain. Yugoslavia's dissolution lasted since 1987 and finally culminated in the Croatian/Slovene secssion, causing the war.
  • "Croatian government gains control over the vast majority of Croatian territory held by rebel Serbs, with the remaineder coming under UNTAES control." 2) These are "territorial changes". "Territorial changes" means "changes in control of the territory", nothing more nothing less. I am aware of the subject of discussion.
  • The departure (notice I'm carefully avoiding the term "ethnic cleansing") of ethnic Croatian Serbs is an extremely significant outcome of the war, just as any displacement of several hundreds of thousands of people would be, and indisputably warrants inclusion in the infobox. It is well covered in the text, of course, but I do not see the importance of that fact, since every single other piece of infobox information is also very well covered in the text.
    The Croatian/RBiH advance into Bosnia and Herzegovina, leading to Dayton, is probably the MAIN and CENTRAL outcome of this war: it is the reason why Operation Storm was made possible by American/NATO military assistance in the first place.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The departure of Serb population due to the effects of the war is one in a series of significant human migrations that happened during the war, and also one that was significantly amended in the following period (of comparable length). To say that this migration is the only one significant enough to be among the results of the war would be disparaging to the other migrations (also amended in later periods), which were at least comparable in size and impact. It would also conceivably imply that the war was actually fought to achieve this result, disregarding the similar interpretations of other migrations. This would be - well, I can't really put this in a less inflammatory manner - playing to the tune of Slobodan Milošević. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Separate combatant authority

Further, guys please pay attention to what constitutes a "combatant authority" for Wikipedia infobox use

  • Serb paramilitaries are NOT a separate combatant authority.
  • The HVO is NOT a separate combatant authority.
  • SFR Yugoslavia had no control over the JNA and is not a combatant authority. A good example of this was Yugoslav President Stipe Mesić's authority over the the JNA - or the utter comical lack of it. And particularly since Croatia was a part of the country at that time (Croatia seceded in October of 1991), by which time we are talking about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia rather than the SFRJ.
  • The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a subdivision part of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (RBiH) at that time as well. It is NOT a separate combatant authority.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Sombody really messed the infobox up... and after all the time it took me to fix it up properly :(

  • The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina did NOT engage in the fighting in Croatia in the 1991-92 period.
  • Who placed an image square in the middle of the article lead contrary to WP:MoS?
  • I'd like someone to find me a single military conflict infobox in the whole of enWiki with more notes. The enthusiasm is commendable, but that is not what infoboxes are for, and it is not how they are used.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Warbox info, it says: "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article."
So, my interpretation is that a paramilitary unit is allowed to be listed in the infobox. As for the Yugoslav Army, that was brought up a couple of weeks ago. Isn't it odd that an army can participate in a war, but the army's country is supposedly not a belligerent? By that logic, USA was never at war with Iraq, just its army. I'm aware this was a bizarre case where the Yugoslav Army didn't listen to Mesic, but that needs to be clarified a little bit more. What do you suggest?
What image square? You mean the Vukovar water tower?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The section heading says belligerents - any group or entity engaged in hostile operations is considered a belligerent. (includes paramilitaries, HVO and FBiH)
What do you mean SFR Yugoslavia had no authority over the JNA? Sure Stjepan Mesić, when commander in chief was ignored, but MoD and the General staff appears to have exceptional control when they sent General Panić to E Slavonia theater of operations to assume command (which he did) or when personnel was sent from or to Bosnia and Herzegovina in May 1992 or indeed while paying the army personnel from the MoD budget.
Remark about the multitude of notes is non sequitur. As you yourself pointed out, things were, in this case, a bit complicated, hence the notes. Where can I read about a limit on the notes?
Bosnia and Herzegovina did not engage in the conflict within Croatia, but rationale for inclusion is in this Talk page.
As for the image in the lead, an editor once told me: the MoS is a guideline, not a scripture. Unless the GAN reviewer singles it out as a dealbreaker, I don't see it as problematic.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a completely unnecessary violation of several cardinal MoS guidelines. If such an edit is disputed, and it is since it just plain makes the article look disorganized, I don't see what there is to discuss here. ("Square in the middle" is an expression, yes I mean the water tower.)
  • The HVO is the military of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia. If the HVO engaged in combat on Croatian territory, please include the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia as a combatant, but first please show that this actually happened
  • The JNA was an entity of its own, as we all know, and fought not under the command of SFR Yugoslavia, but under the command of Milošević, i.e. specific republics (namely SR Serbia and SR Montenegro).
  • The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was and is a subdivision of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (RBiH). The combatant is the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (RBiH)
  • You are of course allowed to list your grandma (no offence) as a combatant if you like, its a "free encyclopedia", but what is usually done is we list actual combatant authorities. The paramilitaries were fully integrated into the JNA and later SAO Krajina command, and it is just nonsense to list them in such a manner anyway ("Serb paralimitaries" means absolutely nothing). There were a great many "paramilitary" formations in the War, Croatian ones as well.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There was no HR HB in 1992. Even when it was set up it never formally declared itself separate from BiH. Please check facts before editing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Before June 25, 1992 Croatia was subdivision of SFR Yugoslavia. Following the logic applied to F BiH, should we remove Croatia as well? After the Washington agreement the authority previously referred to as R BiH actually became F BiH.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid "as we all know" does not cut it here. The JNA did not overthrow federal government or declare military rule. The sources say it was still controlled by (Serbia influenced or controlled) federal institutions - e.g. federal presidency clarified what a JNA ultimatum means in 1991.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I resent the haughty tone in your post. I am fully aware of all the facts, more so than yourself I might venture: the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia was proclaimed on November 18 1991.
Lets not play games, shall we? Croatia was a sovereign republic. FBiH was a just-established "political entity", and anyway, it had no army of its own whatsoever so it cannot possibly be included as a combatant.
"Federal institutions"? The only "federal institution" with any legal power over the JNA was the Yugoslav Federal Presidency, the president of which was Stipe Mesić (30 June 1991–6 December 1991). The very idea that he or the presidency controlled the JNA is a joke. Literally. Mesić himself stated (in one of his famous "jokes" :)) that he had more control over the Finnish Army than the JNA. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No such tone intended. Sorry if it came off that way. Croatian Community and Croatian Republic HB are two things. Neither of them declared themselves independent of BiH. Claiming that F BiH was not a combatant since it had no army of its own is not factually correct, as the Washington Agreement setting up the Federation provided for Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and HVO as its armed forces. (remember Croatia had no army in March 1991) The fact that it was just-established detracts nothing from its status of a belligerent. Federal bodies controlling the JNA were the General staff and the MoD which functioned perfectly, albeit taking commands from Milošević instead the presidency (just as the four Serb controlled presidency members did).--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"Federal institutuions" is a word game. Neither was the General Staff under the command of Mesić and the Presidency of SFR Yugoslavia, and neither was the MoD under the control of Marković and the Government of SFR Yugoslavia.
FBiH is a powerless subdivision with no military. The HVO took its orders from Tuđman, and the ARBiH answered directly to the RBiH government. The RBiH is the combatant authority in that it represents the (marginal) ARBiH involvement around Bihać during Storm. The HVO took little or no part in the fighting in Croatia.
LoL, they are not two different things. They are the same entity with a small insignificant name change. In any case: do not list HVO, list Herzeg-Bosnia.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
These are essentially echos from the corresponding hr wikipedia talk page: "SFRY was not a belligerent, because the country was already dissolved by 1991, and JNA was acting on its own". Yet, SFRY maintained its territorial integrity until mid-1991, and was until that time (more or less) able to mobilize recruits for the JNA in its entire territory, something that broken-up countries cannot do. GregorB (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(UTC) DIREKTOR, some of your points are valid, but some are not. In the infobox, under category Result, Croatian victory is sufficient. The three informations you gave can be added in annotations. Next, Territorial changes is OK, though I prefer Tomobe03's version. Next, Belligirents. I quoted the guidelines in the warbox which can be interpreted as paramilitary units or formations. You never responded to that post. Likewise, I still wonder how an army can participate in a war, but its country - which gives it weapons, amunition, food supplies, salaries, logistical support... - is somehow "detached" from it. You will need to prove that Yugoslavia was not a belligerent. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Annotations? This is the most ridiculously annotation-swamped infobox on Wikipedia. This is not how its done. All annotations should be removed forthwith, let alone more added.
Frankly, you're being disrespectful towards other people's good-faith effort to follow the verifiability policy. The annotations may well be an overkill, but I fail to see how this excess amount of referencing could ever be so against the policy that they would have to be treated worse than unreferenced material (which isn't removable per se). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As to how you fellas may "prefer" things is irrelevant, we're discussing factuality, not personal preferences. "Croatia's borders were intact" just makes no sense at all. We are to state changes, not just list facts that simply remained the same ("Zagreb remained the capital of Croatia", "Sarma remained a popular dish in Croatia".. :)). At the start of the War Croatia was not in control over all of its territory, at its end - it was in control over most of it. Those are the territorial changes. That's it.
Which army can participate in a war without its country? Answer: an army outside the control of the country. And you also just answered your own question: did the whole of Yugoslavia support the JNA is its invasion of Croatia ("food supplies, salaries, logistical support")? Or was it just SR Serbia and SR Montenegro?
Territorial integrity means nothing with regard to control over the military, and those same institutions which (as Gregor says) remained intact - had no control over it. Are we seriously contesting that the JNA was in fact taking orders from Milošević, the President of Serbia, rather than any federal SFRY institution?
And fellas keep in mind my rep is I'm annoying, uncouth, and abrasive - but I'm usually right (which ironically makes me even more annoying) :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Since you have been refuted in the Yugoslav wars talkpage, where a majority of sources proved that Kosovo war is part of the aforementioned, even though you never even tried to explain it ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), you will have to excuse me to not take you word for it, but rather evidence.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not this time, you're not right. As extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, please provide evidence that JNA was totally out of control of the Yugoslav bodies (remember MoD is a nominally civilian institution), how was not supported by federal budget (even 1992 budged did so, appropriating 84% of funds for the JNA), and how do you explain that the Yugoslav presidency clarified a JNA ultimatum. The federation had its bodies and the issue here is if they were involved in the war or not - whether any republics other than Serbia and Montenegro supported that is not since the two controlled four out of eight presidency votes. As far as annotations are concerned, warboxes are known to contain them, so please specify where we can all educate ourselves and read about such a limitation. Likewise, MoS does not prohibit anything but a left aligned image in the first paragraph. Non-country belligerents are also present in warboxes elsewhere. If you consider yourself an authority because you say so, that's not how it's done. Ample sources cited here prove you wrong.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

@Justice. Straw man: I'm not asking you to "take my word for it". Everything I said above is a demonstrable fact and you all basically know it. Why you went there I can't understand. And frankly I am not at all interested in Kosovo at the moment, Justice. If I wanted to list some of the 43,000 sources on the Yugoslav Wars [6] which do not even mention Kosovo I would have, but frankly I just could not spare the time back then. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

@Tomboe "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Yeah, and "with great power comes great responsibility" :P.
Milošević was in control of the federal treasury. And Mesić was not in control of the army. The army entered Croatia and granted support to Krajina Serbs without any orders from Mesić's presidency or ANY federal institution whatsoever. Are these disputed facts? Do you find them "extraordinary" and surprising? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Justice are not called for. And I asked for proof yet you give us "I tell you so" and go on cherrypicking one aspect of the issue ignoring all others that you don't like. Besides, the presidency did in fact clarify [[7]] a JNA issued ultimatum for Croatian forces to disarm and informed Croatian president about it directly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack? Tomobe, you might be interested in this article.
I'm frankly at a loss as to what the link you provided has to do with the fact that Milošević was in charge of the army. Particularly since that article is two months prior to the start of the war, and before Mesić became President. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My, forget the Straw-man argument, I got the feeling as if I entered the Chewbacca defense.

Actually, you did quite the opposite...these 43.000 sources all mention Kosovo as part of the Yugoslav wars. So much about you being usually right. But I'm still waiting for you to answer my question regarding the paramilitary units. Namely, Krajina Army fought in the war. That is not contested. Yugoslav Army fought in the war. We all agree on that, too. But there was also a substantial amount of paramilitary forces which fought in the war (some even mentioned in several United Nations reports), which should be mentioned in the infobox. And I still haven't heard why they were removed from the infobox.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(Chewbacca defense? I don get the connection...? Where did I use a red herring?)
Justice... when someone types "-Kosovo" in any Google search engine, the Google search engine avoids hits that even mention the word "Kosovo". Such a search presented 43,000 hits. What are you talking about?
That said, I shall have to repeat I do not particularly care to enter another topic about that endless Wiki meat grinder - Kosovo. Discussing Kosovo topics is a full-time job, and I don't think anyone's hiring :P. Can we get back on topic? Pls?
The paramilitary forces (which were not nearly as "substantial" as the war propaganda on both sides made them out to be) were fully and entirely integrated into the JNA and RSK military comamnd structure. Therefore, they were not independent combatant authorities. What else can I say? For example, listing them is like listing Croatia - and then also listing the Croatian police (which also took part in the war). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not, is it so common that a police force fights in an actual war? Besides, you still did not answer any of my last questions except saying "with great power comes great responsibility", an "'cause I say so" claim and some cherrypicking?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR: One of your hits include this:The Yugoslav Wars: Slovenia & Croatia 1991-95 By Nigel Thomas, Krunoslav Mikulan, Darko Pavlović. They mention Croatia and Slovenia...in part 1. But there is also part 2: The Yugoslav Wars: Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia 1992-2001 by Nigel Thomas,K. Mikulan,Darko Pavlović. Another hit mentions Yugoslavia as history: twice there was a country By John R. Lampe. In Chapter 12, it mentions Kosovo. Etc. Superficial search. It's like doing a search for Roman wars without Gallic wars.
There are 43,000 of them, Justice... mentioning Kosovo ≠ mentioning the Kosovo War. Also what, pray tell, are the "Roman Wars"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Going back to the topic again. Regarding the paramilitary units, if they were not so substantial, why is this United Nations report [8] bothering to even mentions them? They were indeed integrated into the JNA/RSK command structure, but that doesn't mean they a part of them, they just backed them up. They were a separete, secretly established military entity (read the indictment against Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović), hence the name paramilitary. And now I turn your attention to 2006 Lebanon war (not any kind of article, but a good article) which mentions Hezbollah and other paramilitary formations as belligirents. Therefor, paramilitary formations should be included here, too.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
@Tomobe. You're right, it is not particularly common - but we do not list combatants there on the basis of them being "uncommon". Straw man again. :) The point is that the "Croatia" entry covers all units and military organizations under the command of Croatia.
I'm sorry about my incomplete response earlier, I felt I addressed the main point regarding your assertions of my position being unsourced. I fear I found the post somewhat motley as well. Could you reiterate the key points?
@Justice. Because, while the "paramilitaries" were indeed militarily insignificant, they were also a bunch of marauding thugs that killed civilians all over the place. However, pay attention to the fact that my comment on them being not-so-substantial was written in brackets () - that was not my main point regarding their inclusion. They are completely included in the JNA and RSK entries, just as the Croatian police is included in the Croatian entry. The Hezbollah, please note, was NOT included in the Lebanese military command structure. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason to do reiterate - they're right there in this thread. The problem is that one must not pick facts that are one likes or cares for arbitrarily deciding what's right or not. You obviously hold a minority opinion that Yugoslavia was not a belligerent in the Croatian War of Independence and we should by all means discuss that presenting evidence based in reliable sources - common knowledge or obvious truths don't count. In cases of such controversial topics as this, one should discuss changes first. I appreciate your enthusiasm in editing the infobox but for instance the field "result" must contain only words: Croatian victory - everything else is specifically off limits per Warbox. The events you specified under territorial changes are correct, but they are not territorial changes when comparing situation prior and after the war. Yes UNTAES and Erdut Agreement took three years to implement, but nonetheless they do represent recaptured territory - armistice agreements following the World War 1 took more than a year to implement yet nobody questions whether Hungary lost 60% of its territory in that war. Once again I urge you to redo the infobox properly - let's discuss and see what we agree upon right away and let's discuss some more the other things presenting examples used in other articles and reliable sources. I'm unhappy that the infobox is divided into 91-92/92-94/94-95 but I'd never change such a visible part of the article without discussing it in the Talk even though I made hundreds of other edits in the text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no call for such accusations. I do not cherry pick. If I may suggest you organize your posts somewhat more efficiently using bullet points or blank rows, I might miss less in my response? As I said earlier, do you contest that the JNA was in fact under Milošević's control? Or do you maintain that Mesić's Yugoslav presidency or Marković's Yugoslav government actually controlled it? What exactly do you contest?
When the war ended in 1995 the territory in question was part of the Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. The war was long over before the Erdut Agreement was signed in 1996. And even if that were not the case, it was not captured territory. UN control ≠ Croatian control. (Please do not compare the infinitely more complex issue of Versailles with this, one could probably write an essay on all the reasons why your comparison does not make sense.)
As for Warbox use, I assure you: I am very familiar with how to properly use infoboxes, I'm a WikiProject:MilHist member after all :). I mostly wrote this article's rather complex and detailed infobox as well. The format I used for the "results=" parameter is a very common one, see the World War II infobox for example, or the format used for World War I, or the Vietnam War, American Civil War, or Gulf War, etc. etc. I should say, in fact, that the current format is the most commonly used virtually on all high-quality articles, and that it is a significant improvement to have us use it here as well. On the other hand, the overwhelming over-use of notes in the infobox is not something I've encountered anywhere thus far... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Campaign history of the Roman military or sometimes called Roman wars. DIREKTOR, are you seriously claiming that Arkan's Tigers were Yugoslav People's Army Ground Forces? Or part of the Krajina Army? No, they were not. If you look at the article about the Serb Volunteer Guard, you will notice that only in 1996 did Arkan order them to join the Yugoslav Army - which means they were a seperate unit up to it. The same goes for Beli Orlovi, Red Berets and others. They came from Serbia. Croatia is already listed as a belligirent, so there is no need to mention its paramilitary units. However, Serbia is not listed as a belligirent. You mention the military comand structure. But there were more units included in that structure than only Yugoslav People's Army.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Again with the straw men... You are right: Arkan's Tigers were certainly not a part of the JNA - but they were incorporated into the JNA command structure. Is that unclear in some way? For example: the Siege of Vukovar was undertaken by the JNA and nationalist paramilitaries, but the JNA ran the show.
You do make a valid point however: should Serbia be listed as a belligerent? Personally I think not, but I couldn't say it does not make sense. The JNA was essentially, to all intents and purposes, commandeered by SR Serbia, and SR Serbian volunteers joined the fighting. It is, however, a highly controversial point, since Milošević went to great pains to avoid such an appearance. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Article

Congratulations Tomobe03, Kebeta, Joy and others for achieving a good article! There was really a lot of effort invested here and now it pays off. I only wish the review would have been done by someone outside the region, yet the information in the article itself, the "water-proof" sources, the style, intelligence, the sheer amount of data and a neutral tone that keeps its balance really deserved recognition regardless.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This really was a team effort, and I appreciate your involvement as well besides great contributions made by Kebeta and Joy.
Sources were deliberately selected from news coverages of NY Times, LA Times, BBC and British broadsheets as it was intended to reference every claim in the article leaving no room for possible disputes, doubts or claims of non-neutrality. As for region of the reviewer - it really makes no difference here. All editors participated in discussing and formulating a comprehensive to-do list playing devil's advocate at one point or another, to achieve the GA and I was confident that nothing is lacking in respect of the GA criteria regardless of where the editor comes from.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's proper that another Croatian editor promoted this without a single complaint (not even for an unformatted reference in the lead section). Even if we disregard the procedural problems, it just looks way too... preaching to the choir. A fresh set of eyes would be useful to make sure that the scope and the perspective of the article match a worldwide audience. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe so, but that does not really disqualify this reviewer. What course of action do you suggest? Should we get a PR for this article - if the PR reviewer finds problematic issues, he/she may bring those up, and if they are not addressed (unlikely, but let's remain open to that possibility) the reviewer or another editor may always request the GA delisted. I am unfamiliar with this type of situation, so this is just what comes to my mind knowing what I know...--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
On another thought... I see the article is also supported by WP:MILHIST - and they offer reviewing supported articles. Maybe we could take it to them for an A-class review? Even if the article turns out not to be ready for the A-class, the GA criteria should be addressed by such a review. How about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations everybody on the successful GA! I agree that the article covers all GA criteria, although I must agree with Joy that it would be better if somebody else was a GA reviewer. Not because of a reviewer being Croatian editor (which I am OK with, and I respect the editor who has done this review), but because there was no complaints at all. It is possible that the aricle has no complaints during the review, but these are relatively small articles. A big article such as this one, should waken some issues in a more neutral reviewer. Again, I have no objections on the GA or on the reviewer. Congratulations, Kebeta (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense, go ahead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Could you (all three of you) please also take a look at the review page from time to time too...--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No problemo....:-) Kebeta (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations everyone! A remarkable effort (600+ edits in the last two months) and a remarkable end result, especially given the scope of the subject. Okay, so the GA review leaves a bit to be desired... I'm willing to do a thorough reading of the article and post a mini-review here, if you'd find it useful (WPMILHIST review notwithstanding). I'll fix some small and/or uncontroversial stuff along the way. GregorB (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words and the offer, both are greatly appreciated.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"...and thank you Direktore, for your marvelously detailed infobox!"
Why, it was no trouble, Direktor, thank you for noticing. Just serving my country in my modest way, you know... ^_^ --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, yeah, you did a good job, too. The infobox is good. Personally, I think the German and the English version of this article on Wikipedia are (currently) the best. The Croatian version is OK, but some sections are exaggerated and/or not neutral enough (they didn't even list it as part of Yugoslav wars). The Serbian version is a disaster, it seems more like a relic from Milosevic's propaganda. The French version is OK, but too short, way too short. Good thing the article is so comprehensive here, I'm curious to see how this new A-class review will turn up.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Just kidding, JaA, the infobox is an hour's woth of work at best :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello again... My review is underway, and I've just checked with the MILHIST people whether it would be OK to submit it as a part of the A-class review. They answered in the positive, so expect to see it there this evening or maybe tomorrow. GregorB (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for the effort - I'll keep an eye out for the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Me too, Gregor. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Well, when I said "a mini-review", I lied... :-) GregorB (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A duplicate paragraph

There is a duplicate paragraph in the article - "Important factors in Croatia's preservation of its pre-war borders..." once in Electoral and constitutional moves and once in 1991 supporting a paragraph detailing work of Badinter Arbitration Committee. The two are repeated verbatim and one should obviously be removed. I would rather keep the passage together with the Badinter Arbitration Committee as the committee based much of its work on the issues discussed by the paragraph, and there is no point in chronological position for the 1971/1974 events anywhere else in the article (IMO). So if someone has a better idea please say so.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I noticed the misplaced copy earlier I guess... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

sectioning of 1991

As it turns out, I changed the subsections of the 1991 section significantly as I noticed some glaring errors in chronological ordering. (As I was fixing references to Operation Coast-91.) People who discussed the sectioning previously should now reassess it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

For one, I'm fine with your division, except when it comes to title "First skirmishes in Croatia" (the division's fine, the title itself is of concern to me). There's already an earlier subsection on "First armed incidents", so maybe there's another applicable title that would reflect the subject matter of the subsection while avoiding two "firsts". Perhaps it could be "JNA shifts focus to Croatia" or something like that. Alternatively, that subsection could be merged with the next one as it is also an "escalation of the conflict". Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I merged those two, but then shifted the peak-of-the-war border to include the fall of Vukovar. That actually makes even more sense to me now that I look at it. What do you think? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Good call. I would also like to include (by means of moving the title one para up) another paragraph (In response to the 5th JNA Corps advance across Sava River...) since it's chronologically related (Oct-Dec 1991) and includes major shifts of frontlines in W Slavonia. Also, Where do you suppose we could move and merge the sentence (now lower in that para) "In the six months of fighting, 10,000 people had died, hundreds of thousands had fled, and tens of thousands of homes had been destroyed." to avoid having a single sentence paragraph?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Strike that proposed para move. It's not beneficial, as it's really Otkos 10 which ended in Nov 4. But the single sentence para should be dealt with.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, go ahead. I was wary of saying Otkos 10 was part of the peak, because it ended already on November 4th, but now that I re-read the chronology of the Battle of Vukovar, I see that the tipping point of the battle was the first coordinated assault that happened on October 30th.
No idea about the casualty sentence. Maybe move it to the casualties section? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I Don't think the sentence is really needed in casualties section, but I believe I found a good spot for it (I suspect it was originally intended to go there).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The more I think about it this is proper definition of peak of the war - Battle for Vukovar that is. Other events coincide chronologically, but there's more to it than timeline.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, if the article preserves chronology for clarity, then this should too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I know this is nitpicking, but resolution in "Peak of the war and the political resolution" has a ring of completion to me, as if the resolution means end of the war. What do you think of a more indeterminate "Peak of the war and the political developments"?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it refers to the resolution of political status of Croatia... maybe just reduce it to "Peak of the war"? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that would probably be the best solution.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I have a number of concerns about the infobox of the article:

IMO, the article (and sources) indicate involvement of a number of belligerents which are not currently cited by the box right now, although some of those are limited by nature of involvement or period of involvement. Furthermore there are some issues regarding leaders and commanders section of the infobox. I'd like to try to break those down here and see if there's a consensus for changes, if any.

Belligerent Involvement/Notes
JNA (currently listed) Combat operations 1991-1992/JNA was disbanded on May 20, 1992 and transformed into Army of Yugoslavia. Tag "Serb-controlled remnant" implies that JNA split in two or more fractions one of them controlled by Serbs (and presumably the other one(s) by someone else). Since this is not a supported claim, the tag should probably be removed.
SFR Yugoslavia (currently not listed) The article and sources establish ipso facto involvement of SFR Yugoslavia in the war. The country existed at the beginning of the war and the JNA was its army. The JNA was commanded by federal MoD (arguably MoD was commanded illegally as detailed by, among others, Jović diary) and supported by conscripted personnel and money, if nothing else. The fact that the federal presidency failed to make any decisions of consequence has no bearing on existence of the country - Belgium has a caretaker government for a while yet the country undoubtedly exists. Exact date of breakup of Yugoslavia is somewhat impossible to determine: Croatia and Slovenia finally dissolved their links to the federation in October 1991, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia somewhat later, Badinter Committee established only that SFR Yugoslavia is in process of dissolution, international recognition of Croatia occurred generally in January 1992, and Serbia and Montenegro formally reconstituted FRY in April 1992.
FR Yugoslavia (currently not listed) The same argument as above. The JNA was to withdraw from Croatia, but Yugoslav Army units were involved in active combat operations at least in Dubrovnik area. Furthermore, the article establishes FRY/Serbia financial/logistical support for RSK and some military deployments of Yugoslav Army in Vojvodina in support of the RSK.
Serbia (currently not listed) Arguments for Serbian involvement (and listing) is that the article/sources establish its control over the federal MoD (Jović diary and others), over Montenegro, RSK etc. Arguably, Serbia was a part of (rump) SFR Yugoslavia until April 1992, but also involvement of its officials (president, secret police etc.) is also established.

As far as leaders are concerned, warbox has "an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended". Currently there's less than that, but at the moment the infobox specifies two out of three RSK presidents (Goran Hadžić is omitted) and one out of three chiefs of staff. If those were included the recommended seven leaders/commanders would be easily exceeded. Kadijević inclusion is IMO fine, but a total of four persons were either defense ministers or chiefs of staff of JNA/YA in the period (Kadijević (defense min), Adžić (both funct), Panić (both funct), Perišić (chief of staff)). Should any of those be included? Since there is potential overcrowding in that respect, is there any point of retaining Abdić (with established tangential involvement)? Similar issue applies to Dudaković (although no overcrowding occurs there). Also, there's a FRY flag next to Milošević - although he later became a FRY president, he was not so during the war. Should this be omitted? Furthermore, presently specified ranks and position titles should be omitted (per warbox).

Finally, there's matter of division of the belligerents into three periods. The warbox allows such divisions in cases where the parties significantly changed over the course of the conflict. Arguably cessation of JNA/Yugoslav Army combat operations and its withdrawal from Croatia constitute such a change, but is there a justification for the second boundary in 1994? Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia was established in 1993, Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992 and both had a peripheral role in the war, so should that boundary be removed as unjustified?

I know this is a complex matter, therefore so I'd like to see if there's any consensus for any changes?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • The inclusion of SFR Yugoslavia is nonsense. There was neither a formal state of war nor did any military units under Yugoslav control engage Croatian forces. It is an easily-established fact that the federal military of Yugoslavia (i.e. the MoD) was under the control of SR Serbia, i.e. its President Slobodan Milošević and his ruling Socialist Party of Serbia - not under Yugoslav control. Neither the Yugoslav Government of Ante Marković (Croat), nor the Yugoslav Presidency of Stjepan Mesić (Croat) had any control over the actions of the JNA and the MoD. The idea that "Yugoslavia was against Croatia" is, in fact, TV Beograd/Milošević propaganda. We can handle this two ways: we can leave the infobox as it is, or we can incorporate the JNA into a new "Serbia" entry. I favour the current infobox since 1) Kadijević's JNA, though outside the control of the federal authorities, was still somewhat marginally independent from Milošević; 2) entering Serbia here is highly controversial and debatable.
  • I personally don't know whether Serbia should be entered. As I said, its highly debatable.
  • FR Yugoslavia should probably be listed in the middle period, with a note regarding its supporting role (but not in the first or last combatants row).
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Kebeta - We all know what had happened, but how to write it, that's a problem....:-)

Sorry folks, I am not giving any solutions, just having fun...:-) Kebeta (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the most NPOV version would be to leave it pretty much as it is, with FR Yugoslavia added in the middle row, OR we could add Montenegro and Serbia. (The Army of Yugoslavia (Vojska Jugoslavije) had nothing to do with this conflict, formally.)
It should be noted that Serbia and Montenegro never considered themselves to be at war, officially. There was never any mobilization, and they never fully engaged in the war.
Just a correction - there was a lot of mobilization going on in Serbia back then... quick google shows e.g. this or this. It may not have been a general forced mobilization, but still. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the Americans stopped their pet Croatian army from taking Banja Luka in 1995, since they feared the mass of refugees already being created by the advance would force Serbia into the war (by 1995 the Americans had sufficiently frightened Milošević into accepting the destruction of the Krajina, but not the Republic of Srpska). At that point, we would be facing another, full-scale stage of the war, and the Slavonia front would be in serious trouble. Though I'm sure the Americans would eventually win, i.e. Croatia and BiH would eventually win. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I mostly agree with you, especially with "..Serbia...never fully engaged in the war." One of the reasons was because Serbia wasn't attacked by Croatia, and most important they concluded better to have 'Greater Serbia' without RSK, than 'Small Serbia' without RSK & RS...:-) But as you have said above, had Serbia engaged in full-scale war with Croatia, Slavonia front would be in serious trouble. That is why a section in the article ("Serbia's role") is a separate one. If we integrate that section in the main body of the article (this is for GregorB and A-class review), Serbia would have to be a belligerent. And yes, FR Yugoslavia (Montenegro and Serbia) could be added in the middle row, but with appropriate 'Annotation' to clarify thear "limited" participation. Kebeta (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well that's just what I meant, Serbia never entered full-scale war. This has to be taken with a grain of salt though, Milošević totally bankrupted Serbia and Montenegro by supporting the rebels in Bosnia and Croatia. What he never did was issue a full-scale mobilization. The Vojska Jugoslavije and the Croatian Army never actually engaged in combat. Even in 1995 the VJ was a significantly larger and generally more potent force than the Croatian military... but then, as Operation Storm has shown (by moving the front more in one month than it has budged anywhere altogether during the first 4 years) - its not wise to go against the USA.
It may be justifiable to enter Serbia and Montenegro in the first row. But, again, I am absolutely certain that many would disagree (they're just not here on this talkpage :)). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
What would happen if Serbia fully engaged in the war and what extra troops would such an engagement entail is dubious (most of mechanized troops were committed to battle in the last period of 1991 anyway with manpower problems already showing) but that's not an issue at all. The point is, do we have any consensus who is the "belligerent" controlling/funding/materially supporting/using the JNA: is it Serbia or Yugoslavia? The problems with Mesić are not really there since even though he was president of the presidency at one time, that did not carry any extra weight when the presidency voted or worked in any other capacity. The commander-in-chief and head of the state is the presidency represented for practical purposes by its president - but the president alone cannot act on behalf of the presidency or as the CIC.
Starting from there it is possible to say one of the following:
  • SFR Yugoslavia issued some commands to its army and later the collective CIC became deadlocked and could not act effectively. (not likely IMO)
  • SR Serbia took control over 4 out of 8 votes in the federal presidency, effectively ensuring no decision unfavorable to its agenda could occur, bypassing the collective CIC when necessary (Jović diary - Milošević/Jović instructions to Kadijević were carried out). That in effect means that Serbia performed a "creeping" coup - paralyzing rather than dismantling the federal bodies and carrying out its agenda through methods described by Jović (who was certainly in position to know about that).
  • JNA acted entirely on its own - which is totally implausible - but to entertain that option too: that would make it a military coup, making the army in charge of the country, taking us back to the situation where that specific country (Yugoslavia) is a belligerent. Since the army never meddled with any federal official posting other than MoD assigned to it, this option surely did not take place.
Looking at this, it seems justifiable to specify Serbia as a belligerent. Montenegro would be hard to justify, as its institutions were clearly controlled by Milošević (as was the case with whatever was left of Vojvodina and Kosovo posts, if anything except the presidency seats). Does this sound reasonable, esp. since the article details exactly what the involvement was and the warbox is a kind of summary?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Just occurred to me: none of the belligerents already listed declared war on anyone else (e.g. Republika Srpska, yet Slavonski Brod was attacked exclusively by VRS artillery after May 1992). It really comes down to listing those countries/entities involved to a certain degree. The main text/notes should provide explanation what that involvement entailed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not a guessing game. We know what happened. Quite simply, the JNA was taking orders from Milošević himself - and not the presidency. This was simply because Serbia was effectively the only republic it came to represent. That's where it was based, and that's where it was supplied from.
There's a lot of detail I don't want to go into... the JNA tried to get the presidency to order them to attack, so they got them all together in a military base and tried to scare them, but were ultimately unsuccessful. After that, in the simplest terms, Milošević simply said: "I can dismantle you, so do as I say" - so they did.
There is one important thing to remember: the JNA did NOT agree with Milošević in many aspects. The JNA command were all hardcore Yugoslavists and communists, they did not share any desire to create a "Greater Serbia" that became Milošević's agenda after the 16th Extraordinary Congress. They essentially wanted to oust the secessionist governments in Slovenia and Croatia, and establish an interim military government there. Milošević, on the other hand, had no problem with Croatia and Slovenia leaving - but Croatia was going to have to leave its Serb-populated territories in his "Serboslavia". This was NOT the JNA's agenda.
General Kadijević had a small window of opportunity to get rid of Milošević, but the JNA was so unpopular he did not think he'd make it (also the radical nationalists were getting strong in Serbia). He was unable to get rid of him. Then Milošević essentially proposed an all-out attack on the "secessionists" in Croatia. When Vukovar finally fell, the road to Zagreb was essentially open to the JNA. At this point Milošević ordered him to stop, while he protested claiming the JNA is capable of advancing. Why did Milošević give the order? Now, this point is very debatable. For Croats, of course, it was the Holy City of Vukovar that throught its Holy Sacrifice delayed the tanks, and scared the Aggressor! :) However, had the tanks actually advanced on Zagreb and ousted the HDZ, Croatia would have to be maintained in its AVNOJ borders, and would likely (be forced to) remain in Yugoslavia (which was Kadijević's objective in the first place).
Sorry, but this is way too much conjecture. It took JNA months to break through and occupy Vukovar. To try and shift all their manpower and firepower over to Zagreb would mean not only an instant PR disaster, but it would also be completely untenable from a military point of view. If they had not been able to take control of central Croatia in the period up to November while they had their own barracks in the area, what makes you think they could just barge in with a mobile force and take over? Instead, that would have been a grueling operation that would have taken months to even reach the destination and encircle it, let alone the months or years necessary to occupy it. In retrospect, the amount of resources necessary for this kind of an undertaking, both in terms of military power and in terms of political power, was simply non-existent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This was not at all in-line with Milošević's objectives at the time, which called for the secession of Serb-held territories from Croatia, and the creation of a "Greater Serbia". Its all very interesting and very complex, I read about the issue extensively a while back..
One way or the other, General Kadijević (a half-Croat himself) quickly tended his resignation after the whole mess. Likely because it became obvious Milošević was not at all trying to "keep Yugoslavia together", but was instead trying to grab Croatian territory for a nationalist "Greater Serbia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a famous conversation between Kadijević and Milošević, held in 1990 in Milošević's offices in Belgrade. During the discourse, Milošević asked Kadijević "what he thought might save Yugoslavia", to which the General answered simply "you and Tuđman should step down as soon as possible." --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't agree fully on this - "The JNA command were all hardcore Yugoslavists and communists, they did not share any desire to create a "Greater Serbia"... Actually, only a small part of senior officers of JNA did not share that idea (I am not talking about regular soldiers). And the fact is that JNA turned over a part of its equipment to the RSK, not to Croatia (clearly one side story). As for Serbia and/or Yugoslavia as a belligerent, I think that one might write: SR Serbia (de facto the only republic it came to represent SFRY in process of dissolution). But, like I have said above, than we would have to disintegrate ("Serbia's role") as a sepatate section. There are much referenced material to include Serbia or SR Serbia as a belligerent: 1.)Serbia's support of the JNA, 2.)Serbia actively supported various paramilitary volunteer units from Serbia fighting in Croatia, 3.)maintenance of prison camps in Serbia and Montenegro, 4.)Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia financed the war, 5.)the presence of Serbian Ministry of Interior and other entities (including Serb civilian groups and police) armed Serb civilians and local territorial defense groups in the RSK before the conflict escalated, 6.)Serbian leadership (Milošević) was regularly consulted and frequently made decisions on behalf of the RSK, 7.)the Erdut Agreement that ended the war was signed by a RSK minister on instructions from Milošević, 8.) Croatia filed the suit against the FR Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro) 9.)Serbian state-run media, were used to incite the conflict and further inflame the situation....and so on...although as I have said above...Serbia didn't fully engaged in the war (probably because of possible reaction by EU and USA). Kebeta (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Kebeta that Serbia did not fully engage in the war, but it did to some degree (as illustrated). I think we should not waste our energies here measuring exactly what that engagement amounts to or what would happen if it did fully commit (whatever "fully" means there. For this purpose it's simply a matter of "Does Serbia's involvement, as described by the article and supported by reliable sources, warrant Serbia's appearance in the infobox?" I for one think it does.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact is that Kadijević felt he could advance, and was ordered to stop. Yes, PR likely played a major part in Milošević's thinking (unlike the General's), but it must be remembered that Vukovar was the front line, after Vukovar, the front had effectively been laid open for mechanized formations (Osijek, unlike Vukovar, could be bypassed). Croatia had static militia-quality divisions holding the line, but nothing like the Guards Division. We are talking about elite armoured formations vs. untrained infantry, not in urban warfare, but in the open Slavonian plain. Like I said, its a debatable point. It is also a very valid argument that Milošević simply felt the JNA could not advance, I agree.
Now, Kebeta, many in the top JNA brass weren't even Serbs by birth at all (Kadijević, as I said, was half Croat). They all considered themselves "Yugoslavs", and they all were hardcore communists. Milošević was a communist too, but one who had risen to power on a nationalist platform.
Regarding Serbia's inclusion... I think we need an RfC to be neutral. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree that such a request be made with the above boldfaced question used?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hm "as supported by reliable sources" seems unnecessary. We can list the sources in the discussion. Lets put it simply "Should Montenegro and Serbia be entered in the infobox as combatants in a supporting role for the initial period (1991-92, up to the formation of FR Yugoslavia)? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I support an RfC for this 'problem'. After all, it would be stupid for a future A-class article to have an edit war over one issue. --Kebeta (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
it must be remembered that Vukovar was the front line, after Vukovar, the front had effectively been laid open for mechanized formations (Osijek, unlike Vukovar, could be bypassed).

Er, what? If Osijek could have been bypassed, Vukovar could have been bypassed too. Why does one need to take Vukovar but not Osijek in order to attack Zagreb? By the same logic, all they had to do is follow the route of the Brotherhood and Unity Highway that cuts through Spačva and it's indeed an open plain along the Sava river all the way through to Zagreb. Heck, an even easier route might have been to go through northern Bosnia (which wasn't affected by war back then and where there would likely be an even lesser chance of obstacles along the way), cross the river at Stara Gradiška and then follow an even shorter lowland route to Zagreb. If open terrain was so beneficial to the JNA, and if they were really intent on passing through, surely they would have done something about all those options... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You said it. In your own words, if they were "really intent on passing through" - its arguably possible that they could have. The point is that they weren't. But this is all indeed besides the point. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The conclusion is then that they weren't intent on such things from the get-go. You can accuse the Croatian side for fixating on Vukovar, but it was actually JNA that did that. From the start, JNA could have gone for a strategy that didn't involve such overt collusion with the largely criminal agenda of Milošević's regime and its various agents, and instead concentrated on targets of actual importance for SFR Yugoslavia. They did not do that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Jović diary is quite illustrative on this. It could be argued that Vinkovci were more important than both Vukovar and Osijek as the city commands the main railway but the entire issue is beside the point.
As far as the RfC, it seems there's a consensus to present it with question:
"Does Serbia's involvement, as described by the Croatian War of Independence article, warrant Serbia's appearance in the infobox?"
I'll post this RfC when some outstanding MILHIST review issues are addressed, but that should be done shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
That is just exactly what I'm saying (I'm not making this stuff up you know :)). As the campaign progressed the JNA was increasingly directed to secure and enlarge Serb-populated territory. My point is that this is NOT what the JNA brass wanted. They wanted to take the HDZ out and establish a military government in Zagreb - they were not allowed to do so (whether it was possible in the first place is indeed debatable, what with the PR issue and the general contempt the JNA was held in). Being forced to us his mobile forces in silly sieges like Vukovar, in order to carve-out a nationalist Greater Serbia out of Croatia and break-up (to the communists "sacred") AVNOJ borders, General Kadijević resigned. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Serbia be listed as a belligerent in the infobox

Does Serbia's involvement, as described by the Croatian War of Independence article, warrant Serbia's appearance in the infobox?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence/Archive 4
Location
{{{place}}}
Belligerents

1991–1992: Serbia Serbia

 Serbian Krajina[A 2]		 Croatia
Croatian War of Independence/Archive 4
Location
{{{place}}}
Belligerents

1991–1992: Yugoslav People's Army Yugoslav People's Army (controlled by Serbia Serbia)

 Serbian Krajina		 Croatia
  1. ^ "Two Republics Transform Selves Into a New, Smaller Yugoslavia". The Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. April 28, 1992. Retrieved January 7, 2011.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYTimes-Jan3-Ceasefire was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference EE-CIS-book was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • IMHO yes, at the very least in an annotation of the SFRY YPA entry. Ditto for Montenegro which was in the same boat under Momir Bulatović. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • IMO, yes, keeping JNA (with existing note) in place, leaving Montenegro out as the article/sources indicate it acted under Serbia's control. No notes are necessary next to Serbia entry in the infobox as there's an entire section on the topic. --Tomobe03 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think so too. Involvement in a war is involvement in a war. You cannot hide your participation in it by simply "participating only 30 % in it". I suggest we put something like this in the infobox.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • ("Republic of Serbia" after 1990, also the flag was 1:2.) Hm, if we already have Serbia, and Serbia controlled the JNA (which was its military) we no longer need the (rather long and complex) JNA entry... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes to Serbia, Montenegro and JNA (rather long and complex...ha..ha..). If we are gonna be accurate, we should put all countries and armies that participated. Of course, they should be referenced in the article if/for the limited time they were involved. I think that Montenegro had much more impact to this war than for example AP Western Bosnia, which is already listed in the Infobox. Since Montenegro acted under Serbia's control, that should be covered by 'Annotations', since there is not much about Montenegro in the article. I would also like to see NATO in the Infobox for the same reason, although NATO was involved only in several bombing operations in 1995. Kebeta (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Allow me to use your words against you. Haha. "We should put all countries and armies that participated" - agreed. The army controlled by Serbia (and Monetnegro) was the JNA at the time. So why do we list a country AND the army? Its like listing "Croatia" and the "HV". haha... :) For the record I don't mind including the JNA there, but it just does not make any sense to include both Serbia and the JNA. I think the infobox should remain as is, with a note in the brackets under the JNA entry: supported by Serbia and Monetnegro --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean that Yugoslav Army was "controlled by Serbia and Montenegro", and not just "supported by Serbia and Montenegro".--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to say in the infobox that the JNA was controlled by Serbia and Montenegro at all - no formal control existed but details are available in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It has to be noted that the JNA was under Serbian control. In fact it already is, what I essentially propose above is that we clarify somewhat.
Also, if we're using the word "controlled" which I agree is more appropriate, then Montenegro should most likely be removed? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with DIREKTOR.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The information is in the note and in the article, so this may be redundant - but this was just a thought. On a similar point, the warbox template information says that ranks and position titles should be omitted, so is there any objection to removing those from the leaders section of the infobox?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's another issue you've reminded me of. We must be rid of the huge number of notes in the infobox. Its unheard-of and unnecessary. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I am aware that you are opposed to the annotations, but they are used to explain condensed information in the infobox which is likely to be unclear to readers unfamiliar with the topic and provide guidance to the sources used in the infobox in case of those items that are not as straightforward. I agree that their use is not that common, but it is not prohibited or recommended against by any wiki policy, and they are already in use (e.g. Vietnam War article uses one to explain date of start of the war, as it is not quite clear when the Vietnam War started - a similar situation to the Croatian War of Independence). I for one would prefer to keep the annotations, and for now I have not seen opposition to those from anyone else, including MILHIST A-class reviewers, except you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the simplification of the infobox list of belligerents is a step in a good directon (save for issue of inclusion of Serbia discussed here). I see that no less than six notes were removed (and some inline citations with them) - presumably accidentally, so I'll restore them shortly unless there's consensus to do otherwise.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Let me say a few words as a reviewer... :-) These annotations might seem as a nuisance, but I feel they are valuable. As Tomobe noted, they are particularly useful for explaining facts that are not straightforward, or are even controversial. Heck, even I was stumped for a couple of seconds when I saw that the war lasted until November 1995 (instead of August, "as we all know"), and I "got it" only after reading the note. In articles of average size, one would be expected to find details in the text, but in the article of this length and complexity it is not realistic. Of course, one should not go into annotation extremes either, that is simply a matter of good judgment (which, on the other hand, tends to be anything than simple, so I'll leave it at that). GregorB (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
All right, Greg, I respect your opinion. Though it is really quite strange. I've never seen an infobox treated this way. An infobox is limited, that its nature, we can't include a whole article in it... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

missing content

I was unable to locate the missing content : "The objective of the attack was to improve the strategic situation in that area, as it targeted the city airport and the Maslenica Bridge, the last entirely overland link between Zagreb and the city of Zadar until the [missing content] was captured in September 1991." --Diannaa (Talk) 02:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"...the bridge area..." --Tomobe03 (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Just a word to let you know that I have to go away for the weekend, but will resume working on the article on Monday. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I appreciate your help!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

Fellas I wanna make you a collage lead image for this article, something along the lines of World War II or World War I or Vietnam War, or any major war article on Wiki (examples of my work can be seen in the Yugoslav Front and First Balkans War article). The map is good, but a proper montage is better methinks? We can move the map into the article, shuffle the images around a bit?

(P.S. I've just finished fixing-up the article's images in CS5, e.g. before, after) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Everybody ok with that? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be better to move the map to the appropriate section (1992) and have photos in the infobox as suggested, but there are very few photos of good quality (especially in terms of content) in the commons - nearly all of them are already in the article. On the other hand, the map is currently 300 pixels wide, and I am concerned that it may become completely unusable if it is any smaller than that. Ideally, there should be a collage containing scenes of the Battle of Vukovar, hoisting of Croatian flag on the Knin fortress, bombardment of Dubrovnik and a military action (I think I saw a few good shots from Operation Flash where army advances along the motorway). Of course there are other images that might be good for this type of use (UNPROFOR, Maslenica pontoon etc). I would certainly prefer to keep things the way they are right now until we have appropriate images for the infobox. Which ones would you like to use?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've already got the water tower picture, that will take-up 2/6 slots, and I have a few good ones for the other 4 slots too. The fact that we can reduce the article's image load somewhat with this is another bonus (there are just way too many images in there, you've even got a pic of a slighly damaged house wall [9] xD). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's try to piece together a few possible ones here on the talk page (maybe someone else will join in too) and see what we can come up with. What about the map size?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
We'll figure something out for the map, its not big issue it can remain 300px wide. Also lets try to avoid turning this into a whole debate and issue or it may never get done. Just let me slap a few pics together and see how you like it? (I do have some experience with image work)
P.S. please remember that images for the collage have to be free and available without a shadow of a doubt. I won't have the work deleted because one of the images turns out to be owned. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, let's keep the map 300 px wide, moving it to 1992 section, and go ahead and make the collage with whatever there is now at the commons. If I manage to get some copyrighted images of the scenes I described above, from media released to use here (posting permissions as appropriate) I'll place them later then in the infobox when these are available. OK?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok on second thought I'm having trouble finding a good Krajina Serbs picture... its all Croatian troops and ruins and JNA. Any suggestions? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there are few good (and that's a stretch) images on the commons. The best suggestion I can come up with is let's give it a short pause while the images are requested from media. Some of them are quite open to possibility of releasing some photographs for use on wiki under attribution. That way we can get some really good ones for the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, the image of wartime Stradun is from flickr (I asked an author there for permission to use it), maybe that's a good resource too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking good so far, all I need is one more image. Suggestions? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Try to go over battles of Croatian War of Independence, maybe you will found something interesting...Kebeta (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well this isn't perfect but its a start, I'm still looking for a good Serbian pic and I'm hoping to do some modifications. (the map is, of course, in the history if someone ants to include it?) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes it is a start, but still I was thinking of finding of more "iconic" images of Dubrovnik, hopefully a better military action image and a good RSK related one. If that's fine with you, I'll let you know when they're available on commons so you can have another go at that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and the map is quite important as the article deals with a number of toponyms that are not necessarily that clear to average readers, therefore I think it should be included in 1992 section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree the map is important, certainly worthy of inclusion. I just thought I'd leave it to you to place it as you thought was most appropriate. I searched for good images for quite a while, please do notify me of new images. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The image in the Infobox looks good, but where did the map go? I don't see it in 1992 section. Kebeta (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where to put it. If someone wants it its in the history. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=A> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=A}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatian_War_of_Independence/Archive_4&oldid=1078395796"