Talk:Croatian War of Independence/Archive 6

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

Improving sources and references

Just recently, five sources were tagged as "dead links" [1] and need to be corrected/removed. Likewise, I thought that the source formatting was splendid, but after taking a lesson or two from the source formatting in the article Battle of Vukovar, I am having second thoughts. Someone should take some time and transform the source formatting here to a more advanced version in the Vukovar article. Likewise, a few sources are superfluous (we have four sources, for instance, for the fact that the autonomy of Vojvodina and Kosovo were revoked) and could be eliminated or "trimmed".--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Date

The war in Croatia started on 17 August 1990, not in March 1991. He started the revolution and setting the log barricades, and this is the first conflict in which he participated in the Yugoslav National Army and national police. After the incident was a small increase conflicts with the first casualties 31st March 1991. Nemeojte gentlemen Wikipedians are angry because they do not deal with assumptions, but only clean and clear argumented facts. What was the major conflict before 17 August 1990., unless the conflict in Maksimir. This conflict is ethnic, but more drawn to the classic conflict between supporters, while the log-revolution first serious rebellion in the five-year war. Neither before nor after the log revolution was not such a serious conflict, but it increased after the small incidents that time in 1991. get a broader dimension of the year.--Baba Mica (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC) One more thing, see Log revolution and Timeline of the Croatian War of Independence.--Baba Mica (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Log Revolution is referenced by the article. Since no formal declaration of war took place, there is no definitive answer to the question, but since no direct armed confrontation (i.e. military operation) actually took place at the point, the only viable option is to go for date of the first such conflict, and that's Pakrac clash in March 1991 as documented here. Conversely, once could argue for any point thought to precipitate the war to constitute the beginning of the war. Furthermore lack of any military conflict of any size or significance between August 1990 and March 1991 strongly supports March 1991 date.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Then, like this. The conflict occurred in Pakrac first March 1991. I'll put first March in the box template as the date of the official start of the war (or Croats celebrated March 1 as the day the war began). As for the war, then it is certainly agreement Erdutski 12th November 1995. This agreement is Eastern Croatia (Baranja and Western Srem) integrated into the Croatian institutions. Operation Storm was only comprised of Serbian Krajina and Dalmatia, and Slavonoja has fallen in Operation Flash. The conflict in eastern Croatia lasted until the Erdut agreement, but considerably less pronounced. After Erdut Agreement stopped all the conflicts in Croatia and Croatia became a complete winner, ie. established complete control over their territory. Perhaps the official end of the war in Croatia and the Dayton agreement, because Croatia after Operation Storm, conducted ditrektnu invasion of Bosnia and Herzegovina and spread candles military ambitions and thus significantly changed the balance of power in the Bosnian War, but the intervention of the international border remained unchanged except in Bosnia in Herzegovina.--Baba Mica (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Answering your original question, I was also leaning towards including Log Revolution within the scope of the war, but it's hard to argue for it when all it produced was an uneasy standoff and more political decisions - the only major event inbetween seem to have been the Christmas Constitution, but that didn't seem to immediately escalate the Log Revolution in and of itself (?). The next major political event seemed to have been the proclamation of SAO Krajina on the last day of February 1991 - but that was just two days before Pakrac clash. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the last day of February, there was no armed conflict, while the first March was an armed conflict. Proclamation of the Serbian Krajina did not start the war, but one of the causes and the causes are numerous. It's not World War II began pact Hitler and Stalin 23rd August, but the German invasion of Poland on the first September 1939th Likewise, the First World War did not begin Vidovdan assassination, but a military invasion of Austria-Hungary against Serbia a month later. There are countless examples, like the war in Nagorno-Karabakh. The war has started small, but direct military incidents 20th February 1988.--Baba Mica (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So we are in agreement. While the prelude to the Nagorno-Karabakh war was much more drawn out, it was actually quite bloody. Whereas, the prelude to this war produced a fair bit of small weapons fire (and a crapload of propaganda), but very few actual injuries and fatalities. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not this war much less bloody than other civil wars. Total casualties on both sides of the 20 000 Not as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 100, 000, 20 000, but no small number. As for the date in the template should be placed 17th August 1990 (Log Revolution), 1 March 1991 (Pakrac clash) or 31 March 1991 (Massacre in Plitvice). The chronology of the war in Croatia is located Log Revolution, and even located and 25 July 1990, the day of adoption of the flag of Croatia (Croatia chessboard), symbol of the Ustasha during World War II, which were committed against Serbs, Jews and Roma, the most terrible genocide in the history of the Balkans and Europe, with over 1 000 000 victims. Of course this was not the beginning of the war, but one of the causes, while the revolution Balavan conflict then the Croatian government on one side and the local Serbs and the Yugoslav army on the other. First mart 1991. year was the day after which no return and intensified civil war. --Baba Mica (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood, I said that the prelude to this war wasn't bloody - the period between 1990 and April 1991.
The chronology article mentions Log Revolution, yes, and this article does too, just not in the infobox 'start' cutoff moment. The entire article can talk about the war as well as the prelude and the legacy (before and after); the infobox has to be more specifically about the war because the nature of its exact fields make it so.
The checkerboard stuff and the log revolution and the constitutional changes and self-proclaimed autonomous regions - we now know that it was prelude to war. But, had those issues been resolved without a war, hypothetically, none of it would be described as a war as such. So it makes sense to say that the war as such started at the point of no return - incidents with numerous casualties, formation of paramilitary/army units, etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please note that documentation of the Template:Infobox military conflict (Infobox War) used in the article clearly specifies what may be used in the infobox and the "combatants" field is used for countries/alliances/significant units who employed troops in the conflict. It does not provide for "weaponry support". This is for a reason: if one were to cram the infobox with whatever one may think fit it would lose its function of providing a quickest possible overview of the contents.

The information regarding weaponry support (and other types of support) is fully discussed and referenced in the article, supported by reliable sources, so there is no need to say things like: See, you guys are hypocrites. All of you are. I put sourced info and you revert it, you are all hypocrites for not accepting sourced edits, when you have been told in a properly made summary edit that this does not belong in the infobox only to wikilawyer the simple infobox instruction by introducing a freshly made up "weaponry support by" attribute.

What is or is not present in other articles such as Vietnam or Korean War is not relevant per WP:OTHERCRAP. Please stop this kind of disruptive editing and personal attacks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

On a further note: The sources put forward by the IP user are not really supporting the "weaponry support" claim. The NY Times does support claim of military advisors being present in Croatia - which is already noted and referenced by the article - and that US military observed the Operation Storm using drones. Not a peep on any weaponry support, much less anything deserving a mention in the infobox (which might give an impression of trainloads of weapons pouring in. The "source" on "German weaponry" is plainly ridiculous. It specifies, and I'll pick just the most hilarious ones:
  • very nutritious food from German military stocks (I had to copy this)
  • hundreds (apparently arriving in batches of 60) East German "T-series" tanks (this is a telltale sign of a knowledgeable source - T-series tank is a great description)
  • Three MiG figthers, one brand new, two previously flown (description fits used car salesmen pitch)
  • several Panavia Tornado - bought as spare parts and assembled locally (must have been assembled as something else, nobody ever saw those in Croatia)
  • five more truckloads stored in "village of Kukuljanovo" near Rijeka - could someone from Rijeka confirm that Kukuljanovo is an industrial zone (but this obviously well checked source knew this but did not wish to let us know about industrial pollution)
  • 90 French military surplus trucks bought through a German firm identified as Weba or Vebeg. Now that sounds like outright gossip. Did the author forget to write the name down and is writing from memory, or could not overhear the name properly? Is he/she sure it was not 900 trucks?
  • Quoting this one in full: "The Croatian Government signed a contract with a German supplier for the delivery of various weapons and ordinance totalling US$ 3-million in value. This deal was signed through the Zagreb-based firm, Jugoart, according to sources, which has offices in Vienna. Jugoart reportedly arranges for deliveries of military equipment to the High Command of the Croatian Army from various suppliers in Germany." - Jugoart is a [book publisher], actually was one. Went bankrupt selling books.
  • 60 MiG combat aircraft engines. Apparently delivered at Kozina and Sežana border crossings. - Both of those are between Italy and Slovenia.
  • Ten MiG-21 fighter aircraft and two Saab aircraft (nobody ever saw any Saab aircraft in Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina, including UN troops during their four year tenure there)
  • "a surface-to-surface missile system, known as R-300" - for those who watch CNN, that's a Scud and a knowledgeable source might have known that too - and it was located in "Kinkovo" near Slavonski Brod. Unfortunately for this "source" no settlement of "Kinkovo" exists nowhere in Croatia (see here)
  • "some 120 T-72 main battle tanks worth US$ 90-million" - apparently black market is a discount market - the T-72 is alleged to cost 1-2 million dollars for the Russian Army to buy.
  • "The ships Kumrovec and Kozara, owned by the firm Danube Lloyds, of Sisak, allegedly shipped arms and ammunition from Bulgaria and Romania to Croatia." - I don't know about those ships, but I know that Belgrade sits right between Romania/Bulgaria on one side and Croatia on the other and I don't see that happening. Note: Danube Lloyd ships sail along rivers only. No seagoing vessels - but who would check that?
The "source" claims virtually hundreds of main battle tanks were delivered - it not be possible that any of those were seen someplace? Is it coincidence that tanks were captured from the Yugoslav Army barracks (e.g. Varaždin) as supported by reliable sources or by a website sporting a collection of rants? This is far from any reliable source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
After the fifth revert by the same IP within a single day, I have now simply tagged the "sources" using appropriate inline tags as unverified/unreliable - both of which is clearly obvious from the content of the referred documents. Hopefully some response other than reverts may be extracted. Notwithstanding the sources, the material is not supposed to go into the infobox per template documentation--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My sources are very good, you just don't want to know the truth. 142.197.18.67 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Germany supplied Croatian Army with weapons, US supported Op. Storm

Germany had supplied Croatia with planes, and weaponry and such. There was a case of a shot down Croat MiG-21 and they said it was Yugoslav, but it was East German and it had East German radar system inside. America had retired Generals advising the Croatian Army on doing 'Storm' like tactics in the biggest crime op. in the war that caused the largest purge in the war. Sources: Rat Koji se Mogao Izbeci (English Narrated, Serbian Subtitles), The Weight of Chains. 142.197.18.67 (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that the airplane was supplied by Germany or is this your sayso? The retired generals (I assume you mean MPRI) were not supplied by the US government, but a private contractor - there's no doubt a lot of private or even black market suppliers were involved as in any war but this does not constitute US supplying weaponry. Unless you have a reliable source to the contrary of course. Tone of your response indicates a strong POV-pushing, but please refrain from letting your personal opinions get in way of facts.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The Weight of Chains is not a reliable source. Boris, is this you again? :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tomobe03 - I was in Croatia in 1995 between operation Oluja and the Dayton accords and I personally witnessed large quantities of military hardware being moved around on the Coast and around Zagreb and the Zagorije region, far in excess of the quantities being reported as the size of Croatian Army stock in the western mainstream media. For instance official estimates put the number of tanks in the Croatian army at around an unbelievably small 20 (!), but I personally saw a convoy of around 50 tanks with HV markings mounted on the trailers of articulated lorries, moving along a highway outside Zagreb. Also military helicopters painted green with no markings were a common sight along the coast all during the summer. So I can say with a high degree of certainty that military hardware was, by that stage at least, being obtained/supplied from outside. Of course I can't personally attest to the source of such hardware, so I agree that specific claims can't really be stated in the article. The common understanding, (or rumour if you prefer), was that that US, UK and Germany were providing unofficial covert assistance and materiel, coordinated through intelligence channels. The most credible source for these claims that I came across in my time there in '95, was in conversation with a high-ranking opposition party official, who had previously been in HDZ and had held a cabinet-level position in the Tudjman government, so I consider this understanding to be pretty credible.

Perhaps the article could use a reasonably NPOV statement like "Some controversy exists over whether, and if so to what extent, the Croatian Government was the recipient of covert western military aid during the later stages of the war."? Let me know what you think! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.100.138 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry, I just corrected a couple of typos in the above paragraph.)

I am pretty confident that western aid in arms can be ruled out. In 1991 small arms were quite possibly bought on black market - judging from wide variety and small quantity of unusual types of helmets, rifles etc. In any case, several countries would have to be in on any such sale - there are at least two countries between Croatia and Germany for instance. Later on, some hardware may have been bought abroad, but judging from the fact that no western heavy military hardware appeared in Croatia in significant numbers by 1995, those would hardly originate from the West. There was a thwarted attempt of running weapons bought in Ukraine and Belarus (source) but that's an attempt - maybe others were successful, and maybe bought someplace else. Ukraine as a possible source of MiG-21s, Mi-24s and an incomplete S-300 is indicated, but a Czech company and Kazakhstan were also indicated as source or intermediaries, so there's nothing specific, save that the weapons sales in the later stages of the war consisted of MiG-21s, Mi-24s and and incomplete SAM - nothing else. (source). In either case, it is hard to establish anything definite and compliant to WP:V.
I don't see anything odd with a military at war reporting its strength erroneously - either too large to deter or too small to lull an opponent. I am also sure that the Croatian Army at one point had no more than 20 tanks (it started out at zero). What source, and pertaining to what period claims this number of 20 tanks? In any case, number of hardware available to Croatian Army in 1991-1995 varied substantially, but it had much more to do with captured JNA barracks and recaptured TO depots than with arms smuggling. Overall, the smuggled (small) arms were crucial until the Battle of barracks, but later heavy guns and armor were available from the captured barracks. Gunships and jet aircraft were not to be found there though, so that deficit may have been plausibly overcome by purchase of the Fishbeds and the Hinds as the second source cited suggests. Still, to include this reasoning in the article would be WP:SYNTH and inadmissible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as the proposed statement on the covert western aid is concerned, I think it should not be used unless there is a reliable source specifically saying there was covert western military aid to Croatia. Reporting that this person or that thinks there must have been some kind of western aid, while offering zero sources of the actual aid, is not really informative about the article topic, is it?--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are we continuing this forum discussion, again? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - The source claiming an arsenal of around 20 tanks was an 1995 article in the British newspaper the Independent, citing contemporaneous UNPROFOR estimates. I haven't had any luck trying to track down the original article or the underlying estimates on the web unfortunately, and I can't commit to the research effort involved in dredging up such old material. My conversations with a former govt official in 1995 were off-the-record, and I'm not at liberty to say who it was. OK it stays out then, thanks for the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.100.138 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Regarding number of tanks in HV ...HV only in Varazdin and Bjelovar baracks during 1991 captured around 150 tanks. Totaly with other baracks...maybe just as far as 350. So if UNPROFOR report cited that HV in 95' have around 20 tanks, it's only mean that those guys had no idea where they are and what's happening. Regarding the fact that UNPROFOR surly know at least roughly military power of all sides, my opinion is that nubmer of 20 tanks was just guessing of uninformed journalist of Independent. Regarding german military aid to HV it was basicly Serbian war propaganda and nothing more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.42.227 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Title

This page should have other title. Ctoatia fought with Yugoslav army in 1991-1992 and in 1992-1995 it fought with army of Serbian Krajina. War between Croatia and Krajina was not war for Croatioan independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanHR (talk • contribs) 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources say otherwise. The fact that Serbs reduced war objectives from this to that does not really make one war stop and another begin. Furthermore Yugoslav Army fought in support of RSK (and Serbia), not in support of federal parliament or federal government. This talk page has already seen this discussion, so feel free to consult its archive.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed split to Independence of Croatia

I for one, support the proposed move - that would greatly contribute to readability of this article and comprehensive of the Independence of Croatia article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Background is needed. I already shortened the article by 10 per cent, yet always had troubles dropping some of the data since they all lead to the break-up of Yugoslavia and later the war.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, well some background would have to be in here to provide context - I was thinking of devising a summary with an appropriate Template:Main at the top of the specific subsection.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone suggested removing the background section, rather, it needs to be shortened and made more into a summary rather than so detailed, because the bulk of the political details belong to non-war articles such as Breakup of Yugoslavia, Independence of Croatia, etc. For example, this article doesn't really care for the red link to Jugoslav Kostić, that's really superfluous here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think this is largely done, I've now reduced the amount of prose in the background section by almost 3,000 characters. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Markovic and the infobox

The recent edits by user:R-41 are highly questionable. Putting the whole SFRY in it as a combatant and even putting Ante Markovic and its commander is something that was already discussed a year ago when this was concluded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croatian_War_of_Independence/Archive_4#Infobox

"*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...
  • If we include JNA (currently listed), that means that Stjepan Mesić (Croat) was on Serbian and Yugoslav side, next to Slobodan Milošević, since Stipe Mesić was in 1991 the last President of Yugoslavia (which we don't want)?
  • BTW, JNA transformed into Army of Yugoslavia, which redirects to Military of Serbia and Montenegro,
  • If we include SFR Yugoslavia, that means that Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia fought against Croatia?
  • We don't want SFR Yugoslavia as a belligerent, but we want Yugoslavia's army (JNA) as a belligerent?
  • If we include Serbia, what about Montenegro ('Siege of Dubrovnik' and fighting in southern Croatia)?
  • If we include FR Yugoslavia, that is still a Yugoslavia (which we don't want) and also a redirect to Serbia and Montenegro...oooh, but we don't want to include Serbia or Montenegro either...:-)
  • In fact it was: 1.) Serb (Serbs from Croatia & Serbs from Serbia) aggresion on Croats (Croats in Croatia) to achive Greater Serbia, masked by Brotherhood and unity of SFR Yugoslavia, or 2.) Civil war in Croatia - "Croats vs Croats", read "ethnic Croats vs ethnic Serbs from Croatia" (with little help from Serbs from Serbia - since Serbia didn't showed all it's power in this war). Take your pick, 1 or 2.."

Likewise, it is of no use to derive that Markovic was commanding the JNA just from one source in one book, when he himself testified before the ICTY and denied it, explaining easily that he as Prime Minister was not the commander-in-chief of the army.

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/trans/en/040115ED.htm page 30830.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am retiring from Wikipedia today. And I can say that this post further encourages why I am retiring. Everything said above in the discussion is POV, no sources. The fact is that Markovic denounced the unilateral declarations of independence by Croatia and Slovenia and authorized the JNA to take action there. There are numerous sources that say that Kadjevic sought the unity of all of Yugoslavia - the man was half-Serb, half-Croat - the idea of pigeonholing Kadjevic alongside the chauvinist Serb nationalists promoted by Milosevic is absurd rhetorical nonsense. The conflict quickly became an ethnic Croat-Serb nationalist conflict but there were figures like Markovic and Kadjevic who wanted the unity of all of Yugoslavia. However I know that I am wasting my time here, because you already have decided what your POV is based on you WP:KNOWING what the reality was in the conflict by deleting content from reliable sources. I'm fed up with bullshit like this on Wikipedia, but you've won by default because I know that you won't give up and you will only be satisfied with defeating my argument to support your POV. I have no desire to waste anymore hours or days on Wikipedia that is based upon users selling-out their knowledge and writing skills while this site's owners profiteer, it's sad, I quit, goodbye.--R-41 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Please, don't retire yet. Let us have a discussion about this. Let us talk this over. I do agree that Kadijevic probably just wanted to keep Yugoslavia from falling apart, but it is hardly disputable that he fought alongside the worst Serb nationalists who were just pretending to do the same, while actually fighting for something else. I really do not understand where you got the idea that Markovic was in the position to command the JNA - only the Yugoslav president could do that, and that was Mesic. And he denied he had control of the JNA either. This isn't about KNOWING, this is about what he himself says - and this can be checked out. When Markovic himself denies that he controlled the JNA, then - in all honesty - what would you say? Truly, what would you say to that? That he is lying? Just look at the transcript of his testimony before the ICTY (page 30831):

I was against the withdrawal of the army. I wanted it to continue to be dispersed throughout the country because it would have less opportunity of committing aggression if it is not concentrated in one place, but this was not in my hands. I couldn't take any such decision. Nowhere is there any possibility envisaged for the federal government to have command over the army. It was only the Presidency that could do that. Who negotiated with Kadijevic in the Presidency for the troops to come out of the barracks, I don't know, but it was never officially reported anywhere.

--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry user:R-41 left Wikipedia, though there were other reasons that made him him to do so than just this topic. I wish him well. Anyway, Markovic himself denied he was not the commander-in-chief, and that sums up the topic until further notice.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

POV caption

Under the pictures of Franjo Tuđman and Milan Kučan one reads: "Presidents Franjo Tuđman and Milan Kučan led the new generation of people who wanted Croatia and Slovenia to disengage from Yugoslavia and turn towards free market and democratic reforms". I sincerely cannot think of anything more POV. The nature of the war of independence was primarily nationalistic and had very little to do with the economic model and lack of democratic reform. In any case, the way this caption idealises the two leaders along with the choice of phraseology offers little in the way of information. I propose either radical change or deletion, at least in its current form. Alfadog777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.5.146 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed up, thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, always a pleasure to contribute. Alfadog777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.5.146 (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


Croatian War of Independence → Civil War in Croatia – Per WP:AT, precisely WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME:

Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Sounds POV. Titles such as "Homeland War", "Croatian Civil War", "War of Serbian Agression", "War of Croatian Agression", "Serbo-Croatian War" and "Serbo-Yugoslav-Croatian War" should probably be avoided at all costs. The title is fine as it is. "War in Croatia" is also fine. 23 editor (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Antidiskriminator, are you seriously saying you have not come across the previous move discussion on this topic? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I actually searched the talk page but did not find it. Can you please help and provide a link?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Look at the archives (they're linked from the talk header). Nearly all of them had at least one discussion about the title. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I searched archives using "civil war" and no results showed that this name has ever been proposed. I am at vacation now and don't always have appropriate connection to internet, but as far as I saw, nobody proposed this name which is widely used in English language sorces.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per 23 editor reasoning - Sounds POV. WP:AT, WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME notwithstanding even if applicable per WP:IAR because of POV connotations.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was the war to become independent of Yugoslavia, since Croatia wasn't a separate state yet, it can't be a Civil War, unless you mean the Yugoslav Civil War, but that extended beyond Croatia, to Bosnia and Slovenia; or the newer one in Kosovo. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No. Please look at the 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia which is quite explanatory. Civil war in Croatia started before JNA began its campaign which lasted only about three months. This campaign was aimed to " deny Croatian Government access to parts of Croatia that contained a substantial Serb population, and to protect Croatian Serbs". JNA failed to perform this objective and withdraw from Croatia where civil war continued for many years. Civil war in Croatia lasted for 56 months. Just because JNA was engaged for about three months does not mean that this was not civil war.
    • If there is anything POV here it is the existing title. Substantial part of population of Croatia that lived and controlled significant part of Croatia did not struggle for or against independence of Croatia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh no!! The page is at Croatian War of Independence, but you must have accidentally used a search for the wrong title to support your argument! You used "Croatian war for independence" -wikipedia instead of "Croatian war of independence" -wikipedia, which has over a thousand results! I appreciate the effort and I'm sure it was a totally honest mistake. But a wet trout slap may be in your near future! Oppose. Red Slash 09:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you are right, though "Croatian war of independence" -wikipedia hase 87 deghosted hits. I apologize for my mistake. Still, because this war is referred as Civil War in Croatia so widely in English language sources it should probably be presented as alternative name. I will withdraw my proposal. Thanks for AGF.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Joy, 23 and Tomobe03. Please read previous move discussion before making such requests. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source

The 12,000+ killed or missing claim in the infobox is sourced with Croatianhistory.net. What makes this a reliable source? I suggest it be removed and/or replaced with something more reliable. 23 editor (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Simply remove that bit. It is adding nothing to other figures already in the box except clutter.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, there are many other problems with the casualties section of the infobox. Wouldn't it look more tidy if the casualty figures were simplified? They seem very long and drawn out and contradictory. For the number of Serbs displaced, we use State Department figures of 254,000 displaced by October 1993 and another source for the 200,000 displaced in 1995. Wouldn't this add up to approximately 454,000 displaced (making for a range of 300,000–454,000)? Also, for Croat losses wouldn't it just be easier to say 13,583–15,970 killed or missing and 37,180 wounded instead of drawing it out and making it difficult for the reader to understand the numbers? Also, the infobox needs more updated displacement figures for the Croats because at present they only go as late as October 1993. 23 editor (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the figures being added up are themselves found in ranges in reliable sources. Forex the 200,000 Serb refugees in 1995 clearly include those in Operation Storm which reliable sources estimate at anywhere between 150 and 200 thousand. Of course there are another 10-15 thousand refugees related to Operation Flash. This would make 1995 range 160-215K. If the same exercise is performed for every other year adding up low and high estimates separately we would arrive at meaningless ranges. Nonetheless, the box section dealing with casualties is way too cluttered and provides little usable "at-a-glance" info. I'm not even sure why there's "Serbian sources:" and "Croatian sources:" headings in individual columns. If you agree I'd leave 7,501-8,039 killed in the left column and 13,583–15,970 killed in the right column, remove everything else and add "combatant3" parameter with nothing in it except a link to the "Casualties and refugees" section saying "see casualties and refugees section". What do you think?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If you would do that that would be perfect. It would be much more readable. 23 editor (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Just make sure to be precise and say killed or missing because that's what the sources say. 23 editor (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course, that's what I meant to do, I just shortened it here at talk. But thanks for reminding me anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Classification of refugees in Croatia and their attribution to the forces based on their ethnicity is unsourced and wrong. Presenting Serb refugees as they do not belong to Croatia and Bosnia is significant POV issue of this article. Civilian casualties are very important information which should be presented within infobox without their attribution to the conflicting forces based on ethnic segregation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
How about we just say that said number of people of all ethnicities became refugees and settle it? I don't see what the problem is with having a link in the infobox pointing to the casualties section of the article. 23 editor (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I see the problem. The number of refugees is extremely important for the topic of this article and should be presented in infobox.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tom, but the box still looks a bit cluttered from all those refs behind the numbers. How about we put those refs in the prose of the casualties section (if they're not there already) and make it a bit more readable and clean? 23 editor (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I planned to do that, but then I saw at least one ref was not a repeated ref in the box (maybe it's repeated in the prose though). I agree that would be better. The infobox should not contain refs per MOS - all figures should be referenced in the prose anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Collage

Why are only Croatian side related photos in the collage? --178.254.154.94 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Long introduction (lede)

Coming to this as a reader, I have to say that the introduction seems VERY long, without looking very closely, I get the impression that it is trying to tell the whole story.Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong title

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence → Croatian War – more factually correct title. There were multiple of causes of Croatian War and Croatian independence was merely one of them. For instance, Serbs wanted their independence too (and they were wiped out from Croatia). The fact that Croatia won, doesn't change some basic facts. And an encyclopedia is all about FACTS. Alex discussion ★ 22:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Croatian War" should be a list of Croatian wars (ethnic Croatian and of Croatia), not a redirect here. The result of this war is independence, so it is the war of independence. The cause of wars are not the only way to designate wars, the outcome of wars can also be so used. However, the current title can also be used to signify wars by ethnic Croatians for independence (such as the Croat–Bosniak War) Croatian-Yugoslav War would address your concerns, being the war of Croatians against the central Yugoslav government. Or Croatian War of Independence from Yugoslavia (distinguishing it from other wars/rebellions of independence from other entities) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: This has always been the common name for this war.--Zoupan 09:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While "Croatian War" seems very generic, reputable authors who write on the subject such as Marko Attila Hoare use the term "Croatian War of Independence" to refer to the war (see [2] and [3]).--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Croatian War of Independence is the most correct title. Croats only wanted independent country because they couldn't longer suffer in Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. Serbs wanted to create Greater Serbia which was supposed to include most of Croatian territory, so they, with the help of also Serb-controlled JNA attacked Croatia and perpetrated a lot of massacres (for example in Vukovar, Lovas, Dalj, Voćin, Saborsko, Kijevo, ...) and bombing of Croatian cities (Vukovar, Osijek, Slavonski Brod, Zadar, Šibenik, ...). Stop with reducing of Serbian guilt for all wars after breakup of Yugoslavia. --IvanOS 16:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom and Zoupan The current name is way too biased and inaccurate. 109.92.189.247 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general gist (not all the specific claims by @Aleksa Lukic) but this is an emotive topic. Many call the Irish War of Independence (haven't they all been over the last seven centuries?) as the Anglo-Irish War. It would be difficult and even inappropriate to change one and not change all other similarly-sounding articles, although they may sound triumphal or one-sided or have the result of offending groups of editors. I don't see the current status quo supporters budging on this. Quis separabit? 22:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • All that matters is what the (vast) majority of Reliable Sources refer to it as in English. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "Croatian War" is rather vague and non-specific, since it can refer to many things, while "Croatian War of Independence" is more to the point. Furthermore, plenty of English-language sources use Croatian War of Independence. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tomobe03. The current name is clearly the COMMONNAME per this. The proposed title is not common in academic literature, is too general, and is hoist on its own petard, because it is effectively biased toward a perspective that blames the Croats for the war. The current title encompasses the main purpose of the war from a Croatian perspective, and should include the impact of the war on Croatian Serbs without blaming the Croats for starting the war. Ramet calls it part one of the "Wars of the Yugoslav Succession", but that lacks specificity. There is no good reason to change this title. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose why would we change the name to something so vague as opposed to what is it now?! Nonsensical... Shokatz (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Benlisquare Croats should take all credits for the war. They deprived 20% of people of territory of Socialist Republic of Croatia (part of Yugoslavia) of their fundamental rights (in decision making and so forth) so they should absolutely blamed for the start of war. You can't just deprive a constituent nation in a country of their fundamental rights and expect nothing in response.
The only nation which was "constituent" in Socialist Republic of Croatia were Croats. Per 1947 and 1974 constitution. Plus this is not the time or the place to make your political speeches. Shokatz (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The most recent and relevant Croatian war is definitely Serbo-Croatian war (1991-1995). Croatian civil war would make a good alternative as well.

Currently Croatian war redirects to this article. An alternative would be Croatian civil war (between Serbs and Croats in unilaterally declared state). Currently Google Books lists 628 x 103 results for "War in Croatia" 336 x 103 for "Croatian War", 39 x 103 for "Croatian civil war", and only 37 x 103 for so called "Croatian war of independence".

The current name must be changed to either proposed name or Croatian civil war because there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to keep it, except perhaps Croatian nationalist vanity. Alex discussion ★ 00:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed. This war obviously had an international character so such a name would be grossly misleading. Shokatz (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Further note: whatever the case may be regarding the commonname, this nomination is likely connected to the recent upsurge of nationalism in Serbia, what with the Putin visit to Belgrade, the big military parade, Vojislav Seselj being released, etc... POV is not a reason to move from the sourced name, and I'm tempted to oppose this on grounds of it being pretty obvious nationalist POV-pushing, but I still think we can do better than the current name by following the sources more closely. -- Director (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Director, your Google Books "hits" are complete misleading and pointless. Just look at what the individual hits on the first few pages of your linked search are referring to. All but two of the hits on the first two pages are using the phrase "war in Croatia", only two are using the phrase "War in Croatia", it's unlikely that 10% hit rate carries on through the search results, and it almost certainly does not. It's too generic a "title" to be effectively searched using Google Books, especially if you are trying to rely on "hits" to justify a commonname. Why don't you try spamming us with links to academic texts that use "War in Croatia" to refer to this war? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm much too busy.. just thought I'd give my 2 cents. This is a tough one though, Peacemaker. As far as I can tell, the war is not generally referred to in English as the "Croatian War of Independence", that much is imo well demonstrated by the really abysmal SET results. I agree that an unrefined search for "War in Croatia" isn't much help, but as I pointed out - a mere 2% therefrom is enough to derail this title. I think what we have here is an obscure name kept because of the vagueness of its more common alternative, which can not be properly researched (with perhaps a bit of Croatian national pride into the mix). Its the weird kind of situation that could only be found on Wikipedia... -- Director (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

War of aggression

Why is the sentence "Two conflicting views exist as to whether the war was a civil or an international war." in this article? The International law is very clear defining the war of aggression: "Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmina32 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tmina32:You have to understand that original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. We are not allowed here to interpret international law ourselves, but we have to use and cite wp:reliable sources. In Wikipedia, every statement must be supported by reliable sources directly, and may not be result of an original research or a result of a wp:synthesis. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but is historical revisionism aimed at abolishing the sole country in which this view exists of guilt really something notable? Atleast it should be branded as such.Tmina32 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This anti-Serb bigot (@Tmina32)'s editing should be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Serbia the only guilty party?? As soon as the Croats voted for the Ustasha-linked HDZ and the neo-Nazi Tudjman they became the malefactors. Quis separabit? 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Questions

  • "In 1991 and 1992, Croatia was also supported by 456 foreign fighters, including British (139), French (69), and German (55)."

Are these ethnic/diaspora Croats? Most or all likely were; shouldn't it be specified??

  • "The verdict meant the ICTY convicted no Croats for their role in the Croatian War of Independence."

Is this accurate? What about Tihomir Oreskovic? Are there pending cases? Quis separabit? 02:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The foreign fighters are not the Croatian diaspora. Those are foreigners who joined in the defense of Croatia. Fighters that came from Croatian diaspora were in much greater numbers than a few hundred. ICTY had not convicted any Croat for war crimes in Croatia. Tihomir Oreskovic was sentenced in front of domestic court. Detoner (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Veritas as a reliable source

I removed Veritas as a reliable source, see here. The sources that originate from Veritas are self-published. See WP:SPS. Furthermore there is a book of the missing people composed by Croatia, Serbia, and international institutions like The Red Cross, which was provided to the ICJ. Furthermore, Veritas is a political organization composed of the people who participated in the rebellion in Croatia. The president is the former secretary of RSK. 213.5.192.78 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Name

Why not "War in Croatia" like "War in Slovenia", Why War in Croatia have different name ? NevitSRB (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The most common name in English domain is used. 213.5.192.78 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Serbian constituent nation status

There is a discussion at Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Serbs_as_.22constitutive.22_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia for an issue which is also dealt here at this article. FkpCascais (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Destroyed House

That could be any house. Are we just supposed to take anyone at their word, particularly someone with a bias, that it was a Serbian house? I am from the area originally and there are houses destroyed that belonged to people of all ethnic backgrounds. Calling this a "Serbian house" without proof destroys the credibility of the article.66.244.254.186 (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

First off, WP:AGF - but outside of that, this was accepted in to the Commons. Setting all that aside - it's a picture of one small ruined house. Like tens of thousands of others in the former Yugoslavia. Trying to make a case that this one representative photo not being documented to your liking is going to "destroy the credibility of the article" is silly beyond words. Pick a stronger battle to fight, my Canadian IP. 98.67.1.118 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You don´t understand situation in former Yugoslavia, as I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.6.110 (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - article currently slanted clearly in the perspective of the Croatian government at that time

I am a person of non-Balkan descent who has studied the Yugoslav Wars, this article is very slanted in favour of the perspective of the Croatian government at that time.

The material clearly places the Croatian government and armed forces loyal to it, almost exclusively as defenders while referring to the actions of Serb forces almost exclusively as offensive using the words "aggression" and "conquest". Apart from the outset of the war and its ending, it was largely a stalemate for years.

The material does not neutrally analyze the causes of the war, nor adequately present those important issues. Those issues include:

- (1) the ongoing dispute between Croatia and Serbia within Yugoslavia over whether Yugoslavia should be more decentralized (favoured by Croatia) or centralized (favoured by Serbia);

- (2) Nationalist agendas of Croats and Serbs, especially describing the historical legacy of them in World War II such as the memory of the Ustase promoting a Greater Croatia where Serbs were persecuted, and the Chetniks who promoted a Greater Serbia and fought Croats in World War II. This created immense antagonism between the two peoples.

- (3) The Serb side's claim to the right of national self-determination to justify secession of Krajina from Croatia

There are other issues that need to be addressed but these are key ones that need to be addressed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.122.103 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Croatian War of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Croatian War of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence → Croatian War – See discussion about article name. Common name. Gbooks and Gscholar hits favour Croatian War. Consistency with Bosnian War and Kosovo War. Zoupan 01:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose the Google Books search is an extremely blunt instrument when dealing with the term "Croatian War". It was clearly a war of independence (from Yugoslavia), and the level of clarity is needed per WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Zaostao (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMON, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONSENSE.
    • Why WP:COMMON? Because sources favor Croatian War.
    • Why WP:NAMINGCRITERIA? Because the proposed new name is simply more consistnent with the pattern of similar articles' titles, concise, recognizable and natural. Out of five naming criteria the only criteria which favors existing title is precision. Rest four criteria favor the proposed title.
    • Why WP:COMMONSENSE? Because the current title is illogical. Nobody really denied its right to be independent, especially after the initial short period of war. To put it simply, the war was basically not about the independence of Croatia, it was about the territory.
    • Why WP:NPOV? It takes two for war (or in case of former Yugoslavia at least three). Presenting this war as a simple war of independence would be an oversimplification and against WP:NPOV because some could say that this war was actually War of Independence of Republic of Serbian Krajina from Croatia.
    • This will be my last comment in this discussion per my plan of behavior in this topic area. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Antidiskriminator. FkpCascais (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let me offer a point-by-point rebuttal of the above arguments by Antidiskriminator:
    • "Source favor Croatian War". No concrete evidence has been presented in support of this claim.
    • "WP:NAMINGCRITERIA". The proposed name is actually less consistent and less natural than the present one. "Fooian War", where "Foo" is a country, is a highly unusual name: there are no articles titled German War, Belgian War, Polish War, Russian War (etc. ad nauseam), so "Croatian War" is definitely not "more consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" - if it is, I'd like to see examples of such articles.
    • WP:COMMONSENSE is not applicable to the internal logic of article titles: the thing is called how it's called, there is no "common sense" about it.
    • WP:NPOV argument is weak. Let me just mention that well-known adage about treason: it's not called "treason" if it succeeds. The converse applies here: it's not called "war of independence" if it fails. GregorB (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
      • There is no evidence that "war of independence" is used more than the simple title. There is no point in listing the Fooian examples since the "Croatian War" could only be this war, a recent one most people have heard of (common sense). The name is the common name, period. Most of the "Fooian war of independence" are 19th-century conflicts. We do have Algerian War (1954–62), Bosnian War (1992–95), Kosovo War (1998–99).--Zoupan 02:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because there seems to have been no effort by the proposer to examine and understand the counter-argument I presented to them prior to the request. It's really beating a dead horse at this point given that we've had these fruitless discussions already in 2013, 2012, and several other times, one just has to click through the earlier archives to see. This really doesn't seem to be a title that is truly controversial in English, it's just that people seem to want to re-litigate the facts of the war through the title, as I honestly can't recall when an actual native English speaker said it was a title that needed to be fixed. This "my side in the war is not represented well in the title!" pattern also fits a pattern of behavior by Zoupan that I have observed, of letting their biases show in their editing, as did a couple of other users who have recently complained at my talk page about them. It's really becoming tiresome. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I didn't see your comment as a counter-argument, as there is nothing argumentative about it. Common name it is. I'll throw in some more: "Croatian War of Independence"+"1991" (22) versus "Croatian War"+"1991" (111); "Croatian War of Independence"+"1995" (58) versus "Croatian War"+"1995" (92). Put aside your behaviour analysis and comment on the discussion. The earlier move requests were to "Croatian Homeland War" and "Civil War in Croatia", so, no, they are not the same.--Zoupan 18:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was minded to support this, because in many ways it was not "independence" - Yugoslavia broke up completely, and all the new states were in that sense "independence". This was more about separation from Serbia. However, when looking at actual sources, book sources, when Googling this term "croatian+war" "croation war", the majority of returned results have it as part of a full title "Croation War of Independence". All the evidence suggests therefore, that this is a proper name for the war, and that's what we should be using. Most likely a lot of the other Google hits for "Croatian War" alone are part of other sentences, as suggested above.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article name

Strangely or not, "Croatian War of Independence" has 120, and "Croatian War" 500, on Gbook hits. On Gscholar, "Croatian War of Independence" has 548, while "Croatian War" has 2,520. If we safely deduct, we have an undisputable common name. The previous move requests were confusing, with faulty hits and biased comments. Am I the only one that thinks that the article name "Croatian War of Independence" smells of Romantic nationalism? If we have "Bosnian War", why not "Croatian War"? ICTY uses "war in Croatia".--Zoupan 01:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "Croatian War" on Google Books results in a bunch of results that are not references to a proper name. For example, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Croatian+War%22+1991+-wikipedia&pws=0 gives me #1 a book called "Croatian war writing 1991/92", #2 a text saying "Serbo-Croatian War (1991)", etc, and only #6 uses it as an actual name. Likewise, the search for "War in Croatia" 1991 -wikipedia gives me #1 a reference to a book section called "The war in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1991–1995.", #2 snippet is a sentence saying "The outbreak of war in Croatia in July 1991", etc. The result #5 is a true false positive, with the text "...led quickly to civil war. In Croatia, whose borders..." I actually had to scroll down to #13 to get a proper reference to the phrase "the war in Croatia". I went through all eight pages of results searching for the title "War in Croatia" in a book section or similar, and couldn't find it.
So in conclusion, the simple phrasing may be common and easy to find, but that doesn't affect its (lack of) quality as an article title per WP:AT. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Going through WP:AT, I don't see why "Croatian War" would be the least problematic. Requesting move.--Zoupan 01:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Possibly because you are a Serb nationalist with a POV to push? (remember this exact proposed move in 2014 that you pushed hard for?) This will never go anywhere, and trying to see if periodically you can achieve your goal is a lost cause. The RS's support the current title. Croatia fought and defeated the Serbs and gained independence. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.37.15 (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Croatian War of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Croatian War of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

War of Independence?

Was it really a war of independence? OK, maybe in 1991, but not later. Maybe the better name would be the Croatian Civil War, or the War in Croatia, or even the War for the Liberation of Croatia, etc. The main goal of the war was to defeat the Serbian Krajina. Just a thought... --WikiNameBaks (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC) r OK, sorry, I didn't see the discussion about the topic above. --WikiNameBaks (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a war to gain independence and to free occupied parts of Croatia. Walter9 (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no a "occupied parts" in civili war. NevitSRB (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Who says it was a civil war? It was war for indepandence. 1/3 of Croatia was under occupation and it was liberated in 1995. Walter9 (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Croatian War of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Serbian propaganda sources

User FkpCascais is again changing the number of victims by using Štrbac and his Veritas as a source. Please change it to an official neutral source and ban him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.183.104 (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction_with_another_article

Here it says 31 March as the start of war, in Lučko Anti-Terrorist Unit it says proclamation of independence and then subsequent war. Proclamation was in June the same year so this doesn't add up: either war broke out after the proclamation or before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.91.250 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatian_War_of_Independence/Archive_6&oldid=1188849855"