Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sources

All the sources are croatian or nato-oriented. For example, the numbers are not right. Serbia has 350 000 refugees from croatia still inside it's territory. About 6800 Serbs were killed during Storm and Flash. There is no mention of UN-peacekeeping force being attacked by the croats in these operations, prior to their fleeing and leaving the Serbs unprotected. Hundreds of Serbs who disappeared during those operations are still missing. Doesm't anybody find the part with war crimes charges odd when knowing these numbers? 79.175.68.22 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please bring reliable sources then and we'll be happy to improve the article. Alæxis_¿question? 05:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag

Um, the situation with the flag is confusing. To my knowledge, the RSK had no coat of arms on its flag during its existence. Is the current flag with the coat of arms the one created by the "government-in-exile" after 1995?? If so, no dice boys. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

fled/were forced

What sources do you refer to in this edit summary and what exactly do they say? Alæxis_¿question? 09:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alaexis, you've entered into an extremely controversial point. No, none (or an extremely small proportion) of the Serbian population were actually "forced to flee". They felt that they must flee, but they were not actually forced by Croatian forces. To use the phrase "forced to flee", is to claim that the operation was ethnic cleansing. See Operation Storm. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that they were forced to flee. I just asked what sources you meant. I'll look at Operation Storm again now. Alæxis_¿question? 19:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of anything. However, I must point out that the burden of proof is on you. I don't need a source proving its wasn't ethnic cleansing, you need a source proving it was ethnic cleansing before including "forced to flee" in the text. There's a fine line between believing that you're being forced to flee and actually being forced to flee. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand this distinction very well. However it wasn't me who added 'were forced' to the article, so I simply presume that, whoever has done it, he used the source indicated after the passage. It might not have been the case, but in such situation the burden of proof is on the editor who changes the text supported by a reference. Alæxis_¿question? 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who originally put that source in, but someone changed it. Now, the question of "forced" is very ambiguous. First off, forced by whom? The RSK leaders? The RSK military? The Croatian army? I don't believe any of these "forced" the people to free (I know the military advised many to flee, whether it was forceful, I doubt it.)--Jesuislafete (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know it, this changes the whole situation. You should have requested the sources when that change was made.. Alæxis_¿question? 22:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that they were forced to flee, from the genocidal croatian regime which glorified hitler's most supportive allies, the Ustashe. In fact here is a source from the UN: "Between 4 August 1995 and 15 November 1995, large numbers of Krajina Serbs fled or were forced to flee to Bosnia Herzegovina and Serbia. Some who did not flee because of sickness, infirmity or age were systematically harassed, and/or unlawfully killed. The property of Krajina Serbs was plundered. Ante GOTOVINA acting individually and/or in concert with others, including President Franjo Tudjman, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of persecutions of the Krajina Serb population." http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/got-ii010608e.htm

around 300,000 Serbs who were forced to flee Croatia's Krajina region during Operation Storm, an August 1995 Croatian army offensive to reclaim the area from rebel Serb control. Human rights groups estimate that around 400 civilians were killed and several thousand Serb houses destroyed. http://www.birn.eu.com/en/17/10/732/?ILStart=40 Of course, when president Tudjman calls for "All-White Peace Force in Croatia", one sees that his racism is evident, and that forced displacement is clear. It is only croatians who say "oh they were not forced, they chose to leave" - such rhetoric is really appalling. I suppose that the jews wanted to leave the middle eastern states in the late 1940s, when hundreds of thousands of them fled. It was clearly "forced to flee". (LAz17 (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)).

Correction, everyone in Serbia knows that they were forced to flee. Others, including the ICTY, are not so smart. Your implication that the ICTY classified the Operation as ethnic cleansing is a play on words - Gotovina is not charged with the ethnic cleansing of 300,000 people, but for allowing his troops to run rampant and burn (mostly empty) Serbian houses. The vast majority of the Serbs that fled never even came into contact with Croatian troops, and many were evacuated under orders from the RSK government. Whether or not the Serbs would have been ethnically cleansed if they didn't evacuate themselves is open for debate, though it is highly unlikely that 300,000 people were going to be thrown out of their homes. Not even the infamous Serb ethnic cleansings in Croatia and BiH ever came close. This is especially so if one considers the fact that the Operation was under US backing and control (thus the stop in front of Banja Luka). Tuđman knew that Clinton would skin him alive if he associated NATO and the administration with supporting ethnic cleansing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be rather insane for any population to remain in their homes while a genocidal army is coming their way and destroying just about anything in their path, including many civilians that are of absolutely no danger. When one side attacks, it's only natural for the other side to flee because of this. Keep in mind the genocidal ustashe rhetoric - the serbs did not want to be stuffed in their churches and then lit a-fire, like the ustashe did with them in ww2. Burning live people. And the croat troops idolized these criminals of the past. Croat ethnic cleansing had always focused on pushing the serbs out... the Croats cleansed like 70,000 serbs in western slavonia in the summer of 1991 - and the UN assisted them in doing that!! Further, Ethnic cleansing in bosnia, depopulating Serbian majority places like Grahovo, Drvar, Glamoc, Mrkonjic Grad, Sipovo, Kljuc, Sanski Most, and others, are clear proof of the ethnic cleansing that the Croats were doing on LARGE SCALE. You seem very sympathetic to their crimes. (LAz17 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

I don't care what you think. The vast majority of the Serbs that fled never even came into contact with Croatian troops, and many were evacuated under orders from the RSK government. You can't very well "ethnically cleanse" people you never saw. No matter the TV Beograd crap, the HDZ is not anywhere near the Ustaše, and the operation was under NATO sponsorship and control. ("Genocidal army"? LoL...) And lest we forget: Croats were ethnically claensed from the Krajina a long, looong time before Storm, and I don't think anyone disputes that was ethnic cleansing. Even in Croatia alone, but definitely if we take into account the Bosnian War, the Yugoslav wars ethnic cleansing trophy is still firmly in Serbian hands. Enjoy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG this LAZ sounds like Milošević himself! "it would be rather insane for any population to remain in their homes while a genocidal army is coming their way and destroying just about anything in their path, including many civilians that are of absolutely no danger". How can Serb population know that army that is coming is genocidal if they were not there? To call some army genocidal there must be some genocide commited by that army before! Isn't it funny? LAZ who wants to prove that Serb population was forced to flee, confesses that it was organized to flee and why. "genocidal army is coming". Yes that's exactly what local Serb authorities suggested to their people!

"Destroying just about anything in their path"? What anything? Some houses were robbed and burnt after operation by civilian and ex-soldier "revengers", when the most of the soldiers were already back home, LAZ uses mythic style of writing, thanks God this is not encyclopedia of myths.

"Keep in mind the genocidal ustashe rhetoric - the serbs did not want to be stuffed in their churches and then lit a-fire, like the ustashe did with them in ww2." LAZ have a problem with dates, WW2 was 45 years before Yugoslav wars, genocide in WW2 was started by Serb Chetnik forces in B&H and Croatia - but that was a tabu theme in ex-Yugoslavia, that church scene is from "Patriot" film with Mel Gibson, about American war of indenpendance. Speaking about Croats as they are "ustashe" speaks for itself, it says more about a speaker than about idea said by him. The only genocidal rhetoric here is one presented by LAZ, an obvious defender of genocide committed by the Serbs in this war. "the croat troops idolized these criminals of the past". Really? Can you confirm this bullshit? Or it's just another nationalist Serb indoctrination your head is fulfilled with?

"the Croats cleansed like 70,000 serbs in western slavonia in the summer of 1991 - and the UN assisted them in doing that!!" What is this? Summer of 1991? Stupid war was started in September 91, Croatia didn't have an army in that moment, there was no any UN around, and traffic in 1/3 of Croatia was blocked because of Serb "bulk revolution", there were already Croatian refugees from that territory, so if there was any ethnic cleansing in that moment in Croatia, it was committed by the Serbs! LAZ you are not just speaker of myths, you are shameless lier, whose real intention is not just writing an encyclopedia! 83.131.92.14 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbs were ordered to flee by Belgrade. High up people in the RSK have confirmed this. Milosevic wanted to use them to boost Serb demographics in places like Kosovo and Bosnia. He was tired of the Krajina welfare state and viewed them as a lost cause anyway. I will provide sources in the future, but anyone with an internet connection can also do this.207.236.177.82 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Population

I've reverted this edit because of sourcing issues, especially of the Serb population. The source used is the ICTY indictment, which has the figures of the "Croat and other non-Serb population" from the 1991 census, but it doesn't give the number of the Serb population. Obviously they were the majority in those areas in 1991, but the specific number isn't given. Spellcast (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we could give the percentage of Serbs in those areas for the benefit of the reader (since Croats, Other Non-Serbs and Serbs comprise 100% of RSK population by definition). Also, what was the problem with sourced passage about 1994 RSK government's estimate? "In 1994, the RSK's government estimated the population at 430,000 people.<ref>[http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/151/t151-4.htm RSK 1993 census results]</ref>" Alæxis_¿question? 06:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Serb population can be properly calculated from the ICTY data. Take the SAO Krajina population for example. The table I reverted gave 70,708 (28%) Croats, 13,101 (5%) others (both sourced), and the unsourced number of 168,437 (67%) Serbs. This gives a total of 252,246. Now if you calculate 5% of 252,246, you should expect to get 13,101 (as given in the source), but instead you get approximately 12,612. That's why I reverted the table because it was factually incorrect.

Also, the 1994 estimate of 430,000 (from your source) is a decline from the 1993 number of 435,595 (taken from here). I'm not completely familiar with the history, but does a decline of around 5,000 people from 1993 to 1994 make sense? If so, adding the 1994 estimate should be fine. Spellcast (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As said here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALAz17&diff=295368120&oldid=295367571 , it shall remain how it shows. Now stop vandalizing the population geography section. (LAz17 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)). A fall of 5,000 people in one year is a very plausible thing. Just the number of people that died due to lower birth rates and higher death rates is a an easy explanation. Migration is another one. (LAz17 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

What do you mean that the population can not be calculated?! Look at point 69 in the ICTY link, what mroe do need? (LAz17 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

This article needs a lot of work and I'm only trying to improve the sourcing, so no vandalism accusations please. Only information that complies with policy (such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS etc.) can be merged. It doesn't help to reinsert unsourced info. Point 69 gives the Croat and non-Serb data, but not the Serb numbers. The percentage of the Serb populations can obviously be deduced (by 100 minus the percentage of the rest). But how exactly did you come across the Serb population figures of 168,437, 14,161, and 61,492 from the ICTY source? Spellcast (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I've written. I think we could safely add percentages (100-28-5=67%) without actual figures. Alæxis_¿question? 16:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. As for the second table (the one claiming to be from the official 1991 census), it would be good if whoever potentially reinserts it can assure us they personally have access to the 1991 census. It was originally added here by Mir Harven (talk · contribs). The ICTY got their data from the 1991 census, so there shouldn't be any contradictions between the two tables. The data on both tables look fine except for the SAO Western Slavonia region, which has the largest difference. I doubt the official Croatian census would've used the term "SAO Western Slavonia", so I get the feeling Mir Harven may have incorrectly interpreted from the census what exactly constituted that region. Anyway, I'll leave a message on his talk page about his methodology. Spellcast (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And I just found this rationale, which could be relevant. Spellcast (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is true, but I assume the main difference in the population between the Croatian source and the ICTY source is what towns/villages were included and when. The timeline is important because the census was taken just before the war broke out, but certainly after important political dates. The ICTY may be excluding certain villages/towns around the perimeter that they did not consider part of RSK. But that is just a theory. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop deleting population data, Spellcast. Associated text is very important. (LAz17 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)).

Removed following unsourced "data"

I only removed the following statement "The largest discrepancy is in the UNPA Sector West, which might refer to the fact that this zone originally included large patches of western Slavonia (areas around Grubišno Polje, Daruvar, Pakrac and the western slopes of Papuk), but these weren't controlled by the RSK in the later stages of the war" from the article because they seem dubious and are not sourced. Contrary to what user Laz is trying to portray, I put the "fact" tag for other unsourced data, and reworded certain things to create a better flow. Unlike user Laz17, who finds it necessary to repeat the SAME phrase in the next sentence:

"while in the entire RSK, Serbs made up just over half of the population. The ethnic Serb population accounted for about 12.2% of the total population of SR Croatia. In the entire RSK, Serbs made up just over half of the population."

All my edits were reverted back to this for the simple reason that I was the one editing. Next time, user Laz17, read over other user's edits and keep an open mind about what changes are made--you may be surprised some good comes out of it.--Jesuislafete (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is unusual about that statement about Daruvar? It is all okay. It only explains why there is such a difference between the data - because the croatian data included these other regions, and so there are many more people there. (LAz17 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)).

towns

Town list must be updated extensively. We should do it based on the municipalities. Please in each municipality in other words. (LAz17 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)).

Predecessors/Successors

First of all, all of them, SAO Krajina, SAO Western Slavonia, SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia, Republic of Serbian Krajina, they're all illegal, self-proclaimed, unrecognized rebel entities. Noone is disputing that here (I hope?). The RSK is no more legal or illegal than SAO Krajina - they both have an equal legal status (or lack one equally). However, the RSK was formed as a "union" of SAOs that already declared their supposed "independence" from Croatia. When it was dissolved in 1995, the "Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia", then known as the "Danube Krajina", remained outside Croatian control (and was replaced by the UNTAES on January 15 1996).

Now, I anticipated the possibility that nationalists might not like too many Serbian flags - out of principle :). Unfortunately, this is simply how it went... The RSK did not proclaim independence from Croatia, it was formed out of entities that already did so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:"Republic of Serbian Krajina was self-proclaimed on 19 December 1991" Yes, that's right, but it was proclaimed by uniting the territories that had already declared their independence from Croatia. Understand? SAO Krajina declared its "independence" from Croatia on March 16 1991. It was self-proclaimed as a "union" of the three SAOs... The RSK did not declare independence from Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Direktor! I think that your statement above is mostly accurate, but

1.) SAO Krajina was self-proclaimed autonomous region (oblast) (not country) in Croatia, and Republic of Serbian Krajina was self-proclaimed, internationally unrecognized Republic (country) out of Croatia.

2.) On 26 February 1992, the SAO Western Slavonia and SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem were added to the RSK, which initially had only encompassed the territories within the SAO Krajina.

3.) SAO Krajina announced that it planned to separate from Croatia if it moved for independence from Yugoslavia, and RSK did just that.

Shortly (1,2,3): if Croatia declare independence from SFRY, Krajina will declare independence from Croatia. --Kebeta (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I've considered that, however:
1) Irrelevant. The SAO Krajina did not consider itself to be an autonomous oblast in Croatia, but in Yugoslavia. It declared independence from Croatia on March 16 1991. It was no longer in Croatia.
2) Also not important. The RSK was made-up of the three SAOs, it doesn't matter if they didn't unite completely simultaneously. The name of the entity is irrelevant. It was an unrecognized self-proclaimed enitity, it does not matter if they call it "Republic" or "Oblast" or "Sultanate"...
3) There were a lot of "announcements" in those days, but the SAO Krajina had already declared its independence from Croatia (within Yugoslavia). It was an SAO of Yugoslavia.
In short: the formation of the RSK was done by three SAOs that had already declared complete "independence" from Croatia. This is simply so. There is no way the SAOs were part of Croatia on 18 December 1991... Please note: Even if they wanted to be, Croatia did not recognize them as entities to be within Croatia, so they were "independent" from Croatia either way (as entities, the territory is naturally Croatian - and we are talking about entities). Am I getting through?

4) Why are you removing the (so-called) "Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia" as a successor? Not all of the RSK was included into Croatia in 1995. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Uf, if you are in Split now (I sow on your user page that you are from Split), you know is to hot to write, and computer just make it worst). O.K. lets dance....

1.) In your text above there is to much words like irrelevant or not important for plain facts.

2.) Leadership of Krajina declared independence (some as a part of Croatia with great autonomy, some within the SFR Yugoslavia, and some declared Krajina to be part of Serbia).

3.) As for autonomous region vs Republic - SAO flag can not in Infobox because SAO was not a country (imagine Infobox Former Country of SFRY with predecessors flags of Dalmatia, Istria, Slavonia, Šumadija, Metohija...(or entities like Serbs, Dalmatians, fishermans,..) instead of current flags of Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Italy.

4.) According to testimony given by Babić in his subsequent war crimes trial, during the summer of 1991 the Serbian secret police—under Milošević's command—set up "a parallel structure of state security and the police of Krajina and units commanded by the state security of Serbia". Shadowy groups of paramilitaries with names such as the "Vukovi sa Vucjaka" ("Wolves from Vucjak") and the "Beli Orlovi" ("White Eagles"), funded by the Serbian secret police, were also a key component of this structure. So, you can say Krajina was not independent from Croatia, but Croatia was occupied by Serbia or SFRY.

5.) Krajina would never declared independence from SR Croatia (part of SFRY), but only from independent Republic of Croatia (maybe not even from Croatia if Savka for example won elections instead of Tuđman).

6.) As for Republic of Eastern Slavonia..., let us first settle predecessors, I think that successors would go much easier. Especially if you provide some references (article Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia hasn't any).

BTW, did you check Marco Polo article recently. --Kebeta (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(I have air conditioning, a LED monitor, I've got ice water, an electric fan, and two female Sudanese slaves keeping me cool(er)... I'm also walking distance from the beach :P)
Ok, I can see this is fast getting off track and expanded into 15 points... its a simple matter: the RSK was formed as a "union" of three SAOs (fact). These SAOs declared their independence from Croatia separately, and before the RSK (fact). In other words, they were seperate from Croatia when they formed the RSK. Most importantly: the three SAOs were NOT a part of Croatia in December 1991. No way. Even if they considered themselves a part of Croatia in December 1991, Croatia did not consider them a part of Croatia.
This is all that matters. Its that simple. You simply can't place "Croatia" as a predecessor state for the RSK if "three SAOs" ≠ "Croatia".

No I didn't check Marco Polo... I'm still sick to my stomach with that crap... what's up? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please tell me why you removed the "Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia" as a successor? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that nothing I wrote is getting through you. You are just repeating yourself, and ignoreing all the facts I wrote above in text.

O.K. Lets forget everything I said, and lets concentrate on your point of view. You said that we are not talking about countries, but entities (although flags are interpreted by most as simbols of country). And you are telling me that three entities (SAOs) declared their independence from Croatia separately, before joining in RSK. So, my question is: if population in so-called SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia (one of SAOs) was 192,163 inhabitants, and was composed of 90,454 (47%) Croats, 61,492 (32%) Serbs, and 40,217 (21%) others (Hungarians, Roma, Germans, Rusyns, Slovaks, etc),

how this SAO is Serbian entity? Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm repeating myself. The stuff you wrote isn't "getting through to me" because it has nothing to do with the main issue. As I said, most of it is irrelevant.

Re: "how is this SAO Serbian territory"?
What do you mean? The SAOs were unrecognized rebel entities on the territory of Croatia. "Serbian territory"? The territory under the control of the SAOs/RSK was de jure RH, but de facto SAO and later RSK. The RSK is simply a rebel entity created by uniting three other rebel entities, not by seceding directly from Croatia. Of course, this is all Croatia, but we're talking about the rebel states. They're all equally illegal etc.

A "country" is basically a type of political entity. The two are not different things, one includes the other. Flags represent all sorts of things: movements, countries, autonomous provinces, cities, and oblasts...

This is the main issue: The RSK was formed on December 19 1991. On December 18 1991, was the SAO Krajina a part of Croatia? Remember, we're talking about the entity, not the territory it encompassed or claimed. The Split-Dalmatia County was a part of Croatia at the time, was the entity SAO Krajina a part of Croatia? Of course not... the very thought is laughable. The RSK is an entity formed out of three entities completely independent from Croatia, and at bloody war with Croatia(!). Was all the territory legally Croatian? Yes, of course, but that is irrelevant at the time, since we're talking about the rebel states, i.e. about the rebel entities... We are talking about de facto control. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. First of all, I think that so-called SAO Krajina was as much a part of Croatia as Split-Dalmatia County was. But, never mind this, lets go your way (again).

You are talking about de facto control. Well, I will just tell you one example about de facto control. After Operation Flash, Republic of Serbian Krajina (country, entity, occupied territory, or what ever you wanna call it) continued with existance bearing same name. So, if you completely ignore me (facts and my point of view) from this discussion, you will have to admit that it should be four flags as predecessors (3 SAOs and Croatia).

Not to mention that:

1.) border line between Croatia and RSK was in nobody de facto control, or that

2.) in time SAOs declared independence from Croatia, SAOs didn't control the area of RSK at its full extend, or that

3.) there were in SAOs and in RSK people (mostly Croatian but also some Serbian), who didn't recognised decisions of some storekeeper and chief of police, or that

4.) Croatian Army were often deep in RSK extracting local peoples (mostly eldery people), and so on and so on..

But, you don't have to answer me because I know your answer will be: irrelevant. I will not revert your edits, but I will tell you that this kind of thinking led to unfortunate and unnecessary war. Please, don't take this personally, because it isn't. So long, Direktor! --Kebeta (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The "RSK government" still exists, unfortunately for them, it does not exist de jure or de facto. Much like the NDH or Nedić's Serbia did not exist de jure, but only de facto. Yugoslavia (1941 -1945), on the other hand, continued to exist de jure, but (mostly) not de facto. If you're both legal and in control, you're ok, if you're neither legal nor in control - you're a joke. The RSK gov. is a joke.

No hard feelings...? I'm afraid I simply don't see your logic... Think of it this way: its a simple matter of predecessors and successors. Without a doubt, the SAO Krajina was succeeded by the RSK, therefore it is the country's predecessor. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic composition in 1992

I'm not sure what "please provide a link" means, the statement was referenced, and is contained in the source.

Also, I don't understand why it would be "obviously false". GregorB (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

This unrecognized state was formed from the unification of three unrecognized entities, the infobox should reflect that. There is no distinction because they're all unrecognized & illegal. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

3 unrecognized entities? What 3? And how it is possible that Serb Krajina is one of the descendents of Serb Krajina? I'm sure this unrecognized state was formed by millitary agression from the territory of Croatia, and was given back to Croatia afte the war. Zenanarh (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

POV historical image

Territories controlled by Serb forces during the Yugoslav Wars.

I noticed that some contributors remove images with referenced description without prior discussion on talk page. This dangerous and illegitimate practice leads us to edit warring and should not be used on Wikipedia. I repeat, please use talk page if you are disputing something. Edit summary is simply not enough for dispute resolution.

So, if someone thinks that this image is not appropriate, let's discuss it here.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was explained to you numerous times already. This is so POV that it is almost vandalism. And of course that we will not discuss this picture usage on all articles where you put it. This is problem with picture , not article. --Tadija (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Some POV and relevance notes

1. The start of the creation section goes:

The Serb-populated regions in Croatia were of central concern to the Serbian popular movement of the late 1980s, led respectively by Slobodan Milošević. The incidents started in 1988 and turned into full-scale Serbian political rallies in 1989. The Croatian pro-independence victory in 1990 made matters more tense, especially since the country's Serbian minority was supported both politically and militarily by the Yugoslav People's Army, especially Serbian President Milošević. At the time, Serbs comprised about 12.2% of Croatia's population: 581,663 people declared themselves Serbs in the census of 1991.

Does the section on the creation of Krajina really have to start with Milošević? Is his relevance enough to justify linking him to the creation of Krajina in the very first line, before even mentioning any of the actual Krajina leaders? Then, highly POV language: what are "the incidents" that are alluded to, how are they "turned into full-scale rallies"? What is a "full-scale" rally anyway, the epithet is more suitable to a "riot". Then, Milošević again, ok, big bad guy, but effectively dedicating two of the first four sentences too him doesn't really look like a balanced exposition of causes. Then, relevance of the proportion of Serbs to the total population of Croatia, as opposed to the regions that fromed the SRK? The article on Croatian War of Independence doesn't mention what proportion of the Yugoslav population were Croats, understandably, because it's irrelevant, doesn't the same apply here?

2. Later in the section:

The resolution was confined exclusively to Serbs so it passed by a majority of 99.7%. As expected, it was declared illegal and invalid by the Croatian government, who stated that Serbs had no constitutional right to break away from Croatian legal territory.

The use of "so" and "as expected" turns statements of fact, suitable to an encyclopedia into an unsourced judgement of causes, unsuitable to an encyclopedia.

3. Further down:

Shadowy groups of paramilitaries with names such as the "Vukovi sa Vucjaka" ("Wolves from Vucjak") and the "Beli Orlovi" ("White Eagles"), funded by the Serbian secret police, were also a key component of this structure.

Stylistically, this is a sentence out of a spy thriller, and the reference is dead, thus the claim of funding by Serbian secret police is unsourced, and the relevance of mentioned groups is unsupported.

4. Even further

Over the following months, a large area of territory, amounting to a third of Croatia, was controlled by the rebel Serbs. The Croatian population suffered heavily, fleeing or evicted with numerous killings, leading to ethnic cleansing.[8] The bulk of the fighting occurred between August and December 1991 when approximately 80,000 Croats were expelled (and some were killed).[9] Many more died and or were displaced in fighting in eastern Slavonia (this territory along the Croatian/Serbian border was not part of the Krajina, and it was the JNA that was the principal actor in that part of the conflict). The Gospić massacre was one of the war crimes committed by Croatian military against the Serbian civilians.

Balance? Dedicating most of the section to a vivid description of misfortunes of Croatian population and then a single abrupt sentence mentioning (dryly) a single case of mistreatment from the Croatian side seems strange.

Yes, all those suggestions are aimed at lowering the pro-Croat tone of the section. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.114.218 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Two POVs put together don’t make one NPOV.--187.37.63.201 (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects

The article is not B Class. For example, first section "Etymology", does't have any citations at all. For B class, please make request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/RequestsKebeta (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Insignia

Please present a source indicating that the flag and coat of arms were used 1991-1995. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

There have been problems with who is right about the Republic of Serbian Krajina Coat of Arms and Flag. Please visit the semi-official museum of the Republic of Serbian Krajina at http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/, and you will see original documents, badges (both metal cap badges and cloth sleeve patches), State-issued bonds and currency, certificates, identity cards, military documents, etc., all of which date back to the war period (1991-1995). Please look at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/hr-rsk.html, where you will find the State flag (not the civil ensign) of the RSK. The RSK had a State Flag with a crowned two-headed eagle and Serbian National Cross in the middle.

The plain Serbian tricolor is the civil ensign commonly used by the people and sometimes, due to a lack of funds, by the Government and Army. When most of the RSK was taken over by Croatian forces in 1995, the unconquered eastern part of the RSK became the short-lived Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. This new entity kept the old Coat of Arms of the RSK, but they changed the flag by adding a blue shield behind the crowned, two-headed eagle. There are scanned copies of magazine photos from Eastern Slavonia from that period that can by found on the Military Photos website (I will try to send you a link as soon as I find it in my records). On the aforementioned RSK museum website, you will also be able to find militaria from the Republic of Srpska. Even a superficial examination of these items will show that the Coat of Arms used by the RSK was not the same, although there were similarities, as the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska.

The Coat of Arms that you have listed now is not the Coat of Arms of the RSK. It is the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska. If you go on Google and type "flag of Krajina", you will immediately see a high-resolution photo of the State Flag that Croatian troops found in the office of then RSK President Milan Martic. Sadly, this Flag and the Coat of Arms that go with it were never vectorized, since it was always easier to use the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Republic of Srpska (which, unlike the RSK, did use a plain Serbian tricolor as its State Flag). Recently, people have even begun to use the current Flag and Coat of Arms of Serbia (both of which date back just a few years) as the Flag and Coat of Arms of the RSK, but that is because of laziness. Quite simply, no one ever bothered to do a high-quality vectorization of the State Flag and Coat of Arms, which is why my friend and me decided to do a professional vectorization of both the Flag and Coat of Arms, and to make them available to everyone.

I hope this answers some of your questions. I honestly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the articles about the RSK, so that they are correct. Believe me, this is my desire as well, which is why I put so much effort into making sure the Coat of Arms and Flag were correct.

By the way, as far as the Emblem of the Serbian Army of Krajina is concerned, please take a look at the following link: http://www.qsl.net/4n1fog/v07.htm, and you will see that the Emblem of the Army as I represented it is just a vectorization of the original emblem worn by the RSK Army soldiers and officers on the sleeve patches (the same Emblem was used on all military documents from the RSK, as you will be able to see when you look at the RSK museum website).

All the best, Marko Maljkovic--Orlovi Gvozda (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I have found two more references for the changes that I made to the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, as well as to the Flag and Coat of Arms of its short-lived successor, the Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia.

The first reference is a scanned copy of a photo-reportage made by Serbian journalists in the RSK during the war. The photos in this photo-reportage show an official RSK military ceremony taking place. The RSK President Milan Martic is clearly visible in one of the photos. The photos also clearly show the official Coat of Arms of the RSK, which is visibly different from the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska (the Republic of Srpska Coat of Arms was mistakenly used in previous posts about the RSK; the two Coats of Arms are similar in many ways, and it is a common mistake to mix them up).

The vectorized RSK Coat of Arms image that I produced and posted here is the same as the official Coat of Arms used by the RSK during the war. The photos also clearly show that the official State Flag used at official State-sponsored ceremonies of this kind had the RSK Coat of Arms on it, as I have presented in the vectorized flag that I posted here on Wikipedia. This is the link to the first reference: http://img107.imageshack.us/i/244232655aofppqphgd2.jpg/

The second reference is also a scanned copy of a Serbian magazine article. The article is from November 19, 1995. It shows soldiers and officers of the RSK Army at an official, State-sponsored ceremony to celebrate the Day of the Serbian Army of Krajina ("Dan Srpske vojske Krajine"). By the time that this article was published, the Croatian Army and Police had already taken over the territories that used to be held by the RSK. The only remaining part of the old RSK that was still under Serbian control was the Republic of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia.

The Serbian entity in Eastern Slavonia maintained the same Coat of Arms as the old RSK, as can be seen from the magazine article I am referring to here, but the State Flag was changed. A blue shield was added to the Flag (the Coat of Arms would now be superimposed over that blue shield). Since the article describes an official State ceremony, it is safe to say that the symbols used here, including the Flags, were the official symbols, as opposed to popular, but unofficial, symbols by the people and non-State organizations in the RSK. This is the link to the second reference: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3795/111111111111co1.jpg

As far as the differences between the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska and the RSK Coat of Arms are concerned, I have put together a short list of links that show those differences. The differences are not major, but there are definite differences, and it cannot be said that the two Serbian wartime entities used the same Coat of Arms, because that would be a mistaken assumption.

First, this is the list of links to photos of State-issued symbols (in this case, military symbols) used by the Republic of Srpska during the war:

http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RS-met-13.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RS-met-6.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RS-1h.htm

And, this is the list of links to photos of State-issued symbols (in this case, both military and political symbols, including postage stamps and RSK treasury bonds, all of which must, according to law, use only the official rendition of the Coat of Arms):

http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RSK-1.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RSK-met-7.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/RAZG-PISMA-OSTALO.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/ZUBCANE.htm http://www.republikasrpskakrajina.com/OBVEZNICE.htm

When it comes to the Flag, it is absolutely true that a plain Serbian red-blue-and-white tricolor was commonly used in the RSK during the war, but this plain tricolor was not the official State Flag. The tricolor was commonly used because of a lack of funds (or perhaps bureaucratic laziness or lack of interest; who knows?) to produce the official State Flag, which, as can be seen from the first two references above, definitely had the Coat of Arms in its middle (and even included a blue shield beneath the Coat of Arms in the case of the Serbian entity in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia in 1995).

In the Wikipedia article about the Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the article shows a plain Serbian tricolor and calls it the "National Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina". However, the original name (in Serbian) of that particular flag, as can be seen in the same Wikipedia article, is "Narodna zastava Republike Srpske Krajine", which, in this case, means the "People's Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina" (a "people's flag" is the civil ensign used by the citizens of any particular country, while a State Flag is the official banner of that same country; not all nations differentiate between these two types of banners, but the Serbs and some other European nations do).

Serbia changed its State symbols a few years ago. Here is the English-language web-page on the Serbian Government website that shows the new State symbols, including the new State Flag. As you will see from this Serbian Government web-page, there is a clear difference between the official State Flag (that has a Coat of Arms) and the "people's flag" (i.e. civil ensign), which is a plain Serbian tricolor. This is the link to the Serbian Government web-page: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=5412&change_lang=en

The same holds true for the State Flag of the RSK. Unlike the Republic of Srpska, which actually did use a plain Serbian tricolor as its official State Flag (and continues to do so), the RSK never used a plain Serbian tricolor as its official State Flag, except when it had no other option (e.g. due to a lack of resources, etc.).

The work that I have presented here is entirely my own work and that of my friend and colleague, Vladimir Jovanovic. Neither one of us has anything whatsoever to do with the RSK Government-in-Exile that appeared in Belgrade a few years ago, nor do we have anything to do with any nationalist political or other groups in Serbia or anywhere else.

This work is merely our contribution to historical memory. We were motivated by the fact that various sources were mistakenly using the old Coat of Arms of the Republic of Srpska, or even the brand-new Coat of Arms and Flag of Serbia, and presenting them as the Coat of Arms and Flag of the RSK, which is factually incorrect. Since no professional vectorization had ever been made of the RSK State Flag and Coat of Arms, we combed through all of the reference material we could find to make as true and correct a vectorized version of the RSK Coat of Arms and Flag as possible.

I notice from the history of this and other Wikipedia articles about the RSK and the 1991-1995 war in Croatia that you have invested a great deal of time and energy to making sure that the articles presented here are as correct and objective as possible, and, believe me, I truly appreciate that, and I hope that you will continue to do so in the future, since there is always a danger that these articles will be misused or vandalized. I hope that this small contribution I have made will also enrich the historical accuracy of some of the articles referring to the RSK. Thank you once again.

Best regards, Marko Maljkovic--Orlovi Gvozda (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC) --Orlovi Gvozda (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My thanks, Mr Maljković, for your detailed description of the sources. I will be brief. I'm afraid that among all the sources, only the FOTW website is acknowledged (sometimes!) as a valid source, and only there can we find an expert vexillologist descibing the flag of the RoSK:

While the official flag was the simple Serb tricolour only, in practice many variations of the flag defaced with various central emblems. Various sources claim that some of those flags are are for specific use only or that they are of limited purpose, but in most cases there was no differentiation among them nor the emblem-less flag and they could have been interchanged at whim of the user.

The problem is this: it seems there were a great many variations of the flag that were in use, but only the plain tricolor was constant. Wikipedia has very strict standards for sources (see WP:V). If you claim that the flag you posted was in official use in some capacity, please post a secondary source or an expert statement to that effect. Thus far, I've seen only original research (WP:OR) with very little to support it but a few photos. In short, while I appreciate your efforts, original research is not accepted on Wikipedia in any way, and you require secondary sources. Alternatively, do you have access to RoSK legilature on the hoisting of flags?

Most importantly: please DO NOT start to edit-war over the insertion of your flags and insignia, else I shall have to report such disruptive conduct. Wait unil discussions are over (see WP:BRD). Please understand I a trying to assist you in grasping how Wikipedia functions in order to help you introduce your changes. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I, of course, have no intention of starting an edit-war over this or any other matter. I am historian, and I absolutely accept the need for claims of any kind to be well documented. I do not believe that very many, if any, secondary sources exist, regarding the official State Flag of the RSK. As a historian, I can tell you that the only way to determine what the official State Flag of some entity is by looking at which banner it uses as its official Flag, or by asking the authorities of that entity which Flag is the official one. It is impossible to ask the RSK authorities which Flag they used, since those authorities no longer exist. The only other way is to look at original photos and documents dating from that period, which is what I have done.

The FOTW website can be helpful, but the vexillologist in question never explains how he arrived at the conclusion that the official Flag of the RSK was a simple Serbian tricolor. He lists no sources to back up his conclusion. The information on the FOTW website is complied by various contributors who send in self-made electronic images of flags that they claim to have seen, sometimes fleetingly, on TV or in some newspaper (that they often threw away). The sources I listed are not just pictures. They are photographs, as well as scanned copies of original documents, bank notes, treasury bonds, and other State-issued objects, from the time period in question (1991-1995).

The RSK no longer exists, and it did not dissolve in an orderly manner, but was taken over militarily by a military and police presence (the Armed Forces and Police of the Republic of Croatia) that was hostile to its existence. During this takeover, many original documents, photos, templates, flags, and other examples of State regalia were destroyed or taken as souvenirs (war trophies) by the victorious Croatian troops.

It is often these souvenirs that serve as our only source for what the symbols and insignia officially used by the RSK actually looked like. Many of the symbols and insignia used by Nazi Germany would have disappeared forever, if it had not been for Allied soldiers that decided to take some part of the defeated Third Reich back home with them.

As such, these copies of original documents, photos showing State-sponsored ceremonies where the official Flag was in use, scanned copies of original treasury bonds, postage stamps, bank notes, etc., showing the official Coat of Arms, are all primary sources that are acceptable by Wikipedia's standards.

I would like to thank you again for all the effort you continue to place in maintaining the integrity of these articles about the history of this period. As a university-educated historian I especially appreciate your efforts.

All the best, Marko Maljkovic--89.110.239.50 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• CoA. I see no problem with the coat of arms, and hold (for my part) that your image is more accurate than the one currently in the article.
• Flag. To put it in brief, your position is that the flag you posted was the state flag of the RoSK, but that the civil flag was the plain tricolor? If so, you should know that Wikipedia usually has the civil flag in the infobox anyway (which in this case would be the plain tricolor). I would have no problem with you revising the current infobox flag of the RoSK in such a way that its color shades match the one in your upload. I am however, unsure what solid evidence you have provided that the flag with the coa is, in fact, the state flag. Regardless, I would not mind if you included it in the article as an alternative flag.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you very much for all of your assistance and advice. I believe that your positions regarding both the matter of the COA and the matter of the RSK Flag are fair, balanced, and objective. Given the lack of secondary sources on this matter, and considering the various primary sources that suggest the RSK State Flag was not a plain Serbian tricolor, but that it also had the RSK COA in its center, I think it might be best to add this Flag (i.e. the one with the COA in its center) as an alternate Flag of the RSK, as you suggested. There is no doubt that the plain Serbian tricolor was the civil Flag (or ensign) of the RSK, so you are right when you say it would be appropriate to place this Flag (i.e. the civil ensign) in the infobox, as it is now. Thank you most kindly for everything. Your suggestions gave me a reason to further explore this matter and other related subjects, which will, of course, only help in making any work that I produce on this matter be of greater quality and accuracy. All the best, Marko Maljkovic--89.110.239.50 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Maljković, for your scholarly efforts to improve our encyclopaedia. For the time being, I would suggest you post a new image on Wikimedia commons, a plain tricolor with color shades to match those of your new flag (i.e. the one with the coa in the center), as it seems that regardless of the coat of arms' status, the flag color shades were as you suggest. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you again for your advice and helpful suggestions. I have added a plain tricolor to the Wikimedia Commons, with the same Flag color shades as were present in the Flag I posted previously (i.e. the one with the COA in the middle). I hope to collaborate with you again in the future. I do not know what you are by vocation, but you have the same passion for accuracy and objectivity that is shared by all genuine historians and other scholars. I wish you much success in your work on Wikipedia and your other pursuits. Best regards, Marko Maljkovic--Orlovi Gvozda (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Government in exile

I've merged the self-proclaimed government-in-exile article in here to get around the basic notability issue. Comments from Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina Government-in-exile mostly still apply. Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox for fringe groups; a description of this group is in context here, but there's a limit to how much the readers should be bothered with their assorted claims that have miniscule coverage in actual reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The section was exuding strong hearsay and original research resembling something one would find in a personal blog. Indeed, almost nothing was referenced and consisted of vague ramblings on "meetings" that no one witnessed of such a low-important subject. I cut out everything except the basics of the situation. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)