Talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Six convicted May 2013

http://www.wral.com/un-court-convicts-6-bosnian-croats-of-atrocities/12492908/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

IoannesII

This article is not meant to be used as POV fork to list all the indecencies carried out against Croats by Bosniaks or Serbs. We are here suppose to address whole-scale ethnic cleansing operations (like those against Bosniaks in Lasva or against Croats in Bugojno) and not standalone massacres and crimes like those in Krizancevo or Grabovica, in which case such a list could also be made very lengthy for the Bosniaks packed with crimes by Croats. As confusing as it may be, ethnic cleansing is a coordinated, integrated and multifaceted crime which single massacres and other crimes may necessary not amount to. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306173512/https://massviolence.org/ethnic-cleansing to http://www.massviolence.org/Ethnic-Cleansing

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) 17:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The maps

What is the source of the map from 1998? There has never been such Croatian majority in Drvar, Glamoč, Grahovo and Jajce. That territory was held by Croatian forces, but it never had Croatian ethnic majority. This is completely wrong map. There should be the map from 2013 census. It is the only official and reliable source that we have about ethnic distribution. Moreplovac (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Lack of sources, wording, neutral tone and other problems

@PortalTwo: My edits are not about "I do not like it" (I do not like Balkan people killing each other, that is for sure). On the other hand, the article lacks RS (CIA report?!) and lacks basic NPOV. These are serious issues which I have explained in my edits and I am happy to do more so here. I find it interesting that you have registered at that time, welcome. :) Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with citing the CIA report. Regardless of everything, the CIA publications tend to present reliable figures and data, and are used even in Featured articles such as Battle of Vukovar, and Good articles such as 1991 protest in Split or Battle of Gospić. As for the other alleged issues, it would be good if you could be more specific and name them all here, so that we can try to assess your claims.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone like people being murdered, not sure how that is connected with your or my edits in question . However I know different editors have different views of these wars and some try to equilize or demonize different sides and I’m sure you agree we should make sure the articles don’t unintentionally imply such things that may mislead the readers. This culminated in me making an account. Creation of a Greater Croatia is not a topic I’ve seen pop up on Yugoslav War related articles to the likes of Greater Serbia. Nor wide sources to boot. The CIA information is clearly explained in the article as a CIA population factoid I don’t see the problem. I’ve seen other government statements from those participating in the war for their statements in other articles. I was browsing Yugoslav War articles and noticed a change in the article when I went back an hour later which seemed strange. So I went to the edit history and decided to make an account to question it. Not sure what time I was supposed to register. I’m sure you are happy to have me here. ;) PortalTwo (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Current version is written in neutral tone. Can you cite particular sentences that are not neutral and why? Mhare (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

1) CIA report is not RS. Why would it be? Using it anywhere is not good at all. You would need to prove that it is RS per WP:Burden. Academic work would work so much better. 2) There is nothing about Greater Croatia idea, which was very active as well. That is not NPOV. 3) In the first sentence it states that Bosnian Serbs were behind the crimes rather than Bosnian Serb army. That is bashing, generalisation-hate speech and it is not NPOV. 4) In the next sentence about Croats, it states - some Croats. Why can't it be "some Serbs"? That is not NPOV, once again. 5) The campaign was believed to be a part of a plan to create a "Greater Serbia" from a collapsed Yugoslavia. Why is this in the lead? It is not relevant for the lead, as it is opinion of one author and some widespread policy, like it is claimed many times. I'm okay with the information, and it is relevant, but not for the lead. A source by Crnobrnja in the article body cites the creation of a smaller Yugoslavia as another option favoured by Serbs, which is/was correct. Therefore, the lead is giving only half-truth, which is not good for Wiki. Once again, only most relevant information should be place in the lead and more info. given afterwards. I also think that I have written a better intro. sentence in my las edit. We can start from here.Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

1) I found a more detailed publication of the population data, making the CIA report now unnecessary. 2) Greater Croatia was added. 3) Changed to Army of Republika Srpska. 4) Changed. 5) Moved to historical background. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It should be included as well as parts of the Croatian entity in Bosnian was against Herzegovina being occupied and that it should remain in Bosnia. PortalTwo (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sadko about the discussion of Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia as well as clarifying Bosnian Serb forces instead of Bosnian Serbs. Though I don’t think that was put their intentionally. For point number 4, how is it NPOV to say Bosnian Croats carried a “similar campaign” when sources in the article state that these were not done in the same way? That seems like attempts at false equivalency. Nor are Bosniak forces mentioned. While all three “sides” committed war crimes, it is misleading at best to say they were similar. Should state it was fleeing and forced expulsion that is being talked about.

Also, if we are to state the diminished number of Croats and Bosniaks left in Serb held territories, we should also put in the intro the diminished population of Serbs and Bonsiaks in Croat territories and etc Bosniak held territories. Otherwise it implies that only Serb forces had driven out populations. Which isn’t NPOV.PortalTwo (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@PortalTwo Your recent edits are problematic and seem to imply bias. The ICTY in its verdicts actually convicted Bosnian Croats of persecution on political, racial or religious ground and deportation:page 9 This means that there was indeed a similar campaign.

The UN report actually found that the Bosniak forces have not engaged in systematic ethnic cleansing. I therefore do not understand your reasoning here, nor why did you wrote that Bosniak forces did do that. The Konjic trial is still in the phase of the indictment, and is thus questionable to write that the Bosniak side perpetrated ethnic cleansing based only on this incident alone, before a final verdict was reached.

The ethnic composition changed on all three sides, but the reliable sources tell that the systematic ethnic cleansing was carried out only by the Serb and Croat forces. In accordance with the title and scope of the article, your edits need to be explained.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@3E1I5S8B9RF7 My edits did not deny expulsion based on ethnic grounds. Not sure where you got that. You even kept my change in the lead in respect to Bosnian Croat forces so it seems you do agree with my edit.......However, the previous article equalizing the actions of both factions is very biased and false as per sources. Bosniak forces did expel and cause fleeing of Croat and Serb civilians. It did happen. The UN is saying it was not systematic like in the way Serb forces had carried out. How is UN not reliable? The information I added is per the sources already cited. The UN report I directly quoted and contradicts your claims. The phrase that Croats wide used ethnic cleansing is not NPOV. According the the cited source already in the article it says that Bosniak forces carried out ethnic cleansing of Croats and Serbs with that town being an example. I can provide you direct quotes if you like. I wouldn’t add info that isn’t in the RS cited sources. Also original there was no mention of the decline of Serb and Bosniak populations in Croat held territories. Please look again and you will see your removal of content is inadvertently censoring information and biases the article. The article already address how this conflicts with the UN report. Yet you didn't delete that line.

Per UN cited in article: "All parties involved in the conflict have committed «grave breaches» of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law. These violations include the killing of civilians, rape torture, and the deliberate destruction of civilian property, including cultural and religious property, such as churches and mosques. But, there are significant qualitative differences. Most of the violations were committed by Serbs against Bosnian Muslims. The second largest group of victims were Croats, whose perpetrators have been Serbs from Serbia, BiH, and the Krajinas. Both Bosnian Muslims and Catholic Croats have also victimized Serbs in BiH and Croatia, but in lesser number. The policy of «ethnic cleansing», however, has been systematically carried out by Serbs in BiH and Croatia against their opponents, though Croats have also carried out similar policies, but on a more restricted scale, against Serbs in Croatia and Muslims in Herzegovina. Forceful population removal by BiH of Serbs has also occurred in some limited areas, but not as a policy."

As for Bosniak Forces, this source used to cite Croatian forces engaging in ethnic cleansing: "In March 1993 Muslim authorities in Konjic initiated a campaign to drive out Croats, many of whom were then detained in the Muslim detention camp Celebici. Reports of conditions at Celebici, where Serbs and later Croats were interned were strikingly similar tot he accounts of Western Journalists and others who visted camps in Serb-held territories." Page 180 Steven L. Burg. You deleted the part about the Bosniak run camps I added but kept the part about Croat run camps I added. That doesn’t seem neutral for the article.

Another source confirming that However, Bosniak forces did resort to ethnic cleansing against Serbs and Croats in some municipalities with a Bosniak majority.

* Melander, Erik (2007). Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1995 (PDF). Disaggregating the Study of Civil War and Transnational Violence. University of Essex: Uppsala University. pp. 1–79. {{cite conference}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The edits you deleted are definitely backed up by the articles already existing RS sources. FYI, it isn't "my reasoning" but that of the UN and the cited author. PortalTwo (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Both Bosnian Muslims and Catholic Croats have also victimized Serbs in BiH and Croatia, but in lesser number. The policy of «ethnic cleansing», however, has been systematically carried out by Serbs in BiH and Croatia against their opponents, though Croats have also carried out similar policies, but on a more restricted scale, against Serbs in Croatia and Muslims in Herzegovina. Forceful population removal by BiH of Serbs has also occurred in some limited areas, but not as a policy.""

I did not see this paragraph in the text. It is kind of difficult to summarize all these reports and findings, and to find a common ground, though I think the lede is good now. As for the Burg and Shoup page 180, it is kind of strange, since the Croat forces have been accused of ethnic cleansing in the Lashva Valley, and not vice-versa. Any other source that confirms this?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am okay with most new edits. Ty for that.

1) lesser numbers. is not needed in the lead as we already have - on a restricted scale, which implies the same. A victim is a victim. 2) The report concluded that ethnic cleansing has been systematically carried out by Serbs forces in Bosnia against their opponents. It was stated that "there is no factual basis for arguing that there is a moral equivalence between the warring factions". Why repeat this? Readers already have this info. in the very first sentence. The part about "moral equivalance" is relevant for the article but not for article lead relevant. 3) Should we mention that Milošević offered Izetbegović to be the new president of a rump Yugoslavia, which he accepted an than a bit later refused? I am talking about Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement. There should be at least some info. about various agreements which could have prevented the catastrophe. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah Lashva Valley part also confused me. The trials from ICTY conflict with this source. So I think another editor who out it as alleged makes sense. As for “lesser number and restricted scale” one talks about the number of victims impacted, the other the scale of the policies compared to Bosnian Serb forces. So different elements. As for the “no moral equivalency, it is to make clear that while crimes were committed on all aides, it was not equal. I don’t see that repeated. As for the agreement between between Miošević and Izetbegović, the agreement was based on Bosnian remaining inside Yugoslavia with Serbia and Montenegro, correct? There was apparent talks between Miloševic and Tudjman about partitioning Bosnia earlier that year though not sure if it was rumor or true. As for this preventing a “catastrophe”, it seems clear that Bosnia could have obtained independence from Yugoslavia without agreeing to this deal with catastrophe still being avoided. People and politicians not persecuting each other over ethic differences would have definitely prevented bloodshed. It’s why historians dub the Yugoslav Wars as The Avoidable Wars. PortalTwo (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with you on all points and I understand your argument about "no moral equivalency" part. That is correct. That agreement was drafted by Milosevic and it would give additional autonomy for Bosniaks living in Serbia. It was quite generous, I would dare say. Mr. Izetbegović had a sudden change of heart about it. Everything seems to point out to the influence from the far West being the main reason for his refusal. I have deleted one sentece from the lead as it is claiming the same thing which can be found in the first sentence, and the article lead is not about a report and conclusion found in it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Just because some event was not put on trial at the ICTY doesn't mean that it didn't happen. The ICTY stopped with indictments a long time ago, and the trials were transferred to the countries' courts. With regards to Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are still ongoing trials and new indictments, such as the indictment against Atif Dudaković, the commander of the 5th Corps, and 16 others, as the most notable one. They are charged for launching an attack "aimed against the Serb civilian population living in the territory of Bosanski Petrovac, Ključ, Bosanska Krupa and Sanski Most municipalities", with a goal to "permanently remove [...] the entire Serb population that lived there". [1]. And it should be noted that the annex to the "final report" of the UN Security Council was written in December 1994, long before the war was over. There were many battles, operations and massacres in the following year, so it's not something to use as a conclusion for the war. Tezwoo (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly at this point, the intro seems to cover everything the UN said and more. Not sure if the UN quotes are needed at all in the intro. Perhaps the UN quote I had brought up above could be placed somewhere in the article? And yes, trials are still ongoing. Unfortunately there will be many who will never be found or arrested for their crimes. What a mess the wars were and how poorly it presents the Balkans to the world. Also Sadko, didn’t the agreement mean that Bosnia still had to remain in the Yugoslavian Federation? Bosniaks seemed very much in favor of independence. I have to read up more on it as honestly I never heard much about it. I know the West at first was for Yugoslavia remaining as one quite strongly and later in the 90s changed tone as ethnic atrocities broke out. There was a strong desire for a number of the Socialist Republics to leave Yugoslavia for various reasons too, wouldn’t be fair to boil it down to Foreign meddling which definitely illegally happened when NATO bombed Serbian civilizations in act of pretty much terrorism. One might ask, are all those countries truly happier or stronger apart today? Milosović definitely played a role in raising tensions and stroking nationalist egos. Even more when he didn’t get his way. So to be fair, he could have prevented the violence. To his credit he did distance himsled from Karadzic and Maldic when he saw what they were doing and was critical of the Siege of Sarajevo. Non of the leaders (of the three main countries) were really bloodthirsty but also didn’t do much to stop atrocities from happening either. His drafted plan did ask for Bosnia to remain and not leave. Perhaps if Yugoslavia changed to a Democratic system, the various ethic groups would be more at ease. If only it went the way the Soviet Union did. Imagine such war broke out with the break up of the USSR±... Christ...PortalTwo (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure either. The article seems much better and more neutral now, with more refs. and sources. Great work. Yes, per the agreement Bosnia would be a part of Yugoslavia together with Serbia, Montenegro and maybe Macedonia. Agreed with you on all other points. US was in favor of Yugoslavia at the beginning of the war/s. On the other hand, Germany saw the new Balkan crisis as an opportunity to spread its influence and redefine its role and reputation in Europe (plus their companies wanted to put Yugoslav companies out of business, as there were several very big and serious companies in YU). He (Milošević) used nationalism and fiery rhetorics as tools which would make sure that he stays in power; the guy was really a Yugoslav and a hardcore socialist, not some big Serb patriot. The main problem with the illegal intervention is that it did not destroy his power or influence. On the other hand, it has left the industry and many hospitals and bridges in ruins, while the real job of removing him was done by the people of Serbia in October 2000. Do ping me if something else needs my attention. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that the lead sentence should be somewhat fixed, this may be a version we can work with.[2] It is much better and stylish to have intro like that. The current version is a bit on the poor style side. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I made the change to the lead to start with the article subject as you suggested. PortalTwo (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Radovan Karadzic ICTY.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Radovan Karadzic ICTY.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 23:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   After reading over the page for forty minutes I haven't found any major grammatical, spelling, or MOS mistakes. The proper date formats are used.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The citations in this article contain the information found in this article and I see no major uncited claims in this article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers ethnic cleansing campaigns waged during the three year long Bosnian War. The campaigns done by the Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians are covered. The effects of the ethnic cleansing and the legal aftermath are included.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I do not see any nationalist bashing of one group or praise of one group in this article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The last edit adding over 1,000 bytes to the page was April 20 and before that it was April 12.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are properly used to show people who were displaced or involved, places destroyed, and effects of the ethnic cleansing.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am using other GA ethnic cleansing campaigns such as the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Deportation of the Kalmyks, and Deportation of the Karachays for comparison for this article review since I am new to this specific field although I have reviewed other historical articles. From my overview of the article I have found nothing preventing this article from being given GA status, but I will wait for another user's second opinion before ending this review. After getting another opinion on this article it can be upgraded to GA.

Thank you for reviewing this. If you have any questions or need certain clarifications, I will try to respond as soon as possible.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

ICTY judgements, and perhaps those UN reports, are WP:PRIMARY sources, so that might be a problem since there are many of them in the article. Tezwoo (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that ICTY judgements and UN reports are secondary sources. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Primary sources, in this case, would be witness accounts from Bosnia in the 90s, while the ICTY judgements were delivered mostly after a ten year time span and are thus removed from the events.

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Neither ICTY judges nor the UN experts were directly involved in Bosnia in the 90s.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I used the ICTY or local court judgements too when adding content, up until very recently, when I read this (on WP:PRIMARY, under cite note C): "Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material – which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial – published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial)., editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces" Tezwoo (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Still rather vague. It says trial in any country, presumably a local trial, but does not say anything about international trials. Battle of Vukovar is a FA, and Škabrnja massacre and Lovas killings are GA, yet they also use ICTY verdicts as sources. However, I see your point, so I will try to reduce ICTY verdicts in the sources.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced a good deal of ICTY verdicts with other sources.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not my intention to distract any of the involved in this discussion or derail review, but I read all of it on two separate occasions - first time few weeks ago - I have few concerns about this nomination, and I intend to return to other points later after addressing one, particularly glaring deficiency, which is at its most notable under sub-section "Bosniak forces". There entire sub-section's narrative is refed with two BalkanInsight articles about ongoing trial on crimes in Konjic, and one research paper from Erik Melander, whose paper consist 76 pages of text, bibliography with modest list of 26 titles, and whole 6 footnotes (we call those "references" in our project). This paper is thus extremely weak, I would go as far to say, polemical account, and we can't validate anything said in article solely with two reports about ongoing trials.

So, let's see how is possible to get past such significant omissions - unless we can allow to have sub that tacitly suggest that 6000+ Serbs of Konjic has been ethnically cleansed from town and surrounding villages by Bosniak forces, without any of sources actually confirms such suggestion at this point.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to engage in the review, since we haven't heard from @Jon698: for quite some time. You are right, Melander is a questionable source: he has a bibliography section at the end of the text, but gives no specific references for them. I will remove him from the source. You do not find Bosnian indictments relevant for the case? Is it because there are no verdicts on this issue yet?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I might, but let's give Jon698 a little more time to come back. It's not unusual to put a review on "Hold", so we can do that for the time being. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its War Crimes Chamber are no less credible and its proceedings, indictments and verdicts are no less legitimate than the ICTY or the ICJ, but this particular case is ongoing and we cannot verify the claims solely on the basis of the indictment, not to mention that we have no insight into these indictments, nor information on its exact content, just two very brief media reports - what the prosecution is actually trying to prove exactly, what are the exact allegations, and so on, we have no idea. I find your latest changes commendable, really, but that was just one line, and this article still requires significant refinement, starting with the claims from the mentioned trial, and the same line you just removed from "Bosnian forces" sub is still included into article's lede, and right there it contradict the following sentence. Let's see if Jon returns, and meanwhile we can discuss few things, but without timetable pressure. I appreciate the swift response, though. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No valid reason was given for the removal of Melander as a source. Seems like a case of I don't like it. For one it is a scholarly source. Regarding the passage where he talks about Bosniak ethnic cleansing, it is corroborated by other sources. In Konjic "armed forces made up of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats attacked and seized control of certain villages.. which were populated in the majority by Bosnian Serbs. The attackers expelled the Serb residents by force from their houses and held them in detention centres."1 The Serb villages were burned, the population expelled, some killed, others held in camps. This was covered in the Čelebići camp trial. The BI articles are talking about these events, it's just new individuals who are on trial. Pre-war Serb pop. was 15%, post-war 2% from the ICTY.2 I'm not sure what is controversial or unverifiable here. Gorazde mentioned here.3 Burg & Shoup also mention the Serb pop. exodus of Zenica like Melander.4 They also mention the ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Croats on other references found on the article page but they are not considered "polemic" analyses. Is Melander breaking some sort of taboo by including a (comparatively small) section on Bosniak ethnic cleansing against Serbs and Croats? No one is suggesting Bosniak forces engaged in widespread or systematic ethnic cleansing on par with Serb or even Croat forces but to exclude a source in this manner is to indirectly suggest that Bosniak forces did not engage in any sort of ethnic cleansing, which is just absurd. The ICTY and UN aren't the be-all and end-all --Griboski (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere in the first two links is "ethnic cleansing" of Serb population mentioned, and since phenomenon has it's legal definition, we can't claim that these crimes constitutes "ethnic cleansing" because that would mean we are engaging in OR. Melander's paper doesn't have footnotes, and since we have no judgements speaking of or confirming "ethnic cleansing" on the part of Bosnian govt forces, we can only take his claims as polemical - this also applies to any other papers, books, etc. As an aside, I am not that acquainted with Melander's research, so until I make some of my own on his legitimacy, I can't say anything else or form more well grounded opinion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

And what does the forceful expulsion of an ethnic group from a territory constitute, if not ethnic cleansing? If we are only going to rely on ICTY verdicts as verification for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs or Croats by Bosniak forces then there won't be any because the ICTY has not issued such indictments or proclamations. Aside from the Konjic case, there are others such as this one which specifically mentions "a joint criminal enterprise aimed at removing the Serb population". Point being, there are things covered in other sources and if it wasn't covered by the ICTY or widely written about in publications, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Melander is a Professor and Researcher at Uppsala University, a world-renown research institution. His profile shows that he has been heavily cited.1 Original research would be if we synthesized a bunch of sources to reach an unsupported conclusion, not citing a scholar who says that in this area or territory ethnic cleansing occurred. I think that we can at least attribute certain views to him, if unsupported by other scholars or verdicts. --Griboski (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Griboski, to be fair you made a recent edit to the article stating “ No evidence Croats were imprisoned at Celebici. There was a ICTY trial on it.” despite their being a book sourced stating there were Croats imprisoned there. By your logic could the ICTY have failed to determine that? Could it be that other RS could verify what IcTY did not? For the record I agree with you that Melander should not be removed. OyMosby (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your point but I haven't seen any other source state that Croats were held there in 1993. It wholly contradicts the established fact that camp was closed in December 1992. Other sources back up the claims about the cleansing of Serbs in Konjic and at least loosely in other parts mentioned by Melander. My point is if we are going to rely solely on the ICTY and other courts to explicitly declare crimes as ethnic cleansing (while dismissing secondary RS) in order to justify a "Bosniak forces" sub-section, then that's an unreasonable position. --Griboski (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Griboski, that is very definition of OR - @OyMosby, I have nothing against Melander, but this particular paper of his isn't enough to validate particular claim.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Griboski, we need to be careful to use a source that explicitly says that a group was expelled, ethnically cleansed, deported or forcibly resettled in this case. The source about Serbs leaving Zenica did not mention that they were expelled by the Bosnian government, on purpose. Numerous groups fled one way or another during the war, but only a clear policy of expelling them should be included in the article, based on reliable sources. I have added a source about Serbs being expelled from Goražde during the siege in the article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Melander, well, Bartrop (2016) has 0 footnotes, yet some extraordinary claims of his are included such as that Boban "ordered the assassination" of those "opposing his plans" (whose assassination did he order?). If only ICTY judgements are the criteria for defining something as an ethnic cleansing, then there is no need for a Bosniak forces section when there were no ICTY judgements saying they committed or planned ethnic cleansing. Regarding Croat forces, the ICTY convictions are only for ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks in parts of Herzegovina and central Bosnia. However, there are still ongoing trials at courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina that mention ethnic cleansing and that should be taken into account.

If the criteria are secondary sources that talk about ethnic cleansing, then each section can be expanded at least four-fold. What should in that case be the proportion of "ethnic cleansing" content for each side?

And I still don't understand why is the UN report from 1994 used for a final conclusion, when it was published about a year before the end of the war. 1995, after 1992, had the highest number of casualties. It's also a primary source.

The numerical estimates in the lead are for some reason a combination of estimates from Prašo and Mrduljaš. Tezwoo (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, particular crimes (Balkan wars) should be looked through the prism of court trials, but not through prosecution allegations in ongoing trials, instead they should be looked through judgements, and even there we have absolute difference between trial judgement and appeal judgements - we can use indictments for description only, and only if they are proven and verdict passed. Now, probably only fortunate thing in this catastrophe, is that it happened in the age of Internet and satellite TV, it's meticulously documented, and that international community, at least, did a very good job in setting up those courts, who then amassed so much evidences that the trials ended with written document database of over 9 millions pages (and even this number is only searchable databases for public use).

I can't say anything about the "Boban" issue, and/or its mention in Bartrop's book without footnote(s) - it may be common knowledge that Bosba ordered the assassination, maybe other sources confirm it and so on. But, the assassination is one thing, and the blanket allegation of ethnic cleansing, as described in the manner and words used by Melander, attributing it in the broad-brush strokes to all warring parties equally, without footnotes, is another. By the way, I did not have time to read carefully that paper, and I am not sure whether the author somewhere in the text said something that would contradict such a sweeping statement, or at least explain the author's position in a little more detail.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Verdicts are not the only criteria for establishing historical facts, we also have historians that make conclusions. Paul R. Bartrop is such an established historian, and wrote a published book that passed an editorial, whereas Melander wrote a paper prepared for a presentation at a conference, which was not reviewed. By the way, there is now a second GA review underway, so further comments can be added there.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, everyone ! Go back to the main Talk Page, scroll all the way down to the bottom, and look for GA review - designated as GA2 in the hatnote--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Background

[3] The wording was such so we don't have close paraphrasing. On page 264 (Ramet (2010)), it says:

"An autonomous Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna had been proclaimed already in November 1991, though it was emphasized at the time that the intention was not to secede from Sarajevo’s jurisdiction but merely to establish a legal basis for local self-administration; at the time, the authorities of Herceg-Bosna added that they would respect the government headed by President Izetbegović as long as it remained independent “of the former and every kind of a future Yugoslavia.“"

Summary: The Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia was established in November 1991 as an autonomous entity. It claimed it had no secessionary goal and vowed to respect the central government in Sarajevo. (similar wording is on the Bosinan War, Croat-Bosniak War, and Herzeg-Bosnia articles)

Ramet also has more details regarding the Karađorđevo meeting. On page 263: "In what has remained one of the murkier chapters in the war, President Tudjman traveled to Karadjordjevo for a meeting with Serbian President Milošević on 25 March 1991 – reportedly to discuss the possible partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina between Croatia and Serbia" - so, "reportedly to discuss", and not the word "agreed". On page 264: "it is clear that Milošević did not behave subsequently as if he had an agreement with Tudjman." This is why, per WP:WIKIVOICE, I moved the meeting to another paragraph.

And yes, "Bosnian Croat leaders" instead of "its leaders" would be a better wording for the rift. Tezwoo (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not the wording, it's just that I did not find nothing about that particular topic on that specific page. Can you post a URL link of the page so that it can be verified?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, here it is: [4] Tezwoo (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I could not find this sentence on the google books page when I read it, maybe it was a later edition of the book. At any rate, I will therefore restore this Ramet source.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Santasa99 (talk · contribs) 13:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1 It is reasonably well written.

a (spelling, grammar and copyedit): ; b (prose, MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

After reading over the page for forty minutes I haven't found any major grammatical, spelling, or MOS mistakes. The proper date formats are used.

2 It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): ; b (citations to reliable sources): ; c (OR): ; d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3 It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): ; b (focused):

4 It follows the neutral point of view policy.

a Fair representation without bias:

5 It is stable.

a No edit wars, etc.:

6 It is illustrated.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): ; b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7 Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Response by nominator:

Discussion:
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. I hope Jon really checked the grammar, and I am guessing, English is his mother tongue, which means I don’t have to deal with that aspect of the review, then. He would have done better anyway, so I left his comment.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that article could be promoted to GA, if some issues are resolved. That’s why I decided to put it on hold, so that we can try to address those concerns in the following 7 days, beginning this evening, as I’m mostly available during the late hours CET.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright. What are the issues that need to be resolved?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The longer I looked, the more problematic it seemed, so I’ll begin with a problem that obviously embodies all or most of the other shortcomings of this article, the most obvious to me at least, which if resolved could signal that the remaining issues could also be easily taken care of through this review:

• "Demographic changes" - we have this rather large section, providing readers with data on the demographic situation before and after the war, with a small intro which does not provide any background description and information that would explain curious picture which emerges from the data given in both intro and the tables. (For example, existing half a sentence long failed attempt to explain why the Serbs of Sarajevo left the suburbia, "as Serbs massively left Sarajevo in the ensuing months", can't be sufficient enough - or so I think - but even this half of sentence gives away confusing and ambiguous picture through its linking to another extremely weak article, which is supposedly meant to explain this "exodus" in details.) Even a cursory analysis of these numbers (and I trust they are correct) gives the impression that the Serb population is the one that is most afflicted - in fact, it seem it's Croatian, but due to the relative size of the population, the Serb population suffered the most and the Muslim population the least casualties of the "ethnic cleansing". Such an impression would be in contradiction with the first half of the article, where we try to present the "ethnic cleansing" phenomenon, with a narrative which does not corresponds to given demographic statistics. Without additional description and explanation, especially for readers who are not familiar with the history of the war, the section on the demographic situation framed like this can be exceptionally misleading. Even if we assume that the first part of the article is actually the background, then the article as a whole is even more confusing for the average reader, especially since the first part of the article suffer from its own problems with contradictory claims, in particular The goal of the warring factions was to acquire territory for their own ethnic group by ethnically cleansing the area of people of other ethnicities living there. and The organizers of ethnic cleansing also had the intent of destroying Bosnia's multiethnic society in order to make way for a society based on nationalist supremacy. which contradict claim Bosniaks also engaged in "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law", they did not engage in "systematic ethnic cleansing" to the likes of Bosnian Serb forces. It was stated that "there is no factual basis for arguing that there is a moral equivalence between the warring factions". With these claims, article does not differentiate between the policies and aims leading into the war with those accepted during or toward its end, when all parties had to conform to the idea of ghettoisation ingrained into every single peace plan, including Dayton Peace Agreement.
• "Historical background" - section gives too much importance to irrelevant details related to various negotiations between both relevant and irrelevant participants (first para.) - some basic info on (the reasons for) the outbreak of war, though, should remain or be included; sec. goes into some details about creation of "autonomous entities" by some institution with official capacities but doesn't says anything about (il)legality of both institution or its moves, it mention some of the proclamations and goals contained in them, but it's stays silent on one particularly important for the historic background of the phenomenon itself, namely Karadžić's speech in the (state) assembly with threats and direct references to disappearance of entire people - also, the "background" should explain situation regarding civilian population before the war, how and where they lived in terms of co-existence and distribution in correlation to creation of these entities and proclaimed goals and threats; whether there was any visible reason in the state of the population for what followed and has been described as "ethnic cleansing", of course, only basic info. Just to illustrate: In July 1991, Bosnian Serb and Bosniak representatives signed the Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement, which would leave Bosnia and Herzegovina in a state union with Serbia and Montenegro. Despite initially welcoming the initiative, Izetbegović later dismissed it. - not only that this is completely unnecessary piece of info, it is also totally misleading - Zulfikarpašić can not be described with a phrase "Bosniak representatives"; it also links to another weak and misleading article filled with misleading narrative and misuse of references.

I would like that we focus on "Demographic changes" introductory passage, if you think that you are able and, more importantly, willing to go extra mile in an effort to provide sufficient background explanation for statistical data on demo picture, then we can deal with the rest. Sorry for the wall of text, I choose to provide you with some explanations, instead of just listing my concerns.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 

"Demographic changes" - I am not quite sure what you are aiming at. The background description mentions what the 1991 population census says, which gives a frame of reference for the ethnic composition of the country right before the war. It also gives a summary of the number of ethnic groups displaced in the war (the end of the section), and since the table states that 1,27 million Bosniaks were displaced or refugees, compared to 540,000 Serbs, this cannot give the impression that the Serb population is the one that is most afflicted. Likewise, in the "Campaigns" section, it clearly says that the Serb forces expelled between 700,000 and a million Bosniaks. If you are referring to the second table, "1991–2011 demographic changes, based on the 1995/1996 territorial control, according to Saša Mrduljaš", then yes, it is rather misleading, since it gives a too large time frame, 20 years, which is too late to show immediate results of the war on each of the areas. In these 15 years, from 1996 until 2011, many refugees returned to their homes, others left in the meantime due to bad economic situation, etc. I am thus willing to remove that second table, in order to focus on the first table, which gives a relevant time frame dated 1995, giving a precise state of demographic changes in the immediate aftermath of the war. The exodus of Serbs from Sarajevo could be moved to the "Campaigns" section, under "Bosniak forces", where more data could be added to explain the movement. However, Burg and Shoup mention that it is difficult to categorize the said Sarajevo exodus, since many Serbs left for various reasons, while even their own politicians, most notably Krajišnik, called upon them to leave Sarajevo after the war.
Regarding your line: The goal of the warring factions was to acquire territory for their own ethnic group by ethnically cleansing the area of people of other ethnicities living there. and The organizers of ethnic cleansing also had the intent of destroying Bosnia's multiethnic society in order to make way for a society based on nationalist supremacy. which contradict claim Bosniaks also engaged in "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law", they did not engage in "systematic ethnic cleansing" to the likes of Bosnian Serb forces. It was stated that "there is no factual basis for arguing that there is a moral equivalence between the warring factions"". Where is the contradiction? Yes, there were two confirmed and widely accepted sides that perpetrated ethnic cleansing: the Serb forces, and, to a lesser extent, Croat forces. While Bosniak forces did perpetrate war crimes, these were mostly not categorized as a systematic ethnic cleansing. Plunder, for instance, is a war crime, but it is not necessarily ethnic cleansing. So, you will have to explain more what seems to be the problem here.
"Historical background" - I agree that there are too many irrelevant details, since other users inserted too much info which should be saved for the main article, Bosnian War. I am perfectly willing to remove some of them, like the Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement. Good point about Karadžič's threat in front of the assembly, I could add that.
...also, the "background" should explain situation regarding civilian population before the war, how and where they lived in terms of co-existence and distribution in correlation to creation of these entities and proclaimed goals and threats; whether there was any visible reason in the state of the population for what followed and has been described as "ethnic cleansing", of course, only basic info. I am struggling to understand this sentence. Do you mean that before the war Bosnia was a multiethnic society with numerous mixed marriages? And that the three ethnic groups mingled? As for the "visible reason in the state of the population", do you mean the historical background in Bosnia in the 1940s or the 1990s campaign to create two Serb states from parts of Croatia and Bosnia? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as my "aim" is concerned, we need to create a clear distinction between subject of the article "ethnic cleansing", as described here: Senate hearing; and other crimes of war, breaches in human rights, discrimination during and after the war, refugee motives (fleeing combat area, fear of prosecution, etc.) and demographic dynamics.

I have time just enough to answer your last question and make one additional point - later I will return with more comprehensive take. Yes, we need to explain that people lived and worked together for nearly 50 years (notwithstanding WWII, when they fought together side-by-side against foreign invaders and quislings, created Bosnia from scratch together, and so on), they intermarried - I read somewhere, few days ago, that 50% of Bosnia population had close cousins of another religion and/or ethnicity. And in contrast, were there any real (not mythological, of sort "revenge against dahije", of course) base for hatred which lead to such a grave consequences, were there any skirmishes and ethnic feuds between groups in the last 50 years, based on ethnic or religious persuasion, and so on - in short of course.

Add.point - there is no table for Orthodox buildings under "Destruction of religious buildings", we should have table regardless of discrepancy between quantity and quality of the destruction inflicted on Orthodox vs. Islamic and Catholic. Later we need to write para. or two and give readers some explanations for the section's data, if is to remain in article aspiring to reach GA. Later--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The only accurate data for the demographic changes (which aren't necessarily a result of ethnic cleansing) is a comparison of the 1991 and 2013 census, since there were no censuses prior to 2013, and everything else are only estimates which may or may not be reliable. Regarding Mrduljaš and 1991-2011, I added that because I noticed that Prašo is wrong for the ethnic composition of the territory controlled by the HVO/HV. According to him, in this territory (map before the Dayton agreement: [5]), 259,000 Croats lived in 1991.

On the other hand, Mrduljaš made his research village by village (main paper), based on the post-Dayton controlled areas, which is a smaller territory for the HVO, and he calculated 367,000 Croats in 1991. To check who is more accurate, you can use this map and 1991 census results [6]. Municipalities which were 100% controlled by the HVO sum over 200,000, and this is without the split municipalities of central Bosnia and half of Mostar. Prašo may have counted the entire Central Bosnia as ARBiH-held territory.

As for the background, there may be too much details, but it's hard to give a brief background section other than some basic facts. There is a reason why the main articles about the Bosnian War have such large background sections. Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement is as notable as the Karađorđevo meeting (both are mentioned by Ramet, for example). I wouldn't have added it if that meeting wasn't in the article, especially since the Karađorđevo meeting allegations were presented as a fact. Tezwoo (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind if we have all these data, as long as we clearly and unequivocally state that these are just various estimates, and that some could be more accurate than other, and we clearly and unequivocally make distinction between "ethnic cleansing" and everything else as aforementioned in my previous post. Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement is or could be important for some other article on the war, not for "Ethnic cleansing" article, and these two meetings can't be lumped into the same sentence, as they can't even come close when making analogies vis-a-vis significance - Zulfikarpašić was anonymous who left SDA more then a year before the meeting, and had no influence on Muslim politics what so ever, at that point, or any politics in the country for that matter.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The Serb exodus from Sarajevo shouldn't be part of the "Campaigns" section, under "Bosniak forces", because it happened six months, or so, after the war was over, and there were no more campaigns of any kind, at the time, except that implementation of the Dayton accord was in full swing. However, exodus from Sarajevo which happened after the war, and other movements during the war, that are not result of ethnic cleansing, should be explained with demographic changes in mind, as that section's data and stats background explanation.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Santasa99: I have added several changes, according to your suggestions. I expanded on the history of Bosnia, the relations between the three ethnic groups, found a data that 16% were of mixed ancestry, converted the damaged or destroyed Orthodox religious objects into a table, explained the Serb exodus from Sarajevo in greater detail, included Karadzic's threat in front of the parliament, etc. Check out the article now and report back on what you think about it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Zulfikarpašić may have been anonymous, but Izetbegović initially gave support to the agreement and that makes it very notable. He also met with Milošević, and the negotiations were widely reported in media at the time and condemned by Croat political representatives, including Kljuić (See Burg & Shoup (2015) pp. 71-73). Similarly, Croat and Serb representatives also held various meetings, such as the one in Karađorđevo, which Burg & Shoup described as a failed meeting on p. 82. Burg & Shoup give more space to Zulfikarpašićs negotiations than Karađorđevo. While the Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement may be unnecessary for this article, it's also very dubious to bring the Karađorđevo meeting in connection with ethnic cleansing or say that Herzeg-Bosnia was created in accordance to it, given the ambiguity reported by sources. Tezwoo (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I go back to my comment on the previous GA review regarding court judgements vs secondary sources in labeling something as an "ethnic cleansing". In the case of the Croat-Bosniak War, why was Konjic singled out as an example of ethnic cleansing by Bosniak forces? It's cited with Burg & Shoup (2015), p. 180, but on that page they wrote about ethnic cleansing on a wider area:

"Earlier in this chapter we described the Muslim-Croat war that started in central Bosnia in 1993. Here, we wish only to note that atrocities were carried out by both sides in what Western observers called a war of "village against village." The Muslim offensives in the Lasva valley in spring 1993 were accompanied by ethnic cleansing. The result was the flight of civilians, often in anticipation of a battle, and a reshuffling of the ethnic composition of the region. In March 1993 Muslim authorities in Konjic initiated a campaign to drive out the local Croats, many of whom were then detained in the Muslim detention camp at Celebici."

As far as I know, there are no judgements in the ICTY or the BiH courts that specifically mention ethnic cleansing of Croats by the ARBiH in neither Konjic nor Lašva valley. However, I'm also not aware of judgements (though some trials are still ongoing) for ethnic cleansing of Serbs by either the HVO or the ARBiH, so the criteria is still unclear to me. Tezwoo (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Zulfikarpašić agreement is a stretch for the relevance in the article, whereas the Karađorđevo meeting is possibly more relevant since the two sides that were confirmed to have perpetrated ethnic cleansing in Bosnia - the Serb and Croat side - already had plans to partition Bosnia in 1991. Both could be deleted, but a general plan of a partition of Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia (at least until 1994) is an established consensus and should be mentioned. As for the verdicts, I have already answered that, but I can do it again: vedicts are not the only reliable source. We have historians who sort out events and give conclusions. The epulsions in Konjic may have been too small to cover in a ICTY indictment, compared to other far worse ones in the war, but if reliable source mention it, then can be used in the article. The deportation of the Kalmyks, for instance, was also never covered by a court, but that does not mean it never happened.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, 3E1I5S8B9RF7, you did a fine job expending "Historical background", and we now have a table.
I would recommend, though, one more very interesting missing fact for the Historical background - you pointed on SDS 6-points goal, but you have forgotten earlier SDA six-point Declaration, presented before Parliament by Izetbegović, and based on earlier Izetbegović-Gligorov Platform sometimes Plan (see Vera Katz), which is even more interesting for inclusion. I think it is extremely important and quite compelling, it could give the reader a broader picture.

The LEDE has a one sentence and part of a para which is almost certainly WP: UNDUE for the lead:

• sentence Bosniak forces expelled Serbs and Croats in some isolated cases in Konjic and Goražde, and abused some Serbs in parts of Sarajevo, which goes into details unlike previous two which describe Serb and Croat methods in general terms; the following sentence which says "The UN Security Council "Final Report (1994)" states ...warring factions should suffice and any detailed or specific account should be moved to Bosnian forces, if they are not already there.
  
• Following three lines in the second para: The number of Bosniaks and Croats on the Bosnian territory held by the Army of Republika Srpska fell from 551,000 ... of Bosniaks from 1,235,000 to 1,238,000 goes into overly detailed stats that should be moved to Demographic changes intro para.

I will make further remarks when I check sources in other sections - at this point I am interested in usage of Donia and Burg-Shoup, so I will report on these two first when I finish reading them.
One digression on RS vs. judicial proceedings - unlike WWII, when only the Holocaust was subject of international trials, or war-crimes throughout the history that only scholars and researchers are capable to explain and describe, judicial proceedings on Yugoslav wars were conditioned by the General framework agreement for peace in B-H, Article 9. UN mandated ICTY, and ICJ, to deal with all war-crimes in Yugoslav wars. Maybe the only fortunate outcome of international involvement in this tragedy, is that we have more than 9 million pages of written text available for general public to research. An order of precedence should exist between books, scholarly research and gargantuan judicial documentation. This is not to say that we should simply discard all that is found through researches just because it was not litigated, but we certainly need to approach claims that exist only in books and researches with the greatest caution and tact. And just like in case of Melander paper, where author is not disputed, only that particular paper simply wasn't sufficiently good, and we were able to determine that without going to RS board, by assessing its low quality of apparatus criticus, and with some additional info - in this case 3E1I5S8B9RF7 explained that paper is presentation and was not peer-reviewed; in other instances we will similarly look for reviews and sources any of them uses - this principle should be applied on all sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Donia-Fine, in section Demographic changes, is referred to wrong page, in ref it's designated pp.1 - I have a book in Serbo-Croatian and in that edition it's in "Intro" on page 13. Sentence which is sourced in Donia-Fine is also follow-up of the sentence which state that The goal of the warring factions was to acquire territory for their own ethnic group by ethnically cleansing the area of people of other ethnicities living there.. When these two sentences are put together as in that para, the claims are misleading, because Donia-Fine talk about Serb faction exclusively, not "warring factions". Also, this particular line was "cherry-picked" from Amnesty report, which become obvious if we read rest of the page from which is taken and then the whole document - we will noticed that report is focused on employment discrimination, but it does agrees with Aluminijum leadership's explanation that "ethnic cleansing" is among causes for disbalance in ethnic composition of the employed, and goes to say that document "already noted, one of the central aims of the warring parties was to secure territory and power and to share resources only with members of their own ethnic group, by “cleansing” regions of people of other ethnicities", but when read in its entirety we can conclude that, beside the Aluminijum and Mostar, the document only notes Serb actions against non-Serb population in and around Prijedor, Sanski Most, and "north-western BiH" in general, and in two places mention "areas under control of the Bosnian Croats". Something has got to give here, and I would argue that UN report is much stronger than Amnesty report's cherry-picked line - accordingly ambiguity of above quoted sentence need to be dealt with.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Donia-Fine is actually the correct page, page 1, at least in the google books English edition, and I've linked it now in the article. I've added the Izetbegović-Gligorov Plan, shortened the Lede, removed the 2006 Amnesty report, expanded the Donia-Fine sentence.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You did fine job again. One question, though, those three removed sentences in lede, which I suggested are undue, we have them somewhere in the article, yes? I think it's a fine summary, only bit too detailed for the lede, I hope they are preserved in that form somewhere. Also, that Amnesty report is an excellent source but badly interpreted, or misinterpreted, in that particular instance. It's a shame that we don't have an article on Izetbegović-Gligorov Plan.

Now, i have one more recommendation, vis-a-vis content - I am convinced that the Pofalići battle, as described under Bosnian forces, is terrible choice for illustration of the war-crimes perpetrated by that side in the conflict, by looking at Burg-Shoup account - by the way, pages are 33 and 177 respectively, not 230. Although their book is among most comprehensive and positively reviewed takes on the history of the war, it's not perfect and without some flaws (see Srđan vučetić, or choose any review randomly from Google - I have read first five, and Vučetić's nicely rounded most aspect). This comes into view, incidentally or not, at that particular account, which is extremely subjective and sources interpreted loosely and extremely subjectively - a whole take on Serbs in Sarajevo under siege is extremely subjective and palpably biased (they are inclined to give more credence to those testimonies which support their perspective, while interpreting sources all too loosely). If you don't have a book, as Google gives only few pages, I can e-mail to you my own copy so that you can check their sources and analyse their interpretations, while staying within editors' prerogative to rationally make decisions; or if you wish I can explain my own reservations to you here. Anyhow, I would recommend that you concentrate on war-crimes perpetrated by Mušan Topalović in Sarajevo, and if you are willing to research on Bosnian govt forces possible war-crimes in Battle for Vozuća (only with better sources than in linked article). Also, war-crimes against Serbs in Mrkonjić Grad are significant, although I am not sure how to frame those, because they happened during the last phase of the war when Croats and Muslims were in alliance - who perpetrated war-crimes in Mrkonjić needs to be reliably sourced.

From here, I have to check (only) a reference/citation parameters and integrity and check external links, and to see if someone is willing to copyedit, check for WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM - I am not sure if I did sufficiently good job in that regard--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my recommendation, any examples of war-crimes should be described without confusing them with "ethnic cleansing" policies or leaving any ambiguities in that sense for the reader.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

One additional recommendation - you will find Senate hearing reports/minutes useful for "International reports" section - its conclusions probably became most influential to policies, diplomatic, media and later judicial discourse: 1992 Senate report and 1995 Senate heraing--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the three sentences removed from the lede can be found in the "Demographic changes" section. So you want the "Bosniak forces" section to focus on Mušan Topalović and Battle of Vozuća? Provided, of course, that reliable sources mention them in context with ethnic cleansing.

I can search for Mrkonjic Grad crimes, provided, again, that sources link them with ethnic cleansing. I can also add the Senate hearings in the article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I am just recommending some examples, but you should chose between them. Of course, if you wish to hear my preferred cases I will gladly notify you. Also, I am reasonably certain that situation with Serbs in Sarajevo under siege is least connected to ethnic cleansing, but those crimes committed by Topalović are well known and significant for inclusion, while Mrkonjić and Vozuća probably have at least some elements of ec. However, I am not sure if there are enough info online on Vozuća, or what kind; on Mrkonjić I believe more could be found. The changes you made today, up to this moment, are good.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Please, feel free to post some sources that you know off. If the Topalović case in Sarajevo is not connected with ethnic cleansing, then why bring it up? It should then be removed. Anyway, post some suggestions on how to conclude the "Bosniak forces" section.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question: What is the 2+2+2 principle? Also this sentence When the Bosniak SDA representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced they plan a referendum on independence from Yugoslavia is grammatically incorrect. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That is the problem, right, because if we are really objective observers, we will see that such a policy has never existed on the side of the Bosnian government. Renegade commanders like Topalovic have existed, or issue of mujaheddin fighters, some war crimes incidents with some elements have been recorded, but there is no policy of systemic ethnic cleansing as such, and the methodology is rarely observed - and therein lies the weak point of the article; I'll return to that below. Also, some foreign authors may opt for terminology in their description of various examples, but that is their subjective decision (Burg and Shoup, authors widely used on the subject belong to the mainstream category of historians with positive reviews, but have grappled with "balancing" and "moral equivalence"). So, I think that the best way to deal with "Bosnian forces" is to use examples where non-Muslim civilians were targeted.

However, at this point the only reason I didn't promoted it to GA is because I am waiting for copyediting and Copyvivo to finish (I was told at the guild that it would take a few days for someone to get the job done), so I think the content is fine , and improvements will certainly continue after the promotion - there is a lot of room for that, especially with regard to further promotion (A and FA).

Now the "weak point", I have a suggestion as an editor on this most important thing, which has completely escaped my attention since I noticed it on my first glance on the piece - we have never explained the methodology, what it means to implement "ethnic cleansing" policy in a systemic way, organized and realized by civil and military authorities. We have a small paragraph in the lede, the third/last one, and any other mention is dispersed throughout the text - we need a section titled Methodology/Methods/ Method(ology) and campaigns/... depending on where and how we insert it. My suggestion would be to take the last para out of the lede and include it the new section under chosen title, while the section itself should be positioned above Campaigns section so that it leads the reader into campaigns with some understanding of the phenomenon; or we can rename Campaigns to Methods and campaigns, create new sub-section Methods, and rename the rest of the titles to Campaigns of X forces or X forces campaigns. I am aware that we have section Definition, but in it we explained it from the judiciary and legal perspective only, and juxtaposed it, or explained it with the regard to genocide and genocidal policies, but we didn't described the ways and methods of its implementation. What say you?

I agree with Indy beetle, part of the sentence When the Bosniak SDA representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced they plan a referendum on independence from Yugoslavia, is awkward, and if I am on the right track here, it should stand "When the SDA representatives in the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced their plan for referendum on independence from SFRJ, ..." Additionally, Bosnian Serb Assembly, at this point is still illegal and unrecognized institute of government, so that must be emphasized.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

2+2+2 is the format of the proposed new asymmetric federalization - Serbia-Montenegro as a core in tight federal union + Bosnia and Macedonia in loose federation with the "core" + Slovenia and Croatia in a loose confederation with a loose federation. Interestingly, this was entirely Izetbegović and SDA idea, which was accepted by Tupurkovski and Gligorov. It was rejected by Tuđman, Milošević, and of course Slovenians, who were probably the least interested party.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Two sources mentioned that Bosniak forces expelled some Serbs from Gorazde, and some Croats from Konjic, and thus these are included in the article. I have added the methods used to implement ethnic cleansing in the renamed section called "Campaigns and methods". I also welcome that you corrected the grammar of the sentence When the Bosniak SDA representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced they plan a referendum on independence from Yugoslavia. I did not want to go into detail of the legality and illegality of various established assemblies or political moves, since each of them can be analyzed separately in their own article. The "Historical background" should not go into excessive length and get to the point.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

From where I am standing everything looks fine, mostly; as for language (grammar and style) we need to be a little bit patient and let guys and girls from copyediting guild check the text properly - they will certainly do better job. Meanwhile, we can improve or correct something if it comes up, or someone notice something we didn't (like Indy). I will give my best on grammar, spelling and style, and check rest of the refs for broken links, urls and pages. All in all, I think that we have good article. Stick around if something comes up, or editors from guild stop by to copyedit the article.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion: If you don't mind me jumping in. User 3E1I5S8B9RF7 has done good job so far. I have reviewed the article and it satisfies most of the burning points. I would like to note the background information about this: On 9 January 1992, the Bosnian Serb Assembly proclaimed the "Republic of Serbian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina". At the time assembly was illegal, as the referendum was held on 29th February. Also, the tables below, I can see Yugoslavs as being ethnically cleansed... well, as far as I know it's just a change in a self-identification. Readers outside Balkan might thing they were wiped out. It seems to me rather clumsy to include them in the table in Demographic changes section. Mhare (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Good points. Vis-a-vis Yugoslavs in tables, as Mhare said, for unsuspecting reader it could be very confusing, so let's at least provide a "Note" with explanation that those who identified as Yugoslavs following new reality abandoned that label in favor of ethnic one.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added an explanation about Yugoslavs disappearing and switching to the remaining ethnic groups in the footnote. As for the comment about this Assembly or that political move being legal or illegal, I've already explained that it is of limited relevance for the topic of the article, and that the readers can check more for each individual article in question.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am still waiting for copyedit - as soon as they finish I intend to promote it to GA. However, any editor willing to contribute while we waiting, please discuss intended changes here.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all folks, now it can be promoted to GA status.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)