Talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War/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 1 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.

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

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Radovan Karadzic ICTY.jpg

Background
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: 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)