Talk:Janjevci

parts about Tuđman, ethnic cleansing, etc
Will cut the part about Tudjman out. The emigration of the Janjevci has nothing to do with Tudjman, or with any ideas being imputed to him here. -- B bog 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Who we? Tuđman invited Janjevci to come to "finally come back to homeland of their grandfathers" amd started to settle them first in areas in Western Slavonia cleanesed from Serbs in 1992 and them after Oluja in Kistanje and Lika. Luka Jačov 17:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

They did not come to Croatia, because they were invited, but because it was not secure for them anymore. Of course Tudjman did not refuse them to come. They needed land and indeed they were suitable to fill the area left by fleeing citizens of serbian ethnic.

That there was an ethnic cleansing is not completely true. Ethnic cleansing for me means spreading horror and threats. Giving terrifying examples, so everybody would know what he or she had to expect. And after getting control of the land, collecting all remaining people of the other ethnic and either killing or expelling them. None of this appeared in the operation Oluja.

Of course a lot of the Serbs feared revenge and so preferred to go before they risk their lifes. But what could the Croatian government do to free Croatia, and let them stay? During the whole operation 150 crimes against civilians had been detected, followed by again 100-150 after the operation. Concerning the size of the operation, and that probably many of those took part who really searched for revenge (a guy i worked with for a while, his father was burned living in his home, the whole village slaughtered down -> someone like him for example) these numbers (although every lost human life is priceless) don't appear that big. Compared for example with Vukovar, which was a single siege of a relatively small town, where six times as much civilians were killed, and over 1000 people are still being missed (probably killed too). This was a clear point for Posavina, and complete Bosnia what would happen to them, if they dared to resist. And this is how you do proper ethnic cleaning.

In contrast to that, all of the Serbs were invited to stay. Even an amnesty was given to all who weren't involved in war crimes (although they had fighted against the Croatian state). And there were no deportations or systematic killings at all.

I must admit, that if you had wanted to clean Krajina the end result wouldn't be much different (maybe a few ten-thousand). But I really don't see anyhing, the Croatian state could have done more. The accusation of having commited ethnic cleansing is untenable in my eyes, and stays an imputation. --B bog 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your remark can only say that you are either uninformed and naive or ill-mannered. The thing that there was no ethnic cleasing is total lie, out 2,000 Serbian civilans 350 were killed which is rather big number for such a small population. Serbian proprety was robbed, their houses burned or inhabitated by refugees from Bosnia so they could assure they will never come back. The prove that demolition of Serbian houses were organized from the top is also ministry of defence Gojko šušak remark: Only thing I could object against mining Serbian houses is if they were techincly not done right".

-- Concerning the ethnic cleansing, my opinion is, as i said that these are really small numbers. Somewhere I saw a number of 300.000 Serbian refugees, don't know if thats reality, but if you take that, and the number of probably around 300 (+-, depending on the source you take) crimes against civilians it really seams not that big. Don't misunderstand me, I was a refugee myself, and don't welcome it, if anybody has to flee from his own ground, which his ancestors cultivated until there is spoken memory. But concerning this case, there evidently is no cleansing (have you noticed any collecting Serbs and deporting or massacrating them?). There have been singular crimes, yes. And there have been freaks in the Croatian army, yes. (As in every army probably) But there was no conspiration to cleanse the Serbs out of Croatia. OF course there were disliked, and most of the Croatian politicians in that moment would have been happier if they're gone, but tell me which situations or actions (I mean real-world situations, and not words put in the mouth of outstanding politicians after they're dead now) prove that there was a cleansing-action in progress.

Let's take two scenarios: A there was no planned cleansing and B there was a cleansing planned.

These facts disqualify the situation of being scenario B:

1)ALL Serbs were invited to stay.

2)A general amnesty was given for all soldiers, instead of treating them like war-prisoners.

3) The crimes committed against Serbs were systematically persecuted.

Which facts disqualifies the sitation to be scenario A? The will to make it look like a cleansing? The fact that you are studying in Zagreb although you are Serb? The 300 crimes happening during the operation? What? Give me evidence!

And what should the Croatian government have done to make it not an ethnic cleansing?

But nevertheless it is a secondary thing and concernes the Janjevci only marginally. As in every case (either it's scenario A or B) they didn't flee from Kosovo because of that. And that part of them was now placed in the abandoned Serbian homes is a fact. The rest is an interpretation. Doesn't matter if mine or yours. So it doesn't belong here anyway (although I would like to straighten things out). The rest of the changes are documented if you follow the links. So read the information first, which is given there (for example that '91 there were around 8000, '98 around 1800 and now 350 (or 750, depending on the source you trust), proving that the situation began to change in '91, and not in '74), and THAN give a statement.

The other thing is, that it was avoided as much as possible to name them what they are, Croats. Probably in a bigger scale to minimize the groups belonging to the Croatian ethnic. Which is just falsification of facts. (Srbi svi i svuda) Also called propaganda!

--B bog 11:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well as I said before 350 out of 2,000 is not small number. I agree that Serbs in Oluja werent expelled literary from their homes, actually like it was "custom" in this war retreated with the army. Many of them thought they are just leaving temporaraly because they are moving from zone of military operations and will come back as it becomes safe. Many of them also had fresh memory on Operation Medak. Croatian leadership counted and hipocriticly invited them to stay. As soon as they left the burning of Serb homes began and it is estimated that more than 20,000 houses were destroyed that way. The thing that it was so big and that nobody was ever prosecuted for this crimes proves that there was approval from the goverment. Soon some Serb houses were settleted by Bosnian refuges. With their houses burned or somebody else living in it assured that Serbs wouldnt come back. If you read Tuđman's book he favorises "Humane relocation" and hopes that Serbs will make 3-4% of population. The thing that Janjevci even having their houses in Janjevo and Tuđman build them brand new houses by tax-payers money proves how much he wanted them to stay. Most of Janjevci today live in more than 90% pre-war Serb areas and still have Serb majority but Croatian goverment counted that with big birth rate of Janjevci would soon change ethnic composition. Why Croatian goverment doesnt encourages that now after the war Bosnian Croats to go back to their homes in Bosnia but instead builds them whole new villages in former Krajina region so they assure they ll stay and make former "Serb" regions into "Croatian" ones. So now lets everbody deceides for him self was there ethnic cleansing and colonization or not. Luka Jačov 02:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont c what is disputable in Gojko Šušak statement? As far as I know nobody was convicted for crimes during and after Oluja. Luka Jačov 02:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

People responsible for war-crimes were persecuted (not all, for some are being covered, but this is something you will never change, in no army). And the problem with quoting Šušak or any other politician is that you can take any words (maybe even a joke, or drunk showing-off) and reinterpret them in your context.

It is true that a lot of Serbs left their homes. There is a proverb concerning that: 'ko mačem ubija, taj od mača gine' ('Who kills with the sword, dies by the sword'), explaining how it happened. The same was with Bleiburg and Croats. (Still don't misunderstand that, as I neither welcome any crimes concerning ww2, nore in the smaller scale the events of the '90ies. It is the explanation of natural developments) At least they now have the possibility to come back. It is true that they are not welcome. It is true that they won't have the same rights as Croats (for example when applying for a job), and they probably never will, whatever the laws say. A hostility is left in people's brains and no law can change or forbid that. But they don't have to fear for their lifes. They are being integrated into the instaces of the state. (There was even a martićevac in the croatian police...). And they are guaranteed same rights in front of the law. This means them having the same starting points. And as well as they will be treated worse, they will build networks and treat others worse. Things will equal and one day when it becomes unimportant melt into each other. It is a possibility how things can work if the rights given by law are the same for everyone.

Compare that to 'Republika Srpska'. Or even Serbia.

And the Croats from Bosnia aren't kept there. They were a problem because they can't go back to thier homes in Bosnia and be sure of their lifes. Now there is a solution found for them by pointing them to previous Serb areas, now empty. (Although many of them settled down near to Zagreb, or other big cities, like the Janjevci too)

Concerning their houses. They haven't been built by tax-payers money, but from working abroad during wartime or other activities. Often they are connected to 'rad na crno' and other blackmarket stuff, so they were able to build their houses. Also they were able to do most of the work by themselves and in cooperation with each other, so it came much cheaper. And this is something I know for sure, because I know a lot of Croats from Bosnia, and noone of them got his house paid by the government. Noone. But nevertheless the story is told in Croatia, originating from loosers unable to move something by themselves (often older than 40 living in their parents houses) wondering how others can, this way finding explanations how unfair it must be. If you don't have detailed informations probably you would believe them. The same thing will be with the Janjevci.

I don't see how the passage inserted by you relates to the Janjevci. It is something concerning Tudjman, and not them. As the thing about birth rate it is just a speculation, and if we start to put speculations in there, no end is forseeable.

You can't seriously be thinking that there was any planning from Tudjmans side concerning them and 'recolonising' Serbian territiories with them. It sounds logical that he favoured humano preseljenje. Otherwise you could hardly get some peace on the Balkans. See Bosnia. But it is too much to expect such a power and ability behind him to manipulate things. To be able to provoke the pressure in Kosovo, making them willing to leave their homes and go into uncertainity. Or to provoke the Albans to commit crimes after the leaving of the JNA, so they would feel insecure and ask for rescue. How realistic does this sound? This is the same as if I would claim that the Serbs left Croatia because they were invited by Milosevic (favouring segregation of territiories by ethnic principles) to put them on lands previously left by Croats and Hungarians disgusted away. This all to strenghten his country and make a division by ethnic possible (also to increase their number in Bosnia, to have an advantage in negotiations). This is as realistic as the claim that the Janjevci were brought to Croatia with a purpose to...whatever.

It sets me up to see the intentions in behind, trying in every article to give statements subliminally implying the bad, criminal and evil intentions from Croatian side during the war. So I try to get them out and make the article a neutral report of facts. To you it must seem like trying to pull it on the other side, so you feel responsible to defend these statements. But I ask you to think again.

Nevertheless won't change the passage inserted by you until this discussion is over, for you accepted my changes.

--B bog 14:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, if u say people were persecuted and condemned for killing civilians and burning property in and after Oluja give at least one NAME or at least link that proves that.

What context would be appropriate for Gojko Šušak sentence!? If he was drunk: In vino veritas!

It is not true that Novo Naselje in Kistanje wasnt build by tax payers money, not only in Kistanje but all around former territories of former Krajina (for example: Naselje Gaj near Benkovac for Bosnian refugees) and Serbs have to wait for months and years for their houses to be renowated. What u r impying that most of Bosnians worked abroad. Yes some of them did and those with money for shore didnt make their houses in zones of former Krajina which are poorest in the country, they made their houses in Zagreb and other big cities and in more prospective regions. Those who didnt had that chose for given Serbs houses or goverment made them new ones.

Tell me one case of individual ethnic related violence in Republic of Srpska or Muslim held Bosnia. Today there is estimate that there Bosniaks compromise 11% of population and Croats 2%. Why so few Croats returned espicially when it is common knowledge that Muslim-Serb antagonism is bigger than Serb-Croat. The reason to this is that Croatia has bigger economic rating and ethnic Croats who have right for Croatian citizenship find better prospects in Croatia. The same applies for Janjevci.

"I know a lot of Croats from Bosnia, and noone of them got his house paid by the government" - but do they live in former Krajina. Luka Jačov 11:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

-

'Tell me one case of individual ethnic related violence in Republic of Srpska or Muslim held Bosnia' Are you kidding? No Croat is so insane to go back to serbian reigned regions so there probably will be few to commit crimes on. Central-northern Bosnia, Usora, 1992. The croatian village Prisade was completely burned down, the inhabitants who dared to stay slaughtered. The father of a former working-colleague of mine was burned alive in his house by his former serbian friends. Never heard in the media about that. Last croatian christmas in Bosnia, several people were killed and dragged behind a car through the whole city....

In the whole war there was ONLY ethnic related violence, so don't be a fool.

What sense does it make to quote Šušak here (btw. when is he supposed to have said that?, context?)? It was time of war. What was he supposed to say? 'Give them a hug, and don't forget to leave them their weapons, so they could shoot us in the back again' ? As I said before, ko macem ubija taj od maca gine. If you produce shit, you get shit. Sounds fair to me.

Concerning names, I don't have none, but know about the discussion of accusing the croatian state of treachery against his own soldiers who fighted for it. As you are living in Croatia you are probably in a better position to get concrete names. Look for example at the Gospic-case... http://www.hic.hr/dom/419/dom04.htm

Still don't know noone having his house paid by the government. Do you?

Don't know about the village of Kistanje. Probably some few hundret houses were paid by the government. How much money should the government have had to be able to pay all those houses? And that it's more difficult for Serbs to get support is self-evident. Would you support someone who is fighting against you and trying to tear your country apart? Now maybe silent, but waiting for the circumstances to change for another try. Are there any croatian houses supported in serbian reigned parts of Bosnia or in Serbia?

The question again, what should the croatian government have done, to make the freing of krajina not an ethnic cleansing?

Nevertheless this has NOTHING to do with the Janjevci. It is just speculations and spreading of misinformation. As I wrote before it is as accusing Milosevic to have called the Serbs to Serbia to fill the regions left by Croats in the meantime (btw. why does noone relate the term of ethnic cleansing to that?). It is nonsense.

--62.203.209.172 12:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

looks like discussion is over.... --B bog 00:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Janjevac wanted
Is there any original Janjevac, who could contribute with authentic content, like pictures of traditional costumes, maybe an overview over the history, or any famous persons deriving from the Janjevci? --B bog 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What in hell's name is this?

 * This population exchange is allegedly due to a plan of Franjo Tuđman for ethnic homogenization in which he provoked Serbs to leave and colonized the parts where they previously lived (or still do, like in Kistanje) with Janjevci and refugees from Bosnia. This plan was written in his book Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti/"Horrors of war" in which he favorised "humane relocation" (humano preseljenje). The Janjevci were also sutiable for this plan cause they had big birth rate and counted that they will overnumber aboriginal Serbs in short time.

This is the paragraph you want me to preserve, Luka?

Give me one good reason to preserve it.

Keep in mind: this isn't the Croatian (or Bosnian) Wikipedia. If you have a debt to repay, repay it to the creditor, not to his errand-boys. --VKokielov 13:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll preserve it -- only because we have to -- once you give me a photo scan of that book, and prove that Tudman wrote it. --VKokielov 13:57, 17 February 2006

Rent it in library! You still didnt anwser me! Creditor? Errand-boys? Who r this people!? Luka Jačov 16:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

May I point out, as a lowly reader, that Wikipedia is meant to be a reference resource, and not a continuation of war by other means, such as propaganda and lies? I expect proven facts, corroborated by evidence, not products of someone's fevered imagination spiced up with clear political bias. This article now states explicitly that Operation Oluja was an ethnic cleansing operation, which it was not, under any possible definition of "ethnic cleansing." That portion of the article is enough to convince anyone who has any knowledge of the matter that the whole entry is worthless as a presentation of known facts, nevermind the paragraph above, which 1) is a conspiracy theory and 2) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Janjevci (neither does Oluja, for that matter). Yet it is not tagged as needing cleanup, as being disputed or not neutral, or as not confirming to Wikipedia's standards. This kind of thing is precisely what gives Wikipedia a bad name and turns the whole unique resource into a subject of derision. I realise there's not enough of you to police all the people who'd like to rewrite history, geography, or anything else according to their personal obsessions, but can you append some sort of warning to it at least? [Disgusted reader from Oxford]

Moved here until proper source given
I see no readon to trust Jacov on this. I would like to see at least a braef quote from the book that proves the following text.

I searched google on "Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti" Janjevci and found nothing but Jacov's words (here and on some wiki-mirrors) and some text where those frases are not used in the same context. Same goes even for "Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti" Kosovo! So I have good reason to suspect that he invented it or that it represents original research.

I do not say that he did actually invented this, but you must admit that zero results from google does mean that Jacov needs to make additional effort to find exact place in the book where Tudjman acctualy wrote his plan for Janjevci.

Disputed text:

This population exchange is allegedly due to a plan of Franjo Tuđman for ethnic homogenization in which he provoked Serbs to leave and colonized the parts where they previously lived (or still do, like in Kistanje) with Janjevci and refugees from Bosnia. This plan was written in his book Bespuća povijesne zbiljnosti/"Wastelands of historical reality" in which he favorised "humane relocation" (humano preseljenje). The Janjevci were also sutiable for this plan cause they had big birth rate and counted that they will overnumber aboriginal Serbs in short time.

Also, I dont think that wikipedia rules allow something like is allegedly due to a plan. There is no place for gossip or original research here.

Janjevci - the only ethnic group to inhabit a single town
Please, lets stop revert warring over something as stupid as an infobox. By including it you are giving off the impression that the Janjevci are a completely separate people from any other South Slavic ethnic group. To give you an example, Wallachians are still Romanians despite adhering to the term of their territory. Present a source that states the Janjevci are a separate ethnic group. 72.144.150.20 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not same thing, Wallachians are only regional designation, while Janjevci are an ethnic group. They are subgroup of Croats, but they also have their own identity, thus that qualify them to be an ethnic group. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you want answer why they consider themselves separate ethnic group, it is because they are descendants of German miners from Transylvania that settled in Kosovo in medieval times. They are not Croats by origin. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just one thing about that theory - the Germans miners were mostly Saxons, who are Lutheran, not Catholic Hxseek (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And by the way, the current sentence in the article that claim that "they are mostly descended from traders who settled in Kosovo during the 14th century from the Republic of Dubrovnik" is wrong, but I do not have time to correct this now. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any source for German origin thing? I don't see how could 14th century Germans in Kosovo be croatised? Maybe by powerfull propaganda from croatian TV from 15th to 19th century? --Ante Perkovic 22:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. Good one. No, I did read that they are descendants of Germans from Transylvania who were brought there by the Serbian rulers to work in mines in Novo Brdo. During the time, they adopted Serbian language as their own, but since they were Catholics they kept their separate identity. Later they identified themselves with Croats. Regarding my source for this, I do not know in which of the historical books I have I read that, but when I find in which one it is, I will tell you. Until then, I will not change anything about their origin in the article. PANONIAN   (talk)  00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here you have something about this: http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=84950&goto=nextoldest Quote: "U doba Nemanjica, u Srbiju su naseljeni i Saksonski rudari (Germani), koji su danas znani kao Janjevci." I know that you will say that this is fascist site, but it was not my source. They just used same source as I do. :) PANONIAN   (talk)  01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ovo gore je teški WP:OR. Nadam se da ih ne uzimaš previše ozbiljno. Ja sam čitao jednu knjigu po kojoj su Hrvati sa Sirijusa. Tiskana je još u staroj Jugi. --Ante Perkovic 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ma rekoh ti da mi nije to izvor, to sam slučajno sada našao na Google search samo da ti pokažem o čemu se radi. Čitao sam o tome na sasvim drugom mestu, ali pošto imam mnogo istorijskih knjiga ovde, ne mogu da se setim u kojoj je tačno, a nemam sad vremena da ih sve redom čitam da bi našao podatak o Janjevcima. PANONIAN   (talk)  02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They are as much a separate ethic group as dalmatinci, hercegovci, zagorci or anything else. on the balkans almost every village has its own identity, what does not make them an ethnic group automatically. ask them what they are, they will tell you. B bog 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also heard that they descend from the Republic of Ragusa - but this is oral legends, even according to them. --PaxEquilibrium 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to open a can of worms or unsettle Croatian wikipedians when I edited the passage about the Croatian subgroup. One thing is needed: a reliable source to show that the Kosovan-based Slavic catholics identified as Croats, not just in the last century but since the 14th century. It is known that many people in many places adopted various nationalities at different times and even the Orthodox Slavs of Kosovo did not regard themselves as Serb before the region fell to the first Kingdom. As for the Janjevs being an ethnic group who are a subdivision of Croats: this is impossible. It is one or the other. As Croats are only themselves a subdivision of Slavs, their nationality is based purely on their own decision to identify as being Croats in censa and in everyday life. Therefore, if tomorrow, a Croat chooses to be a Janjev, then a Janjev he is. Equally, if ethnic groups are forced to accept being "subgroups" of still existing peoples who have kept the name, then that neighbouring race too must be accepted as being a subgroup of someone else. Then that causes severe complication (see Slavs), because Serbs and Croats by their nature occupy a territory where their place is one of a prolonged proximity comprising other Slavic groups stretching farther away, alternatively one can discard this and play the futile "genetics" game which only shows that people from one town have similar codings to their neighbours who are another nationality, whilst being biologically different to their own nationals living 400km away, all mixed, all matched. Do some Janjevs still call themselves Janjevs on the census? If so, let's not play on the relationship to Croats. Do Janjevs prefer to be Croats? If so, that is fine by me (I am not in favour of one or the other), then we can say that the Janjevs (of Kosovo) are a community removed from their ethnic affiliates, but in this case, a community/regional group and not an ethnic group. Either way, it won't cut much ice regarding the centuries gone by having had Croatian identity. Evlekis 10:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

i agree Evelkis. Just another disappointng example of the pettiness of Southern Slavs. We're splitting hairs now for f#@ks sake. Hxseek (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Janjevci consider themselves as Croats, it's their tradition, they're proud of it, more than a half of the Croats in Croatia. I don't understand why somebody can see problems about it. Weird. Zenanarh (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that so many are disregarding the fact that the Janjevci always have and always will see themselves as Croats. I doubt those people questioning the origins of the Janjevci are on popping into the Croatian Serbs wikipedia page and questioning their origins. In that case it seems to be enough to just declare yourself a Serb in order to end all discussion about whether or not your ancestors were in fact Vlachs or whatever else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadoma (talk • contribs) 04:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Harari people come to my mind. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

POV
Because of rising anti-Croat rhetorics and warmongering in Serbian media (especially in Serb media on Kosovo) in late 1980's and Serbia's war preparations for the conquest of Croatia in 1990/91 

I think this sentence is a little too POV, surely. Hxseek (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? You think? Do you know about massive meetings in Serbia in the late 80's? Do you know what rhetorics were used there? Are you aware of the fact that what was started in 1991 was realisation of what had been "declared" on these meetings? Zenanarh (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Immigrants?
Everyone on this talk page takes them for immigrants of one kind or another. But Catholicism was quite widespread in Kosovo before. Can't they be a relic of indeginous Catholic Slavs (Catholic Serbs?)? Or, could they be Torlakicised Catholic Albanians? YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What people are saying on Talk is irrelevant - what reliable sources say is what matters. If you have some to contribute, please feel free, otherwise, please let's not get into idle speculation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess this falls under These_are_not_original_research. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janjevci. 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/20111125175922/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=11&dd=24&nav_id=77480 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=11&dd=24&nav_id=77480

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) 07:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)