Talk:Milošević–Tuđman Karađorđevo meeting/Archive 2

One more reference
P. Williams, Kristen: Despite nationalist conflicts: theory and practice of maintaining world peace.. Greenwood Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0-275-96934-7. pp 97:

"Earlier, in March 1991, Milosevic and Tudjman met in Serbia and agreed to partition Bosnia between them and create ethnonational states (Karadjordjevo agreement). Importantly, the Bosnian leadership clearly recognized that Milosevic and Tudjan were in collusion to destroy Bosnia."

I remove template. How many referrals are needed? --81.32.60.140 (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hola, y gracias por la referencia. Polargeo (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A one-perhaps the one who was present the meeting Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Trials and deadlinks
I don't have a specific problem with any of the recent additions by PRODUCER to the Croat wartime leadership part of the article but please remember that we should try to keep these sections to a minimum or I will propose splitting them out of this article. They are related but this is not the right article for this level of detail.
 * Also if anyone finds deadlinks please try and repair them. Thanks. Polargeo (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic map
What is a problem with this map, and why should it be innapropriate? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously man, we have one page for that. Do not discuss it all over wikipedia. User:Rjecina/Bosnian census (LAz17 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)).
 * The map is fine, it is just required that someone does not have a nationalistic POV. It should be returned into the article. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Map is not fine. Map is heavily biased, with many errors. It can not be checked as its source is a deleted map. There are too many mistakes/problems with it. (LAz17 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)).
 * That's your nationalistic POV, Laz. Try puting it aside for a moment. The map is fine. Return it.--Čeha (razgovor) 14:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You will get nowhere by ordering me around. I and others have determined that your map is not appropriate. You might think that it is the best thing on earth, but many disagree. Stop wasting my time. If you have something to say about the map, go to the appropriate place, not here. (LAz17 (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).
 * Civil behaviour. Laz if you have something against the map you can say that on it's talk page (with sources). Until then, the map is good, no? Your POV does not count. --Čeha (razgovor) 11:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is good, no? No. Of course not. Now I tell you again, if you have any concern, go the talk page where the thing is being discussed and stop taking up space here. User:Rjecina/Bosnian census (LAz17 (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)).
 * That is just personal, unsourced opinion. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

lede
You cannot just say "less commonly" without some justification. That is original research. I accept the article should be called the agreement but to say meeting is less common is not right. There was a meeting which resulted in some agreements (in principle) and agreement is a popular name for it. Anyway "meeting" and "agreement" are two separate but obviously related things so to say one is less common than the other is not useful. Polargeo (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

POV
The whole article is highly non-objective and luck of convincing references. First, there is luck of context: it was time of great crisis in Yugoslavia, Croatia wanted federation or independence, Serbia wanted unitary Yugoslavia or greater Serbia. Armed rebellion of Croatian Serbs already started. In that situation, leaders of Croatia and Serbia wanted to talk. The purpose of the meeting was to solve crisis of Yugoslavia. It is highly clear from the context, there are numerous of references for that from the time of the preparation for the meeting, and many press agencies across the world wrote it the day after the meeting. Putting emphasises on (or only mentioning) Bosnia and Herzegovina is highly misleading.

Second, there is no record neither witnesses of the meeting. There are only theories of agreement on distribution of B&H, denied by Tuđman and Milošević. There was no official agreement of any kind.

What followed clearly indicates the fail of any agreement: Serbs occupied one third of Croatia and Yugoslavia was destroyed. Even if there was any verbal agreement, for sure it would have contained the agreement that Serbs will not attack Croatia, so it was violated by Milošević soon after.

Forth, if there was agreement between Serbs and Croats about B&H, it was very easy to be implemented. They could dray the maps, put it on referendum in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it would have been accepted in complete democratic way. The two nations had a majority, and the Muslims did not have organizational or military possibility to do anything about it. What really happened, a year after Karađorđevo meeting, was a referendum on independence of B&H voted in favor by Croatians and Muslims, ignoring Serbs who highly opposed it. After that Serbs did the same as in Croatia, declared their territories and separation from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

So I am putting POV. I will try to find time and references to improve it. Moreplovac (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree on lack of convincing references, but I do see some POV pushing in the article generated by overall lack of contextual information and focus of the prose: There is hardly any historic background (context) provided in the article, as the prose immediately jumps to the Pakrac Clash. Moreover, the article seems confused about the topic of the article. Ostensibly the topic is the alleged Karađorđevo Agreement between Tuđman and Milošević, but much of the article dwells on various efforts of Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats to partition Bosnia and Herzegovina regardless of any formal or informal agreement between Croatia and Serbia. If the article is meant to discuss efforts to partition Bosnia and Herzegovina, then it lacks a major aspect of the issue - various partition plans put forward by the international community since early 1992 - likely fueling efforts of the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs to partition the country and encouraging Croatia and Serbia to contemplate a cross-border land grab. The lack of focus is reflected in extensive coverage of testimonies of Okun, Mesić etc which are tangential to the Karađorđevo meeting instead of focusing on who was present, what is known, reported or speculated to have been discussed (and each of those clearly stated, and given WP:DUE weight), how was the Agreement implemented (or not implemented in this case), and what were the consequences of the actual agreement or speculation of the agreement made. Straying past these essential elements goes far beyond reflecting what the sources say and gives certain aspects undue weight raising issues of possible POV pushing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree on all points. At first, I thought that the issue is the article's suggestive title. While I still think that Karađorđevo meeting would be better in that respect, the article's lack of focus is the central problem. It should concentrate on the topic, as defined by its title.


 * The Croatian Wikipedia counterpart is fully predictable: it uses original arguments to convince the reader, no-holds-barred, that there was no agreement. I always thought that there was an agreement: it would be fully compatible with Tuđman's political outlook and his well-known obsession with Banovina of Croatia. What's more, it would be fully compatible with the survival of the Brčko corridor throughout the war, an outcome that seems a military impossibility. Anyway, there are arguments both for and against the agreement as an actual event (even childish ones: "c'mon, there is nothing in writing, so how could there be an agreement?"), and these should be presented in an even-handed way. This is currently not the case, as the "agreement was real" view seems to be heavily favored. GregorB (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And one more thing: a serious POV problem is grounds for failing the article on the B2 criterion (at least according to my understanding of WP:BCLASS, even if it's not spelled out there). But, is it serious enough? Can't really say. GregorB (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

and his well-known obsession with Banovina of Croatia. - I assume you were Tuđman's psychiatrist or you spoke to him/her so you can know what were his "Obsessions"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.145.89 (talk) 17 April 2013
 * I don't "know", but I guess other people do, see e.g. what Manolić and Granić had to say . Both of them actually use the word "obsession". Even if we put Manolić's statement aside, Granić is not a minor figure nor is he anti-Tuđman, so there is little reason to question his statement. Apart from that, it wouldn't be too difficult to provide at least half a dozen more sources to corroborate. GregorB (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have one general question: if a witness claims something not generally known and denied by others, on Wikipedia it is usually omitted or written as a claim; but if it is claimed on ICTY, it is on this page written as a fact with reference to ICTY record. Is it enough if somebody (usually unidentified) claims something on ICTY to consider that as a fact? Moreplovac (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Only court verdicts are reasonably reliable sources, references to individual witness testimonies need to be described as such (or replaced with better sources). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the most generic parts to Partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is the real topic of the story. This now needs a copyedit as well as decent context, pre- and post-, without the excessive focus on the intricate details of the partition. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

title
Is something like "1991 Milošević-Tuđman talks" better, given that a Tikveš meeting is mentioned by several sources? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm split on this. There were title discussions at /Archive 1 and /Archive 1, focused chiefly on "agreement" vs. "meeting" issue. Although Producer argued that "agreement" is more common in sources (and his findings are still valid), I'm afraid that the sample is too small (and Google numbers unreliable, it is actually 87:11 for "agreement", with a lot of crap in the results) to unanimously reach the conclusion about the WP:COMMONNAME. Most valid sources use some sort of disclaimer, like 'so-called', 'alleged', 'known as'. I think that "Karađorđevo meeting" would be a better compromise between commonality and neutrality, but I'm open to being convinced. No such user (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the more neutral title is preferable now that we have a separate article on the big picture, it's a niche political term so the claim of commonality is dubious. When I do a general google search for 'site:ba "sastanak u karađorđevu" 1991', I get 13 real hits, while s/sastanak/dogovor/ in the same query gets 8, so it's not even clear that the talking point name is common in Bosnia which is where one might expect it to be (and in which case we could start discussing if WP:POVTITLE applies). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the Google Books searches and found no significant difference between the two. The sources discussing "meeting" aren't all about 1991 - there was apparently an unrelated one in 1971. The sources discussing "agreement" aren't necessarily reliable - people talking about it being signed, uncovered five years later, etc. I'm now even more certain that the split of the Partition article was appropriate. On the other hand, it's okay to keep this article at the non-neutral title because it's fairly clear that the meeting's main source of notability is that possibility that something ominous was agreed upon (a reasonably likely one, though not decisively proven, as described by reliable sources). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Date?

 * nb1 – Silber and Little, Death of Yugoslavia, p.143; confirmed in Ivan Lovrenović, "Karadjordjevo" in Tjednik (Zagreb), (22 August 1997) pp. 12–16

On 26 March 1991 it was written in Sarajevo newspapers "Oslobođenje" that they met a day before. Moreplovac (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)