Talk:Operation Flash

Serb refugees
Why did you remove the Serbian version of the number of refugees? The article should be displayed all versions, not just the Croatian! Соколрус (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it because international sources such as HRW and well respected historians such as Ramet (both sources used in the article) have put the total number of persons living in the area (civilians+military) at 13-14 thousand. Consequently there could not be 15,000 refugees.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Number of 1,500 people remaining is also provided by Ramet (i.e. not a Croatian source).--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the Serb sources say that before the operation the population was 29,000. The list of sources is necessary? We need a version of both sides, not just one. Соколрус (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not according to Veritas - it claims 15,000. On the other hand Veritas also claims 30,000 refugees - quite clearly illustrating how reliable their figures are.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where Veritas says about 30,000 refugees? Соколрус (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here. Veritas claims 15,000 lived in the area.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It says B92, not Veritas. From your link Veritas says: The documentation-information center Veritas announced that "on May 1, 1995, Croatian armed forces conducted an aggression on the Western Slavonia area where some 15,000 Serbs lived under UN protection". Соколрус (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you just disproved your claim above of 29,000 living in the area. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about? Veritas says 15,000 refugees, other sources say that before the surgery there lived 29,000. You do not understand me? Or what is the problem? Соколрус (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that HRW says 13,000 lived in the area, Ramet says 14,000. In either case it is impossible to have more than 14,000 refugees if 13 or 14 thousand left the area and 1,500 stayed behind (according to Ramet). Since you agree those are fine sources, do you understand me?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if they are good sources, the Serbian version of the number of people living in the area should be in the article. Соколрус (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Had you taken the trouble to read it, you'd see that it already is in there (per Veritas).--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You should not take offense. I'm not criticizing you, and try to improve the article. Show me where in the article there is the Serbian version of the 29,000 residents? Соколрус (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Have we not concluded that the Veritas claims 15,000?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind responding to this. The 29,000 claim is so good illustration of propaganda refuted by HRW, I'll include it anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 29000 - this census in Krajina in 1993. I will add this information tomorrow. Соколрус (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, it'll be in in about a minute.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside - bear in mind that RSK considered Sector West outside RSK control as an occupied part of RSK. Are you sure the census did not include an "estimate" of population living in those areas - substantial towns are located there, including Daruvar, Pakrac, etc? The number appears suspiciously round, i.e. 29.000 exactly, while for instance 82,406 residents of Kordun are reported.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 29,000 only in the territories under the control of Serbian Krajina. Yes, the figures are approximate. Perhaps this can be explained by the constant migration of Serbs in Western Slavonia, or problems with the statistics in the region. Соколрус (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think you need to specify the Serbian version of the 15, 000 refugees and write that this is the Serbian version. This number is called not only Serbian sources, but also Russian sources from the Academy of Sciences. Соколрус (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What purpose would that serve? It would benefit the article as much as writing that Australian sources agree with the HRW.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Serbian claims are well and truly specified in the prose. They are not included in the infobox because they are refuted by international, well respected and highly esteemed sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, however Guskova - known and respected international source and expert from UN. Соколрус (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. Guskova really writes about this as 15,000. I am really amused by your waving her qualification as a member of the Russian Academy, but fail to note that her writings may be biased a bit more than HRW or Ramet's - after all she's a member of the Senate of the Republika Srpska and a particular fan of indicted war criminal Ratko Mladić (per Serbian source). That's classical POV pushing from you. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not proof that it is biased or distorted data. Thank you :) Соколрус (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the book of Konstantin Nikiforov - a famous historian. He is director of the Institute of Slavic Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences. I think you will not challenge the authority of the director of a specialized research institute of Russian Academy of Sciences. Соколрус (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think on this subject many refugees can be closed. On both figures we are led neutral international sources. I'm waiting for an answer from you about the lack of references to the Serbian sites. Соколрус (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbian sources
Why in the article are not used Serbian sources? Соколрус (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you took time to look into the footnotes you'd see that there is a substantial number references to Sekulić and documents compiled by Brigljević... Regardless the article is based on Ramet, Balkan Battlegrounds, HRW and UN reports - other sources are supporting only.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, bear in mind that WP:V is the cornerstone of wiki rules and any addition not sourced or referenced to WP:NOTRS will be removed immediately. Štrbac source is a classic example of POV pushing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know the rules. Explain what problems with Strbac? He is a renowned scholar in international circles. Or he does not like you personally? Соколрус (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a dedicated source of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Elena Guskova - Russia's top expert on the disintegration of Yugoslavia. In 1994-1995 she was a UN expert in Sarajevo and Zagreb. Соколрус (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Štrbac is not a renowned international scholar AFAIK, but a political figure. Why do you have a problem with international sources normally accepted in FA articles? Do you think they are somehow biased to present figures not to your liking?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I added a Russian scientific sources. Add more tomorrow. Соколрус (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please answer me, why are Ramet and HRW, otherwise acceptable for FA, problematic?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem with Ramet and HRW. But why the reference to the article, many Croatian news sites, and on the Serbian side, only B92? Index.hr, slobodnadalmacija.hr, nacional.hr, glas-slavonije.hr ? Why only croatian ? Соколрус (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Which one of these seems problematic?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Index source 69 is used in conjunction with source 68 (Brigljević citing RSK report) to establish time Jasenovac was captured
 * Nacional source 73 is used to report what Stipetić said on a delay in the offensive (hardly surprising to use a Croatian source to back that up)
 * Jutarnji list ref 80 is a report on MLRS strike on Zagreb - specifically number of unexploded bomblets and number of casualties. The latter part is supported by ICTY sources in the article as well (after all Martić was convicted for the war crime)
 * Slobodna Dalmacija ref 82 is used to reference name of officer accepting RSK surrender in Pakrac area
 * Index ref 93 is used to reference HV attack on a refugee column
 * Nacional ref 102 supports a report of commemoration held in Croatia
 * Glas Slavonije ref 108 supports a report on war crime proceedings filed at a Croatian court
 * The problem is that you do not use the Serbian sites. You could very well use a few Serbian websites but prefer to rely on the Croatian sites. Соколрус (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What have you decided? When you add a reference to Serbian sites? Соколрус (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Serbian sources, besides the B92, there's Sekulić and documents presented in Brigljević.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If I might jump in here, there is absolutely NO obligation on WP to use Serbian (or sources from any other nationality or language) websites as sources in any article. It may be that, in the interests of WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV reliable sources published in both Serbia and Croatia could and should be used in this article, but there is no doubt that sources such as Ramet and HRW, which are clearly reliable and independent of the subject, would be expected to be given greater weight over some local sources that might be seen as partisan. Which is not to say there aren't locally published and reliable sources about these events, there undoubtedly are, they just need to be selected carefully based on WP:RS and weighted appropriately. Peacemaker67 (send... over)
 * The fact that Article Croatian sources much more than Serbian. And I can not understand why. Соколрус (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is really irrelevant, pls read the policies I linked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it does not matter, let's remove all sources of Serbian and will use only Croatian sources ? Current situation upsets the balance of presentation. Соколрус (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not IAW WP policy. You really do need to have a look at the policies I've linked so that you understand them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding balanced and unbiased views, bear in mind that the "star" source of Соколрус is Guskova, who is actively denying Srebrenica massacre, declaring it is a myth that never happened. (source: ) So much for neutrality. The source on this is Serbian if anyone wondered.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing
You're talking about ethnic cleansing of the Serbian Krajina. Why did not you write that in Western Slavonia in 1991 were expelled tens of thousands of Serbs? Соколрус (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added this information, but I see that you try not to write about the facts, expose the Croatian side in a negative light. Соколрус (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That information (70,000 refugees) is a blatant lie and POV pushing. Please provide a single non-Serbian and non-Russian source - for instance Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Helsinki Committee to substantiate that. The two offensives captured sparsely populated mountainous areas and no significant settlements changed hands. You are actively pushing pro-Serbian POV.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually that claim is so outlandish and improbable given geographic and dempgraphic realities of the area involved, I'll require here multiple western, highly relevant and esteemed sources to back up that claim per WP:EXCEPTIONAL (a part of WP:V) or the claim will be removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Before you ask me to other sources, first justify claims against the book of Konstantin Nikiforov. And tell me more, why sources fron USA can be used in the article, while Russian sources can not? Just because they write about what you do not like? Соколрус (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can remove the figure of 70 000 and replace it with "a lot of the Serbs." However, the expulsion of Serbs in 1991 - and the fact that he will remain in the article.Соколрус (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I must say that despite the 22 years that have passed since the time in question, it is a little strange that a Google Books search for ""operation otkos" refugees -wikipedia" results in O reliable sources . Not a good sign for the 70,000 refugees. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right, probably Nikiforov was mistaken in exact figure. However ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Slavonia is the fact. I cleaned exact figure. Соколрус (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are the sources of Croatian crimes and ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Western Slavonia. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. It says about ethnic cleansing of Serbs and the death camp, where Croatian gunmen killed Serbs in western Slavonia in 1991. Need more sources? Соколрус (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I once again ask, what claims to Nikiforov's book? Number in 70 000 I cleaned. you expose a template, but you refuse to answer my questions. Соколрус (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mate, you are going to have to try a little harder with your English expression. Reading your comments gives me a headache. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed this part from the article:

''According to the findings of an independent international team of experts that investigated for the better part of the past 21st century Yugoslavia's dissolution and the wars that followed it, Operation Flash could be characterized as one of the largest ethnic cleansing campaigns in the Yugoslav Wars during the 1990s. ''

The reason is that it is factually wrong. The book is a compilation of chapters written by different people, not only scientists, but also journalists from different countries. Each chapter was written individually and represents the views of its author(s), so it is wrong to assume that the findings from this chapter, are the opinion of the team. It would be more correct to say that Prof. Calic (and maybe the two editors) holds that opinion. And indeed it would be more fitting considering the used formulation "could be characterized".

Anything "could be characterized" as anything and we can probably find a source for any outrageous claim, but I think in this case, we can safely conclude, that a chapter from a book, that has exactly 1 review on amazon, represents just the point of view of its author and not a fact that should be part of an encyclopedia.

Suggadaddy (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Bombings of the cities
Why did you write that only Serbs shelled the Croatian town, but do not write that Croats bombed cities of Serbian Krajina? Соколрус (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Why did you delete information that the Croatian army bombed the cities of Serbian Krajina? Соколрус (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian Serbs and Croatian army in Bosnia
You write that the Bosnian Serbs helped Serbian Krajina. But you don't write that at the same time the army of Croatia in the territory of Bosnia was at war against the Bosnian Serbs. Why? Соколрус (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ARSK
Just a query. UNPROFOR consistently referred to the Armija Republika Srpska Krajina (ARSK), in the same way as the ARBiH. Sources include, , ,. Is there any reason this hasn't been adopted here? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive, you couldn't explain the thought. I didn't understand you. Соколрус (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what you are saying, but if you mean you don't understand me, I am saying that the term Armija Republika Srpska Krajina (ARSK) should be used in the article instead of various versions of "the forces of the RSK". OK? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Соколрус (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Or SVK?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What would be the source for that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty. It is easy to Google them. Some of them include:
 * I am uncertain if this name should be used. It is just an alternative which can be discussed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Serbian Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina? As opposed to the Bosniak Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina? Or the Serbian Army of the Serbian Republic of the Serbian Krajina? Seriously? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain if this name should be used. It is just an alternative which can be discussed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Serbian Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina? As opposed to the Bosniak Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina? Or the Serbian Army of the Serbian Republic of the Serbian Krajina? Seriously? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Military
In the lead of this article it says "42 HV soldiers and Croatian policemen were killed in the attack and 162 wounded." However, in the infobox it mentions that these casualties were just military, with no mention of the police. Which is it? 23 editor (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox is a summary and should not list in detail information which must be presented in the article. The Croatian force largely consisted of army soldiers, but included two battalions of special police (listed in orbat), subordinated to the HV Bjelovar Corps. All casualties inflicted upon men commanded by a military staff (Bjelovar Corps in this case) are ipso facto military casualties, regardless if the men were soldiers, policemen or taxi drivers a week before their conscription/subordination to the HV.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Operation Spark (1940)
Operation Spark (1940) begins "Operation Spark (sometimes translated as "Operation Flash") was the code name for the planned assassination of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler ...". I therefore added a hatnote to this article to link to that article, so that any reader who wanted to find information about the subject of that article, and who was using that translation, would be referred to that article. User:Peacemaker67 reverted that edit on the basis that "Not the same operation name, seems pointless". For the reasons set out above, I feel that the hatnote is useful, and I propose to reinstate it. Alekksandr (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Operation Spark (1940) is a very poor quality article that is almost completely uncited, and no original German word for the operation is given in the article to justify it being referred to as "Operation Flash". I don't think we should be pointing to an article of such low quality that fails to even justify the alternative name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)