Talk:Operation Medak Pocket/Archive 3

start over
I would like to start the discussion over, one dispute at a time. first thing is the final parapgraph of the Croatian version of events that says:

"Canadian government, concerned about not harming Canada's reputation for neutrality in the Balkans, suppressed all news of the Canadian participation in the fighting and released only euphemistic statements about Canadian troops "monitoring" the area and "establishing control". It was not until 1996 that details of the battle came to general knowledge in Canada. The Canadian government was also concerned that news of Canadians killing Croatians would be seen in a similar light as the Somalia Affair, where two Canadian soldiers beat to death a Somali teenager, and that would give Canadian army negative and bias image."

Now, u have repeatedly stated that the Croatian version of events defined in the article is the official Croatian government's stand on the issue, but untranslatable. Now, I know enough about international politics that the Croatian government would not accuse the Canadian gov't as racist, especially when they were aidingyour nation to get out of the troubles you had brewed yourself into it? I have never heard of another nation officially accusing another of Racism and covering it up for public relations methods.

--Jadger 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You got it wrong. Canadian goverment was not concerned about what Croatian government woould sa about it, but it was concerened about it's image in public and how some of its actions would be interpreted. There were acusations of rasistic behavior of Canadian troops in Somalia, and that was the main source for the "image care". Croatian government never officialy accused Canadian soldiers of being rasistic, but there is a number of statments by high officials in which they complain on their performance and too close relationships with Serbian rebels. Did you read the state-department opinion about this events? (it was made in 1993) --Ceha 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

that is not the dispute though. You have labeled that section "NOTE: There is no internet page in English language which would affirme that this is the official stand of government of Republic of Croatia"

It is in the Croatian version of events section, and under the label you placed above, so it has to be the official standpoint of the Croatian government, or else it needs to be deleted, or placed in the main body of work of the article and be properly cited in the references section.

And that report from the state department you just gave proves my points exactly. The Croatian commanders were reprimanded, not the UN forces commander. It also quite nicely reaffirms my case for placing the deaths of the innocents into the article, which you claim never happened, or that Serbian grandmothers were heavily armed soldiers.

"While denying the charge of atrocities, Croatian authorities relieved the military district commander and two subordinate commanders of their positions and launched their own investigation. The results had not been made public by year's end. "

now, please quote where it states in that article you just cited, that the UN commander was relieved of duty for being a Serbian sympathizer. I read the whole thing and did not see it there at all.

--Jadger 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The state department report is talking about who is overall agresor in Croatia, which you didn't bother to read. Ok I'll stop trying that you admit that you were wrong because when I give you one argument you just twist it and connect it with something inpossible. Few things; 1)In the book "Intense media coverage of a Somali teen’s murder by Canadian paratroopers, its cover-up by senior bureaucrats and officers at National Defence Headquarters and a series of subsequent scandals shook public confidence in the nation’s military institutions.  Negative coverage particularly in the first half of the 1990's created an image of military incompetence and unprofessionalism, vividly captured in letters to the editor to major newspapers across the country" there is a qoute about professionalism of Canadian army in the early 90-ies.

2)In book of Višnja Starešina, Formula hague, there is a qoute about how canadians invented battles. Official stand of Croatian goverment is that the battle between Canadian forces and Croatian army never took place. There were fights between Serbian rebels and goverment forces, and some skrimish with Canadians.

3)In interviews to daily pepers (evening news("Večernji list", etc. some Croatian goverment officials (now ex-officials) for example, Zlatko Tomčić president of Croatian Parliment affirment that statments.

4)Please look statments about that incidents before and after 1996.

5)You aren't good in satire. Where you ever in Croatia? Have you ever looked RSK televison? Then you would new what hevily armed granmma means.

--Ceha 19:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not twisting anything around, that is what you are completely able and willing to do on your own.


 * This is not an article about Somalia or the unfortunate events that happened there. There is no connection between the two events, and if you believe there is you need to give your head a shake and stop believing conspiracy theories.  There is no dispute about the combat effectiveness of the Canadian forces, the liberals shortchanged the Canadian forces and deprived them of the necessary equipment to do their duties.


 * and that quote has nothing to do with the Somalia affair now does it? no it does not, even more reason to remove the section.

--Jadger 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC
 * you and no one else can prove that every single one of the civilians murdered were heavily armed militants, and for the most part they were not. stop twisting facts and saying it was on TV one day.  why do you not cite this television source? they will keep the film that was shot in their archives for many years following, these supposed Grandmas with AKs will still be on film there.

I've given you the source, haven't I? RSK televison? As for twisting the facts, your had needs serial check. And that comes from a man wich managed to avoid answering most of the questions in discussion by simply asking to answer to his questions first? And for bias, am I sensing an anti-liberal (for canadian goverment at least) in your statments? And for comection between those events which army participated in both of them? And I'm not from Rosvell or Toronto for you to talk me about conspiracy teories. State of Canadian army in that years is obvious. If it was not so, there would not be so many scandals around it. What profesionalism?

--Ceha

Fresh start needed here
This article is a mess. Key issues:


 * It focuses far too much on the Canadian UN troops' engagement, and doesn't give any adequate detail on the political and military context of the operation.
 * It's also very POV. The entire section beginning "Croatian version of events" needs to come out - it plainly doesn't comply with our NPOV policy, and the "disclaimer" at the top of it is totally unencyclopedic. That's simply not acceptable.
 * On a related issue, I see that Ceha has created a POV fork of the "Canadian version of events". The NPOV policy doesn't allow this (see the Content forking guidelines also). I intend to speedily delete this fork.
 * The assertions made in the article are unreferenced. This violates our "cite sources" policy.

I'll put together a revised version of the article, based on cited and verifiable sources, with a neutral point of view and addressing the omissions that I've highlighted above. -- ChrisO 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The current version is much better, and I dont see any way that it should be improved, except that the table at the top right side still implies that the UN forces and Serbs were fighting together against the Croats.

--Jadger 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Current version is ok. Removal of Canadian comander and behavior of Canadian troops should more-or less be part of UNPROFOR page. As this article was too much Canadian oriented, I puted it in. I just now returned some of external linx (there is no reason for them to be deleted), but I think that should be the end of changes.

--Ceha 16:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Miroslav Međimorec
[]

I heavily doubt the unbiased approach and the verifiability of the "facts" that this source claims to report. Not only is the author an authority in a totally different field that has no relation or pertinence to the subject matter, but the other contributor is one of the men directly responsible at the head of command for some of the Croatian forces, namely the intelligence/interior forces that were not strictly military units.

not only that, that source intentionally misrepresents things, implying that Canadians are still inherently racist against Croatians as the unit citation refers to "Yugoslavia" and not Croatia. the article even states that Croatians didnt fire at Canadians because that would "Did the Croatian forces try to overrun and defeat the Canadians (and French) and therefore start another war with Canada, France and the UN in general?" which totally skews the fact that the forces were under the UN banner and not responsible to their own nation's command, but the UN command.

That is a very poor source, equal to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being an expert source on the Jewish religion and people as a whole.

--Jadger 02:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What, and all your other "UN" sources written by Canadian commanders are excellent sources without bias? One would have to be completely naive to believe that Canada was completely neutral and uninfluenced by the UK's obvious anti-Croatian foreign policy that continues today, especially in terms of EU accession. --AHrvojic 19:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jadger, I agree. Obviously I read Međimorec's paper in rewriting this article but I didn't think much of it, particularly his attempts to play down the events following the ceasefire of 15 September. BTW, I don't think many UK historians of the John Major government would agree that its policy was "anti-Croatian" or "pro-Serbian". It was anti-intervention, rather than pro one side or the other (though the effect of its policy undoubtedly did benefit the Serbian side). -- ChrisO 21:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

no, I never said they were totally without bias, nothing is. But as international spokespersons for the UN, the statements made by them were constantly examined and had a lot of peer review so that no grievously erroneous statements were made, and the statements made were as politically correct as possible. I must also mention that the UN spokespersons were not trying to excuse or minimize the atrocities committed by people under their command (like this source being disputed). The source being disputed however, has never been peer reviewed, and has never been verified.

and we are not here to discuss admission into the EU, although I must point out that the EU was formed to provide economic benefits to its member states, and since when did allowing a poor country into a free trade agreement with 4 of the G7 countries benefit the member states? the dispute on the movement of foreign workers into these better off nations has been extensively disputed and does not need to be argued here. claiming that Croatia is not welcomed by the UK in the EU because of racism is ludicrous and pure idiocy

--Jadger 01:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not necessarily defending Medjimorec's paper, but to simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit with everything else you've read in English is ethnocentrism at best and pure prejudice at worst. How would you know what kind of peer review the paper has had anyway? The English-speaking world is not the final arbiter of everything. And a poor country? By no measure is Croatia poor and it even outperforms many if not most of the ten countries that joined the EU in 2004. I never claimed anything about racism, but if you understood anything about European history and politics, you would understand the UK's (and by extension, but to a lesser extent, Canada's) preferences in the region. --AHrvojic 14:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The fact is that the UK is one of the biggest sources of EU funding for Croatia - it's contributing about 12% of the EU's aid funding. The UK government has also consistently supported Croatia's bid for EU membership but has insisted that Croatia needed to deal with the war crimes issue first. It's insisting the same for Serbia, so does that make it anti-Serb as well? -- ChrisO 09:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's how things look on the surface, of course. The UK pushes Croatia forward with one hand and holds it back with the other, regardless of what proportion of British EU funding happens to arrive there through no effort of its own.  It alone promotes the idea that all sides were equally guilty of war when the aggressor was obvious. It even suggested that Croatia and Bosnia apologize(!) not too long ago, which they rightly refused. I'm not saying that Serbia has been getting an easy ride, but simply that the UK's longtime role in the region is well understood and one must understand this role before assuming neutrality in English language sources. --AHrvojic 14:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me how it is that UK is one of the biggest sources of EU funding for Croatia? If I'm not mistaken UK has its rabat in wich everything which has not been used for UK goes back in the UK? I don't have any data so I would be gratefull if you could give me something about that isuue. And politics are not the same through the whole time. They change, even for a bit. During the time of John Major Croatia (and Bosnia) were under the embargo. UK was the biggest spokmen for it. Serbian armies had most of the heavy weaponry. As result of that actions some tragedies like Srebrenica happened. Presuming John Majors neutrality in which case would be like claiming that nazi Germany should not been atacked and that Jews which were killed where just other party in the conflict. (This is probably something harsh, but is good description for worst eurpean conflict since ww2). If his policy was anti-intervention would than been obvious just to lift embargo? In this way it looks like UK goverment had relationship similar to that which PR of China had whith Pol's Pot Kambodia.

--Ceha 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, you sound like a conspiracy theorist AHrvojic. And Ceha, I wouldnt compare this to Nazi Germany if I were you, especially since the first Croatian nation was founded by the Nazis, and you are even skewing WWII, Nazi Germany wasn't attacked for the holocaust, the holocaust didn't start until 1941. It is always easier for you Ceha to lay all the blame on someone else, you just blamed Srebrenica on a man who wasnt even in the same region, or for that matter, on the same continent. and can we get back on topic this is about the validity of that rather poor source provided by Ceha, not about John Majors or Pol Pot.

--Jadger 18:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't know what are you talking about or you are complitly under-informed. Please see . Croatia as a state exist from 10th century. Croatian nation was reafermed in 19th century in the time of nationalistic renesance also known as "Ilirski preporod". Croatian history is much longer than ww2, and second Yugoslavia was a creation of a Croat, Josip Broz Tito. So please, don't speak about things of wih you don't have a clue. Even if all of that was not right (and it was), one genocide can not be coverage for another. UK is not part of Europe? If you did not know Croatia and Bosnia are in Europe. Elementary geography, helo? And does geography denies a crime? You can speak with someone in Tokio and pay him to kill someone else. Do you think you should get away with it?

--Ceha 15:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's easy to dismiss other points of view as conspiracy theories when they don't fit with the worldview one is used to. Again, even if we accept the Medjimorec paper is a poor source, then where does that leave Windsor's Professionalism Under Fire? This article was referenced no less than five times in the current article, yet it provides no references itself, the author apparently has no official academic or institutional affiliation, we don't know anything about his professional background or body of work, and perhaps most concerning of all, the article's populist pseudo-scholarship is obvious not only in its tone, but in its consistently apologetic stance towards the Canadian Forces.  Is that a valid source then? --AHrvojic 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Before we go on to talk about the next source, can we agree that the Medimorec reference should be deleted?

--Jadger 05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Do you think that anything that speaks badly of Canadians should be deleted. Anyhow, that Magasin was created by Miroslav Tudjman (son of first Croatian president and leader of one inteligence agency) and without you agreing with it(and I don't think you have resons for that), it is a statment of people which where part of Croatian goverment in that time. Would you deny statment from the boss of CIA just because he works in CIA? --Ceha 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

yes I would doubt what the boss of the CIA says, on certain issues, such as WMDs in Iraq, which they were dead wrong on. The same can be said for this man's intelligence agency, it was directly involved in the battle, much like the CIA was later in the Iraq war, claiming it is a good source is ludicrous.

This is not about my agreeing with what is said in the reference about Canadian soldiers, this dispute is about whether or not it is NPOV or even verifiable, as its sources are not cited. If you would like to take a gander at the reference, note how Canadian soldiers are talked about in a derogatory manner throughout the entire article. and it doesnt help that the reference is barely readable in English, with such poor grammar and spelling, it can hardly be called an authoritative source if it can't even spell the words.

--Jadger 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can have a compromise? Like simply saying overtly where the source comes from. "Miroslav Međimorec a former XYZ of the Croatian army, has said..." --P-Chan 02:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is of course more reasonable than simply ignoring it. --AHrvojic 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The article seems mostly fine as it is, I am talking of removing it from the references list, as I do not see a point in the article that uses any information in the referred to article. just look at the referred article: what is said there that is not stated elsewhere? besides the writers opinion that is. Or we need to atleast put a warning in front of the link to the reference, that it is not factually substantiated or NPOV.

--Jadger 02:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I've already pointed out that the Windsor source, referenced five times in this article, neither has references itself nor do we know who the author is beyond his name nor is it NPOV. The other Canadian report also doesn't give us much information other than it was commissioned by the UN and written by Canadian soldiers.  In fact, we at least know who wrote the Medjimorec article and what his background is.  I'm not sure why you're on such a crusade against it when it's not as if the other sources are on solid ground either. Better to just leave it in, qualify any references to it as P-Chan suggests, and let the reader come to his or her own conclusions. --AHrvojic 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP CHANGING THE TOPIC we can talk about the validity of the other sources after we have settled the dispute about this one. just because other references are accused of being just as bad does not mean that this reference should not be deleted. Those references are to be discussed separately, as I stated at the start of discussion. the other sources can be discussed after we have finished discussing this one, and I refuse to respond to your off-topic attacks until we finish the discussion. I will say this for the upteenth and last time: ONCE WE FINALIZE THE DISCUSSION ON THE MEDJIMOREC ARTICLE, WE CAN DISCUSS THE OTHERS so why do you keep taking it off-topic and avoiding teh issue, unless you know you are wrong and are trying to avoid the topic.

--Jadger 02:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussing the validity of other sources is directly relevant to the topic at hand, though you don't seem to discuss so much as bully. --AHrvojic 04:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me try to understand what's going on here. The way I see it, AHrvojic does agree with Jadger in that the Medjimorec article is biased, and would not mind it being removed.  But at the same time, he also says that the Windor article is equally bias, because it is not connected to any major institution, and we do not know this person's credentials.  Therefore, if we have only justice for one side, there would be no justice at all.  Is this summary correct?
 * Also, Jadger has not commented on the Windsor article yet, but I have a feeling he believes it is biased as well, because it's not from a source as reputable as the UN and other news sources. Is this summary correct?
 * Ok, so what is the wikipedia policy on strange sources like this? Do we include sources of questionable reputability?  Or do we leave them out? --P-Chan 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Essentially correct. The Medjimorec article, as the POV of someone associated with the Croatian military, is no worse than the Windsor or Canadian UN report as the POV of people associated with the Canadian military.  Unfortunately as the event happened relatively recently, more scholarly sources are still difficult to come by and therefore unless Wikipedia has a policy to the contrary, we should consider simply leaving them as is. --AHrvojic 12:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. It seems to me that your bigest concern with the article is that it talks about the Canadians in the bad light.

Ceha 18:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Ceha, no more inflammatory comments. We have to stay on topic, if there is every going to be any progress here.--P-Chan 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

you think that is inflammatory, u should see what Ceha has been writing on my user page. Also, you are partially correct P-Chan, I have not had time recently to read extensively over the Windsor article, but from what I have skimmed from it, it looks POV and uninformed as well. However, unlike AHRjovic, I believe two wrongs dont make a right, and think they should be deleted, but only after careful examination, and as I have not had a chance to carefully examine the Windsor article, do not think that it should be deleted yet as there has not been a proper defence of it. The first article has had ample time to be defended, and its best defence was that another source is just as bad, which is a huge fallacy. that is like a child saying "i know you are but what am I"

POV references are not reason for deletion however, but unverifiability and a lack of being a credible reference is. and this reference calls the one side drunks while the others are condsidered freedom fighters, it is obviously slanderous and its credibility is lacking to say the least. not to mention that the author can very easily be shown to be covering his own ass because units under his command were involved.

--Jadger 19:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the two of you are pretty much agree on the situation and on the quality of the documents listed, but not how to resolve it. In reviewing the Medjimorec article again, I agree it's pretty biased and POV for reasons similar to the ones already mentioned. But is it unusable? Don't know. Here is description of the CDA group that produced the Windsor Article: "CDA is the oldest and influential advocacy group in Canada’s defence community, representing thirty one associations from all parts of the country...... expresses its ideas and opinions with a view to influencing government security and defence policy." From the sounds of it, it's a lobby/advocacy group for the defence community and is no doubt pretty biased as well. I really don't want to infer too much, because I can't. But I'll just say that it's arguable that the opinions in the 2 articles could represent more candid views of the forces directly involved (just a guess). I don't think it would be proper to leave one and not the other. Either both stay or both leave. If they stay, they should have disclaimers.

Another option is to simply look for different more credible sources, that have the same information that is presented in these articles. For example, the Canadian government overtly supports the Windor article, I say include it without a doubt. Same goes for the Medjimorac article. That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 21:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's exactly what I was getting at, Jadger's accusations of "two wrongs" notwithstanding. Both sources can still be considered valid as candid POV pieces as long as they're marked as such and it definitely wouldn't be proper to leave one and not the other, which is why a sequential approach to evaluating sources doesn't make any sense.  Hopefully better sources can be found in time. --AHrvojic 22:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

both stay in the meantime, with disclaimers. But I think we should try to find other sources, perhaps one from the Croatian side that can spell and doesn't use pidgin english.

--Jadger 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, well I think we're all in agreement then, so unless anybody has anything else to add, we can start making some additions to reduce any perceived POV issues. --P-Chan 21:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what happened to the old talk archives?
They seem to have been deleted. Is that normal or did they get removed by someone? Just curious. --P-Chan 10:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Curious to. Shoudn't they be riconstructed from old talk pages. I don't see any need for them to be deleted. Ceha
 * They didn't get moved when I renamed the article (capitalising the P in "pocket"). I've fixed this now. -- ChrisO 07:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhh. Much better.  --P-Chan 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Miroslav Međimorec 2.
It would be interesting to read a corroborated text that would refute any Međimorec's significant claim. One must not overlook the following issues:


 * the Croatian Army, Government & Croatian public have never seriously considered Canadians's claim that they had been involved in a "battle" with Canadians. The "battle" & its "results" (decorations for imaginary "warriors"), for all its comic aspects, is something Monty Pythonesque. There has never been uncovered a single casualty on the Croatian side-not even in the sensationalist Croatian media largely in hands of corporations not very friendly towards the late Tuđman regime. Let's cut the cheese: this "battle" never happened & is just a Canadian propaganda fiction. There is absolutely no material evidence (satellite pictures, videos, photos, testimonies (apart from Canadian fairy tales)..).


 * as for the Canadian "peacekeepers" behavior-they are, in the Gospić area, despised and widely ragarded as Serbs's accomplices. Probably not out of some affinity or misplaced love affair with Serbs, but as an extended hand of Major's policy ("Sleaze", "Their unfinest hour" -not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina). In short: Canadian "peacekeepers" should, in any normal circumstances, be tried for participation in war crimes: they ignored constant Serbian shelling that had been killing Gospić's inhabitants, virtually every day, in a month preceding the final crackdown on the Serbian forces that surrounded the area. The film, made for Serbian propaganda purposes ca. 3 days before the final rout, was explicit about Serbian aggression and the Serbian "civilians" participation (a nearly 80-ys old granny with everyday practice of machine-gun spree on the Gospić suburbs). Canadian "forces" coalesced with Serbian aggresors in a way not dissimilar to the Dutch around Srebrenica. With two exceptions: the Dutch behaved out of fear; the surrounded people in Srebrenica were defeated and massacred.

The article should be more explicit in unmasking sleazy Bristish propaganda, the surreal nature of the whole Canadian military "engagement" and show the Canadian side of the story-along with its dubious veracity, to say the least (material evidence, not just a Munchausen-like stories), as well as Croatian side with the material evidence and the rest.

As it is, the page is of extremely poor quality. I'll put a NPOV tag if the surreal nature of Canadian "military prowess" fairy-tale and the political overtones of UNPROFOR's behavior in particular are not emphasized. Mir Harven 23:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Buddy, where in the hell do you come off speaking ill of the Canadian Forces. Are you a disgruntled Croatian? I can assure you (as I personally know Canadians who took part in the battle) that the battle did in fact take place. There is even news footage of Colonel Jim Calvin on the day of the contact. As for your statements about no casualties ever being uncovered.. well, the Croatians did have A LOT of practice hiding bodies, after all, they did massacre thousands of people and wipe out entire towns all the while hiding bodies from UNPROFOR.


 * Greetings Mir Haven. You have an interesting point there and I think there is merit in reviewing the documents that you will provide.  I can't help but worry though, that you are using inflammatory language on purpose to throw this thread back into some of the issues it has experienced in the past. WP:Soapbox (If you are not, then please accept my apologies.)  But if you are, then please know that it won't be helpful, and I believe it will turn this article into the state it was at pre-April 3rd.  The whole process here, relies entirly on substantiation and citation.  It can't get anywhere otherwise. So while I understand what you are saying, it is up to you to bring up the proofs and statements that will promote change. (Also, there is no need for threats, placing a NPOV tag on this article is totally up to you.)--P-Chan 00:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

you mean despite the fact that there were also French soldiers involved and the case was documented by the UN,


 * What documents ? Apart from "testimonies" ? Mir Harven 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

we need something like an omniscient and omnipresent God that was there and could tell us exactly what happened? not to mention if a battle didn't take place, how did those many civilians get murdered and their homes destroyed, and if there was no battle, why would the Canadian forces need to move into the area?


 * A battle did happen, but with the Serbian terrorists. Ca. 150-200 Serbian soldiers were killed & the entire Gračac brigade(Gračac being a town in Croatia then under Serbian occupation) destroyed.They had been caught in the trap by advancing 9th Guards brigade from Gospić and the special police unit which controlled the Velebit mountainous area. Mir Harven 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

the dead bodies of the civilians murdered by the Croats is material evidence in itself, and extensive research was done in the area following the battle.


 * A part of these "civilans" were armed and involved in fighting against the Croatian Army and Croat civilians-who, by the way, were civilians according to the dictionary definition. Serbian "civilians" were armed (AK-47, machine guns, mortars, anti-aircraft guns,..) and could not be considered civilians under any variant of the international law, however stretched. They were, as far as military confrontation goes, in exactly the same position as armed Iraqi combatants in Baghdad and elsewhere, who just happened not to had worn uniforms. Mir Harven 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * also, can you back up your own accusations with any material evidence? If the battle did not take place as you have stated, then the Canadians would not of needed to stop any shooting or shelling, as there wasnt any taking place.


 * What are you talking about ? The Gračac brigade, some 900 people, was destroyed & ca. 150 + Serbian soldiers and "civilians" killed. Of course the battle happened, but nothing of the sort with Canadians, who tried to save their Serbian proteges. Mir Harven 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems you just pick and choose the parts of the battle you want to occur, and the others are just fairy tales. And Canadian soldiers cannot be tried for war crimes they did not commit, as they were not active participants in them.


 * Oh, yeah ? Missed Nuremberg trials & all the rest after ? The accomplices in the war crimes are war criminals per definitionem.

What about false reports and hiding Serbian terrorists ? Not even trying to find who killed Croatian civilians who stayed in the occupied areas, under the UNPROFOR "protection" ? More than 600 people murdered by Serbian paramilitaries who literally wallowed in beer and other alcoholic beverages with their UN-sponsors ? As seen in VHS footage they themselves had left upon the flight after the Storm ? Mir Harven 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Or else the whole world can be charged with war crimes, as the whole world did not do anything to stop the war crimes from happening, so surely we must all be charged with war crimes.


 * Maybe you should consult the ICTY with regard to their double-faced prosecution policy. Mir Harven 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

now, are there any sources to corroborate the stance of Medimorec? if so they have never been found or given. and what is this "material evidence" you claim the Croatians have to prove that the battle never happened?


 * Međimorec's book is the only serious analysis of the Medak pocket. It's not upon anyone to prove that Međimorec was right, but just the opposite. The article, which is heavily POVy and, actually, a fiction in not few claims, will be altered in a proper way.Mir Harven 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

--Jadger 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not for any of us to prove that Međimorec was right or wrong (see WP:V). However, we do need to be cautious about his book. It's clearly strongly partisan and needs to be treated with some scepticism, particularly where his claims don't match the generally agreed version of events (e.g. on war crimes). All the caveats in WP:RS apply in this case.


 * I'm also not sure that it's the only serious analysis of the Medak pocket. I've tracked down a work by some CIA analysts ("Balkan Battlegrounds", from which I took the maps on Operation Storm and Battle of Vukovar) which as far as I know is the only detailed Western military analysis of the Yugoslav conflict to have been published. I don't yet know if it covers the Medak offensive but I'm hopeful that it does - I should be able to check at the weekend. -- ChrisO 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kubura's edits
I've just reverted Kubura's recent edits. I'll explain the particular points of concern:

1) Kubura broke the link to the RSK article in the infobox. I've seen several people do this, changing the name or adding quotation marks around the name and in the process breaking the link, presumably for petty nationalistic reasons. I've added a notice to the infobox that will hopefully discourage people from doing it again.


 * That was corrected later. Kubura 01:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

2) In several places, Kubura added comments into the body of the article, e.g. "How do you know that these persons were "inocent civilians", and not the persons who were for Greater Serbian cause and were working against Croatia". This is inappropriate - if there's an issue about a statement made in the article, it should be discussed on the talk page, not in the body of the article itself.


 * All right. I should 've put it into Talk page. But still, I've put it as a comment, not into the visible text.Kubura 01:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be in the article, period. The talk page is where comments should go. -- ChrisO 08:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

3) Several of Kubura's changes were violations of our neutral point of view policy, e.g. "the so-called" RSK etc. Other statements he added in the article were highly disputable (NPOV again) and weren't accompanied by citations to justify them (WP:V and WP:CITE), especially the claims about the Canadians' actions - "that way they sided against Croatia" etc. -- ChrisO 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted Kubura's substitution of "rebels Serbs" for "Republic of Serbian Krajina", which he justified with the comment: "there's no Rep. of S.Krajina, only rebel Serbs". This is of course both a personal POV and flatly wrong - there was an entity called the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and it was one of the combatants in this battle. True, it wasn't recognised internationally, but it existed nonetheless and it's pure POV to deny that it existed. The mere fact that it wasn't recognised doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't mention it. South Ossetia and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus aren't recognised either but we still have articles on them. -- ChrisO 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with ChrisO. (You can add Nagorno-Karabakh to that list.)  To call the Serbian faction just a bunch of rebel Serbs is somewhat revisionist and I believe would be highly offensive to some people.  If there is any problem with this, then a few words could be added as a disclaimer... like De facto, or "which declared itself independent", etc.--P-Chan 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's already stated in the main body of the text. Kubura's edits have concerned the infobox, where we obviously can't go into much detail anyway. -- ChrisO 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

4) If someone can't live with the fact that an armed rebellion (incited and supported from heavily armed neighbouring country, Serbia) against weakly armed country, Croatia, failed, that's his/hers problem. Then, your reverting of my changes ("so-called", "rebel") are violations of our neutral point of view policy. There is only Croatia there. There was no Republic of Serb Krajina (Serb Krajina is better translation than Serbian Krajina; the first refers to Serbs, the latter refers to Serbia), only rebel (Serbs) controlled territory. Wikipedia is not a place to deny UN decisions and a place to "go around" the international legal system. So please, use terms as "so-called Republic of Serb Krajina" or "rebel Serbs", "rebel Serb forces" (you can keep the link to the article Republic of Serb Krajina). In these matters local legal and diplomatic terms are respected. You don't refere to a rebel area as equal to an internationally recognized country. Otherwise, you violate NPOV policy. Regarding "siding against Croatia", I'll try to find a better phrase, but in fact, that was the truth. Croatian forces tried to liberate the area. UN forces suddenly got on the way. How did the UN forces got there? What they were doing there? Obstructing the Croatia's government's police and military action? Do you think that people here are stupid to attack the UN forces ( without any good reason ), especially the heavily equipped ones? Third, those UN evidences were brought by whome? Canadians? According to the information we've got here (from an other UN contingent), these "Canadians" were Canadian Serbs, (grand)sons of Serb immigrants. Fourth, if you think that French forces were possible "neutral observers", have in mind that French diplomacy should be ashamed of its role in 1990's in Croatia (and in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Remember what Mitterand did to Bosnians (Croats and Muslims-Bosniacs) with his "visit" to Bosnia which stopped a NATO action against Serb forces. French military (UNPROFOR) and intelligence only obeyed the orders of their commander. Kubura 01:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * please, we've already been through your whole argument on here, check the archives Kubura.
 * "According to the information we've got here (from an other UN contingent), these "Canadians" were Canadian Serbs, (grand)sons of Serb immigrants."
 * come on, so your saying the Canadian government unknowingly composed the whole PPCLI of only those of Serbian ancestry? what are these sources? I notice you don't cite them. The PPCLI is based in Alberta and the other prairie provinces, the Canadian serb population is based around Toronto, so they would be members of the local units in Toronto, not get shipped out to the PPCLI for no reason.

Your "citation" of "an other UN contingent" sounds a lot like the Nazi excuse for killing jews, which was "we have evidence from converts/sacred jewish books that they sacrifice babies". this "sacred" book of course being the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a pure falsification.

Sources. If I remember well, I've heard that information on TV, during live transmission from Croatian parliament (that was in period 1992-1994). A minority deputy (for Czechs and Slovaks) told what he heard after he made contacts with Czechoslovakian UNPROFOR. Later, I've also read in Cro. newspapers (daily and weekly ones) and heard on Cro. radio and TV stations about Serbs in Canadian UN forces. Second, your "geographical" explanation why there cannot be any Serbs in Canadian UN forces is... unserious. Maybe Serbs in Canada live around Toronto, but if someone joins the army, he'll have to go wherever army sends him. Army job is not an ordinary job. Third, I intended to write "a lot of Serbs" among Canadian UN forces. However, brain processes data much faster than fingers, and lectoring your own works is never good - because you'll always see what you've intended to write, although you actually haven't wrote it. Kubura 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "so-called" is a slang word, and unsuitable for an encyclopedia, rebel has certain connotations in English that you as a non-native speaker may not understand, that is why for instance the Americans are very rarely (and barely ever in authoritative texts) called "rebels" in reference to the American Revolution. If your claims above were true, then you would have to go to the American revolution page and change every mention of "Americans" or "colonists" to "rebels" --Jadger 01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * American rebels got their country (USA), which is internationally recognised. Kubura 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "So-called" is a termin that was used in all former Yugoslavia's official, scientific, educational etc. books when the topic was Independent State of Croatia (NDH), even in encyclopedias. Yugoslavia never recognised the existence of that country. Almost always was used form "tzv. NDH" ("so-called NDH"). Speaking/writing about Independent State of Croatia could turn into big problems for the author if he/she hadn't used words "so-called". See any library database. Kubura 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Our job as Wikipedia editors is not to pass judgement on the subjects that we're writing about. I agree that the RSK was an illegal entity created in deplorable circumstances. However, the fact is that it existed - it had a government, its own armed forces, its own currency and all the other elements of sovereignty. It may not have been recognised by the international community but the outside world (and Croatia!) still had to do business with it. The point of including its name in this article is to recognise that the fighting wasn't just between Croatia and "rebel Serbs" (which sounds like a bunch of farmers with shotguns) but between Croatia and an organised would-be state with an advanced military. As for "How did the UN forces got there", the Croatian government itself agreed to their deployment - General Jean Cot organised the negotiations. -- ChrisO 08:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that UN forces were in Croatia according to international treaties. Problem was how did certain UN contingents from certain countries got somehow on the way, where they shouldn't have been. UNPROFOR wasn't in Croatia to permanently delay (or even obstruct) the restoration of constitutional-legal order of Republic of Croatia on whole (by rebel Serbs) occupied territory. Kubura 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Outside world had to do business with it"? What about American hostages and their captors in Tehran in 1979? Or in other hostage crisis? Have those embassies became international factors because there were negotiations with them? Point is... maybe rebels issued their own stamps, had their currency etc., but that doesn't give them right to be called or referred as "country". They are a bunch of citizens (beside professional criminals) encouraged for terrorism. Kubura 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, maybe you haven't had "rebel controlled territory" in your country. Maybe you/your country haven't had any serious problems because of terroristic actions from rebel areas (shelling). You would "sing completely other song" (as we say here) if you had that in your motherland. Maybe you would than understand Croat reactions. Kubura 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"your country" was in a state of flux, controlling lands of people that did not want to be a part of your country. I have an equally as pertinent saying, as it is said in the English speaking world "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". This reminds me a lot of the German-Polish situation before WWI and after the Treaty of Versailles, first Germany controlled lands that were Polish, then Poland controlled lands that were predominantly German. The only way that was solved was by the forced removal of the German population from their rightful lands following WWII, which can be seen in parallel as the Medak area is still largely uninhabited.

now you cannot tell me that the Germans had the right to rule over the Poles, as you cannot tell me that the Poles had the right to rule over the Germans. They each desired to belong to their own respective country, and that is what happened in this situation as well. You cannot possibly tell me that the Serb Krajinians just all of a sudden decided they did not like Croatian people and started shooting them in the areas that rebelled. No, it was a result of the long history of conflict between the two in lands that were inhabited by both.

--Jadger 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, borders are to be respected. "All of a sudden"? See the text down. Or this few lines longer version. Very few borders are ideal ones, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and respected. Otherwise, we'd have permanent wars everywhere, between every country. But, that's not the case. Kubura 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Country in a state of flux"
Country in a state of flux? What do you mean by that? Don't think that beginning of some country's independence is a position "grab as much as you can" from that country. 1) To simplify: the rebellion of Serbs was incited, encouraged and helped from Serbia. 2) All Serbs haven't rebelled. Neither all that rebelled originally wanted to do so. Some weren't satisfied with new circumstances in Croatia, but they had no plans to rebel. 3) Croatia was not in the opportunity to choose the war. Croatia was very, very weakly armed. Rebel Serbs weren't "poor farmers with muskets". Local Serbs' got all available JNA's weapons. 4) Paranoia was implanted into local Serbs' minds. Unfortunately, you weren't here to see the changes of behaviour of Serbs that lived here. Their heads were filled with ideas that they were "endangered" here. 5) All this rebellion was a Serbian-Montenegrin "mask" to annihilate Croatia, to forcefully annex Croatian territories and make ethnic cleaning of Croatia. They did so on rebelled and occupied areas. No Croats left there. When they didn't manage to capture whole Croatia, they turned to shelling of civil targets in Croatian cities (examples were numerous). 6) Serbia denied Croatian right to exist and existence of Croats and Croatian language at all. Kubura 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not saying that all Serbs rebelled, I was saying that the majority of rebels were indeed Serbs, hence the name Serbian Krajina. Do you actually understand anything I just said above, or do you purposefully misunderstand it just to make someone mad because they have to repeat the same thing five times over?

1) to correct you, Croatia had separated from Serbia (ex-Yugoslavia) first, I am not saying that it was right to attack Croatia, just trying to put it in context. BTW is there any relevance here? I used the reference of the German-Polish post WWI situation, this is a lot like the Silesian Uprisings, only without a plebiscite.


 * Wrong. Yugoslavia dissolved, noone has ever "separated" from anyone:, Mir Harven 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

2) I never said all Serbs rebelled, what is your point? 3) And your point is what exactly? same with the Silesian Uprisings as I pointed out before, the Polish rebels were armed by the Polish nation. 4) citation? that is simple stereotyping on your part. Of course they were worried, they had gone from a nation where they were the ruling group, to a nation were they were treated as second class citizens. 5) LMAO, see your comment for 4)? you have turned it 180 degrees and are using it as justification when you just tried to condemn it 1 remark before. 6)citation needed please, most of your points (if they can be called that) are simply Croatian conspiracy theories.

--Jadger 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Yugoslavia has dissolved. CRO and SLO haven't seceded. Have you ever read what Badinter's commission concluded? 2) Point is, all Serbs weren't against Croatia. "..I never said all Serbs rebelled..." Jadger, maybe you've meant good when you wrote something here, but you haven't expressed it in the best way. Read yourself once more. Your texts could be understood in the other way. If I haven't, somebody else would "misunderstood" your text, like I did, sooner or later. 3) Point is, they wouldn't rebel against their country. They would have normal life here, just like theirs families do have it in Croatia. 4) Citation? Well, I'd have to translate you all their newspapers, magazines, TV shows, TV news from late 1980's and beginning of 1990's (all before the rebellion)... There's a bunch of material. Stereotypes? We had Serbian and Montenegrian newspapers available here and their TV channels could be followed from here. 5) and 6) See 4). Even now, you can find theirs "works" on the Internet in English. Greetings, Kubura 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1)Indeed Yugoslavia did dissolve, but even the biggest dolt knows that Serbia-Montenegro is its successor.


 * ? This user has, as I see below, invoked ad hominem as an example of user Kubura's (mis)behavior. Well-we Croats call this kind of argumentation "whores pontificating on chastity". Nothing personal, just a remark. Mir Harven 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

2)I expressed it in the most simple and widespread English found, I am not going to "dumb down" my english for you. If I had crayons I bet it'd be easier to draw a picture and scan it into my computer then to talk to you in plain English.

3) you have no point, why would they not rebel against their own nation? THEY DID!!! You cannot pretend that life was perfectly fine in Croatia before the rebellion, or else they would of never rebelled.  your whole argument has been brought full circle on itself and denies what you are trying to claim in the first place.

4)And what do these newspaper articles say then? subliminal messages, secret typing you need a special light to see, and it says rebel, kill Croats. The Croatian newspapers of the same time said the exact same thing as the Serb ones, only with Serbs as the villains rather then Croats.  I do not need to cite anything for #4, as it is common knowledge, when I say that it is better to drink water then to die of thirst, do I also need to cite a medical journal or a doctor? of course not.

5&6) then cite it then, but don't cite some newspaper or magazine, because I can find lots of them that say that Elvis was an alien in English. you need to cite a professional, peer reviewed authority on the issue, say the UN for instance.

--Jadger 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Every republic that made Yugoslavia is a successor of ex-YU, not only Serbia and Montenegro.. If you really meant to say that Serbia and Montenegro are the only successors, then... Where did you get this information? Where are you proofs? Almight God said "even the biggest dolt knows that". You go around UN's decisions here. Just like that. Browse the internet, find serious sources. 2) "To dumb down my english..." Please, don't loose your temper here. Rather read once what you've written. 3) Believe me, they wouldn't rebel. It is not an ordinary protest meeting, nor a Serb-pride parade, nor writing a protest letter. Many were pissed off, angry, despised new ruling party, but without an organized inciting and encouraging from outside, they wouldn't rebel... Rebellion is a very serious business. Many of them regretted later what they've done. You should see what they've said on rebel TV-stations, as the inevitable was approaching. Some of their politicians (Veljko Džakula; there are some others, I can't remember their names wright now) even tried to peacefully reintegrate rebel areas into government controlled Croatia. 4,5,6) I can cite those newspapers and magazines (these were serious ones, daily newspapers; embassies followed what's being said in them), but then you'll ask me to put scans here as proof, and if I somehow reach them, you'll say that somebody could edit those scanned pictures... If I say TV and radio, you'll ask from me to put audio and video files that proove that, and if I somehow manage that nigh-to-impossible mission, you'll say that somebody might edited those files before the upload. Read the internet. I am not perfect (I don't have national library with scanned newspapers and magazines). But, what are your arguments? You only say your "thesis" and say "it is so", "everybody knows"... and then attack me that I don't have good counter-arguments. You weren't here when Serbs attacked us and terrorized us (you never saw the documentaries "Komšije", "Croatian Amarcord"). Jadger, I'm not fooling you. Kubura 14:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Serbia was the main actor since before WWI for a nation of all slavs (Yugoslavia), that is a partial reason why they had the Austrian Archduke assasinated. Serbia has claimed to be its successor and during yugoslavia's existence it was dominated by Serbians.  This is of course not to mention that Serbia and Montenegro was known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until 4 February, 2003.

2) I havent lost my temper, I'm simply trying to make my speech as simple as possible so that you might be able to understand it, and so will not be able to pretend not to understand and skew the article in whatever direction you want.

3) LOL, first you say that they were content, now you say they were: "pissed off, angry, despised new ruling party". If your trying to prove a point, stop contradicting yourself. unless of course your point is that you have no point or that you make no sense, because that is already painfully clear.

4-6) I have never asked you to scan anything, or upload anything, I have simply asked for atleast one reputable source, which you still fail to give. If these newspapers/magazines are as credible as you pretend, then they would have a website.

--Jadger 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1)Serbia was..., Serbia claimed... Hitler claimed the Lebensraum. About succesion, read the constitution(s) of socialist Yugoslavia. "Serbia and Montenegro was known as the FR of Yugoslavia". They could name themselves "Empire of Byzantium". That's just a name. Read UN resolutions. If you want to watch things that way, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts was founded in 19th century as "Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts", before any idea of Yugoslavia existed in Serbia. Is Croatia the only yugo-successor because of that? 3) I've said "many were... angry, didn't like new ruling party". But they were not against Croatia. Neither they would rebel. Yes, Serbs were content here (otherwise, they would leave Croatia, but, hey, they stayed here - I'm speaking about the Serbs that lived in CRO-Government controlled areas). If you are an English citizen, and you hate conservatives or labourists, it doesn't mean that you're against England. 4)Which are your sources? Where are your proofs? You never mentioned any. "Croatian stereotypes"? Live a life, open your eyes. Find a proper information source, if you want to discuss about an event. You live across the ocean, tens of thousands miles from Croatia, and you think that you know better what was going on here, than me, who lived here then? Websites? There wasn't any internet in 1980's as we know it now. Serb newspapers (Politika, Borba, Večernje novosti...) haven't put the editions from those times on their sites. Kubura 08:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I thought it was impossible to type so much and yet never have a single fact or truth in it: thanks for dispelling that. In the future, please keep your posts like that above on the page made for it; most notably: Gibberish

On another note: please stop avoiding the need to cite your outrageous claims. All of your series of posts reak of tu quoque fallacy (in case you don't understand: [])

--Jadger 01:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)