Talk:Operation Storm/Archive 4

"Result: Massacres of Serb civilians"
The wording in the "Infobox military conflict" strikes me as odd. Nobody is disputing that war crimes happened, yet they are mentioned in the text later on. Furthermore, when covering a wide area, the use of the word "massacres" in the Infoboy military conflict is almost never used in examples in Wikipedia. Even in such articles as Invasion of Yugoslavia we don't have the "Massacres of Serbs" in the "result" section. 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia and Battle of Vukovar also do not contain "Massacres of Croats" in the aftermath of the infobox. Even in bloody battles and sieges such as Siege of Eastern Ghouta, Siege of Leningrad, or Operation Pillar of Defense we do not find the word "Massacres" in the result section. The term is used for the "Infobox civilian attack", not for the "Infobox military conflict", which indicates that its use here is kind of suspicious. I think "War crimes reported" is sufficient, though even that is somewhat unorthodox. As it is, this version implies that there was no military combat between two armies, but just a massacre of Serbs civilians throughout the 10,000 square km of the area. The link leads to a wikitable of both massacres against Croats and Serbs during the entire war, where, at the end, we have four massacres during the time of Operation Storm (which ended on 8 August). As such, this needs to be written in a more specific language, as well. A third problem: sources number 220-228 are not linked in the references section. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree with your observations. A better way to qualify these events is needed - while some definitely qualify as "massacres", it is indeed questionable whether the high-level description ("Massacres of Serbs") is appropriate, for reasons you state. Also, whatever is presented in the infobox should follow the established usage if there are no reasons to do otherwise. I wouldn't necessarily treat pre- and post-8 August incidents differently, though.
 * As for the sources, they do appear a bit messed up (I managed to fix a formatting error) - I'll take a look, time permitting. GregorB (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You are on the spot with your observations. I would agree with your proposals to edit this in the article. Bilseric (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing suspicious about the use of infobox military conflict here. It is the standard infobox for battles or operations like this. War crimes weren't just reported, they were committed. There are plenty of reliable sources for that, including court documents from The Hague. The current version doesn't imply that there was no military conflict in the area, it indicates that massacres of Serb civilians was one outcome of the operation, along with the other outcomes. I fail to see what the problem is, other than getting a sense that some editors would rather not have the massacres highlighted. The pre- and post- 8 August massacres shouldn't be separated; they all were connected to this operation as they occurred in the areas captured by Croat and ARBiH forces. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody is disputing that war crimes have happened, yet the user above has a good point. If wikipedia doesn't usually mentiones "massacres" is infobox, why have it here and not in other articles. It is mentioned in the article later on. It seems that each article about military conflict could have that stated in infobox, how come other articles don't have it stated? My conclusion here is that this one steps from the general case, not the other way around, that's why I agreed with the user above.Bilseric (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyways, the infobox lists the results of the military conflict. War crimes surely were not the result. Although, I'm familiar with the Serbian stand, which indeed puts war crimes as the intended result. It seems to me that infobox should be impartial. Serbian stand on this issue can be stated somewhere else, but with along with Croat stand and ICTY and ICJ rulings mentioned all together. Bilseric (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * To better illustrate the underlying issue, let's use the example of the Battle of Berlin (granted, this is a very crude comparison for a number of rather obvious reasons, but might be useful nevertheless). Should the Results entry in the infobox list e.g. "Mass rape of German women" too? After all, it is both true and mentioned in the body. Nevertheless, my answer to that question would be "no". GregorB (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the Battle of Berlin is a good example, and it should include the mass rape IMHO. We shouldn't be avoiding mentioning the outcomes for civilians when we summarise the results of military conflicts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this as well. If all other articles are modified so this kind of info is mentioned, then this one wouldn't be an example. I really don't have time to review hundreds of articles, but in general, I agree that all should follow the same guideline. But, also, then we should change the word "result" to something like "consenquences". It seems to me that now this would be going into a general discussion about the guidelines on how to write articles about military conflicts. Bilseric (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've muddled things a bit with the above example. There are actually two issues here:
 * Should war crimes (and possibly other consequences, such as destruction) be listed under "Result", and
 * Is "Massacres of Serbs" an adequate description of one such result in this particular case
 * In the end, it might boil down to a single question: what should be the threshold for inclusion under "Result"? "True and mentioned in the body" still doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
 * The question of "Result" vs "Consequences" is a valid one - surely "Result" was meant to convey just the outcome of the battle, and current instructions at Infobox military conflict seem to confirm that. GregorB (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since no reasonable counter-argument was provided here as an explanation, the sentence was removed from the Infobox. It is used in the "Infobox attack on civilians", not "Infobox military conflict".--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I wish Peacemaker67 would be as active here on the talk page as he is in reverting edits on the article. It seems he is scrambling to come up with an explanation. I can wait for a few more days, but if there is no progress, I think we can wrap this up.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I always used the Result part of the Infobox military conflict template only for the military outcome of the battle. Tzowu (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What does that matter? This article passed GAN and Milhist ACR with the infobox results like this. So there was no issue foreseen with it at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. This statement is false. The GA review passed in January 2013, but the "Massacre of Serb civilians" line was added in the infobox by user Aca Srbin on 5 August 2018, without any consultation.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering that enough time was given for this topic, we can conclude that there is a clear, overwhelming consensus to remove the disputed sentence from the infobox military conflict. Several good arguments were presented against it, and not a single one of them was disputed in any reasonable way. In my opinion, considering that the said sentence was added on 5 August, by the said user, it seems reasonable to conclude that it was a clear outburst of Serb nationalist insertion. With this off the table, I will remove the dubious sentence shorty from the infobox and restore the article to its neutral previous version.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Conclusion
 * No, I’ll open a RfC to get a proper community view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So what were you waiting for all this time if you decided to ignore the consensus on the talk page, anyway?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No need for bad-faith accusations. Let's have a RfC, why not? We have at least two issues here, one of which (purpose of the Result parameter) might affect hundreds if not thousands of articles. GregorB (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. No need to get snippy, I have been busy creating content elsewhere. I propose to open an RfC about whether the results field of this article should include effects on civilians as a result of the operation. Specifically, whether this infobox result field should include 1) Exodus of Serb civilians and 2) Massacres of Serb civilians. It won't automatically affect thousands of other articles, because each conflict is different and one size rarely fits all. A narrowly-drafted RfC is best, as it will hopefully give firm guidance for this article, and if it is a strong consensus, may be used as a precedent for other articles. However, if it was intended to include such outcomes in another article, say Battle of Berlin, consensus would need to be gained on that article talk page in the normal course of events. I'll post this RfC in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the issue here might be moot if there was a broader (WPMILHIST?) consensus not to include outcomes other than strictly military ones. However, since there are apparently plenty of articles which do include these, one might assume this is now tacitly accepted. Either way, RfC is OK. GregorB (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the result in infobox military conflict
Should the "Infobox military conflict" contain the "Massacre of Serb civilians" in the result section? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Massacre of Serb civilians" should stay in the infobox. Following the operation 7 massacres committed by Croatian forces took place. In the case of the Varivode massacre, the Croatian government admitted it had occurred, condemned it in the harshest terms and provided compensation to victims. The massacres just like the exodus formed part of the operation, given that they would have not occurred without the operation occurring. Even though they were not sanctioned by the Croatian government, they still occurred. Not all operations lead to massacres, however in this case it did. Removing it can cause a backlash given the nature of Balkan articles. I do not see a plausible reason to remove it. If you are looking for examples of operations mentioning consequences on the civilian populations : Fall of Saigon, Raqqa campaign (2012–13), Siege of Srebrenica. ThreatMatrix (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is important that effects on civilians resulting from a battle are highlighted. Encyclopaedic coverage would benefit from greater highlighting of the costs to civilians from conflict, not just the military losses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is important and the article has a whole separate section. What you need is a source which says that this is the result of the battle. Until then we should follow Infobox military conflict, as other articles do. Bilseric (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is important that effects on civilians resulting from a battle are highlighted. Protection of Civilians (now abbreviated POC) is a major factor now in UN peacekeeping operations. Part of this is because of the nasty events of the 1990s. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As already explained above, the term is used for the "Infobox civilian attack", not for the "Infobox military conflict". Can anyone above quote specific Wikipedia guidelines for these cases? I can. The guidelines for the result section in the Template:Infobox military conflict are clear: "This parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" ". And that's it. The guidelines are clear and in direct contrast with this kind of wording. Therefore, when covering a wide area, the use of the word "massacres" in the Infoboy military conflict is almost never used in thousands of examples in Wikipedia. Even in such articles as Invasion of Yugoslavia we don't have the "Massacres of Serbs" in the "result" section. Bombardments of Japan in WWII, Operation Ramadan, Battle of Vukovar, Siege of Eastern Ghouta are just a fraction of the examples. Even User:ThreatMatrix actually gave a counter-argument in his examples of Fall of Saigon and Raqqa campaign (2012–13), since none of which contain the word "Massacres" in the result section. Siege of Srebrenica is the only exemption, though even that seems unorthodox and against the rules, and should be edited out to remove the massacre from the result. But you have another problem, either way: there exists an article called Srebrenica massacre. But there is no Operation Storm massacre article. Even in the Battle of Grozny we do not have the "Russian massacre of Chechens" in the result section. Even if we take into account that massacres were recorded in 7 villages, it does not cross the threshold when one has in mind that some 1,000 villages were encompassed by Operation Storm. All the arguments to leave the sentence are just of emotional nature, and of no value for an argument. This all indicates that its use here is the wrong one for Wikipedia standards, and not the other way around. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. As I noted earlier in the discussion, I don't believe that "true and mentioned in the article body" is an adequate criterion for inclusion in the infobox. By its nature, infoboxes deal with major pieces of information, and I don't think the massacres in question are a major aspect of this particular topic. (On the other hand, for the exact same reason, I'm not opposing the inclusion of the entry reading "Exodus of Serb civilians" because it actually is highly relevant.) Using the "true and mentioned" criterion in other articles might result in dozens of "Result" entries per infobox, most of which will inevitably be crufty and of marginal importance. Still, as I noted earlier, I would not be in favor of adding "Mass rape of German women" to the Battle of Berlin infobox, even if I'd agree this was not a minor event - it simply doesn't seem right to me, and unfortunately I cannot provide a more solid argument than that. GregorB (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was wondering how common this is, and it does not seem to be even frequent practice.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my reasoning in the above discussion. In short, this constitutes serious POV. Bilseric (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, and in fact remove all bullet points and describe the result as "Croatian/Bosnian victory". The current representation of the result in the infbox – the "decisive" and "strategic" qualifiers used, and the bulleted list of consequences – ignores the guidance provided by template documentation and MILMOS. Both constrain the result parameter in the infobox to a simple statement about which side emerged from the subject conflict as victor or, where the sources do not agree on this, a link to a section in the main body that discusses this. In this case, it would appear that "Croatian/Bosnian victory" is all that is required. The question of whether the massacre of Serb civilians should be included in the infobox as part of the results illustrates the problem with adding detail to the result parameter in the infobox; it generates more dispute than it aids reader understanding, and the choice of what detail to list is often rooted in WP:POV and often a failure of WP:WEIGHT. The main body and, for those issues that are significant enough to warrant it, the lead text are the places to discuss nuanced detail, not the infobox. Factotem (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly too many info boxes suffer form this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarification: On this specific question, I see no good reason to exclude the massacre from the list of results. It is covered in the main body, and seems to me to be comparable in weight and importance to the other 'results' listed. My objection is that none of those 'results' – which as Cinderella157 rightly points out are not actually results but consequences – should, per template documentation and MILMOS guideline, be listed. Factotem (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove all and describe the result as "Croatian/Bosnian victory" per comments by IAW MilMos guidance. The result parameter is for the "result" of a conflict, not what "resulted" from the conflict. There is a semantic difference. The guidance is clear on what the "result" parameter applies to. Lists of dot-points in this field in other articles are often quite subsequent to the result even if they are consequential and against the guidance. Some such points (as with the "Massacres of Serb civilians" herein) are consequences through the course of the conflict. It is incongruous to list "Massacres of Serb civilians" under a heading of "Decisive Croatian victory". Similarly, "Boost to diplomacy that led to the Erdut Agreement, ending the war " [my empasis] seems temporally out of place under that heading. I do not disagree with the point made by, that "it is important that effects on civilians resulting from a battle are highlighted." The question is where and how to do that - and perhaps other points, if there is a community consensus that outcomes or consequences (ie what resulted rather than the result) should be accommodated in an infobox. A local consensus can deviate from guidance but, if consensus cannot be established on what that should be, the fallback position is the guidance at MilMos. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove massacre from result parameter and place as note in bottom of infobox - This would maintain the integrity of the result parameter while still highlighting the civilian cost of the outcome of this military action. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I largely agree with the arguments of Factotem - disagreeing only to the extent that there may be some instances (Siege of Srebrenica being the obvious example), where a failure to mention the aftermath in the infobox would greatly impoverish the article and the aftermath can meaningfully be described as a direct 'result' - and has been so described by most RS. I think that starting out from a position of "highlighting effects on civilians", while ostensibly honourable, is inherently problematic for all sorts of reasons and amounts to an invitation to WP:OR - not OR that the 'negative effects' took place, but that these actually were 'results', and were/are sufficiently significant (ie WEIGHT) to list as results in the infobox, looser criteria applying to inclusion of text. Almost all military conflicts have negative aftermaths for somebody - usually/often civilians including the very weakest. I would be neutral about the inclusion of the mass rape/fall of Berlin linkage mentioned above and in prior discussion. Certainly in that instance, retributive cruelty, murder, plunder and rape occurred on an industrial scale during and immediately following the Soviets taking Berlin, but even there, was this a 'result'? It certainly was a feature of that battle and the immediate occupation of Berlin - as it was (I believe), of ALL Soviet inter-actions with 'locals' once the Soviet troops were inside German territory. The linkage of 'boat people' to the fall of Saigon cited above seems very problematic - clearly everything that happened in Vietnam after the fall of Saigon, was in some sense affected by the change of regime following the fall, but a more convincing linkage would need to be made between the battle itself and the 'boat people' leaving several years later for it to be apt to call it a 'result of the battle'. In this particular case (Storm), a crude threshold for excluding is the absence of a linked article and the sheer vagueness of the text offered (which gives no indication of the scale of 'ethnic murder' unless one goes to the 'list' article and does the maths and follows the sources oneself) - the text offered imparts little actual information, beyond implying 'Serbs were victims too'. It might be useful to formulate some clarification (via another RfC) as to when inclusion of 'impact on civilians' should be included in the infobox and HOW it should be recorded (ie as 'result' or in some other form), but I'm inclined to agree with others that we need to be very, very cautious about establishing a precedent of including simply because "we should highlight" when not much WEIGHT has been given by sources to these particular killings. 'Infobox bloat' and 'infobox over-simplification' are widespread features of WP - we shouldn't be inviting either IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - per Template:Infobox military conflict "The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. " The massacres of civilians were one of the immediate outcomes of the subject conflict.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This has the appearance of Cherrypicking to misrepresent what the document has to say? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC closure
I was thinking of formally closing this RfC, but in the end decided against it, per WP:RFCCLOSE (If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.) My understanding is that the matter under discussion is indeed not contentious per se, in the sense that this is purely a content dispute, and a narrow one at that, and not a matter of WP policies and guidelines. Also, the consensus is rather obvious, so - even if saying that formal closure in this particular case is not advisable makes no sense to me (why wouldn't it be, if everything is straightforward?) - I suppose no further action is needed, and editors are now free to remove the disputed sentence from the infobox per consensus. GregorB (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this RfC is formally closed by an uninvolved editor with experience in closing difficult issues. The spanner in the works here is that there are significant opposes (mine included) based on the question of whether there should be any bullet points listed under the result, but that is not the question posed by the RfC. Factotem (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Factotem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose a formal closure, although I don't get why this would require an editor with "experience in closing difficult issues" - there are no difficult issues here. Broader issues about the infobox were not resolved (because they weren't meant to be resolved) by this RfC, which is perhaps unfortunate. GregorB (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see comment by . An RfC can evolve in consequence of the comments provided. The comments from outside observers can identify questions and issues not initially envisaged by the OP and any antagonists/protagonists. This is probably such a case. This is a matter of WP guideline (as identified by many of the comments) and perhaps, whether the guideline should be narrowly or broadly applied, based on the consensus of the commentors. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC question is merely "should a particular fact mentioned in the body be mentioned in the infobox too". I don't see an applicable policy or guideline which would direct us one way or the other, so it all boils down to individual judgment. But fair enough, let's get it closed by an uninvolved editor and see what happens then. GregorB (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that I am aware of, but there is a guideline, WP:MILMOS, which clearly leads us to an answer of no on this specific question. The difficulty is, that guideline applies equally to all bullet points, but the narrow phrasing of the question is restricting the scope of the RfC to just one bullet point. It would be iniquitous to exclude the massacre on the basis of that guideline but allow the others to remain. The question is, can this RfC legitimately determine a consensus that falls outside the scope of the question it poses? Hence the suggestion for someone with experience in closing RfCs. Factotem (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We don't have to wait for an uninvolved editor to close this. I call upon the written rule that this is unnecessary: per Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear." Furthermore, "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion ." I read this that anyone can close a RfC when there is a consensus, like here, in order to avoid further bureaucratic dragging on per Snowball clause. When the conclusion is simple, any further complications should be avoided to finally bring the issue to a close and move on to something else.
 * @Factotem The consensus is to simply follow the Wikipedia rules on the Infobox military conflict, which should just state the most basic outcome: victory, stalemate or failure.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously I agree that is the proper solution, and how I would close the RfC myself if I was uninvolved, but I'm not sure the consensus on that is all that clear. On a straight headcount, there are 4 !votes to retain, 5 to remove just the massacre (and I've included your !vote in that tally because you don't discuss removing all bullet points, only the massacre), and 3 to remove all bullet points. Determining consensus is not just a straight headcount; it must be done "through the lens of Wikipedia policy." There is no applicable policy here, though. The template documentation you, I and others have cited carries no more authority than an essay (per that policy on determining consensus). WP:MILMOS carries more weight, but it is still not a policy; as a guideline it is only a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow...and occasional exceptions may apply." I do concede though, per WP:NACRFC, that this RfC can legitimately consider a consensus for removing all bullet points, despite this option not being within the scope of the question posed, which was the main reason why I suggested closure by a non-involved editor with experience. Would still recommend an uninvolved close, though. Factotem (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There was a RFC (Module_talk:Infobox military conflict) on the Infobox military conflict talk page in August 2018 specifically about the result parameter of the infobox. The RFC was closed with no consensus on a strict interpretation of the template guidance for the result parameter, but the guidance on Template:Infobox military conflict/doc and should be respected. As I understand it, we should generally follow the guidance, though the use of bullet points and extensive explanations of the outcome of the battle/war is not forbidden. After looking more closely to the other bullet points in this infobox, I think that all of them can be removed:


 * "End of large-scale combat in the Croatian War of Independence" - together with Operation Flash, Operation Storm was the only large-scale combat in Croatia since 1993, so this is really not needed.
 * "Most of Republic of Serbian Krajina territory captured by Croatia" - move to the territory parameter.
 * "Exodus of Serb civilians" - Serb refugees are already mentioned in the casualties3 parameter.
 * "Boost to diplomacy that led to the Erdut Agreement, ending the war" - the Aftermath section mentions a boost to US diplomacy, and the chain of events would be something like this: Operation Storm led to Operation Mistral 2, Operation Mistral 2 combined with the NATO Campaign led to the Dayton Agreement, the Dayton Agreement led to the Erdut Agreement. The Erdut Agreement doesn't look to me as an immediate result of the battle, I'd remove that too.
 * "AP Western Bosnia abolished" - move to the territory parameter.
 * "End of the siege of Bihać" - remove it, it is covered under "Bosnian victory" and mentioned in the lead.

And we'd be left with "Result: Croatian and Bosnian victory" and the territorial changes, as per the guidance of the infobox and MILMOS. Tzowu (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WRT the close, there was further discussion of the close, which the closer incorperated into their close and which clarified the close in respect to MILMOS. Further, that particular RfC did not touch upon the use of such dot-points. It dealt with "the result" (who won), not "what resulted from". You analysis, however, comes to the same end. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Operacija Oluja.JPG

Going forward from RFC
I'm not going to ping anyone because looking through the above few sections it seems as if everyone present watch lists or otherwise keeps an eye on this page. In light of the above RFC and there not being enough support for the sentence to remain, how should we treat the =results parameter of the inbox? Can all the bulletpoints be removed as suggested by factotum and supported by Cinderella and Pincrete? Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  21:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not satisfied with the wording of the closure. It's not merely there is no consensus to keep the disputed sentence, there is consensus to remove it. Other things may not be settled, but then again the RfC question is clear, and it has been answered. GregorB (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The strength of arguement does appear to fall to MILMOS and the guidance there to effect, that there should be no dot-points at all. As Factotem observes, It would be iniquitous to exclude the massacre on the basis of that guideline but allow the others to remain, particularly where there has been a significant discussion to do so (per the fuller comment by Factotem). I previously observed that an RfC can evolve and Factotem has referred to WP:NACRFC with respect to this. Quoting from there: Even then, the consensus that results from an RfC may not be in favor of any of the options initially proposed at all, but a completely new choice originating in the discussion itself. A close that ignores the course of the discussion and defers to the original options risks the appearance of having failed to comply with closing instructions. Your question is one that should have been addressed in closing the RfC. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys I've been aft the last few days and will be until tomorrow, probably. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That makes zero sense. But if you change the numbers you need to change the source from where you got it as the source does not say that. It states explicitly what I put in. (Copy and paste) it does not state killed and exiled it states exciled Galendalia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

3 days
An IP continuously adds (3 days) to the infobox regarding the duration of this operation. This is unnecessary as the dates are provided, and adds nothing that anyone with a basic understanding of the passage of time could not work out at a glance. I have reverted it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Operation Storm
I just wanted to change it to not be double-written. Because it's written there, and now you change how you want or put double or one or none. I will not edit anymore. Bye Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.125.51.20 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

On Tudjman and background
Several sources describe Tudjman's actions and rhetoric during his time in power before the eruption of war as chauvinistic/xenophobic/racist/anti-Serbian, etc.


 * "Tudjman's insensitive and often xenophobic reactions to Croatia's Serbian population, and his overt support of former Ustasa leaders, raised justifiable concerns.." 1
 * "In Croatia, the Serbs faced a new regime built on anti-Serb rhetoric, symbols and behavior. Tudjman and the HDZ did little to reassure Serbs giving meat to Milošević's claims." 2
 * "In his speeches Tudjman flirted with racism.. Although it was not clear whether Tudjman himself was a racist, he clearly had no qualms about appealing to the racists among his followers. The Serbs of Croatia began to fear that Tudjman's rise heralded a new race war." 3

These articles also mention his chauvinism. 4 5 Yes, Milošević used it for nefarious purposes but I don't think there is anything controversial or POV about mentioning this or using these terms to describe Tudjman. It's not exactly a secret he did these things. --Griboski (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, while I did not add the Genocide of Serbs in WWII to the opening paragraph of the background, I do think it could be worth mentioning since it played a part in the war. Serbs (justifiably or not) feared that it would occur again, re: Tudjman and the HDZ's rhetoric, and Milošević played on those fears while the RSK used it as an excuse for their actions. --Griboski (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be there, but it needs to be clearly explained that this was propaganda used by some to engender fear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I accuse Griboski of adding the Genocide of Serbs in WWII to the opening background. I agree with Peacemaker that it needs to be clearly explained that it was weaponized during the Yugoslav Wars to foster fear and hatred. As apposed to being slapped into the background as is. OyMosby (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The cited source (Glaurdić p. 86) talks about "conflicting and controversial statements", not "inflammatory and chauvinistic". The source also gives examples of such statements, and says that that gave "plenty of fodder to Milošević's press machine, which labeled the HDZ a reincarnation of the Ustaša movement".
 * Marcus Tanner in Croatia: A Nation Forged in War on page 231 talks about the Constitution proposal that made Milošević and the SDS make connections to the NDH: "To the SDS and Milosevic the constitution was an absolute god-send - all the proof they ever needed that Tudjman's talk of 'Croatia's young democracy' masked an agenda to restore the NDH and cart the Serbs off to another Jasenovac"
 * Anyway, putting an emphasize on a few controversial statements in the background section, which should give a summary of some basic facts regarding the war(s), is very undue. Many events occurred prior to the election, and in the time between the election and the Log Revolution, such as Tuđman's offer of cultural autonomy to Rašković, or JNA's removal of arms from the Croatian TO.
 * Events of 1989 are also missing, as Tanner writes on p. 218, already then (while the SKH was still in power) did the propaganda start: "Milosevic then turned his attentions to Croatia, where the busy journalists of Belgrade Television and Politika soon uncovered evidence of persecution of local Serbs. TV viewers in Serbia were soon treated to programmes on decaying Serb villages with unpaved roads and ruined churches, whose neglect was the result of spiteful Croat discrimination." At that time, the first protests against the Croatian government began: "...the old Chetnik strongholds in northern Dalmatia, around Knin, Obrovac and Benkovac, were more receptive to the new line from Belgrade. And it was there that the first demonstrations against the Croatian government began in July 1989, on the occasion of the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo."
 * All of that happened before "Tuđman said mean things". Tezwoo (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not even saying that all of this should be in the article as the article is in my view already too large. But neither should cherry picked statemets, or events from World War II. Tezwoo (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that Tudjman's statements were used and the memory of the genocide of Serbs in Croatia during WWII was used by Milosevic for propaganda purposes and to garner fear, not that Tudjman was somehow entirely responsible for the war. That's what makes the inclusion of the Ustasha genocide relevant and not simply cherry-picked. What you did is you inserted that the Chetniks also committed genocide, which serves no purpose other than to act as an undue counter-balance. I'm also pretty sure that idea was nearly non-existent in historiography before 1990 so I don't see how it is relevant. Like I said, I didn't add the text so I am also fine with removing some of it as well since this article is about Operation Storm and not the war itself. Background to the war information should be minimal in this article. --Griboski (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that this is going to detailed in the background. However The Ustase were not a main social discussion until very late 80s and early 90s much like the Chetniks in historiography. This is why documentaries about the Ustashe were heavily pushed during the time on Yugoslavian state television. Professors sent to various areas to teach about the genocide and so on. To awaken and inform such images. This is discussed in Yugoslav War articles. Demonization of Serbs as Chetniks out to get kill Croats was an active propaganda during the war to dehumanize Serbs. Croat and Serb nationalists labeled each other as such.  had explained this to me at one point. Perhaps he could go in more detail if he’d wish. So it is relevant. And both became part of the national conciouse leading up to and during the war. But it was not suddenly remember out of thin air in 1990. It was something quietly talked about since the end of WWII. So to say “ that idea was nearly non-existent in historiography before 1990” is not correct. As it was memories present within the non-Serb populations especially in areas were there was strong Chetnik activity during WWII. In fact propaganda about “Greater Serbia” and the Chetnik imagery was occurring before 1990. There is RS about the matter discussing this in relevant articles. Both Ustashe and Chetnik imagery and crimes were supercharged in the late 80s early 90s to vilify the “enemy” and put fear and immunity in the “victim”. But not to go into the details about them in the background section as that is not the main subject of the article whoch I agree with you in your main point. Ther are other articles that go into details of all of this for the Yugoslav Wars. OyMosby (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But this article is about an event where Serbs were expelled. That is why it is important to explain the background. Tuđman's desire to resolve the “Serbian question” would not exist in that form without the Ustaša genocide, nor would there be fear of Serbs during the war and exodus to that extent, etc. This aspect is well documented, especially in the context of propaganda. Even during the celebrations of anniversaries, Ustaše symbols can often be seen. This is not going into details and the past or anything like that, but one of the key and inseparable elements.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Essentially I agree with you OyMosby. What I'm objecting to is the fact that the Chetniks committing genocide in WWII was referenced, when that was not the specific fear, unless there's a source that says it was. The genocide aspect is what I meant hadn't been heavily studied or promulgated before 1990, so I don't see how it could be part of the national consciousness and equalized with the fear of another Ustashe-like genocide that was present in the Serbs living in Croatia. Both of those genocidal campaigns were just mentioned as an aside but now WEBDuB has provided a source (see below) that references the genocide against Serbs in WWII, tying it to manipulation for this war which is useful. --Griboski (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that controversial statements were given, but I can't agree to put undue weight to those statements to draw connections on the characterization of the war. If Tudjmans controversial statements are to be stated, his biography article is the place to do it, without statements on how those statements "raised justifiable comcerns". If someone wants to reflect on the due weight of those statements the full context that led to the war has to be given. A few controversial statements can't lead to the war. Nowadays, a lot of controversial statements are given, but there's no threat of any wars. There's much more that happened and the few controversial statements are a small portion of the happened events, thus I can't agree to give them undue weight.Bilseric (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The current version is serious POV. It can be inferred from it that Tuđman was only accused in propaganda, without really awakening Ustaše symbols and rhetoric, which the sources unequivocally claim. Also, Ramet is often quoted on Wikipedia when she criticizes Serbian nationalism, while she is ignored when she criticizes Croatian and others. It is not just about statements, but about symbolic and political moves. It is also important to mention the trauma of Serbs due to one of the most massive genocides, but also its missuse for propaganda purposes. Otherwise, it is POV and UNDUE. I've added the sentence: I really think the it is neutral.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had trimmed the paragraph down to avoid the balancing act between mentioning the Ustasha and Chetnik's genocidal actions. Now that there is an actual reference of the Genocide of Serbs that ties in to the war and is not just thrown in as an aside, I think it can be included along with the Ramet quote. However, this is still an article about Operation Storm and not the war in general and I think this kind of stuff should be simplified and as concise as can be to avoid UNDUE. --Griboski (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is UNDUE, because the article doesn't proportionally cover parts about expelled more than 2/3 Serbs in Croatia. The situation is similar with the the Croatian War of Independence article. Try to imagine that 2.3 million Croats became refugees during the war.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of categories
The long-standing Croatian war crimes in the Croatian War of Independence and Ethnic Cleansing in the Yugoslav Wars categories were twice removed from this article by Tezwoo. I can only speculate as to why this was done on this particular day but we're not going to get into that. They should not be removed, certainly not without consensus in the talk page or an RfC first.

The page literally talks about the Operation and the aftermath, i.e. war crimes against Serb civilians. Regardless of the fact that the Operation itself was not aimed at persecuting civilians, the persecution of Serb civilians nonetheless was a component of it. The category should stay. Likewise, changing it to a general category of War Crimes instead of "Croatian war crimes" is unsuitable. The vast majority of the crimes during Operation Storm were committed by Croatian forces against Serb civilians. That's what the article deals with.

As far as the ethnic cleansing goes, despite the ICTY and ICJ ruling, we have scholars who see it as ethnic cleansing. Operation Storm was the single event that produced the biggest population exodus in all of the wars. Respectable scholars such as Paul Mojzes regard it as "the single largest ethnic cleansing of the wars of the 1990s.1 The views of scholars are enough to have an event listed in List of ethnic cleansing campaigns, it should also be enough to keep the relevant category in the article itself. --Griboski (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, should be in both cats. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite “vast majority” of the crimes being done by Croatians (if talking about Operation Storm era only), it doesn’t erase those done by others. The article discusses war crimes committed by other factions as well. Also I agree, Ethnic Cleansing sub makes sense as while to label the Operation as a whole as ethnic cleansing was later denied by both courts succeeding older sources stating otherwise. It is undeniable Th at instances of ethnic cleansing took place in the operation. As the courts confirm this. As well as accounts of Croatian forces burning the homes of Serb refugees so that they cannot return. This happened in a number of areas during the operation. I don’t think has ill motives but if removing for a second time, talking on the talk page would be best. Wasn’t even aware this is the anniversary of the operation. But would explain the IP sudden activity in the edits.  OyMosby (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does the article talk about crimes committed during Operation Storm by others? If you're referring to the background section that deals with crimes throughout the war and pre-Operation Storm, that's all it is, background information. Changing it to a general war crimes category trivializes the subject and is not reflective of what the article is about. --Griboski (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to background discussion of various crimes in the war. Also in your own words, majority implies not all, meaning crimes other than that by Croatian forces were committed during the time span of the operation. It is not a general war crimes category it is a category for war crimes during the Croatian War of Independence. In no way trivializing. The operations shows belligerents of two sides. With the Serbian side obviously facing the largest losses during this week long offensive. Not denying that. So I figured the edit makes sense. If only Croatian military is the focus than it should be changed back to Croatian war crimes. But was there not RSK forces involved as well? The info box even lists thousands of Bonsiak and Croat civilian refugees as well as civilian deaths. From RS during this offense. So it would seem that the subject matter is not only pertaining to Croatian forces. This is my confusion with this whole thing. Please understand I’m not trying to pov push or have some motives. OyMosby (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's typical for casualties and refugees to be listed on both sides but all of it is as a result of the offensive. The Croatian military is the focus. "War crimes" over "Croatian war crimes" would make sense if this was a tit for tat operation where all factions engaged in violations on a near-equal scale. The article lists 42 Croatian civilian casualties according to the Croatian government at the time and may or may not be reliable and accurate; it isn't clear how many of those were victims of war crimes. But the article itself deals with those committed by the HV during their offensive. I don't think a passing mention of the other two factions (ARBiH & RSK) engaging in comparatively minuscule violations warrants this change. --Griboski (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I see your point. Thanks for explaining. do you agree? OyMosby (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't make assumptions about my motives, I'm not making them about yours. And you don't need to "speculate" why I did something. Last year I've created the Battle of Bugojno article, a battle that led to the flight of almost all local Croats and a number of war crimes by the ARBiH. I avoided the mention of an "ethnic cleansing" or adding of war crimes categories. In the background section I kept only to the basic facts, instead of who did more bad things (better known as point scoring). Therefore, I'm not doing anything different from edits on other articles of the Yugoslav Wars (mostly the Croat-Bosniak War, I rarely made larger edits on articles about the war in Croatia).
 * Regarding categories, you added the "Croatian war crimes" category in February of this year, without a discussion or a RfC, so it's not "long-standing". When the article got it's GA status, it did not have it , including the following 7 years. The number for 42 Croatian civilians is related to civilian deaths from the bombardment of Croatian cities during the operation by the SVK/VRS artillery (eastern Slavonia, Dubrovnik, and central Croatia), and there were many Bosniak and Croat refugees from the RS too. That doesn't seem like minor offences to me, it's just not written in detail in the article. Tezwoo (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten I did. It didn't occur to me to go back that far. I just assumed that both were there for a long time. And I didn't mean to make it personal, if it seems that way. It's just that there were massive edits done when there usually aren't on this article and it brings up different feelings for different people around this time. There's no point scoring going on on my end but assessing the subject accurately. To be fair, I don't think that any other battle or event from the wars can be compared to this one. This is pretty one-sided. --Griboski (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Last sentence in the war crimes section
It says: "The military operation also allowed the Croatian authorities access to areas where, as of March 2012, a total of 144 mass and 1,200 individual graves have been discovered, in which the remains of 3,809 Croatian civilians and military personnel were buried"

But the reference which can be translated into English doesn't say that investigators gained access to the area because of the Operation. It only speaks of a newly uncovered mass grave in 2012 where victims from 1991 and 1992 were exhumed. It then gives the total number of victims that were exhumed in Croatia. It's a given that once a war is over, investigations of grave sites can be done. It would make sense to include this for the article on the war itself but since it has no connection to war crimes during Operation Storm, it seems out of place and undue. --Griboski (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Undue addition
An edit adding content such as “ The Canadian genocide scholar Damir Mirkovic noted that “the worst Serb fears materialized in 1995 when the Croat ultra-nationalists achieved what their Ustaše predecessors failed to accomplish”. He added that the Operation Storm with its “predatory and shameful consequences” can be considered a connected event the Ustaše genocide, especially according to the ideology that led to them. ” Is very much undue and odd timing of such edit this time of year. Editor ’s edit already simplified and removed undue weight and ws more neutrally worded.OyMosby (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding some of the new additions, this is the most problematic one: "his party adopting some Ustaše symbols and Tuđman appointing former Ustaše officials to political and military positions"


 * That is simply not true. The author(s) on the cited page claim that "Tudjman's party adopted some of the symbols of the Ustache, basing the design of its new flag on that of the Ustache flag". However, the Croatian flag has been in use long before the creation of the Ustaše movement, who only put their "U" symbol on it, as well on every symbol of the Banovina of Croatia. But here is Ramet's (Politics in Croatia since 1990, pp. 261-262) point on this, as she calls it, myth:
 * "A number of misconceptions have arisen concerning Tudjman’s policies and the role played by Croatia’s Serbs in the years 1990–1. The first is the notion that the red-and-white checkerboard found on the post-1990 Croatian coat of arms represented a restoration of a symbol previously used during the era of the fascistic Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in 1941–5. Quite apart from the fact that the checkerboard has a long history, going back at least as far as the fifteenth century,18 to constitute a “restoration” it would have to have been removed during the intervening years of socialism and would have to be identical with that used in the NDH. Neither is the case. In fact, the red-and-white checkerboard was used on the Croatian coat of arms throughout the socialist era, with a red square placed on the upper left, to distinguish the socialist version from the NDH version, which placed a white square in that position. Post-1990 Croatia has preserved the socialist arrangement of squares. Thus, the claim which one may read in some American and British newspapers that local Serbs were angry because the Tudjman regime allegedly restored the old fascist checkerboard is based on a myth."
 * Or Tanner (Croatia: a nation forged in war, pp. 223-224):
 * "They were particularly hostile to the red-and-white Croatian flags his supporters waved at HDZ rallies, which they insisted was the Ustashe flag. In fact the old chequerboard symbol had been the official coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Croatia and had faded from use on election posters and other propaganda only in the 1950s. No matter. The Serbs had now decided it was the footprint of the Ustashe."
 * Therefore, the new Croatian government did not introduce Ustashe symbols, and I would really like to know which "Ustaše official" was in any position of power in the government. The rest of the new background starting paragraph also has some problematic content. Neither Hoare nor Ramet in "Central and Southeast European Politics Since 1989" give much attention to World War II in their summaries of the wars . Instead, they write much more about Milošević's actions and those of the rebel Serb leaders, so putting so much information on (alleged) Tuđman's actions is very undue. For example, Ramet also wrote about two other "myths", which are related to some of the content here (p. 262):
 * "A second misconception – one may even say, a myth – is that local Serbs were acting autonomously, and that Milošević played little role in stoking up the conflict in Croatia. In fact, the Serbian president exerted influence over the Serbs of Croatia from the beginning. Already in 1990, when the newly elected President Tudjman offered the vice-presidency to Jovan Rašković, head of the local Serbian Democratic Party, together with cultural autonomy (which is to say, guarantees for the use of ekavian and the Cyrillic alphabet), Rašković consulted with Milošević before taking a decision; egged on by Milošević, Rašković declined the offer and called for a boycott of the parliament by deputies from his party. Moreover, as I have noted elsewhere,19 the Serb paramilitaries set up on the Serbian president’s authorization not only benefited from JNA training, transfusions of JNA equipment, and infusions, throughout the war, of funding from Belgrade, but also reported directly to the Yugoslav Army.
 * "Finally, there is a third misconception – that President Tudjman’s alleged dismissal of local Serbs from positions in the police and administration somehow “justified” the effort by Serbs to secede from Croatia and the atrocities which Serb paramilitaries would commit against Croats. The standard account inverts the actual chronology, however. What happened is that, as early as the spring of 1990, local police in Knin (mainly Serbs) were operating as if they were an independent force, i.e. not responding to orders from the government in Zagreb which was paying their salaries. By mid-August 1990, Knin police were taking the side of the growing Serbian insurgency and it was in response to that situation that Zagreb removed the ringleaders of the rebellion from the payroll. Those removed from the payroll ipso facto lost their right to their state-issued apartments. This result has come down as the “firing of Serbs” but, as this chronology makes clear, the outcome was the result of the actions taken by the Serb police and not the result of prejudice on Tudjman’s part. In any event, as we know from the diaries of Borisav Jović, among other sources, Milošević was already bent on war by spring 1990 and the refusal of Croatian Serb police to respect the chain of command figured as merely one element in this escalation to war. Still, whatever the truth of the matter, Belgrade was able to turn this case of insubordination into anti-Croat propaganda by casting the blame on Tudjman for a result chosen by the Serbs themselves."
 * And more from Hoare (Bosnia and Herzegovina: Genocide, Justice and Denial (2nd Ed.), p. 178) regarding due and undue weight given here:
 * "Before Franjo Tudjman’s Croatian nationalists had even had a chance to take over the reigns of power in Croatia, in the interval in 1990 following their electoral victory over the former Croatian Communists and during the handover of power, Kadijevic carried out the disarmament of Croatia’s Territorial Defence, in close consultation with Jovic, who was then Yugoslav president. Thus did Kadijevic begin the Serbian war of aggression against Croatia, before Tudjman’s regime had even had a chance to be guilty of anything whatsoever."
 * The GA version of the article started with the Log Revolution, and all of this new content in the starting paragraph is unnecessary. Or else we'll have to add all of the information in Ramet's and Haore's works too that are much more relevant and important for a background section of the war in Croatia. Tezwoo (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While they criticize Serb actions, both Ramet (such as the cited source in the article which outlines the nature of 1990 Croatia)) and Hoare (like here 1) will also point out Tudjman's disdain for the Croatian Serb population. To answer your question about which Ustashe he put in positions in his government, a couple of examples is Ivo Rojnica, a former Ustashe commander in Dubrovnik who was named ambassador to Argentina, and Vinko Nikolić an Ustashe official who was named to parliament.2. The part about the symbols I think is more of a reference to the toleration of Ustashe symbols in public, Za Dom Spremni, ect. The HDZ flirted with Ustashism at times and I don't think this should be whitewashed. It was somewhat POV to mention Milosevic's actions but speak nothing at all of Tudjman. Having said all of that, I am basically in agreement with you. We are going to be constantly weighing about which aspects to include and which not; and a lot of what you posted could easily be included which means we are also going to be adding more undue material to the background of this article. I am in favor of returning the background section to the version that began with the Log Revolution. --Griboski (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions reminder
Just a gentle reminder that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. POV pushing will quickly get you blocked. Use reliable academic sources, preferably from outside the affected countries, not highly nationalistic and biased sources on either side. There has been a lot of pseudohistory produced in both Croatia and Serbia since 1990 which doesn’t meet global standards of scholarship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Mirkovic from the Brandon University a neutral and reliable source? He is quite quoted and appreciated. The cited paper is from a prestigious peer-reviewed international journal.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

25th Anniversary New Section
New content such as this “ Minister Vulin stated: "And whichever Serb they buy or bring over to a celebration of extermination of Serbs and place him alongside Ante Gotovina and other Ustashas, they won't be able to change the truth about the civil war they provoked, about massacring and killing Serbian children in refugee columns."” should their not be counterbalance information verifying the factual validity of these claims? Because inserting every single thing a politician claims can come across presented as a objective truth to an average reader. OyMosby (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just an inflammatory statement, the quote is definitely undue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ” President of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić later said that it was up to Serbia and Republika Srpska to say that "they did not support the presence of Serb representatives at the celebration of the Operation Storm in Knin, and that they would never stop marking the anniversaries of the 'pogrom' of Serbs from Croatia” I understand that quotes from politicians are relevant to give insite of their position. But there should be some clarification made to the reader as to what is factual. Otherwise it’s just billboarding libel and slander towards other politicians or groups. Especially now when the atticle is receiving its most traffic around this time of year. OyMosby (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A whole section and five paragraphs just on the 25th anniversary is undue. I realize it's a big occasion but celebrations/commemorations are held every year. Relevant information should be kept while quotes from all the politicians should be at a minimum. I propose a general "anniversary" or "commemoration" section or sub-section for this text. --Griboski (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it reads like a newspaper. OyMosby (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Balkan Insight article - a BLP violation?
Per WP:BLPCRIME: "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

In the article in question (an "investigation" by two journalists of that website - "Court Records Reveal Croatian Units’ Role in Operation Storm Killings"), it is basically alleged that five (living) commanders of units involved in the operation, that were neither indicted nor convicted of war crimes in the operation by the ICTY/Croatian courts, are in fact guilty of war crimes. It is interesting that the two journalists seem to know better than ICTY/Croatian court's investigators. Does WP:BLPCRIME apply here and should this article be removed? Tezwoo (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Bilseric (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Balkan Insight is RS. It is also not a secret that the vast majority of perps responsible for killing Serbs during Operation Storm have not been charged and convicted. The article doesn't accuse anyone directly either nor does it say that the five individuals (of whom four are alive) are guilty of war crimes. WP:BLPCRIME also makes it clear that it is for individuals not considered public figures, which all of those mentioned in the article are. It doesn't apply here. --Griboski (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They list six individuals there on the bottom of the article. Five of them are alive, and only two of those have (small) articles on Wikipedia. The other three don't look notable enough to have their own page at all.
 * While they of course don't directly accuse them of anything, they do imply it in their opening paragraph. There are certainly other/better sources for the notion that very few of the perpetrators of massacres were brought to trial and convicted. Tezwoo (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no Serbo-Croatian language!
Serbo-Croatian language is a fabric of a fiction. There is and has never been such a language. Also, if you are pushing that agenda, why there are most of English wiki pages that are using a Serbian language when discussing a Serbian topics? That should also be noted as a Serbo-Croatian language and not Serbian? Walter9 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. That is just nationalist mumbojumbo. Read the article on the language, which explains the facts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting topic. It's surely valid to see what the relevant linguist sources are stating on this topic. The experts don't agree on the matter, thus there is no need to accuse someone of being nationalistic for a different stand. What's  sure is that Serbo-Croatian as a single language started in Austro-Hungary as a political project and continued throughout Yugoslavia. The question here is whether we can call two languages that are similar enough to be one and the same. Serbian and Croatian are not the only example. There are examples of other languages that are even more similar, yet are not grouped into one and the same. However, Serbian and Croatian already had that label from, primarily, Yugodlav era so it stuck among some linguistic experts. From a practical point of view , it makes sense. From linguistic standards there are differences. Whether those are significant enough is up to linguistics to determine. From historical point of view those 2 languages developed separately in great extent up until 19th century. In my opinion "Serbo-Croatian" is not a good label because it introduces politics and history while the pure linguistic point of view doesn't need that. And exactly this is what introduces confusion. An politically inert label would be a better one. I'd call the group "South Slavic" and the languages are separate Serbian, Croatian , Bosnian...If one looks at wiki article, Croatian and Serbian are already put to South Slavic group and Western South Slavic subgroup. In my opinion and in opinion of many experts that's enough. Serbo-Croatian as a label excludes Bosnian and Montenegrin language anyways. All in all , it not necessary to accuse editors who agree/disagree with wiki article to be wrong or nationalistic,  nor to claim that wiki article determined any fact from a scientific point of view,Peacemaker67. Bilseric (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Give me a break, Bilseric. The overwhelming academic consensus is that it is a pluricentric language, like English, and has four mutually intelligible standard varieties, of which one is Serbian. So, the experts do agree, overwhelmingly (except for some frankly nationalistic linguists from the various former Yugoslav states), and editors who change it in articles that relate to various South Slavic people are almost always doing so for nationalistic reasons. You only have to look at Walter9's editing history to see their POV. I'm personally sick to death of it, it is low-level POV-pushing that has no place on WP. In any case, if you want to challenge it, the place to do so is the Serbo-Croatian language talk page, not here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no overwhelming consensus among experts and Wikipedia doesn't "explain the facts". Wikipedia sums up secondary sources. If you are trying to establish your own opinion as the only correct one and accuse other editors and even linguists of being nationalistic, I can't agree with that. The editor above deserves a proper answer and his opinion should be respected , because there are sources to support it. Bilseric (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is pointless. If you want to discuss it, this is NOT the place, as I said. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just passing by. The notion of Croatian and Serbian language being from practically different planets is so mind blowingly ridiculous. They are the same language but different dialects. Maybe centuries ago they were more different, but right now Slovenian is the inly country with a more specific language. This has to stop resurfacing every day. American Australian Canadian and British speakers understand each other for the most. So do Germans and Austrians. It’s all dialects. Sorry but had to vent. It’s annoying. There was even a signed by Ex Yugo intelligentsia, doctors, professors, scientists, linguistics professor who signed a document support for Serbo-Croatian. Its funny as even within Croatia and Serbia people accuse each other of not speaking Croatian or Serbian the “right way”. :/ OyMosby (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And why are you suggesting that this opinion of yours should be shared by everyone else (when even experts have disagreements) with displayed remarks? People with different opinion, that is based on reliable sources, could ( and rightfully ) consider remarks like "nationalistic mumbojumbo" and "blowingly ridiculous" as insults. Can you please explain, what gives you the basis to call a stand shared by some experts to be totally ridiculous, apart from your opinion? If that is your opinion then you should have put at least a disclaimer that this is only your opinion. Framing answers where you elevate your opinion as a single correct "fact" and diminish other valid opinions, just insults other editors and doesn't resolve anything. No wonder why it doesn't "stop resurfacing". Bilseric (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you care oh so much, then take it to thw appropriate talk page. You will find all the sources your heart desire on theboage there. Cheers! OyMosby (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't been discussing the subject matter but rather Wiki guidelines. The point is that some editors on Wikipedia are here because of the seeming "power" they think they have over other editors. And I am inclined to think that a proper discussion about this is needed.    Bilseric (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors that work in this area have dealt with POV-pushing on Balkans topics (from all sides) multiple times every single day for years, and I can spot it a mile away. It is ridiculous to assert that we must AGF with every single IP or obvious POV-pusher, or not direct people to discuss the matter at the right forum. This article, about a single (if major) operation in the Bosnian War is hardly the place for a fulsome discussion about the intricacies of the academic consensus on the Serbo-Croatian language. Yet you are still here banging on about it, when if you really had the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, you would have started a discussion, using links to reliable academic sources on the topic at the Serbo-Croatian article talk page. That might result in a consensus that stops it "resurfacing", as you put it. Personally, I doubt it, because there will always be POV-pushers complaining about it because it doesn't fit their worldview. But if you think that I am displaying poor wikibehaviour here, go ahead and report me wherever you think is best. My track record speaks for itself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add that this will be my last comment here on this topic, as it is the wrong forum. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote about the subject matter only in my initial comment, so please don't suggest that I'm "still banging on about it" (for the 2nd time already).Bilseric (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Peacemaker67, you wrote "You only have to look at Walter9's editing history to see their POV." What about my edinting history? What' s your problem with it? Walter9 (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User.OyMosby, you can say that for Scandinavian languages as well, but it seems nobody is labeling them as one and the same. Walter9 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)