Talk:Operation Storm/Archive 5

Recent disputes
I've stumbled upon some recent disputes that have been ongoing since early March, however, nothing was discussed about these edits. Two IP editors removed the same part of the text once 1 2 which was then reverted by OyMosby two weeks later. I can't really tell when the text that OyMosby removed was added but this needs to be discussed. Since OyMosby has reverted this twice without starting a discussion and because I didn't see anyone else removing this text besides them and the two IP editors, I will revert their edits back to Griboski's version until this gets solved. Vacant0 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening a discussion VacantO. I had opened one up on OyMosby's talk page as I figured we were the only two active editors on this page. My reasoning as I explained was that if the ethnic cleansing of Croats by Serb forces is mentioned in the article's lead, then I don't see why cleansing operations done against Serbs by Croat forces (prior to OP) can't be included either. Otherwise this makes it seem like violations of the customs of war and atrocities were only perpetrated by the Serb side during the war. None of this information btw was in the lead when this article reached GA status. The version I put forth also summarized the contents of the body in a chronological manner. The reverted version instead only mentions the crimes by Krajina Serbs, randomly placed between other text. --Griboski (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * please actually read my edit diffs next time before making the wrong accusations. I literally also explain in my diffs the reason which you as well appear to have ignored. I said twice for to take the proposed new edit of theirs which wasn’t months ago but this month to the talkpage for us to discuss. Right there in March 11th as can be seen on the edit history page. Please do not undo edits until the discussion is done. Thank you. And please again do not make assumptions as it doesn’t really look good nor help. The onus is on the person adding not me. Again look at the context before starting a conversation like this pointing fingers. When a consensus is reached, then it makes sense to add the new content. Basics really.


 * Also Griboski may have forgot to mention that we both engaged in a discussion on my page, though I said they should start it here not there. Also that I responded sincerely to them I didn’t ignore it. The timing of your appearance and seemingly uninformed points (I am being literal in that it seems you didn’t see all of what occurred here) about me and the content seems quite askew. Please do look over the diffs. IP edits are irrelevant as to whether my edits are right or not. And it doesn’t mean I condone the IP’s personal attacks. Let that be clear. Not sure if that was the reason for your skepticism of me specifically in this situation. Griborski and I were then only directly interacting parties. So I don’t get the logic of outing me as the lone disagreeing party. We both were before your participation. could you perhaps chime in? I will copy my response to Griboski here. Now that a discussion was started here as I politely requested as basic Wikipedia practice. Simply reverting without explaining why my logic is incorrect doesn’t really help inform me of your reasoning. Edit warring rarely does. So please refrain from reverts while this discussion is in progress. That way we can come to a solution. OyMosby (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Here was my reasoning and response. And nope, my two diffs in detail summerize my logic. Disagreement doesn’t mean they are invisible:


 * Hey . I appreciate you reaching out as I would like to go in more detail about my reasoning there. Though I mention the article talk page as it can bring in (preferably non Balkan) participants to chime in. As I don’t claim to be the arbiter of ultimate format and rules for intros. Here is my logic behind what I added while back and why it made sense to me for that existing alone ins the scope of the operation. 
 *  Being the article is about Operation storm, I figured it would make sense the context as to what motivated the offensive to commence. It was not solely about claiming the Krijan and Eastern Slavonia territories but the expelling of Croatian and non Serb inhabitants there leading to the military move. If this article was the Yugoslav wars or a good example the Ethnic Cleansing in the Bosnian war, it absolutely makes sense to discuss these crimes of every participating belligerent. 


 *  It would also make sense to include the ethnic cleansing of Croatian Serb civilians (or as one might prefer Yugoslav Serb or ethnic Serb civilians as apposed to Croatian) that occurrd during the offensive at the hands of Croatian soldiers. Which absolutely happened and very much relevant for the lead for sure. 


 *  Including what I did I believe does not portray the Croatian side as totally innocent. Or the Krajina military as the only party guilty of war crimes. I don’t see readers coming to that conclusion either based on the the coverage in the intro. As the lead discusses the discrimination during and many years after of ethnic Serbs in Croatia and the violence they faced such as the murder of the elderly which is discussed if I recall correctly. This is my rational. I get where you are coming from and well intentioned. But my addition was meant in relation to the motivating factors and the reprisal crimes that would occur during the operation. I hope I better illustrated my way of thinking about it. Again this may be better for the talk page to get other opinions on the matter. I am completely open to that! Cheers OyMosby (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope this is now clear as Griboski seems to have understood where I was coming when we last spoke. We simply are at a crossroads. There are MilHist members active here besides Peacemaker67 so I felt it would be a good place to start. Now let’s bring the subject back to being about the edit and not me. That way we can have a productive conversation. Again I am absolutely open to hearing anyones input. As I told Griboski before I do not claim to be the know it all. My logic may very well be flawed. Also to Griboski’s later concern, the previous version does not justify crimes against Serbs. Speaking of motives for the Operation is not giving a pass for targeting unarmed civilians. Are we implying Operation Storm itself Is a war crime as a whole instead of crimes that happened during it? I think readers aren’t likely to think this is justifying crimes. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OyMosby, this version has been the stable for weeks. You reverted an admin who had reverted a LTA-IP. I've explained to you why you are putting forth a worse version. You are the one who originally added the part about the ethnic cleansing to the lead and I did not object to it despite you having the onus to do so.
 * Vacant0, myself and even an admin apparently have no issue with this version. You are the one who does. So you need to explain why you want to keep a version that omits NPOV information and goes against the chronology of events described in the body.
 * The background section of the article discusses abuses by Serb forces against Croats. It also describes abuses by Croat forces against Serbs. In the lead you want to include a sentence summarizing the crimes by Serb forces during the war, but you want to exclude one that mentions violations by Croat forces.
 * "The RSK initiated a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Croatian population resulting in the expulsion of 170,000–250,000 non-Serbs and the killings of hundreds." (NYT/ICTY & HRW)
 * "Croatian forces also engaged in ethnic cleansing against Serbs in eastern and western Slavonia and parts of the Krajina region, though on a more restricted scale." (U.N.)
 * I don't see why we can't include both in the lead or what the fuss is about. --Griboski (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Griboski my response was pretty much entirely to Vacan0 given the implications made and incorrect claims. That was my main issue in my initial response here. I copied my response from my page to here for others to see. The admin undid a disruptive IP. They didn’t state they support the info. They dealt with a problem IP. Also I felt that uninvolved Non-Balkan tooic editors, which Vacan0 nor both of us are, would be ideal as we disagree about it being NPOV which you even said you get were I am coming from. So I don’t get this sudden 180 degree change in attitude. Why ask for the talk page if just restore a favored edit anyway. Stable for weeks as apposed to my edit stable for even longer of which other editors who have edited the page took no umbrage? I explained why I didn’t see this as being a neutrality issue. Yes the background goes in detail, but we don’t then start including everything in the intro but the specifically relevant info pertaining to Operation Storm. As I said already multiple times it would make total sense I think to discuss Criat crimes again Serbs during the Operation that can be included in the same paragraph. Nevr fisagreed with that. It would solve your concerns with readers knowing Croats commuted ethnic cleansing during the operation. Why can we not give others a chance to have input? I am not cemented to my edit. I welcome outside input. If there is consensus against my reasoning, I fully respect and accept it. I ask the same from you and Vacant0 all the same. Surely we can agree in that? A fuss isn’t needed, I am for including the cleansing of Serbs during the operation and mentioning that in the very same intro paragraph. I don’t disagree with the UN quote. But this is about the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in the operation in these parts of Croatia, at the time not part of it. I disagreed with your wording before that part of the paragraph. That’s all really. Maybe I didn’t explain well my point. Sorry if I wasn’t getting to the point. I can tend to over-write in my responses. “In Operation Storm Croatian forces also engaged in ethnic cleansing, the target being Serb civilians” Do you agree with this simple solution? I advocate for this before on my page were you seemed more understanding ofr my reasoning as I am with yours. OyMosby (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I said I think I understand where you're coming from, in terms of why you feel the information you added is important. I just don't agree with then excluding information about violations during the war from the Croatian side, since it was also in rebel held territory. This is about cleansing operations in the years prior not during Storm.
 * This article is about the military operation and not the war itself, which is probably why there wasn't any information on the events that transpired during the war in the lead when it passed GA. For comparison here are the key changes in the two versions.
 * Version 1:"The battle, launched to restore Croatian control of 10,400 square kilometres (4,000 square miles) of territory, representing 18.4% of the territory it claimed, and Bosnian control of Western Bosnia, was the largest European land battle since the Second World War. The Croatian population had been years prior subjected to ethnic cleansing in the areas held by ARSK by rebel Serb forces, with an estimated 170,000–250,000 expelled and numerous killings. Operation Storm commenced at dawn on 4 August 1995 and was declared complete on the evening of 7 August, despite significant mopping-up operations against pockets of resistance lasting until 14 August."
 * Version 2:"By March 1991, conflict between the RSK and the Republic of Croatia escalated into the Croatian War of Independence. The RSK was supported by the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). The RSK initiated a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Croatian population resulting in the expulsion of 170,000–250,000 non-Serbs and the killings of hundreds. Croatian forces also engaged in ethnic cleansing against Serbs in eastern and western Slavonia and parts of the Krajina region, though on a more restricted scale. Following a stalemate, the JNA moved to Bosnia where a new conflict emerged. Operation Storm commenced at dawn on 4 August 1995 and was declared complete on the evening of 7 August, despite significant mopping-up operations against pockets of resistance lasting until 14 August."
 * To me in Version 1, the information about ethnic cleansing in 1991 is sandwiched between text describing the Operation itself. Having only that text almost anywhere in the lead is awkward because it is the only information from the background; other information is excluded leaving out context. It's random and reads like by the way.. this stuff happened.
 * Version 2 is at least an inclusive summary of events, it is chronological according to the body which is how leads usually are and the information reads and flows better.
 * --Griboski (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From the 1994 UN Report: --Griboski (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn’t mean you agreed with me just that you seemed to get why I think the way I do. Where as it seemed different here. Anyway I think I getting more of a picture of your point. I still would like to wait a bit for others to chime in. (Again I don’t care for Balkan centric editors agreeing or disagreeing with either of us as we know it turns in to a biased turf war, sadly) So if in a day or two, no outside parties like MilHist editors who I’ve seen here at times, chime in, than I will accept your version despite me not being all the way onboard. I meant it when I said I am open minded about it. Seems fair. Agreed? OyMosby (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. --Griboski (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that Griboski added this text on March 11, I have read your diffs and I saw that Griboski started a discussion on your talk page, even though the discussion was supposed to be started here. Guerillero (an admin) did revert an edit made by an IP editor, however, they haven't stated if they support Griboski's change to the lead, and because of it, their edits cannot be shown as proof of support to Griboski's change. I do believe that Griboski has the right to change the lead only if their action has been proven to be neutral, and that can be done through discussion. Since I didn't know when this text was added until now, I do not want anyone to revert OyMosby's edit until the discussion has been ended. Something that OyMosby suggested on which I agree with, is that there should be a civil discussion about the two versions that Griboski has listed above, and after that, I think that we should vote on which versions should stay. And just to let you know OyMosby, a discussion has been started here and I do want a productive conversation here to resolve these disputed edits made by you and Griboski, I have only reverted your edit once and I do not have the intention of edit warring, I just want to resolve this situation if possible, that's all. I'd appreciate it if other non-Balkan editors and admins can hop into this discussion so that we can solve this. Vacant0 (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Assuming no neutral editor objects until then, per our agreement, are you okay with me reverting to the stable version after tomorrow? I want to make sure with you before doing anything. --Griboski (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An introductory explanation about the timeline of events before Operation Storm is helpful to uninformed readers. Since these edits are contested, Griboski or Vacant0 can start a broader discussion via WP:RFC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes as editors can comment here later anyway. Your version is fine for now. Also thanks Maleschriber for the good idea of opening an RfC. But might be not needed for this type of editon also not as many editors seem to be on this page as there used to be. Cheers guys. OyMosby (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." The 1994 UN report mentioned here is a primary source, and the "introduction" section upon which the proposed text is based on is a mixture of violations that the report alleges (their words) fall under the term "ethnic cleansing" by the main sides and against all three ethnic groups. Yet I don't see what does that have to do with Operation Storm, and why is a summary of the entire war needed in the lead, though "X side did this amount of war crimes, and Y side did that amount of war crimes" isn't much of a summary. You might as well add the same for the Bosnian War.

A secondary source (Hoare) directly makes a connection between the operation and the "ethnic cleansing" by the JNA/VSK in the RSK in previous years. Hoare wrote that "the Serbian conquest and ethnic cleansing of the so-called Krajina" was "the crime that made Operation Storm necessary." So there is a basis in secondary sources to mention the JNA/VSK war crimes in this area prior to the operation, though I'm not sure that this is needed in the lead either as the lead is already too large. Tezwoo (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * if concerned with the lead being too large, surely there is far less relevant info that could be trimmed off. Not as you pointed out events that “made Operation Storm necessary”. Seems odd given the heavy relevance per Hoare. As for the UN, wasn’t it a secondary source document citing the UN report? OyMosby (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The cited source in the background is the entire annex of the UN report, which is a primary source. We need secondary sources that interpret it, such as Hoare here. This UN report (by Cherif Bassiouni) is in fact much larger than that annex, and in regards to "ethnic cleansing practices", also contains the line that "the Croatian authorities have publicly deplored these practices and sought to stop them, thereby indicating that it is not part of the Government's policy". The annex cited in the article also doesn't bring these "ethnic cleansing practices" into connection with the Government.
 * What is definitely not needed is a "summary" of the entire war, and cherrypicking from a primary source. Tezwoo (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I recall this source being briefly discussed on the Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War talk page some time back. One of the editors there argued that it was in fact a secondary source because it was authors making conclusions based on primary sources and I would agree. The authors are Law Professors and heads of human rights organizations (for the last annex an organization itself) while the report also contains footnotes. It's not an original document and the contributors are not directly involved in the conflict. Some of its content was re-published in a book by the same authors. So it's a safe bet it's a secondary source. In any case, it is prominently used in the lead in Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War which is a GA so it can be used in other articles.
 * While blogs by academics are okay to use, books are preferred so I'm not sure how much weight the Hoare reference carries. On the connection of ethnic cleansing and the Croatian government, prior to that it also says: It goes on to list the killing of civilians, torture and forceful removal of the civilian population. Not that I'm suggesting an equivalence in terms of scale and numbers, but these were the same tactics employed by the RSK. Yet, the lead mentioned the ethnic cleansing along with casualties from only one side.
 * But this goes back to my original point, which is that none of the stuff about ethnic cleansing was in the lead when this article passed GA status and it had not been there for a long time after that. And with the lead already being very large, the best solution might be to exclude that altogether and go back to the way it was. After all, it is background information on the war, not the operation. --Griboski (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY lists "investigative reports" and "reports of government commissions", among others, as primary sources. Even if it wasn't a primary source, it doesn't explicitly make a connection between the Croatian Government and "ethnic cleansing practices". And the regions they mention are either ambiguous ("Krajina area") or unrelated to Operation Storm (Slavonia). Hoare on the other hand makes an explicit connection between such practices by the VSK/JNA specifically in the area where the Operation Storm took place, and that this made the operation necessary.
 * The GA version of the lead was fine in my opinion, but this is not the only difference from that version. Tezwoo (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to chime in. A ton has changed throughout the article since it passed GA. Should it all be removed as well? Saying that an article is GA therefore implying improvement not needed or possible is a bizarre new rule I never heard of. I have seen countless passed GA articles still receive improvements as long as RS. Intros included. No article is completely perfect. Ga means all info so far is good. Not that anything left out is not relevant it was accounted for. No article is perfect. That is my only issue with the discussion so far. As that isn’t a valid argument against my edit. The UN source and concern for balancing in the eyes of readers in terms of both sides waging ethnic cleansing was what I had accepted with Griboski days back. The Hoare source does make be sway back however as well as the UN source concern. Again it would be great if MilHist people who used to be present around here were here to join this discussion as I had hoped. OyMosby (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In my view, the GA version of the lead is overall a better summary than the current lead. Not just this "ethnic cleansing" part, which doesn't mean that the GA version can't be improved. But I don't see the current lead as an improvement. For example, the last paragraph of the lead mentions three times the same thing: "a variety of crimes were committed against the remaining civilians there by Croatian forces" ... "Croatian Army and Special Police committed a large number of crimes" ... "crimes against civilians had been committed by Croatian forces". Tezwoo (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean. Didn’t notice that. OyMosby (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you both are okay with it, I suggest we go back to a version of the lead that doesn't mention any ethnic cleansing. The last paragraph could certainly use some copy-editing though. Since the article passed GA, there have been some court proceedings which would explain why it became longer. The second-to-last sentence which says "However, it was found that crimes against civilians had been committed by Croatian forces" can be removed to avoid some repetition. Pretty sure it isn't disputed that crimes took place during and in its aftermath. --Griboski (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thing is crimes leading to Operation storm would be as relevant at least if not more so than crimes occurring after the Operation is over. Seems a bit contradictory otherwise. I think crimes that are connected with the event either causing it or resulting from it regardless of the victims would be proper with RS dictating so. Perhaps we could post both versions here to compare and contrast what was changed as I don’t think the whole intro would be undone. As Griboski made a good point when they mention more recent facts unfolded due to court hearings. Just my two cents. OyMosby (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree on your first point since to me the Operation is the topic of the article, though I understand your reasoning and I don't want us to keep going in circles. This is the GA version. Compared to the current revision, on the last paragraph, no information from HRW and the 2015 ICJ ruling. Overall, no information about ethnic cleansing years prior and no summary of the war to go with it (which I added). Rest of the info is intact. --Griboski (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries I mentioned it to summarize. I know we are not in agreement on the view of it. There is an obvious and ironic issue with the GA however. The concern that one side committed crimes and the other side didn’t. If that was the concern with my edit version from whiles back, then surely that is a concern with the GA version. Crimes against Croat and other civilians in the area prior occured right up to before the operation was carried out.  Also “ Following the offensive, nearly the entire Serb population of the area formerly held by the RSK fled and a variety of crimes were committed against the remaining civilians there.” Serb civilians fled before, during (in anticipation of retaliatory violence towards them per RSK prior actions) and after the operation. Not strictly after only. So that should be tweaked. Also, If we are to talk about crimes that happened after the Operation than those before are relevant as well. It is a fact that Around 250,000 Serbs fled as well as hundreds killed especially the elderly,  as mostly a result of the operation. The Operation was mostly a result of the up to 170,000-250,000 non-Serbs expelled or that fled prior by RSK forces per Hoare citation. Both can be mentioned as was the way my edit remained for a while without issue as GA was from 2013.


 * I agree that a more trim intro would be nice. I would be fine with the GA version plus the cited sentence of cleansing of non-Serbs years prior in Krajina playing a major part to the Operation unfolding. I think this is a painfully obvious straightforward way to go and would be balanced giving directly related context from all angles in a smaller intro overall. Nothing left to the imagination to a passing by skim reader. And all of our criteria would be met I think. I know Griboski may still disagree or Tezwoo about the Croatian Forces committing ethnic cleansing before the operation, which is fine. We can talk about it more here. This is my opinion on the matter at the moment if the current version of the article is still seen as a problem. Cheers! OyMosby (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't need to return everything to the 2013 version, of course. My stance is simply that we don't need an entire "summary" of the war, events prior to the operation that sources don't bring into connection with the operation, and repeated stuff such as the examples I gave in the final paragraph. Tezwoo (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. OyMosby (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

After looking at it more, I've returned the lead to more or less the previous version that had been there for some time, with some tweaks to the last paragraph. I agree that it was too long, five paragraphs was a bit much as well as a summary of the entire war. The ICJ mostly reaffirmed the ICTY's earlier ruling. The number of people prosecuted by the Croatian courts from 2012 is outdated, and considering there's controversy about these prosecutions and their efficiency, I've left that out. --Griboski (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Operation Storm: Revision history “Impermissible revision”
Please refrain from inappropriate behavior such as your diff firstly:

“ ''Absolutely impermissible reversion -- this article is cited in peer-reviewed academic literature available through electronic databases. What you are personally able to "find" or not is irrelevant.'' ”

Secondly you are not the authority of what is or isn’t a permissible revision. That is irrelevant itself. I ask-if you can provide a link to the article in question. Otherwise anyone can “cite” to any source claiming it is directly what it says. This is NOT A PERSONAL ACCUSATION AT YOU, but to verify your recent edit. Usually when you cite a source there is a hyperlink to said source. You should site to that literature not the article itself in which it appears. It would help a lot.Any editor is right to question new edits. Cheers.

Also note no other admin such as or frequenters of this page seemed to show any objection to the edit. I understand topics like the Yugoslav wars can be emotionally charged topics but let us be professional per Wikipedia guidelines. OyMosby (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Found the source and inserted it in the citation. You’re welcome. OyMosby (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Tohl and Dahlman
I mentioned in my diff that they state “ This offensive unleashed practices of ethnic cleansing designed to permanently remove Croatian Serbs from their homes in Croatia” They did not say the Operation in entirety was an ethnic cleansing operation but that during it ethnic cleansing occurred. The opening of the paragraph is about labeling the entire of the Operation. These historians are stating that practices of ethnic cleansing during the offensive happened. Which of course I am not disagreeing with. Robberies also occurrd but that doesn’t designate it a Robbery Operation as the military aim. But we are misrepresenting what the source is saying in context of the paragraph in this article. Also why remove Marie-Janine Calic‘s title of Professor? And please don’t just state demands in your diffs. I hope you don’t assume I had malicious intent. Otherwise I would have removed all individuals agreeing with the operation being ethnic cleansing. OyMosby (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

CAF jets and Bosanski Petrovac bombing
The claim in this article says:

"CAF jets also struck a column of Serb refugees near Bosanski Petrovac, killing nine people, including four children.", however, Miroslav Bjegovic, a Serb officer from Army of Republic of Serbian Krajina, claims that jets which bombed the column in question, had red star insignia and JNA marks. This makes it unlikely that CAF did it, since CAF jets had Croatian coat of arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franjo Tahy (talk • contribs) 14:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Decisive
I see no reason WP:MILMOS to ignore the clear and specific infobox guidelines to avoid terms like decisive. Many battle are described as decisive in RS but there's often still a lot of nuance, which is precisely why the guideline is formatted in this way. In this case there is a single RS cited in the article that calls the battle decisive - that's nowhere near enough to justify ignoring the MOS.Unbh (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Slavish following of guidance that doesn't have strong consensus (it doesn't, I've been a coordinator of this project for a decade) is inappropriate. There is a good reliable source cited in the article supporting it being a decisive victory, and frankly, the facts of the operation make that conclusion unsurprising. Do not edit war to make the article the way you want it. Discuss it here and get a consensus for your clearly contested edit, the onus is always on the editor making the edit to justify it. Any further edit-warring on this will be reported, and you may be blocked as a result. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now added several additional reliable sources for this description, and I strongly suggest you stop reverting. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong page linked?
I noticed that one of the names listed under Commanders and leaders "Slobodan Kovačević" is linked to the page of a rock guitarist with the same name who wasn't even in-country during the war, and is most likely not the same "Slobodan Kovačević" listed. 72.83.11.127 (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, well spotted. Fixed now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)