Talk:Yugoslav Wars/Archive 5

Recent changes
I've received no less than two complaints already from Croatian speakers regarding the newly added content to this article, with references to well-known fringe propaganda sites Srpska Mreža and Emperors Clothes. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, can you please explain how you felt it was a good idea to use those kinds of sources, in 2015 no less? I was pretty sure we've pruned all references to those simply based on WP:ELNEVER, as they tend to have mass copyright infringements, and if not that, then simply based on WP:ARBMAC. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "I've received no less than two complaints already from Croatian speakers" carries no weight with me. That is a meaningless and rather tribalistic tautology. As far as the sites (Srpska Mreža and Emperors Clothes) go, I am not aware they are considered "well-known fringe propaganda sites". And if they are, then what difference does it make what year ("in 2015 no less") we are in? I will research the edits I made using those sources. If I can't find more mutually agreeable sources I'll remove the edits (with heavy heart). I wasn't party to WP:ELNEVER and WP:ARBMAC but I'll review them when I get the chance.  Quis separabit?  23:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I reread WP:ELNEVER and WP:ARBMAC. I am sorry if I violated them. Obviously some topics are more likely to evoke far stronger feelings and emotions than others. Quis separabit?  00:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny how no one noticed this completely unsourced OR. Quis separabit?  00:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The point is that I'm not merely echoing those Croatians in anything approaching a tribalistic manner, rather I'm pointing you to the relevant policies that seem to have been violated. You're free to revert any other biased edit, yes. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I'd err on the side of caution in case of such obviously controversial topics. ARBMAC has been in force since 2007, which is why violations in 2015 are so passe, to say the least :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What was added in the Croatian War section is a way too biased, all of it. The main source is srpska-mreza.com for whom even Bill Clinton is a war criminal, accompanied with yellow press. It also completely contradicts the conclusions of the Hague Tribunal. And about the May 2013 verdict in Hague, it was for the war in Bosnia, it's not the final verdict and the main target of war crimes were not Serbs, but Bosnian Muslims. Tzowu (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Clinton did authorize the bombing of Serbia and turned a blind eye to the arming of the Croats and Muslims. Whatever odium he incurred in Serbia was/is understandable. In any event, I removed whatever I could not cite to independently reliable sources. I have to ask @Tzowu and @Joy, is this source considered RS? Quis separabit?  23:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's not, the final verdicts in the Gotovina et al trial and the Croatian-Serbian Genocide case are contrary with statetments like the ones found on that link. It even says that "up to 20,000" Serbs were killed in Oluja. Also, I don't see how is renaiming a few streets after Mile Budak (justified back then with him beeing a writer, there were no streets named after Pavelić or the Ustaša generals) relevant for this article. Tzowu (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Also, I don't see how is renaiming a few streets after Mile Budak (justified back then with him beeing a writer ..." -- if you don't see, then that is sad for you. Hitler also was a writer. And if it was "justified back then" (when??), is it "justified" now?? Don't get your point. Quis separabit?  00:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ...justified by people who thought he deserved a street. In a section where there should be some basic info like the sides in the war, some important dates, primary causes of the war, known battles... there is definetly no need for changes in street names (in my city there are streets that changed it's name 7 times, every new political option that came to power did that, whether it was 1918, 1941, 1945...). And, of course, there were streets renamed in other countries of the former Yugoslavia, especially in BiH. How would this article look if we started to list all of that?
 * Further on, "extreme nationalism" was promoted by Tuđman's political oponents, the Croatian Party of Rights and their paramilitary HOS, not by Tuđman, and Tuđman never said "I am glad my wife is neither Serb nor Jew".
 * "Kemal Kurspahić. "Serbo-Croatian War: Lying For The Homeland, ", Prime Time Crime: Balkan Media in War and Peace, p. 67" mentions nothing about Vrdoljak or Šušak beeing "neo-Ustasha and paleo-Ustasha elements". HRT's staffing is also not something that's essential for that section, as well as Šušak's family. Tzowu (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick search of WP:RSN - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=GlobalResearch&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search - seems to indicate an existing consensus that GlobalResearch is a known unreliable source, or at best that you have to look up the author to be sure. I googled this Mary Mostert and it doesn't seem like this person is a historian, rather a politician. I'd steer clear in that case, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will have to look further into the issue you raise. Quis separabit?  00:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What the? What the hell is this? Is someone actually defending the use of random websites as sources?? -- Director  ( talk )  16:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems painfully obviouse that Quis separabit? has a strong bias against Croats. Why else would one support such websites only when it benefited a Serbian POV? On top of that the sarcastic casual insults thrown into this thread... Expected better from the Wiki community to be honest..... 108.54.93.183 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Globalresearch is a deeply unreliable source, and should be considered a red flag for NPOV problems. I especially liked their recent exposé of the Israeli special forces who fought to install a neo-nazi government in Ukraine. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Bobrayner for the advice about Globalresearch. I removed the link. Quis separabit?  11:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As per this diff and some of the above thread, there is a considerable amount of text which some deem WP:NPOV. I believe further discussion is required before removing all of it. So let's go, and if I am wrong, so be it. Quis separabit? 11:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) "HRT's staffing is also not something that's essential for that section, as well as Šušak's family." -- that is your opinion. I deem the political cleansing of HRT to be a seminal issue (see below). That Šušak comes from an Ustasha family is also important given the political positions he held, just as some go on about Tudjman and Popetko having been Partisans during WWII. Also, since @Tzowu referenced "Kemal Kurspahić. "Serbo-Croatian War: Lying For The Homeland ... Prime Time Crime: Balkan Media in War and Peace'", I will note also: In his chapter “Serbo-Croatian War: Lying for the Homeland,” Kurspahic analyses the role of the media in strengthening the rule of the nationalist president of Croatia, the late Franjo Tudjman, and in their attempts to hide the crimes committed by Croatian military forces in both their defensive war for Croatia and their aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Written by Senad Pecanin, a 2001 Nieman Fellow, editor in chief of Dani Magazine in Sarajevo. (see ).  Quis separabit?  12:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) And yes, the fact that Šušak, Croatian defence minister from 1991 to 1998, was the son and brother of WWII Ustasha war criminals is quite germane.
 * Well you also removed all of what I added to the text. Most of the text I replaced is from The Invasion of Serbian Krajina by Greg Elich, from emperors-clothes.com, and his text is sourced mostly by media reports.
 * OK, about the HRT, no one is denying that many people were fired and that it served as a propaganda tool for the new government, just like it was during the Communist times media, but the way it's written now it looks like that HRT was the only one that did it so I thought that "Ethnic tensions rose, fueled by propaganda in both Croatia and Serbia" with a link to the main article about it is enough.
 * About Šušak's family, if you think their families are relevant then both should be mentioned. I don't, for example Mladić's father was a Yugoslav Partisan, the father of Karadžić was a Chetnik, while for example Izetbegović supported the SS Handschar. I don't see a correlation with their fathers side in the World War II. And the thing is that the fate of Šušak's brother and father is unknown. Is there a source that his father and brother were war criminals? Tzowu (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems Quis separabit? won't answer you being that you brought up an excellent point. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, HRT was a propaganda tool, and Serbian media were only the answer to that. Susak was a criminal and that's the only thing it matters. He along with the rest of Croatian leadership cleansed 550 000 Serbs from Croatia. 109.172.46.216 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is laughable at best. Tge number and the idea that that many could have been deported to begin with.....108.54.93.183 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hm, I think there has been a missunderstaning regarding Kurspahić. The only reason I mentioned "Kemal Kurspahić. "Serbo-Croatian War: Lying For The Homeland" is because the sentence about Vrdoljak and Šušak beeing "neo-Ustasha and paleo-Ustasha elements" is referenced with that source on page 67, although he doesn't mention that. Tzowu (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Quis separabit, what have you done to this article... 31.147.125.128 (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know I shouldn't reply but I really don't know what that stupid (and admittedly irritating) comment is supposed to mean. I assume this is @Icarus the Great, whose edits were reverted by a third party. I don't see any comments from any respectable or productive editor(s) blaming me or accusing me of anything malfeasant regarding this article. Some of us have strong feelings but we are supposed to be professional and leave the emotional baggage outside. And when we can't back up/defend/source our edits we get reverted. Quis separabit?  03:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is riddled with pov tags ever since you started a new series of editing a couple of months back. The article wasn't the best back then, but it certainly wasn't as biased as it apparently is now. It seems you are doing more harm than good. 31.147.113.88 (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Joy is a respectable editor and he was the one that added the POV tags in the first place because the content added was mostly from emperors-clothes.com and globalresearch.ca. Tzowu (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems painfuly obviouse to me that Quis separabit? has a deepseated bias that proves to much for him to remain neutral and profession in editing this article. He appears to harbour resentment towards a certain ethnic group and grasps at false news sites to pus a POV. In his/her own words removing their own edits would be with "a heavy heart." Removing false information should not be  a heavy hearted task.... Push your POV on the untrustworthy sites mentioned above..Cheers.108.54.93.183 (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

War crimes - war rapes as the most significant?
Tens of thousand of civilians were murdered - hwoever the war crimes section has "see serb/croatian war crimes" and then talks extensively about rapes. WHile those rapes were war crimes and were terrible, the overall impression is that the most horrible war crimes and the most significant were those rapes; as is death of men, women and children is somehow less significant than rape. I think this should be corrected. 37.7.131.205 (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. This is a good point. I hope I will manage to improve and expand this section.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
The "POV" tag was added at the top of the page some two years ago, when the article was heavily contested and problematic. The article is still far from perfect, but after all the edits and improvements, I want to be bold and suggest that the we can now remove the neutrality dispute. If there are no objections, I will do so in the next few days. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Overall seems fine to me. What I would do is to change the order of the sections: War crimes before Consequences, and Analysis (?) merged with Background. Within War Crimes, I'd separate between Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, including Rape and Ethnic cleansing. --Dans (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thank you for the edits, they seem fine.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yugoslav Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150413005352/http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm to http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yugoslav Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817134853/http://www.newint.org/issue244/rape.htm to http://www.newint.org/issue244/rape.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify map date
The caption of the first map in the "Background" section states: "Map of the six Yugoslav republics and autonomous provinces at the time."

My question is: At what time?

Since it is in the "Background" section, which lists dates ranging from the 1920s to the 1990s it is very unclear as to what year/era it is referring to.

I would clarify it if I could, but know very little on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshisbey (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

page needs a belligerents thingy
on the right, at the top of the page, most conflicts on wikipedia have a little section saying what countries were involved in the war. This page could use that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.179.228 (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hiding information from the source
Article information I quote: According to the ICTY, Serb forces deported at least 80–100,000 Croats in Croatia in 1991–92
 * Source information. The Chamber also received evidence relating to the departure of between 80,000 and 100,000 Croats and other non-Serb civilians from the SAO Krajina in 1991 and 1992." This is about SAO Krajina (occupied part of Croatia under Serbian power). I don't know what this should mean "least 80–100,000 Croats in Croatia"? Obviously someone is hiding real information. Mikola22 (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing
Croatian source. "Sredinom 1991. godine iz svojih je domova bilo prognano već oko 30.000 stanovnika. Potkraj iste godine oko pola milijuna stanovnika Hrvatske zbog srbijanske ratne agresije bilo je prisiljeno napustiti svoj dom". '''In mid-1991, about 30,000 people were displaced from their homes. At the end of the same year, about half a million inhabitants of Croatia were forced to flee their home because of the Serbian war aggression'''. Valuable information which must be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Partisan sources, not RS. It has been nicely explained to you how to differentiate some 100 times by now.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  20:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be better to have third party sources from those outside the balkans. ICTY states quarter of a million Croats were forced to leave or fled Krajina from 92-94’. Never heard “half a million”. Do you have any non Balkan sources? OyMosby (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Podaci o broju prognanika koncem 1991. godine, na vrhuncu prognaničke krize, iznosili su oko 700 000. Od tog broja na slobodnim dijelovima Hrvatske bilo je oko 550 000 prognanika, a u inozemstvu vjerojatno oko 150 000. Brojka je visoka jer je među osobama bilo dosta onih koji su izbjegli iz rubnih ratom zahvaćenih područja. "Data on the number of displaced persons at the end of 1991, at their peak of the displaced crises amounted about 700,000. Of these, there were about 550,000 displaced persons in free parts of Croatia, and probably about 150,000 abroad. The figure is high because  among this peoples  were peoples who fled the war-torn areas". "do početka procesa masovnijeg povratka u oslobođena područja, nakon vojno-redarstvenih operacija Bljesak i Oluja u Hrvatskoj je bilo registrirano 198 672 prognanika i 214 746 izbjeglica ili ukupno 413 418 prognanika i izbjeglica." by the beginning of the process of mass return to the liberated areas after the military-police operations Flash and Storm in Croatia was registered 198 672 displaced persons and 214 746 refugees.
 * Sources.  Mikola22 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Source. Mikola22 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

'''yo dogg It's spelled jugoslavija. don't get dis shidt wrong again or imma bust yo nan's kneecaps'Italic text''


 * Sources 2. In mid-1991 there were 30,000 displaced persons, at the end of 1991, 550,000 people were expelled from their homes. Prema Izvješću Vladina ureda za prognanike i izbjeglice od 9.3.1993. ukupno je u Republici Hrvatskoj 237.311 prognanika ili 5% ukupnog stanovništva Hrvatske, prema popisu iz 1991. Ujedno, izvan teritorija Republike Hrvatske, nalazi se 163.300 izbjeglica tj. građana Hrvatske koji imaju izbjeglički status u drugim zemljama Europe ili bivše Jugoslavije. Ukupno je, dakle, na dan 9.3.1993. bilo 400.611 građana Republike Hrvatske, koji su morali napustiti svoje domove i koji su dobili status prognanika. "According to the Report of the Government Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees dated 9.3.1993. there are 237,311 displaced persons in the Republic of Croatia, or 5% of the total population of Croatia, according to the 1991 census. At the same time, outside the territory of the Republic of Croatia, there are 163,300 refugees, ie citizens of Croatia who have refugee status in other countries of Europe or the former Yugoslavia. The total, on 9.3.1993. were 400,611 citizens of the Republic of Croatia who had to leave their homes and were granted exile status" Uoči našeg ispitivanja, krajem siječnja, 1 izbjeglička drama u Hrvatskoj nalazila se na svom vrhunacu, do stigavši prema službenim procjenama brojku od 719.000 unutarnjih i vanjskih izbjeglica. "On the eve of our interrogation, at the end of January, 1 refugee drama in Croatia was at its peak, reaching an official estimate of 719,000 internal and external refugees". U Hrvatskoj se, prema izvještaju Ureda za prognanike i izbjeglice Republike Hrvatske u studenom 1992. godine nalazi oko 724.000 osoba protjeranih sa svoga ognjišta, što izbjeglica, što raseljenih osoba. "According to a report by the Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees of the Republic of Croatia, in November 1992, there were approximately 724,000 persons expelled from their homes, refugees and displaced persons". Mikola22 (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Source page 2
'''The Chamber also received evidence relating to the departure of between 80,000 and 100,000 Croats and other non-Serb civilians from the SAO Krajina in 1991 and 1992. The Chamber found that the people fleeing did so as a result of the situation prevailing in the region, which was created by a combination of the following factors: attacks on villages and towns with Croat population; killings; use of human shields; detention; beatings; forced labour; sexual abuse and other forms of harassment of Croat persons; and looting and destruction of property.''' This is information from source page 2. I edit article according to source. We must respect source. Mikola22 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ante Marković in the "Commanders and leaders" section
He should not be listed in that section. In 2004, Ante Marković testified before the ICTY against Slobodan Milosevic:. Page 30832, Milošević claims: "1 So it was by your decision that you obliged your two federal

2 ministries, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of National

3 Defence, to intervene in Slovenia. No one else knew about it, not even

4 the Presidency of the SFRY."

However, Marković disputes this: "No one else could have

17 taken such a decision except the person who had the army under full

18 control. And it was you, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, that had full control of

19 the army."

"...certain things are abundantly clear.

12 If the government had been able to make decisions on how to use

13 the army, then it would have been unnecessary to hold multiple sessions of

14 the Presidency of Yugoslavia and take votes on using the army to calm the

15 situation down in Yugoslavia. The Presidency discussed umpteen times, as

16 well as at the closed sessions of the joint staff, this issue, and if the

17 government had been able to decide on this, nobody would have bothered

18 with the Presidency. So this is a blatant lie."

"19 We didn't stand a chance in all this affair. We had no

20 communications with the army. "

He is thus removed from the section.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Two Note 1's
Due to the use of one NoteTag and one refn in this article, there are two Note #1's in the Notes section. This seems a bit clunky -- is it at all technically possible to clean this up? -- sarysa (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Opted to fix it myself by turning the NoteTag into a refn in the same group as the other one. It at least looks fine, hopefully I'm not violating an obscure style rule. -- sarysa (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

article name
It should be noted that the name "Yugoslav Wars" isn't official and ever actually used. The name of the article as it stands now can be interpreted as serbian euphemism to avoid historical facts. Correct article titles would be "Yugoslav Wars(Serbian aggression)", "Serbian aggression in the 90's", "Greater Serbia aggression", etc. There's enough historical revisionism on Wikipedia already, so let's start by cleaning up article names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.197.197 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is an official name for this set of conflicts, but please note WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Yugoslav Wars is used, e.g. here, here, here and here. If any of those other names are more commonly used in reliable sources, please demonstrate that in order to make the case for changing the article name. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Page title could be "SFRY War". --5.43.86.137 (talk); 13:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Often described as Europe's deadliest armed conflict since World War II
before Russian invasion of ukraine Lolipopm1995 (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox bloat
The main purpose of an WP:Infobox is to quickly summarize information from the article body, not to become a copy of the article: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.

As evidenced by the sheer size of this one (it takes two screenfuls to scroll on my large monitor), this one is way overblown. This article is about a historical period that included four or five independent (but related) armed conflicts, each with different belligerents, each having a separate article of its own (and presumably an infobox). This article is not about a single battle or war, but a summary of a historical period; it does not need an infobox at all. Yet some editors love infoboxes so much, presumably because they represent the complicated and messy nature of the world we live in in convenient, boxy format.

Having three groups of belligerents in the infobox (in, like, five different conflicts) is not supported by sources; it is WP:Original research and inappropriate WP:SYNTH of ten years worth of conflicts. Same goes for an endless list of "commanders". This is all amateurish bloat that hinders navigation and mischaracterizes the nature of the conflicts. Readers that need that summary will have to resort on reading the lead section. But this one must go. No such user (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it should be said that if anyone tries to use infoboxes as an end run around verifiability policies bears the risk of being prevented from editing. Copying and pasting old references with cleanup tags like in signals either WP:CIR or WP:EVASION issues. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * continued to revert without using anything resembling collaborative editing, so I've issued a temporary block in an attempt to get them to reconsider this behavior. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)