[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Operation Flash

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Peacemaker67 in topic Operation Spark (1940)
Learn more about this page
Former good article nomineeOperation Flash was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago120 comments6 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Flash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Resume of the detailed review

edit

In order to summarize my review I will present it within appropriate table.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Background and prelude sections of this article are not clear and concise. This issue is well explained with this comment which also included proposal for its solution:

  • providing more up-front by developing historical background to the Croatian War of Independence
  • reworking the Background section to make it chronological
  • aligning with article's scope

Since the UN peacekeeping operation (Vance Plan) is most directly related to the topic of this article, I believe that the aligning with article's scope should also include:

  • basic details of the Vance Plan: to establish UNPAs (areas of Croatia in which Serbs constituted the majority or substantial majority of the population, divided into sectors which included the "Sector West") and after decision of UNSC is reached, to deploy the UN troops in the UNPAs.
  • very brief chronology of the implementation of Vance Plan: (UNSC approved it on 15 December 1991 with resolution 724 and to follow-up the plan first sent 50 military liason, then on 7 February UNSC reaffirmed (resolution 740) its approval of the Vance Plan and increases the number of military liason to 75 and finally on 21 February 1992 with resolution 743 established UNPROFOR troops to be deployed in the UNPAs. In March 1995 UNPROFOR was replaced with UNCRO which mandate in Sector West included, besides implementation of all relevant UNSC resolutions, implementation of the cease-fire agreement.)
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Improvement opportunity:

2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

Improvement opportunity:

  • The information about the agency (CIA) which behind the source used to support more than 20 assertions in the article should be presented to the readers
  • Resolve the dispute about reliability of Guskova
  2c. it contains no original research.

Improvement opportunity:

  • find source which directly supports assertion that politicians in Serbia blamed politicians in RSK or remove this assertion
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • the displacement of the Serb population from the area is unclear. They are covered in almost statistical style. What was the reason of this displacement? Was it temporarily or permanent and why? What happened to this people and their property?
  • all most notable legal procedures connected with this operation should be briefly presented to the readers
  • the article should present the most notable events of human rights violations and activities of state attorney and judicial system of Croatia (or some other judical system) in prosecuting of the responsible persons (within a paragraph or two)
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall assessment.

I hope that specific fixes and proposals given by me and other users will help improving the quality of this article and its bringing on GA level. I would like to encourage the nominator(s) to renominate the article once the problems have been addressed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

General remarks

edit

The role of UNCRO and ceasefire and economic cooperation agreements

edit
Solved:RSK antitank weapons stored with UN peacekeeping forces before this operation are mentioned in the article and connected with ceasefire agreement. Improvement opportunity: Clarification of all basic tasks of UNCRO and details of ceasefire agreement which are important for the position of armed forces on the ground would improve the quality of the article.

The current text of the article says that UNCRO task is "monitoring of Croatian international borders separating the RSK-held territory from Yugoslavia or Bosnia and Herzegovina". The source used to support this assertion is not available online so I could not check it myself. The UN website presents a much broader picture and connects the role of UNCRO with the ceasefire and economic cooperation agreements of 1994. In the list of the UNCRO tasks the first one is "(a) performing the functions envisaged in the cease-fire agreement of 29 March 1994;" The lede of the article also mentions "ceasefire and economic cooperation agreements were signed between Croatia and the RSK in 1994". The main body of the article does not mention this agreements.

Taking above mentioned in consideration I propose:

  • The tasks of UNCRO are very important and should be clearly presented to the readers of the article.
  • The source used to support oversimplified assertion presented in the article should be checked for accuracy.
  • The ceasefire and economic cooperation agreements are important for the context of the events. It is no surprise they are mentioned in the lede and should be explained in the main body of the article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and linked with UNCRO tasks.

Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The main body prose does mention the economic agreement in the "prelude" section saying: In December 1994, Croatia and the RSK made an economic agreement to restore road and rail links, water and gas supplies and use of a part of the Adria oil pipeline. Even though a part of the agreement was never implemented,[34] the pipeline and a 23.2-kilometre (14.4 mi) section of the Zagreb–Belgrade motorway passing through RSK territory around Okučani were opened,[35][36] shortening travel from the capital to Slavonia by several hours...--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

What about ceasefire agreement?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The ceasefire agreement is now there in the specification of the UNCRO tasks: The controls were put in place by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 981 of 31 March 1995, establishing the United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation (UNCRO) peacekeeping force instead of UNPROFOR, and tasked the force with monitoring of Croatian international borders separating the RSK-held territory from Yugoslavia or Bosnia and Herzegovina,[39] as well as facilitating the latest Croatia–RSK ceasefire of 29 March 1994, and the December 1994 economic agreement.[40] in the same section, along with an additional source to back up the one already offered to support the UNCRO mission.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The ceasefire agreement and UNRCRO tasks connected to it significantly affected the situation on the ground. One passing-by mention is not enough for the article to fulfill the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and cover "the main aspects of the topic". I believe that without basic details about this agreement (the lines of separation, deployment of fire weapons, the area between the lines of separation under exclusive control of UNPROFOR....) and UNCRO tasks envisaged in it this article would not addresses "the main aspects of the topic".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I must disagree. The WP:GACR specifies that the [article] stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (per 3b). The article is on a particular military offensive and not the ceasefire agreement. The aspects of the agreement you pointed out are valid points but add nothing to this particular topic. On the other hand, if you consider the agreement that important (there were dozens of ceasefire agreements prior to that particular one, Sarajevo Agreement being 14th or so) to warrant detailed explanation, I propose it be redlinked and an appropriate article developed. How about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dozens of other ceasefire agreements are not relevant for the subject of the article. This specific agreement is because it defined lines of separation, deployment of fire weapons, the area between the lines of separation and who was in charge for its controll ... which is far from being "unnecessary details" that "add nothing to this particular topic". I still believe that without basic details about this agreement and UNCRO tasks envisaged in it this article would not addresses "the main aspects of the topic".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Since there are no reliable sources on whether either side (UNCRO included) actually performed any of those tasks in full or in part or amended in whatever way possible, the "basic information" would be entirely on the agreement itself and on UNCRO - neither of which are part of the article and are hence WP:OFFTOPIC. WP:GACN furthermore advises GA review process against requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources. Information on who and when and what was the agreement about exists and I think that's sufficient for the purposes of the article, and I don't see how exactly would the article benefit from information such as that the zone of separation was to be at least 2 km wide? I understand that you are quite interested to see this agreement detailed, but you have not specified what exactly need be done in your view.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Don't get me wrong. You are asking for some basic information and the most basic info is in. If you do not specify what exactly you want me to do, the complaint is not really actionable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
After taking another read trough your comments on this aspect and the agreement, I still cannot conclude anything other than that absolutely any additional detail about the items mentioned in this subsection title are only relevant to articles on the agreement itself (once there is one), on the UNPROFOR, on the UNCRO, possibly on the RSK, possibly on the entire war and that's about it. Whatever function has the UNCRO had prior to 1 May 1995 ceased that day and had zero impact on the offensive. Whatever UNCRO was tasked with had no effect on preparation of the offensive other than the aspects already contained in the prose (notably the whole motorway affair and the surrender at Pakrac). I simply fail to see why do you think that the role of the UNCRO was important to the topic of this article, when there isn't even a remotely significant (once again except the two just mentioned ones) let alone central issue regarding the topic discussed. I really don't think there's anything that could reasonably be requested to be added in this respect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think I specified exactly what I believe should be added to the article: basic details about this agreement (the lines of separation, deployment of fire weapons, the area between the lines of separation under exclusive control of UNPROFOR....) and UNCRO tasks envisaged in it this article would not addresses "the main aspects of the topic" because I think they are very important for the context of the events. I will try to explain my position with one example:

  • The source used in this article (Brigović, page 46) explains that according to this ceasefire agreement a lot of weapons of the army of RSK was at UNCRO storage and that troops of RSK had to go to UNCRO storage to take the weapons after the operation Flash had already began. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes and it also neatly explains on p.65 that the UNCRO offered no resistance re removal of the weapons - in effect acting as RSK storage depot. Both information are included now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Images

edit
Solved:Explanation of the purpose of the map is provided (illustrating position of toponyms. Improvement opportunity: Use map which better meets criteria 6b for GA regarding its quality, similarity to other maps used in the article, informativeness and caption
 

Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful....You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.

This image looks similar to other images in the article, except that it is of poorer quality and less informative. It is even incorrect in the part of the border shape and RSK areas left after this operation (only small portion of this areas is shown in the map). What is the purpose of this map?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of the map is to illustrate where particular toponyms used in the prose are located in the real world. While readers well acquainted with the particular region may find this map superfluous, those less involved with former Yugoslavia might find it very helpful to developing contextual reference to particular unit movements, defensive positions, location of the motorway etc. It is true that it is less detailed in terms of exact border shapes, but accuracy of any map will inevitably depend on its scale and purpose - and the purpose of the map is to provide contextual orientation for readers within the particular part of territory. Do you have any specific complaint about the map or do you propose an addition to its caption?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I already specified my concerns. This image looks similar to other images in the artcle. It is of poor quality, not very informative and incorrect (RSK areas after this operation). I respect the intention "to illustrate where particular toponyms used in the prose are located in the real world" but I don't think this map is appropriate for that purpose taking in consideration the above mentioned flaws. It is not very illustrative. The toponyms are presented with numbers instead with their titles so readers have to check at the legend to learn their name. Anyway, this is not a major issue but only an improvement opportunity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Solved:Unsourced map on non-English language removed
 

I don't have much experience with sources. What is the source of this map? Is there an English language version?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC) check YReply

Looking at its description at the Commons, there's no English version of the map, moreover it cites no sources. It does appear to be based on the Map 50 contained in the Balkan Battlegrounds (Sectors South and North), plus prose contained therein (and in plenty other sources) regarding sectors East and West where there are no inter-corps boundaries, i.e. the entire sectors are AORs of single corps. Since the map is not really adding much to the article - the entire affected area being 18th Corps AOR, plus being a non-English map, plus not indicating HV Corps AORs, I'll remove it right away, until a better solution, which is not merely decorative, is found.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Improvement opportunity: The map in the aftermath section should be completely accurate regarding borders.

The map in the Aftermath section presents the current Croatia location map, with border between Montenegro and Serbia. This border did not exist in 1995. Again, this is not a major issue but only improvement opportunity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Solved:Image of civilian public figure (Veljko Džakula) being arrested by Croatian policeman does not violate WP:BLP.

As I already said I don't have much experience with images and their licensing so my concerns might not be justified. There is a picture in this article showing Veljko Džakula (living person) being handcuffed. I am uncertain if it corresponds with WP:BLP, precisely WP:MUG?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC) check YReply

From what I can read there, the WP:MUG seems to apply to photos taken by wikipedians (i.e. own work).--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
No. It says "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed." Veljko Džakula is politician in Croatia, the president of the political party who is alive and who regularly participate in the elections in Croatia (he was even presidential candidate once, if I am not wrong). As far as I know he was never sentenced or trialed for the events connected to the topic of this article so I am concerned that this picture maybe violates wp:blp? Again, I am not experienced with BLP issues so I apologize if I am wrong. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
How exactly is the image of "Serb leaders surrendering" used out of context here? Is this an article on a battle? Did leaders of one side there surrender? Are those specifically mentioned in the prose? Wasn't Džakula one of the leaders? If the image were used in article about Džakula, it would be out of context. Used here in this article - it certainly is not out of context.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
If it is true that Veljko Džakula became opposed to the position of the RSK government soon after the war began, that he secretly negotiated and signed the Daruvar Agreement and other agreements with the Croatian government although the RSK government was against it, that he refused orders of the RSK authorities to attack Croatian towns, that because of this he was accused for treason, suspended in 1993, arrested and tortured by RSK police and arrested in Serbia and deported to RSK where he was again arrested and released from the prison in RSK with restricted rights, .... then I would say that this image presenting Veljko Džakula being handcuffed and arrested together with the members of the RSK 51st Brigade and civilian authorities on 3 May 1995 might be out of the context and might present him in a false or disparaging light. Especially taking in consideration that he was released after this arrest without being trialed or sentenced. I don't insist that I am right so if you still do not agree with me after reading my explanation presented here I will ask somebody who is more experienced with BLP issues for help.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Džakula was vice president of executive in RSK-held part of Pakrac at the time of Operation Flash, i.e. holding a high political office in the area. He was released by Croatian authorities soon after the capture, but then again everyone else, except those charged with war crimes, was also released. (Brigović, p.61) The image is perfectly within context. If an article used the image to describe Džakula as a criminal that would be out of context - removal of the image just because he was released would make sense as much as deletion of Trial of Gotovina et al because the defendants were acquitted. Besides the prose and the corresponding caption clearly indicates what the subject of the image is - surrender of remnants of the 18th Corps and civilian authorities in Pakrac.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I did not propose to remove the image because he was released. I proposed to remove it because he was arrested. In the meantime I found a rule about public figures If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it so I guess this image does not actually violate WP:BLP. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Casualties

edit
Solved:Factual inaccuracy regarding civilian casualties of RSK rocket attack corrected.
  • "In response to the operation, the RSK military bombarded Zagreb and other civilian centres, causing the deaths of seven civilians and injuries to 205."
  • "Six civilians were killed and 205 injured in the two attacks, while a policeman was killed defusing one of 500 unexploded bomblets"

Six of seven civilians?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC) check YReply

Fixed, six civilians plus one policeman.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Solved:Casualties of peacekeepers added to the infobox.
Solved:Number of wounded people from RSK added to the infobox.
  • The infobox does not contain the number of people from RSK wounded by Croatian forces. Casualties in the infobox contains only the number of killed (188-283) and imprisoned (2,100). Since the text of the article says that Croatian forces wounded 1,200 people I will add that number to the infobox. If anybody has something against this feel free to provide explanation and revert me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Improvement opportunity: Do not refer to casualties which include civilian victims as "RSK military" or "killed in action".
  • The article says: "Croatia initially estimated that the RSK military sustained 350–450 killed and 1,000–1,200 wounded, but the number of killed in action was later revised to 188, the figure including military and civilian deaths." Bigović does not say "RSK military" but he says "serb loss" (srpski gubici). HRW do not say that 188 people were killed in action (which is term used only for military personnel, not for the civilians). HRW says that 188 Serbs were killed. I propose rewording because the sources do not directly support the text of the article and uninitiated reader could be mislead to believe that civilians joined RSK military to struggle against Croatian forces and were consequently killed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The last sentence in the article mentions investigations conducted by the Croatian authorities regarding "the killing of 23 individuals in Medari near Nova Gradiška, and charges were filed regarding the alleged mistreatment of prisoners of war in the detention facility in Varaždin". I think this needs some context and clarification:
    • Who were those "23 individuals"? Who killed them and why?
    • Is there a reason to use word "allegedly" which is expression of doubt? Were POWs mistreated allegedly or really?
      • Yes. Unless all charges are "alleged" by definition until proven in a court of law - and the applicable paragraph deals exclusively with court cases. As far as factual establishment that POW abuse occurred that is covered in "Some of the detainees were beaten or otherwise abused on the first evening of their detention" quite clearly. Did you read this section through or not?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • What are the results of investigations 18 years after this events? How many people are convicted, put on trial and sentenced? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Zagreb rocket attacks are closely connected with this operation. Its casualties are not presented in the infobox. Taking in consideration that their number was significant (6/7 deaths and 205/214 wounded) it might be a good idea to add this numbers to the infobox?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The connection is only in being concurrent. The ICTY ruling clearly identifies Zagreb rocket attacks as terrorist attack rather than a legitimate military action - i.e. should not be conflated with the article topic. The attack is described and linked here to its own article. Casualties of the Zagreb attack have little to do with the military offensive taking place at the same time. --Tomobe03 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Solved:Infobox data about the casualties of forces of Croatia clarified.
  • "Croatian military losses in the offensive were 42 killed and 162 wounded." says the text of the article. The infobox presents RSK casualties with note they are both military and civilian but it does not clarify that casualties on the side of forces of Croatia are military. I will correct this and if anybody has anything against it feel free to revert me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

UNSC Resolution 994

edit
Solved:UNSC Resolution 994 is mentioned in the article.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 994 looks like it is related to the topic of this article. If it is it should be mentioned in it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC) check YReply

It is fairly tangential as it brings nothing new but only supports 1 May and 4 May statements by the same body, already discussed at length in the article. Noted anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it is tangential. Here is the text of the resolution. It is clearly related to "the military offensive launched by the forces of the Government of Croatia in the area of Western Slavonia known as Sector West on 1 May 1995 in violation of the Cease-Fire Agreement of 29 March 1994;". If UNSC issued resolution connected to this operation it is certainly notable event which should be presented to the readers of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok to you it is central, to me it's not. It still repeats what's contained in the 1 May and 4 May reports nearly verbatim and the matters discussed by the resolution and the reports are presented in the article, and the resolution is noted as well. There's even a separate article on the resolution wikilinked from this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sector West of UNPA

edit
Solved:Reviewer agrees with nominator about "using name "Sector West" and no other name".

Improvement opportunity:

  1. UNCRO should be removed from all "UNCRO Sector ..." names (i.e. "UNCRO Sector West") per nominator's rationale about name
  2. Concept of UNPAs and their sectors should be presented to the readers even if nominator is right that reviewer and the sources are wrong

The territory in question belonged to the Sector West of the "United Nations Protected Area". Sector West is mentioned two times in the article without necessary clarification that it is the UN Protected Area.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no reliable source claiming the UNCRO deployment zone was called that officially. Relevant UNSC resolutions (such as the one discussed just recently, and the two UNSC reports of 1 May and 4 May - referenced in the article) refer to the areas simply as Sector West, East etc. in contrast to what the same documents used to refer to the areas during the UNPROFOR mission. In short, calling UNCRO deployment zones UNPAs seems a bit of WP:SYNTH (if not outright OR)--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Shawn Roberts; Jody Williams (1995). After Guns Fall Silent: The Enduring Legacy of Landmines. Oxfam. p. 185. ISBN 978-0-85598-337-6. Retrieved 18 March 2013. In May 1995, Croatian government forces launched an assault on Pakrac, a Serb-held area in the Sector West UNPA,
  • Arie Bloed (1993). The Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe: Analysis and Basic Documents, 1972-1993. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 1109. ISBN 978-0-7923-2593-2. Retrieved 18 March 2013. "United Nations Protected Areas" (UNPAs) were created in certain areas of the Republic of Croatia, that is Eastern Slavonia (Sector East), Western Slavonia (Sector West) and Krajina (Sectors North and South).
  • Croatia at the United Nations, October 21, 1993-January 16, 1998. Permanent Mission of the Republic of Croatia to the United Nations. 1998. p. 98. Retrieved 18 March 2013. UNPA Sector West
  • Council of Europe (1996). Documents de séance. Council of Europe. p. 9. ISBN 978-92-871-3044-0. Retrieved 18 March 2013. Croatian forces began Operation Lightning to retake UNPA Sector West
  • Daily Report: East Europe. The Service. 1994. p. 50. Retrieved 18 March 2013. in western Slavonija, which is within the sector west of the U.N. Protected Area (UNPA)
  • J. W. Potgieter; Disarmament and Conflict Resolution Project (1996). Managing arms in peace processes: Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. United Nations. pp. 115, 116. ISBN 978-92-9045-110-5. Retrieved 18 March 2013. UNPA West
  • Council of Europe (1 December 1994). Documents. Council of Europe. p. 33. ISBN 978-92-871-2632-0. Retrieved 18 March 2013. UNPA sector West
  • Judy Large (1997). The war next door: a study of second-track intervention during the war in ex-Yugoslavia. Hawthorn Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-869890-97-1. Retrieved 18 March 2013. UNPA West
  • WarReport. Institute for War & Peace Reporting. 1994. p. 118. Retrieved 18 March 2013. Sector West UNPA
  • United States. Congress. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1 January 1995). Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina: hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, April 4, 1995. U.S. G.P.O. pp. 149, 165. ISBN 978-0-16-047444-6. Retrieved 18 March 2013. UNPA Sector West
  • Acta geographica Croatica: glasilo Geografskog odjela PMF-a Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Geografski odjel, Prirodoslovno-matematički fakultet, Sveučilište u Zagrebu. 1993. p. 41. Retrieved 18 March 2013. UNPA Sector West--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • All sources prior to March 1994 are fully right to call the area UNPA Sector West, as I pointed out above - the UNPROFOR mission did refer to the zone of deployment as UNPA. UNCRO mission did not. Most of the sources you just provided were published and all but one were most likely written before UNCRO. The single source from 1996 refers to the Operation Flash as Operation Lightning. If it is so inaccurate about one name why not another? Finally, the fact remains that the UNSC does not call it that way in documents where it may be expected to do so.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • UNPA were defined by UNPROFOR mandate and readily noted in relevant resolutions such as 762. If there were a single UNSC document post 31 March 1994 referring to the UNCRO deployment to "UNPA", I'd be more than happy to add that. Missing such a reference from the single authority on naming of the area(s) would be no more than SYNTH. To support my take on this, I'd like to offer another pair of sources (fully knowing that it is notoriously hard to reference absence of a term): UNPROFOR mission profile (here) explicitly speaks of UNPAs, while corresponding UNCRO mission profile (here) does not - it speaks of Serb-controlled Western Slavonia, the Krajina region and Eastern Slavonia instead. Neither does any of subsequent UNSC resolutions regarding UNCRO (1023, 1025) or Secretary General Reports to the UNSC of 23 August and 29 September 1995 ([1], [2]).--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Regarding occasional mention of UNPA during UNCRO mission in sources unrelated to the UN, perhaps that can be attributed to application of accustomed terms grown into everyday use in 1992-1994. For instance, it was a usual practice to refer to UN peacekeepers in Croatia as UNPROFOR even when they were replaced by UNCRO (example) even by sources in the country. Such use of the term does not mean that the UNPROFOR was still active in Croatia contrary to UNSC documents, rather it serves as a source of poor journalism - as the UN/UNCRO itself provided absolutely no backing for such a term in multiple, very formal documents where such a name should be used (based on similar documents issued during the UNPROFOR mission) if there were any.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Slavko Degoricija (2008). Nije bilo uzalud. ITG. p. 249. ISBN 978-953-7167-17-2. Retrieved 18 March 2013. Dana 1. svibnja 1995. godine hrvatske redarstvene snage akcijom Bljesak oslobodile su bivši Zapadni sektor UNPA, Zapadnu Slavoniju, sa središtem u ...
  • Vitomir Miles Raguž (2005). Da nije bilo Oluje: i drugi eseji. Stih. p. 36. ISBN 978-953-6959-28-0. Retrieved 18 March 2013. Drugi vjeruju da je do toga došlo odmah po uspješnom okončanju operacije Bljesak početkom svibnja 1995., kad je zapadni sektor UNPA reintegriran bez znatnijeg otpora.
  • Darko Hudelist (2004). Tuđman-- biografija. Profil. p. 714. ISBN 978-953-12-0038-7. Retrieved 18 March 2013. I drugo, još važnije: prvotni cilj operacije „Bljesak" bila je isključivo deblo- kada autoceste Zagreb - Lipovac, ali ne i ono što se neposredno nakon toga dogodilo: oslobađanje cjelokupnoga područja „UNPA Zapad", tj. cijele zapadne Slavonije.
  • Journal of Croatian Studies. Croatian Academy of America. 2002. p. 12. Retrieved 18 March 2013. Others believe that it came immediately after the successful Operation Bljesak in early May 1995, when the UNPA West sector was reintegrated without much resistance.
  • David A. Dyker; Ivan Vejvoda (1996). Yugoslavia and after: a study in fragmentation, despair and rebirth. Longman. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-582-24637-9. Retrieved 18 March 2013. In a series of lighting military operations, the Croat army recaptured, first, Western Slavonia (UNPA West) in May (Operation Bljesak, or Flash)
  • Daily Report: East Europe. The Service. 1995. p. 36. Retrieved 18 March 2013. In the aggression launched on May 1 by Croatia on the Western Slavonia UNPA [UN Protection Area] region of the--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you actually suggesting that the "UNPA" designation should be inserted despite absolute lack of any reference from the UNSC documents whatsoever? I took a look at the first set of sources you proposed and those were regularly not supporting your claim because they were either from before UNCRO, or were specifying "UNPA Sector West" in conjunction of UNPROFOR. Furthermore there are ample sources (I listed one above) that illustrates incorrect application of term UNPROFOR or UNPA after the UNCRO was deployed. If you cannot produce a single UNSC source making the designation official, its insertion would constitute original research.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to break those sources down for you here:

  1. Roberts/Williams quote "In May 1995, Croatian government forces launched an assault on Pakrac, a Serb-held area in the Sector West UNPA" illustrates poor quality of the source. Separation line ran through Pakrac, bulk of the city being held by Croats.
  2. Bloed discusses the UNPA in conjunction with UNPROFOR, i.e. prior to UNCRO
  3. Page 98 in Croatia at the United Nations, October 21, 1993-January 16, 1998 also talks of UNPROFOR, not UNCRO
  4. CoE source seems plain sloppy - mistaking Operation Flash with Operation Lightning. If they mess one name why do you think they're reliable on another?
  5. The "Daily Report" source p50 talks of the UNPA in a paragraph preceding events on 24 Feb 1999, i.e during UNPROFOR mission, not UNCRO
  6. In "Disarmament and Conflict Resolution Project", p31 also talks of UNPA, but again re UNPROFOR
  7. Acta geographica is a 1993 (UNPROFOR-era) document

Do I need to go through the entire list? Please provide a single UNSC or UN GenSec report/official document linking UNPA and UNCRO and I'll put it in there. Otherwise I refuse to insert information based on a wild collection of texts pertaining to UNPROFOR mission or poor writing using customary names past their official use. What would be next, a proposal to amend UNCRO to UNPROFOR based on the Slobodna Dalmacija article I provided to illustrate my point?

Situation is simple. The UNPROFOR mission and mandate expired on 31 March. UNCRO was deployed with a new mission described by the UNSC in relevant resolutions and documents and UNPA are not described or even mentioned there. Not once. I'm trying to assume good faith, but I can see no reasonable explanation for insisting on applying an "official label" on a territory that does not exist in relevant documents.

If you wish to say that some reports, but not official ones, termed the areas the same way the UN did before UNCRO, that's fine but that has zero impact or relevance to May 1995 events. Please note that the UNCRO mission description does not even mention word "protection" anywhere at all. Could you please tell me why do you think that Darko Hudelist is right and UNSC is wrong on a matter of a UN peacekeeping mission?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let me put this in another way: What type of proof would satisfy you that the zones were officially called Sector West/East/South/Nort by the UNCRO? Why do you choose to dismiss relevant UNSC reports and resolutions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I see you prefer to dismiss UNSC (relevant authority) and I see we won't reach an agreement here. Please review the remainder of the article and post a review here. - Once you fail the GAN, I'll refer the case to community reassessment. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Please also note that your collection of sources is in clear contrast with UNSC sources using name "Sector West" and no other name, never mentioning UNPA. Please also note that the UNSC is the only relevant institution to name its mission or any aspect of its mission. No source beyond UNSC changes that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sector naming issue
edit

Tomobe03 asked me to comment on this name business as a neutral party.

  • The formal name of a place or area is whatever the establishing/owning government says it is, regardless of the popular name or usage. Forex the formal name of the State of Virginia is the "Commonwealth of Virginia", despite the state gov't being about the only people who use that name.
  • The UNSC is the establishing body of Sectors East and West and refers to it consistently in that manner in all four, post-UNPROFOR-era, documents that I read.
  • It may be that the two sectors are classified as protected areas, but that is certainly not how they're referred to in the documents. I suspect that the continued usage of UNPA by non-UNSC groups and people is a legacy from the UNPROFOR era when that was the proper title, but I do not know that for certain.
  • In summary, I feel that the usage of Sectors East and West as given in the article is correct. I will watchlist this review for any comments on this issue by either of you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for taking time to comment here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tomobe03 also asked me to comment. I fear I would not be seen as neutral by Antid, so I think that given Sturm (who is demonstrably neutral) has given an opinion, I will decline. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no naming issue here. There were four sectors of the United Nations Protected Areas in Croatia. The name of this particular sector was indeed the Sector West.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
You are grasping at straws here - the same documents never indicate or name "United Nations Protected Areas" in conjunction with the UNCRO mission and they, inter alia, define the mission and all its aspects. Please stop this right now, your not acting reasonably about this matter.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit
Solved:Broken harvid param fixed.
Solved: Reviewer does not insist on better source since it is used only to support noncontroversial and non-disputed information. Improvement opportunity: The information about the agency (CIA) which behind this source should be presented to the readers.
I can not see the names of the authors. What are their names? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
If I knew the author(s) i.e. if the book catalog listed them I'd include information in the references. Since that is not the case, the info is not provided. Besides, the info is not required by FA, let alone GA criteria. (see: WP:GACR)--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Would you be satisfied to know that the source passed FA review related another article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
In case of that FA readers are informed who is behind this source (CIA). That is not the case with this article. Taking in consideration that this source is not used to support controversial or disputed information I will consider this issue as improvement opportunity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Solved:External link pointing to the factually inaccurate material removed.
Solved:Factual inaccuracy regarding the surface of the captured territory corrected.
Solved:The source written by Guskova is used in the article. Improvement opportunity: resolve the dispute about reliability of Guskova (criteria 2b).
Solved:The text about Milošević and Martić indirectly blaming each other is reworded. Improvement opportunity: Avoid WP:OR (criteria 2c) and find source which directly supports assertion that politicians in Serbia blamed politicians in RSK for something.
  • "...Milošević and the President of the RSK Milan Martić to blame each other indirectly" - The source (Sekulić 2000, p. 119) does not support the assertion that Milosevic blamed Martic. Am I wrong?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)check YReply
  • The source (p119) explicitly says that Mikelić (prime minister installed by Milošević see p.87 of the same source) blamed Martić and that Martić blamed the RSK government and Milošević. The direct blame tossing did happen only after the Op Storm [3]. That's why the article says indirectly. Is there a problem with that for you?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I still do not see that source support the following assertions:
  1. Milošević blamed Martić indirectly
  2. Martić blamed Milošević indirectly--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Replaced with the blandest formulation possible. Happy?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
You wrote that "politicians in Serbia and RSK" blamed each other. If I am not wrong, the referenced page of the source does not say that politicians in Serbia blamed anybody. This is not the major issue (regarding the sources) so I will not insist on it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Solved: It is clarified that the text is based on the reasonable interpretation of the source. Improvement opportunity: To avoid WP:OR (criteria 2c) it is better to use sources which directly support referenced assertion.
The point of my question was the date (April 2012) used in above sentence. If I am not wrong, the source does not mention April 2012 at all, but 15 September 2010. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The very first sentence of the source establishes that the document is written in response to 1 May event (TV report), i.e. it is reasonable to establish that the situation described applies to April 2012.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

MOS

edit
Improvement opportunity: The speculation word should be avoided as potentially loaded language per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, precisely WP:SAY
The source directly supports "speculation" therefore no, it should not be avoided.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
There are two groups of sources. One group say that it is true and other group say it is speculation. Isn't it wrong to refer to such statements as speculations in both cases and to say one group speculated and other group dismissed such speculation?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Is this a repeat of UNPA? A group says X. Others report that the group says X and comments that is a speculation, i.e. unconfirmed, and the individuals referred to by the speculation deny all. What is so problematic about this that you cannot comprehend?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not all sources refer to MPRI involvement as speculation. I.e. Slobodan Praljak, a Croatian military official explained "…that's why we have the organization MPRI in Croatian army, with the top American generals whom we paid and who helped us to prepare Storm and Flash."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Solved:Reviewer's mistake. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history does not apply here.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians.. Most of assertions are referenced with news reports (29), Croatian state archivist (28), unknown authors of BB (22 times) and former RSK general (9 times). Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) check YReply
The specific guideline does not apply here per WP:GACR. If and when the article gets to MILHIST ACR, then it would apply.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
FYI BB is accepted by FA reviewers. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
After insisting on the UNPA (where you fell completely silent after a 2nd opinion, not to your liking, was provided) this is yet another time you try to impress your opinions on what the GA review should do. Please read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this specific guideline does not apply here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Major aspects

edit
  • This is yet another attempt you make at POV-pushing. Ahkashi's statement is significant because of the office he held and is given due weight. Since no major violations of human rights occurred giving those a full section would be POV-pushing and giving WP:UNDUE weight to the issue. Your statement that "This article does not cover all legal procedures connected with this operation" is a blatant lie since you apparently comment on a case brought before a Croatian court re Medari deaths in this very review. Re point 1 in this subsection, the court made a ruling that you might not like, but until the verdict is overturned by a superior court, the issue is not relevant to the article. Re point 2, Del Ponte may have prepared many things but that does not guarantee convictions (remember Gotovina et al case) nor would that be admissible per WP:CRYSTAL. Re point 3, the same is tried before a Croatian court and mentioned in the article. No details are given beyond the fact that there were people killed and that charges were made. If there were a guilty verdict on that, there would be material fit for inclusion, but that's up to the court to decide.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • We obviously do not have the same opinion about the article. I will finish my review very soon and you will be able to prove your position during reassessment you announced or at any relevant noticeboard.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Legal procedures connected to this operation also include:
4. The Republic of Serbia filed the genocide lawsuit against the Republic of Croatia on January 4, 2010. because of the alleged war crimes which include those committed during the Operation Flash.(link, link, link). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • How does that equate to actual human rights violations. Serbia also filed charges at ICJ claiming Kosovo UDI was illegal - we know how that one fell through. Once the ICJ rules on the matter, this will become relevant, otherwise that's WP:CRYSTAL. This is especially true knowing that the sources claim no major human rights violations occurred in this case, yet there's a charge of genocide from Serbia. Either the charge has nothing to do with the topic of the article or it is a charge filed as a counterclaim to Croatian charges filed against Serbia at the ICJ. In both cases it has no place in this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Solved:Nominator explained that CIVPOL was part of UN troops and need not to be mentioned separately from them.
  • UN CIVPOL (UN civilian police) is not mentioned in the article although they were present on the ground and participated in events connected to this operation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • UNCIVPOL was established as a part of UN peacekeeping mission (initially UNPROFOR) and need not be mentioned separately from UNCRO. If you feel they warrant more attention, please edit UNPROFOR, UNCRO and UNCIVPOL pages. UNCIVPOL role is so irrelevant they clearly are outside WP:GACR required scope. [4]--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

On hold

edit

Before I began this review the article was stable and it was not tagged. The situation is different now. There are several tags in the article: clarify, citation needed and whole paragraph is tagged as confusing and unclear.

Per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles I will place the nomination "on hold" for a week to give the nominator (a help from regular editors of the article would be appreciated) "a chance to address the tagged issues so I could continue with the review. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You can't review a GA with the purpose of disputing its content from a POV and COI standpoint as you've done throughout the process, so it'd be prudent that you remove yourself from this position and let someone else who's not involved in these topics and disputes review it. The nominator can also ask for another reviewer himself if he considers you not neutral enough to perform the task.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'm well aware that this review was performed inappropriately as numerous requests going beyond WP:GACR were made in an effort to impose arbitrary standards (as described in WP:GACN) and at least one obvious POV-pushing effort was made (in respect of UNPA zones). As I pointed out earlier on in the review, I'll seek community reassessment of the review once it is failed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Taking in consideration that:

  • nominator (or regular editors) of the article did almost nothing to address the tagged issues until now
  • the tags were placed after I started my review

I will restore onreview status although a week period has not yet passed and continue my review which I hope I will complete within a week time or so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Соколрус

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Why did you write that only Serbs shelled the Croatian town, but do not write that Croats bombed cities of Serbian Krajina?
  • You write that the Bosnian Serbs helped Serbian Krajina. But you don't write that at the same time the army of Croatia in the territory of Bosnia was at war against the Bosnian Serbs. Why?
  • You wrote about ethnic cleaning of Croats in Krajina. However why you wrote nothing about murders of Serbs in death camp in the western Slavonia in 1991? These crimes were recognized by the Croatian government, and the court condemned some former soldiers. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Соколрус (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Background section

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

G'day, I came to look at this article by invitation and have thus made a few edits as I saw them. However, I believe there are a couple of significant problems with the Background section that really need to be addressed comprehensively (which is why I tagged it as confusing/unclear). This section starts by inadequately introducing the Log Revolution, to which it provides no backstory summary to flesh out what should be a brief overview of the events leading up to the War, and until I added one, no "See also" or "main" templates for readers to follow to get the full backstory. I suggest you develop a pretty standard brief historical background to the Croatian War of Independence and use it in this and similar articles, with the Prelude section being tweaked to align with each article's scope. The Background section here starts with a brief mention of the Log Revolution but provided insufficient backstory/context, runs quickly to 1993 then back to 1991 in the next para, then ultimately end up in 1995 in the third one. I strongly suggest you rework the Background section to make it chronological, and provide more up-front. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maps

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suggest the largest scale map is used in the infobox, with the tactical map used to illustrate the operation section ibn the body. The current infobox map doesn't give a casual reader any sense of where this operation occurred. The description of the plan needs illustration. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Serb refugees

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments2 people in discussion

Why did you remove the Serbian version of the number of refugees? The article should be displayed all versions, not just the Croatian! Соколрус (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

Have we not concluded that the Veritas claims 15,000?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Never mind responding to this. The 29,000 claim is so good illustration of propaganda refuted by HRW, I'll include it anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
29000 - this census in Krajina in 1993. I will add this information tomorrow. Соколрус (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Don't bother, it'll be in in about a minute.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
As an aside - bear in mind that RSK considered Sector West outside RSK control as an occupied part of RSK. Are you sure the census did not include an "estimate" of population living in those areas - substantial towns are located there, including Daruvar, Pakrac, etc? The number appears suspiciously round, i.e. 29.000 exactly, while for instance 82,406 residents of Kordun are reported.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
29,000 only in the territories under the control of Serbian Krajina. Yes, the figures are approximate. Perhaps this can be explained by the constant migration of Serbs in Western Slavonia, or problems with the statistics in the region. Соколрус (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I think you need to specify the Serbian version of the 15, 000 refugees and write that this is the Serbian version. This number is called not only Serbian sources, but also Russian sources from the Academy of Sciences. Соколрус (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
What purpose would that serve? It would benefit the article as much as writing that Australian sources agree with the HRW.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The Serbian claims are well and truly specified in the prose. They are not included in the infobox because they are refuted by international, well respected and highly esteemed sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, however Guskova - known and respected international source and expert from UN. Соколрус (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations. Guskova really writes about this as 15,000. I am really amused by your waving her qualification as a member of the Russian Academy, but fail to note that her writings may be biased a bit more than HRW or Ramet's - after all she's a member of the Senate of the Republika Srpska and a particular fan of indicted war criminal Ratko Mladić (per Serbian source). That's classical POV pushing from you. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
This is not proof that it is biased or distorted data. Thank you :) Соколрус (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I added the book of Konstantin Nikiforov - a famous historian. He is director of the Institute of Slavic Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences. I think you will not challenge the authority of the director of a specialized research institute of Russian Academy of Sciences. Соколрус (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

Serbian sources

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

Why in the article are not used Serbian sources? Соколрус (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you took time to look into the footnotes you'd see that there is a substantial number references to Sekulić and documents compiled by Brigljević... Regardless the article is based on Ramet, Balkan Battlegrounds, HRW and UN reports - other sources are supporting only.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Please, bear in mind that WP:V is the cornerstone of wiki rules and any addition not sourced or referenced to WP:NOTRS will be removed immediately. Štrbac source is a classic example of POV pushing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I know the rules. Explain what problems with Strbac? He is a renowned scholar in international circles. Or he does not like you personally? Соколрус (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I added a dedicated source of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Elena Guskova - Russia's top expert on the disintegration of Yugoslavia. In 1994-1995 she was a UN expert in Sarajevo and Zagreb. Соколрус (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Štrbac is not a renowned international scholar AFAIK, but a political figure. Why do you have a problem with international sources normally accepted in FA articles? Do you think they are somehow biased to present figures not to your liking?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Like I said, I added a Russian scientific sources. Add more tomorrow. Соколрус (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Please answer me, why are Ramet and HRW, otherwise acceptable for FA, problematic?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
No problem with Ramet and HRW. But why the reference to the article, many Croatian news sites, and on the Serbian side, only B92? Index.hr, slobodnadalmacija.hr, nacional.hr, glas-slavonije.hr ? Why only croatian ? Соколрус (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Index source 69 is used in conjunction with source 68 (Brigljević citing RSK report) to establish time Jasenovac was captured
  • Nacional source 73 is used to report what Stipetić said on a delay in the offensive (hardly surprising to use a Croatian source to back that up)
  • Jutarnji list ref 80 is a report on MLRS strike on Zagreb - specifically number of unexploded bomblets and number of casualties. The latter part is supported by ICTY sources in the article as well (after all Martić was convicted for the war crime)
  • Slobodna Dalmacija ref 82 is used to reference name of officer accepting RSK surrender in Pakrac area
  • Index ref 93 is used to reference HV attack on a refugee column
  • Nacional ref 102 supports a report of commemoration held in Croatia
  • Glas Slavonije ref 108 supports a report on war crime proceedings filed at a Croatian court

Which one of these seems problematic?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that you do not use the Serbian sites. You could very well use a few Serbian websites but prefer to rely on the Croatian sites. Соколрус (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
What have you decided? When you add a reference to Serbian sites? Соколрус (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
There are plenty of Serbian sources, besides the B92, there's Sekulić and documents presented in Brigljević.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
If I might jump in here, there is absolutely NO obligation on WP to use Serbian (or sources from any other nationality or language) websites as sources in any article. It may be that, in the interests of WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV reliable sources published in both Serbia and Croatia could and should be used in this article, but there is no doubt that sources such as Ramet and HRW, which are clearly reliable and independent of the subject, would be expected to be given greater weight over some local sources that might be seen as partisan. Which is not to say there aren't locally published and reliable sources about these events, there undoubtedly are, they just need to be selected carefully based on WP:RS and weighted appropriately. Peacemaker67 (send... over)
The fact that Article Croatian sources much more than Serbian. And I can not understand why. Соколрус (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
It is really irrelevant, pls read the policies I linked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
If it does not matter, let's remove all sources of Serbian and will use only Croatian sources ? Current situation upsets the balance of presentation. Соколрус (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
That is not IAW WP policy. You really do need to have a look at the policies I've linked so that you understand them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding balanced and unbiased views, bear in mind that the "star" source of Соколрус is Guskova, who is actively denying Srebrenica massacre, declaring it is a myth that never happened. (source: [5]) So much for neutrality. The source on this is Serbian if anyone wondered.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ethnic cleansing

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

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

I've added this information, but I see that you try not to write about the facts, expose the Croatian side in a negative light. Соколрус (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

That information (70,000 refugees) is a blatant lie and POV pushing. Please provide a single non-Serbian and non-Russian source - for instance Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Helsinki Committee to substantiate that. The two offensives captured sparsely populated mountainous areas and no significant settlements changed hands. You are actively pushing pro-Serbian POV.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Actually that claim is so outlandish and improbable given geographic and dempgraphic realities of the area involved, I'll require here multiple western, highly relevant and esteemed sources to back up that claim per WP:EXCEPTIONAL (a part of WP:V) or the claim will be removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Before you ask me to other sources, first justify claims against the book of Konstantin Nikiforov. And tell me more, why sources fron USA can be used in the article, while Russian sources can not? Just because they write about what you do not like? Соколрус (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I can remove the figure of 70 000 and replace it with "a lot of the Serbs." However, the expulsion of Serbs in 1991 - and the fact that he will remain in the article.Соколрус (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I must say that despite the 22 years that have passed since the time in question, it is a little strange that a Google Books search for ""operation otkos" refugees -wikipedia" results in O reliable sources [6]. Not a good sign for the 70,000 refugees. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11
19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You are right, probably Nikiforov was mistaken in exact figure. However ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Slavonia is the fact. I cleaned exact figure. Соколрус (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

I once again ask, what claims to Nikiforov's book? Number in 70 000 I cleaned. you expose a template, but you refuse to answer my questions. Соколрус (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mate, you are going to have to try a little harder with your English expression. Reading your comments gives me a headache. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I removed this part from the article:

According to the findings of an independent international team of experts that investigated for the better part of the past 21st century Yugoslavia's dissolution and the wars that followed it, Operation Flash could be characterized as one of the largest ethnic cleansing campaigns in the Yugoslav Wars during the 1990s.[1]

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

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


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

References

  1. ^ Calic 2009, p. 129

Bombings of the cities

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Bosnian Serbs and Croatian army in Bosnia

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

ARSK

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Just a query. UNPROFOR consistently referred to the Armija Republika Srpska Krajina (ARSK), in the same way as the ARBiH. Sources include [7], [8], [9], [10]. Is there any reason this hasn't been adopted here? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

Military

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the lead of this article it says "42 HV soldiers and Croatian policemen were killed in the attack and 162 wounded." However, in the infobox it mentions that these casualties were just military, with no mention of the police. Which is it? 23 editor (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The infobox is a summary and should not list in detail information which must be presented in the article. The Croatian force largely consisted of army soldiers, but included two battalions of special police (listed in orbat), subordinated to the HV Bjelovar Corps. All casualties inflicted upon men commanded by a military staff (Bjelovar Corps in this case) are ipso facto military casualties, regardless if the men were soldiers, policemen or taxi drivers a week before their conscription/subordination to the HV.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Operation Spark (1940)

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Operation Spark (1940) begins "Operation Spark (sometimes translated as "Operation Flash") was the code name for the planned assassination of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler ...". I therefore added a hatnote to this article to link to that article, so that any reader who wanted to find information about the subject of that article, and who was using that translation, would be referred to that article. User:Peacemaker67 reverted that edit on the basis that "Not the same operation name, seems pointless". For the reasons set out above, I feel that the hatnote is useful, and I propose to reinstate it. Alekksandr (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Operation Spark (1940) is a very poor quality article that is almost completely uncited, and no original German word for the operation is given in the article to justify it being referred to as "Operation Flash". I don't think we should be pointing to an article of such low quality that fails to even justify the alternative name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Flash&oldid=1211824106"