Talk:Operation Flash
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Flash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Operation 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
GA Review
editGA 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)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Resume of the detailed review
editIn order to summarize my review I will present it within appropriate table.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
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:
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:
| |
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:
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
Improvement opportunity:
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
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)
General remarks
editThe role of UNCRO and ceasefire and economic cooperation agreements
editSolved: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:
Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC) 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)
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:
|
Images
editSolved: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
|
---|
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)
|
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)
|
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) |
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)
|
Casualties
editSolved:Factual inaccuracy regarding civilian casualties of RSK rocket attack corrected.
|
---|
Six of seven civilians?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Solved:Casualties of peacekeepers added to the infobox.
|
---|
|
Solved:Number of wounded people from RSK added to the infobox.
|
---|
|
- What is the number of imprisoned civilians? The infobox presents the number of imprisoned soldiers (2,100) only. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Improvement opportunity: Do not refer to casualties which include civilian victims as "RSK military" or "killed in action".
|
---|
|
- 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?
- The noted and referenced investigation is underway to answer the same two questions. Do you propose we invent a couple of answers contrary to WP:CRYSTAL?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Who were those "23 individuals"? Who killed them and why?
- 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)
- 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)
- The number of wounded during Zagreb rocket attacks (205) should be checked for potential factual inaccuracy because there are sources (like HRW) which says that number of wounded was actually 214.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Solved:Infobox data about the casualties of forces of Croatia clarified.
|
---|
|
UNSC Resolution 994
editSolved: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)
|
Sector West of UNPA
editSolved:Reviewer agrees with nominator about "using name "Sector West" and no other name".
Improvement opportunity:
|
---|
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)
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) I'll try to break those sources down for you here:
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) 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)
Sector naming issueeditTomobe03 asked me to comment on this name business as a neutral party.
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)
|
Sources
editSolved: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.
|
---|
|
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.
|
---|
|
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 source num 88 says that Veljko Džakula was arrested on 4 May 1995. The article says that it was on 3 May. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- NGO referred to as the state's source. "Serbian sources claim that 283 Serbs were killed and that about 15,000 were made refugees". The source for this assertion is publication of Veritas which is NGO and probably should not be referred to as Serbian source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are assertions about support RSK received from Serbia or Republika Srpska. I.e. "Serbia continued to support the RSK"... The Republika Srpska, ... was involved in the war in a limited capacity, through military and other aid to the RSK..." It may mislead readers to believe that Republika Srpska and Serbia provided military support to the army of RSK during this operation. I think it would be good to clarify they did not, as emphasized by the sources used in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Air force and tanks. List of forces of Croatia does not contain Croatian Air Forces although they participated in this operation. It maybe would be good to present the number of tanks used in this operation which is 30 according to the report of Tadeusz Mazowiecki?
- United Nations forces The report of Tadeusz Mazowiecki mentions United Nations forces in Sector West, comprised of battalions from four countries. I think it would be good to present their number to the readers and to clarify that they "took no action to deter the Croatian Army offensive"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- The mandate of UNPROFOR. The text of the article says: "UNPROFOR was deployed to Croatia to supervise and maintain the (Sarajevo) agreement". This is not verifiable (GA criteria 2c). The source used in this article does not support this assertion. It says that UNPROFOR was deployed on the basis of Vance Plan. The fact it was also a part of Sarajevo Agreement is irrelevant for the UNPROFOR mandate. The source used in the article explains mandate as: "to prevent fighting long enough for the sides to work out a peaceful settlement." UN sources say that: UNPROFOR's mandate was to ensure that the three "United Nations Protected Areas" (UNPAs) in Croatia were demilitarized and that all persons residing in them were protected from fear of armed attack. It is impossible to avoid explanation of the UNPA concept which were integral part of Vance Plan together with mandate of UN peace keeping forces in Croatia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
MOS
editImprovement opportunity: The speculation word should be avoided as potentially loaded language per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, precisely WP:SAY
|
---|
|
Solved:Reviewer's mistake. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history does not apply here.
|
---|
|
- I think there might be a problem with the first sentence (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). It defines Operation Flash as "...a brief Croatian Army (HV) offensive..." when in fact both army and police units participated in the operation, as presented in the sources and remainder of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Major aspects
edit- I think that this article does not appropriately cover one of the major aspects of this operation. The human rights violations. Many sources (some of them like HRW report and report of Mazowiecki already used in the article) extensively discuss human rights violations during this operation. This article instead paid more attention to emphasize that human rights violations were not massive (the sentences which deal with criticism of Akashi's statement have more than 1,200 characters). I think 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 (or the whole section?). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- This article does not cover all legal procedures connected with this operation. It presents two ICTY cases against RSK and Yugoslavia party (Martić and Perišić) and one unclear mention of Medari investigation and mistreatment of prisoners. I found two more which probably deserve to be mentioned:
- "Two sisters, Radmila and Mirjana Vukovic, whose parents and sister were killed during the 1995 Croatian military operation Flash, lost their case before a local court in the Croatian capital Zagreb. The court ruled that the murder of their parents, Milutin and Cvjeta Vukovic, and their younger sister Dragana in the village Medari in Croatia, in May 1995 during the operation Flash was not a war crime. According to the court’s ruling, the civilians were collateral damage and the sisters were ordered to pay court expenses."
- Chief war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte ...had been about to indict the Croatian President Franjo Tudjman just before he died late in 1999. The prepared charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes were related to actions allegedly taken during the Croatian offensives called Operation Storm and Operation Flash in 1995 ...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Serbian prosecutors are currently investigating war crimes committed in the village (Medari), where a mass grave containing 28 bodies was found in 2010. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Given your repeated POV-pushing I honestly think you should recluse yourself from this review, as you appear to be incapable of NPOV.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I think 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?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I actually agree with you on this point. I'll add information on this later.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Solved:Nominator explained that CIVPOL was part of UN troops and need not to be mentioned separately from them.
|
---|
|
On hold
editBefore 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Questions from Соколрус
edit- 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)
Background section
editG'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)
Maps
editI 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)
Serb refugees
editWhy 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Where Veritas says about 30,000 refugees? Соколрус (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here. Veritas claims 15,000 lived in the area.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Here. Veritas claims 15,000 lived in the area.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Where Veritas says about 30,000 refugees? Соколрус (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Have we not concluded that the Veritas claims 15,000?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 29000 - this census in Krajina in 1993. I will add this information tomorrow. Соколрус (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Don't bother, it'll be in in about a minute.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Ok, however Guskova - known and respected international source and expert from UN. Соколрус (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 29000 - this census in Krajina in 1993. I will add this information tomorrow. Соколрус (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- This is not proof that it is biased or distorted data. Thank you :) Соколрус (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Serbian sources
editWhy in the article are not used Serbian sources? Соколрус (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Like I said, I added a Russian scientific sources. Add more tomorrow. Соколрус (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please answer me, why are Ramet and HRW, otherwise acceptable for FA, problematic?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Please answer me, why are Ramet and HRW, otherwise acceptable for FA, problematic?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, I added a Russian scientific sources. Add more tomorrow. Соколрус (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- What have you decided? When you add a reference to Serbian sites? Соколрус (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- It is really irrelevant, pls read the policies I linked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It is really irrelevant, pls read the policies I linked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that Article Croatian sources much more than Serbian. And I can not understand why. Соколрус (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Ethnic cleansing
editYou'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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
References
- ^ Calic 2009, p. 129
Bombings of the cities
editWhy 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)
Bosnian Serbs and Croatian army in Bosnia
editYou 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)
ARSK
editJust 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)
- Forgive, you couldn't explain the thought. I didn't understand you. Соколрус (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yes, you are right. Соколрус (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Or SVK?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- What would be the source for that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty. It is easy to Google them. Some of them include:
- Sabrina P. Ramet; Konrad Clewing; Renéo Lukic (2008). Croatia since independence: war, politics, society, foreign relations. Oldenbourg. p. 36. ISBN 978-3-486-58043-3. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
Serbian Army of the Repulic of Serbian Krajina [Srpska Vojska Krajine, or SVK]
- Daily Report: East Europe. The Service. 1993. p. 24. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
the command of the 18th corps of the Serb Krajina army [SVK, Srpska Vojska Krajine]
- Sabrina P. Ramet; Konrad Clewing; Renéo Lukic (2008). Croatia since independence: war, politics, society, foreign relations. Oldenbourg. p. 36. ISBN 978-3-486-58043-3. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
- 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)
- 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)
- There are plenty. It is easy to Google them. Some of them include:
- What would be the source for that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Or SVK?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. Соколрус (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
Military
editIn 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)
- 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)
Operation Spark (1940)
editOperation 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)
- 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)