Talk:Bosnian War/Archive 4

Improving the article

Now that we're getting close to having an acceptable improved version of the introduction, a logical next step is to discuss how to improve the main body of the text. As far as I see it, the main problems at the moment are:

• A general lack of references in large parts of the text. We need to improving the referencing and make more use of reliable secondary sources such as the many histories that have been written of the war or of Yugoslavia's demise more generally.
• The Course of the War section is arguably too long and detailed. Does the reader really need to know that Gornji Vakuf is "about one hour's drive from Vitez in an armoured vehicle"? It is also unbalanced, with much more detail on 1992 and 1993 than on 1994 and 1995. I can't see anyone interested in finding out about the war having the patience to start that section and read it in its entirety.
• Some restructuring also seems necessary. For example, the Civil war or a war of aggression sub-heading is currently in the Impact of the war section. This doesn't make sense. I'm also unsure whether Prosecutions and legal proceedings are an impact rather than a response to the conflict. Displacement is discussed under Casualties, which again doesn't make much sense. We should probably also have a dedicated section on the parties to the conflict. This could discuss the composition of the factions, something which is currently discussed in the Course of the war section.

I'm sure that there are many other things that need to be done, but I feel that acting on the above would represent a good start. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start

If I may be so bold as to start a new discussion here, I seriously believe we need a new start. We're getting bogged down in nonsense unrelated debate. A few notes, mainly for Alan:

• Per WP:NOTFORUM I will be removing any posts that diverge from the subject of specific article changes. This is not a forum.
• Any comments about users (e.g. their political preferences, personality, mood etc.) will be reported immediately. Please be sure this will be the case, I've had quite enough of that.
• As was frequently pointed out on Balkans talkpages, the ICTY is a primary source. Alan's use of it is textbook WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. WP:V requires the use of published secondary sources. Please do not clutter the page with huge irrelevant copy-pasted OR quotes. Find real sources/learn what they are.

I would like to ask Nirvana to please copy-paste the latest version of the lead as he sees it, then (those of us who are not here to re-fight the Bosnian War on the web) we may begin to hammer-out a version acceptable to all.

Its time to put a stop to this, I think. Encyclopedia content should not suffer because of these sort of... situations. Texbook disruptive behavior. I am also fairly certain the fellow is somebody's sock. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If I can be so bold, here is the current version of the introduction.

The Bosnian War or the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between April 1992 and December 1995. The war involved several sides. The main belligerents were the forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and those of the self-proclaimed Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia. Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia enjoyed substantial political and military backing from Serbia and Croatia respectively.

The war came about as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Following the Slovenian and Croatian secessions from Yugoslavia in 1991, the multiethnic Yugoslavian republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consisted of mainly Muslim Bosniaks (44 per cent), Orthodox Serbs (31 per cent) and Catholic Croats (17 per cent), passed a referendum for independence on February 29, 1992. This was rejected by Bosnian Serb political representatives, who had boycotted the referendum and established their own republic of Republika Srpska. Following the declaration of independence, Bosnian Serb forces, supported by the Serbian government of Slobodan Milošević and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) attacked the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to secure Serbian territory and war soon broke out across Bosnia, accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Bosniak population, especially in Eastern Bosnia. The state administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina effectively ceased to function having lost control over the entire territory. While they formally supported the declaration of independence, Bosnian Croat forces and Croatian president Franjo Tuđman also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian. Secret discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina were held as early as March 1991, resulting in the Karađorđevo agreement.

It was principally a territorial conflict, initially between the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was largely though not exclusively composed of Bosniaks, and Bosnian Croat forces on the one side, and Bosnian Serb forces on the other, until the outbreak of the Croat–Bosniak War in June 1992. The war was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide. Events such as the Siege of Sarajevo, Omarska camp and the Srebrenica massacre would come to typify the conflict.

The Serbs, although initially superior due to the vast amount of weapons and resources provided by the JNA eventually lost momentum as Bosniaks and Croats allied themselves against Republika Srpska in 1994 with the creation of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina following the end of the Croat-Bosniak war. Following the Srebrenica and Markale massacres, NATO intervened during the 1995 Operation Deliberate Force against the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska, which internationalized the conflict, but only in its final stages. The war was brought to an end after the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Paris on 14 December 1995. Peace negotiations were held in Dayton, Ohio, and were finalized on 21 December 1995. The accords are known as the Dayton Agreement. A 1995 report by the Central Intelligence Agency found Serbian forces responsible for 90% of the war crimes committed during the conflict. As of early 2008 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had convicted 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks of war crimes in connection with the war in Bosnia. The most recent research places the number of killed people at around 100,000–110,000 and the number displaced at over 2.2 million, making it the most devastating conflict in Europe since the end of World War II.

I think that this is along the right lines. I don't think we need so many references in the introduction (potentially controversial material such as the casualty figures are sources in the article text) and perhaps some slight rewording/reordering is required, but otherwise I'm happy with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good but it fails to mention the intra-Bosniak conflict with the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia led by Fikret Abdić. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be going into too much detail for the introduction? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate as it was an unrecognized entity, albeit not the same size, like RS and CRHB. But I suppose it would be too much since it didn't have that much of a significant role in the war.

What about the Graz agreement? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Larry that including Western Bosnia might be pushing to much information into the introduction, especially considering WB's fairly insignificant role in the war. I would like to replace Alans line of:

"The state administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina effectively ceased to function having lost control over the entire territory. While they formally supported the declaration of independence, Bosnian Croat forces and Croatian president Franjo Tuđman also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian. Secret discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina were held as early as March 1991, resulting in the Karađorđevo agreement." with something shorter, better worded and more slick.

I have suggested before something along the lines of "the Serb and Croat political leadership agreed on a partition of Bosnia with the Karađorđevo and Graz agreements, resulting in the Croats forces turning on the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croat-Bosniak war".

Not necessarily exactly like that but along those lines. Shorter, more coherent and concise and also includes the important Graz agreement. --Nirvana77 (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting adding that as a standalone sentence or following "While they formally supported the declaration of independence..."? (I'm confused by the lack of a capital letter at the start). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't make sense since the Serb political leadership did not support independence. Anyway, I agree with the general tone of your suggestion, it's just a matter of getting the exact wording right and deciding what it's replacing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Standalone sentence, sorry for the confusion. --Nirvana77 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me then, although perhaps we should still mention that the Croats did formally support independence. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Croat political leadership, seeking to secure Croatian territory"?! What is Croatian territory? Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the sentence or coming with a suggestion rather than reverting the entire sentence we are trying to improve by consensus since we didn't feel your earlier paragraph was sufficient enough. By that standard we should remove the earlier sentence mentioning the Serbs attacking to secure Serbian territory. Although I'm fine with removing the "Croatian territory" part if it is an issue. "Seeking to annex the Bosnian Croat entity of Herzeg-Bosnia" perhaps?. --Nirvana77 (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The existing paragraph is fine mentioning Franjo Tuđman which you removed. So you should explain that removal? The problem with "Croatian territory" is you are trying to minimize Croatian role, ie you want to give them an excuse, but as you know Frajno Tuđman left Bosanska Posavina (inhabited by Croats) to Serbs, so he didn't want to secure "Croatian territory", instead he wanted to create Greater Croatia and to please Slobodan Milosevic. Also, Herzeg Bosnia was never an entity, it was a territory self-proclaimed by Croats, from which they removed other non-Croats. My question is: Why did you change the existing paragraph? What are you trying to accomplish? Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This formulation was just fine: "Bosnian Croat forces and Croatian president Franjo Tuđman also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian." Acctually, today Stjepan Mesić, the second Croatian president repeated the same. [2], this sentence also explains the context of "Serbian territory" formulation (territories seen as Serbian, just as those seen as Croatian, in the Serbo-Croatian plan), but if you remove that sentence from that paragraph you are changing the meaning of introduction. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice, "So you should explain that removal?" without even bothering to look at the text above where we discussed the paragraph. Once again I think there is a failure to understand the point of the introduction. You really haven't provided any real argument for your paragraph but rather attacks against the ones that don't care for it like "minimize Croatian role" and "What are you trying to accomplish?", which in itself hints towards a POV, truly obsessed with this supposed Croatian bias. I would like to have some concrete examples of my or anyone else's "Croatian bias" in this discussion rather than substance-less accusations. Also some more explanation on how the changes "minimize Croatia's role". Also I don't know if you perhaps aren't familiar with the word entity, but Herzeg-Bosna just like Republika Srpska were indeed self-proclaimed entities. I would still suggest "the Serb and Croat political leadership agreed on a partition of Bosnia with the Karađorđevo and Graz agreements, resulting in the Croats forces turning on the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croat-Bosniak war" (Silber, L (1997), Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation. Penguin Books, p.185) for the same reasons I stated and gained support for above, I don't feel the need to explain it once again. --Nirvana77 (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the text above. But you should look at this sentence once more:

"While they formally supported the declaration of independence, Bosnian Croat forces and Croatian president Franjo Tuđman also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian."

Can you tell me why you removed it? This is very valuable information. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not true. The paragraph was

While they formally supported the declaration of independence, Bosnian Croat forces and Croatian president Franjo Tuđman also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian. Secret discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina were held as early as March 1991, resulting in the Karađorđevo agreement.

I doubt you have looked at the text. My objection were among others the length, wording and placement of the paragraph. That it isn't more concise is a concern, not necessarily the facts. The whole point of redoing the introduction was to have a more concise and a shorter introduction, from the mess it was before. There really is no need that the Bosnian war should have a longer introduction than those of for example World War II or the Vietnam war, much larger, longer and more destructive conflicts. What you perceive as valuable information doesn't really adress this problem. It doesn't even mention the Graz agreement (arguably more important than Karađorđevo in the context of the Bosnian war), nor does it say what Karađorđevo agreement meant. In order of some sort of compromise I would suggest:

The Croats also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian. The Serb and Croat political leadership agreed on a partition of Bosnia with the Karađorđevo and Graz agreements, resulting in the Croats forces turning on the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croat-Bosniak war. --Nirvana77 (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! Agreed!Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Belligerents

Shouldn't NATO, Iran and al-Qeada being mentioned as belligerents as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

NATO is mentioned. Iran and al-Qaeda were never formally involved. (See also: Greece.) Regards, --20% (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

I added casualties based on latest research, I first waited that somebody else will do this, but as no one has, I did. Serb I remember this article having official ICTY figures cited. Why were they deleted and completely replaced by RDC figures? 173.230.187.125 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC) By ICTY figures, I mean that there was a tabular breakdown of deaths by ethnicity, that used to be in this article but it got deleted, so the only easy tabular view comes from the RDC whose impartiality is a bit suspect.

The Latest Research: Minimum 104,732 Dead

The two latest researches into the number of victims of the Bosnian war include Obermayer et al., which puts the figure of victims to 176,000 and Ewa Tabeau's research (Office of the Prosecutors at the Hague Tribunal) which places the minimum number of victims to 104,732. The breakdown of of victims compiled by the OTP is as follows, however she notes that the numbers should not be confused with "who killed who", because thousands of Serbs were killed by Serb army during the shelling of the besieged Sarajevo, Tuzla and other multi-ethnic cities.

Bosniaks: 68,101 Serbs: 22,779 Croats: 8,858 Others: 4,995 (she did not mention what she considers by "Others"? this number could refer to more Bosniak victims killed by Serbs, because Bosniaks frequently identified as Yugoslavs or they refused to identitied with any group) Total: 104,732 (NOTE: This research is not official Hague Tribunal's research, but Ewa Tabeau's - please don't confuse) http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/War_Demographics/en/bih_casualty_undercount_conf_paper_100201.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.163.125 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

More Updated Information Need to Be Inserted

The table entitled "Casualty figures according to the Demographic Unit at the ICTY" is ouddated and should be changed/modified. New and FINAL death toll in Bosnia is here http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2011/03/bosnia-death-toll-104732.html and here http://www.icty.org/sid/10591 . Serb military casualties died in the pursuit of a criminal enterprise (campaign of ethnic cleansing directed against the Bosnian Muslim population) and they cannot be regarded as innocent victims, but rather as war criminals. Approximately, 10,419 people are still missing as a result of the war - and almost all of them are Bosniaks. Ewa Tabeau's categorization of "Others" is also suspicious, as most victims in this category have Muslim names, but are categorized simply as "Others" instead of "Bosniaks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.163.125 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ADD

Add this somewhere with a word or two http://www.independent.co.uk/news/harrier-pilot-safe-1370719.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.172.110 (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

External support for the warring parties

I find it a bit odd to not list the supporters of the Bosnian state in the conflict, since there are numerous credible sources on the topic. There is no credible reason why sources should be limited to the ICTY cases, as you suggest. Why are the sources I cite not appropriate or sufficient?Bobbythemazarin (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

International Recognition of independence

there is no date given in the article for this recognition.--Severino (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

TIMELINE

- ...-1980 Although substantial, still very bad distribution of economic help to the poorest part of former Yugoslavia - Kosovo; rise of Albanian protests.

1980-1987 Tito's death; Albanian nationalism growing to chauvinism and introduction of "ethnic cleansing"; Serbian population fleeing the province; Federal government unable to proper react; Serbia feels betrayed from other republics which ignite the rapidly growing Serbian nationalism

1987-1990 Milosevic changes the policy and solves Kosovo with republic's police, soon joined by JNA; stripping Kosovo of autonomy; hard repressions against Albanians not welcomed by Slovenia and Croatia, who openly stood by Albanians; the Serbian "victory" and the new hero Milosevic celebrated throughout the country in a provocative way; the victorious Serbian nationalism, (ab)used by Serbian intelectuals (see "Memorandum") advocating new Yugoslavia under leaderships of Serbs, following the model of former kingdom; ultra-nationalist reactions in other republics. HDZ set up in 1989, SDA the same year (note that Izetbegovic was released from prison on initiative from SANU: "Predstavka", including Seselj as underwriter).

Beginning the BiH conflicts.

1990-1991 Fikret Abdic won Bosnian elections, leaving the presidential seat to Izetbegovic, who was more islamic oriented; HDZ under Tudjman comes to power in Croatia ; growing tensions and open hostilities including armed clashes between Croats and Serbs in Croatia; Slovenia and Croatia "fleeing" from Serbia using the 1974 federal Constitution's 'rights of secession' of `every nation to self-determination', in its recognized borders; Serbia using the same argument: 'every nation having the right to self determination', but on the teritory where it lives - 'every Serbian grave is Serbian land'; short war in Slovenia, probably due to non-Serbian population; all out war in Croatia;

1992 and later Under pressure of Germany, EU recognized both Slovenia and Croatia, which gave them right to ask international support against Yugoslav army presence in the areas and legaly consider it as an act of agression of a foreign country, the same argument used later by Bosnia and Herzegovina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activeco (talk • contribs) 10:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Current Maps lack sources and seem OR

None of the maps list their sources. In addition, some have been challenged for contravention of lang standing Wikipedia policy, namely for OR, on Wikimedia Commons, the project which hosts them; the challenge was has not been repudiated in terms of Wikipedia standard practices, convention, or consensus, as Commons is not Wikipedia. Hence, they must be challenged on Wikipedia for OR. This is that challenge.

I argue the maps are OR, and hence must be removed. All the maps on the current article should be removed until such a time that the material can be verified, which is likely a long time from now given the longstanding lack of sourcing. Enough time has been given to provide such sourcing by the authors, as the original author of them has been notified of such challenge since Jan 2009 on at least one of the images' discussion pages. Int21h (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the maps which do not give any source information for the geographic data. Int21h (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox template

Per a TfD at [3], the infobox at the top of the article is being substituted and then deleted. The infobox and its associated edit history are being kept for attibution purposes and may be found at Talk:Bosnian War/Infobox Bosnian War. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 14:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article

The country is called Bosnia and Herzegovina,so this article should be called Bosnian and Herzegovinian war or The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Herzegovina is also a part of the country which was involved in the same war or am i seeing it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The term “Bosnian War” is already consecrated by popularity and use in the English-language press from the 1990s until today — any Google Search or Google News Search would prove this. “War in Bosnia and Herzegovina” is usually an English translation of the term generaly used in Serbia to describe the war in Bosnia — as the same way that happens with the Croatian War of Independence, called “War in Croatia” by Serbian sources. So I think we should not “Serbianise” the title because Wikipedia guidelines say the title should be the closest possible to the most common English terms.--201.81.225.124 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda WIKI Language

Example of article Karadjordjevo Agreement

Discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević included "...the partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina between Serbia and Croatia."[21] were held as early as March 1991 known as Karađorđevo agreement. The fact that prosecutor said something is still not proof it has been done unless it was accepted as proof. This is why he is prosecutor end what he says is not necessarily true. The only reliable source in that sense is Mr. Kiro Gligorov, who clearly said that Mr. Slobodan Milosevic never stated any idea on division of BiH, but it was pretty much Mr. Franjo Tudjam idea. So you can speak on Mr Tudjman proposal. If there is a clear record that Milosevic was suggesting division of BiH this should be used as reference rather than stipulation of prosecutor

Following the declaration of independence of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs from B&H with support from Serbia, attacked different parts of the country.

This is annoyingly format of propaganda article rather then scientific one. In order for Serbs to attack something they in first place need to be out of it. They cannot attack parts of Bosnia they since they live in it. The only thing Serbs could do was rebel against referendum and its outcome, and they did it mostly in areas they were majority, though there were also areas they were minority but they managed to prevail. Using word attack shows clear intention to confuse the reader and present Serbs as aggressors coming from outside like e.g. Brits came to India. This is language of propaganda not facts. Proper formulation would be aggressive rebellion with intrusion to areas where Serbs were even minority, but not attack. The matter of fact first killed and first attack was committed by Bosnian Muslim killing the man who's offense was carrying Serbian flag on the Serbian wedding ceremony. If you believe Serbs were bad guys, as you obviously do, you could say that they use their military advantage and support from Serbia in order to gain more then others. Not to mention that Yugoslavia was in general splitting in flames of civil wars. References: article war in Croatia, Slovenia and so on

The state administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina effectively ceased to function having lost control over the entire territory. The Serbs wanted all lands where Serbs had a majority, eastern and western Bosnia. The Croats and their leader Franjo Tuđman also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian. The policies of the Republic of Croatia and its leader Franjo Tuđman towards Bosnia and Herzegovina were never totally transparent and always included Franjo Tuđman's ultimate aim of expanding Croatia's borders.[22]

This is utterly ridiculous. Franjo Tudjman was very transparent since according to all involved he clearly offered Misoshevic division of BiH. There are testimonies of his closes partners like Stipe Mesic as well as other figures like former president of FRYOM Kiro Gligorov and president of Slovenia Milan Kucan.

Bosniaks were an easy target, because the Bosnian government forces were poorly equipped and unprepared for the war.[23]

This is another nonsense. No one was prepared for war. Serbs had majority in Yugoslavia so it was easiest for them to get control of military and other resources more then others. Croats second in number followed way weaker then Serbs but still stronger then Bosnian Muslims. No one planed the war. It was consequence of mutual problems that through uncontrollable vicious cycle run out of control into civil war. There is no proof war was planned by anyone. Same as for US civil war.

And major point you are avoiding to state. It was clear since day one that neither Serbs not Croatians wanted to live in such an invented country. Majority of people then, as it is now, preferred to go with what they felt was their countries Serbia and Croatia. They wanted to join those rather to leave in invented society that did not have support of its majority since Serbs and Croatians constitute absolute majority. BiH survived as US project and there are overwhelming evidences of that. They even openly accused EU for their "soft" policies towards disintegration forces in BiH. This is really so so shamefully view on war in Washington DC. Are you VOA or encyclopedia, simply determine by matching this text with VOA articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.125.177.85 (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Supermeg (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)== Repeated sentence ==

This sentence from 'The Course of War’ section The women were kept in various detention centers where they had to live in intolerably unhygienic conditions, where they were mistreated in many ways including being raped repeatedly. Serb soldiers or policemen would come to these detention centres, select one or more women, take them out and rape them.[43][44]' Is repeated again in the mass rape section, the later appearance of the sentence also appears without the reference seen earlier.

I don’t neccessarily see the point of repeating the exact sentence (more or less) but thought rather then changing it I would see if anyone had any objections?

Protection and rewrite needed

"The Bosnian War or the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina, this article is so biased that it does not make sense to read it, better read some of the books on the topic, " and other such statements are present in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfsdfsdfsdf4 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

QUALITY CONTROL PLEASE

This article is a mess beyond belief and just an endless list of opinions . So many lacks of citation and when there is a citation it leads to an article showing someone's opinion . Can we stick to what is absolutely verifiable or is it just anything goes as long as someone with semi-authority said something ?

Citations no . 93 and no. 94 lead to basically blank pages with no info . Why are the RDC casualty figures given so much more attention than the official ( only slightly more impartial ) ICTY figures ? Either outline both cases or not at all . Plus the icty numbers in the article appear to be incorrect . So this looks like a deliberate attempt by someone to hide the truth . And evidence that nobody is overseeing this article with an unbiased attitude . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getlost34 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made changes to the casualty section . If you have a problem with it , provide links that actually show the data . There is otherwise too much garbage in this section and it needs to be rewritten. I fail to see why the ICTY figures are marginalized at the expense of the RDC figures and then we have propaganda statements such as "She notes that the numbers should not be confused with "who killed who", because thousands of Serbs were killed by Serb army during the shelling of the besieged Sarajevo, Tuzla and other multi-ethnic cities." Even if this were accurate , it should require corroboration and data to back it up . Many Muslims and Croats were killed in the fighting between these two groups so the point is just stupid really . I don't have time to edit the ICTY table and I hope someone else can do that . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getlost34 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the ICTY table for casualties as per the pdf supplied . What is astounding in these new ICTY changes is the difference in Serbian civilian casualties from the previous 2005 estimate . In 2005 , we have 16,700 Serb civilians estimated to be killed and now we have around 7,000 . So they want to tell us that they were off by about 10,000 ( more than half difference ) and yet the overall total people killed 104,700 is about the same as in 2005 estimate ! Just amazing . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getlost34 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So someone changed the table again . What is the problem ? It is in the document as provided in the citation . Plus there is no mention in the document of "mostly muslim names." for the "others" row . You have cluttered this section to no end repeating the 200,000 dead over and over when that is a dead statistic and yet you won't allow expansion of the ICTY figures ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getlost34 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina" article on Wikipedia still puts civilian Serb casualties at around 16,700 according to ICTY. I think the information regarding Serb casualties on this article on the Bosnian war may be innaccurate and am going to alter it to correspond with the other page. Please correct me if I am mistaken. --96.60.171.236 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to previous comment , in citation 103 there is a downloadable pdf which is what the ICTY table here is based on. That pdf appears to be the latest ICTY report . The number 16,700 comes from a report written in 2005 by Ewa Tabeau and Bijak for the ICTY . This current pdf in citation 103 is also written by Ewa Tabeau but along with another guy ( not Bijak ) . Mysteriously , the number 16,700 appears to have shrunk without any explanation or comment . And that by more than 50% and yet the overall total dead is about the same ( 104,000 compared to 102,000 ) . I am always amazed when professional statisticians are off by more than 50% . Perhaps I have missed something ; you are welcome to investigate further . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getlost34 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

War Crimes Prosecutions Update

The article says that 4 Bosniaks have been convicted of war crimes. However, I have read that recently a Bosniak women was convicted of war crimes against Croatian civilians and another eight Bosniaks have been at least indicted (not sure if they've been convicted yet) for war crimes against Serb civilians. I think that section should be updated. --96.60.169.178 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead mentions Bosniaks convicted by the International Tribunal, not by local/domestic courts. I agree that it should be updated, though, except that someone should check if more people were convicted until now.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Is this section really necessary? 23 editor (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say it is certainly as this war is frequently academically cited as a genocide, and has popular culture implications with regards to movies, books, and television. It should however be brief to not be over reaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.223.12.203 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Death toll

The best estimate of direct deaths is from the research and Documentation center of all ethnicities. This includes a directly killed conservative MINIMUM as stated by the group themselves who suggest an additional 10,000 to the established minimum is likely. It should be reported for the sake of accuracy and academic discourse the statistics of the amount who perished during the war, due to starvation, disease, indirect combat, and remain "missing" due to the nature of this war (roughly over 330,000 as also cited by American Ambassador Richard Holbrook) the war is frequently academically cited as a "genocide" due to the "ethnic cleansing" operations, which includes starvation and disease as has been cited for the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, Darfur, etc. Therefore while it is significantly higher for ALL ethnic groups than just the direct minimum death toll it is equally valid. I have cited two sources. Although it shouldn't be presented in the box, as it remains indirect due to starvation, exposure and lack of sources this is and was frequently the intent of military operations, and while it CAN be broken down by ethnicity, it shouldn't be to prevent excessive detailing. However it is relevent for this encyclopedia and is verifiable. It should be presented for academic purposes and the ethnic breakdown can be found on the links. Accatt220 (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. I actually agree with this, it should be made clear that the 100,000 death toll only refers to deaths caused in the most direct sense, and does not include those who died of the effects of war such as starvation, disease etc, which is much harder to calculate, but is undoubtedly substantial in the case of the Bosnian war. Ana Radic (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed the death toll for the Bosnian War has once again been moved to 100,000, removing any element of indirect casualties or dissenting estimates, edging once again for a conservative estimate. Once again, using the ICTY evaluation from October 2010 of a minimum count of DIRECT casualties, has come to the conclusion of 104,732 (VERY close in line with the CONSERVATIVE, direct estimate by the RDC, the former has added 2,000 since 2009 and is destined to add more. The total report from the ICTY of casualties with overlap and contribution of multiple sources is 181,477. That is not a conservative calculation of the minimum number, but is those associated with DIRECT deaths reported to the center. If we cite ANY other event commonly referred to as genocide (or a war),(from which many Bosnian-Serb leaders were found to have destroyed the population in significant part and committed actions in line with the crime of genocide, along with German Court Convictions, and national recognition. I find it hard to understand why, nameless, faceless estimates from people not signing or citing sources are being taken at face value, when it is most appropriate, and accurate that a range be presented as has for a number of similar events, in which non-direct civilian deaths were included (Iraq War). For the sake of debate if you choose to change an important estimate such as that, please cite the reasons and who is making such a change, as it is seems personally motivated, and not quite clear why indirect deaths should not be included in this article so long as it is presented as such with a citation and as "indirect estimates". Clearly direct deaths Also fall into the range I am presenting, of 104,732 direct deaths. The ICTY has also presented an ethnic composition of direct casulties, which I have a firm source to derive from. I will present this as the conservative minimum of Direct Casualties and a range of unknown war related deaths, with an appropriate citation and link, which I have yet to have argued why, it is inappropriate for academic study, to address that issue as has been done for many other Wikipedia articles. Additionally the RDC's current toll of 97,000 is stated by them to likely increase by approximately 10,000 showing an probably toll of 104,000, making a range even more appropriate. Accatt220 (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Start War 1 March 1992, not 1 and 5 April

From what I can gather from various places here on Wikipedia, the war began on 1 March, not 1 and 5 April. The only place where it says 5 april is here, and it is not supported anywhere else. Everywhere 1 March or 1 April. On the first day March 1992 the second day of the referendum on the independence of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a member of the Green Berets Ramiz Delalic shot at Serbian wedding procession in Bascarsija and thereby killing the groom's father Nikola Gardović. The event was known as the murder of an old wedding party in front of the old church in Bascarsija. In response to the killing, armed Serbs set up barricades that evening at Sarajevo in the period from 1 to 5 March up barricades and in some other cities (Samac, Derventa and Odžak). Muslims controlled the center of Sarajevo, while the Serbs controlled the rest of the city, as well as elevations around him. After a public appeal, Karadzic and Izetbegovic 3 March meeting held at the headquarters of the JNA in Sarajevo center-brokered General Army Milutin Kukanjac. After heated debate, Karadzic and Izetbegovic agreed to maintain order in the city JNA mixed patrols and police. However, in March was followed by a small armed clashes involving firearms and the erection of barricades in most cities in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On that occasion, were killed or wounded dozens osoba. Then came the massacre of four more by the end of March. On 23 March Croatian paramilitary forces attacked from the direction of Neum artillery and infantry Hrasno village. Six members of the JNA reservists were killed in the attack of HOS on the edge of the municipality of Neum. That day Croatia committed military aggression against Yugoslavia, as Bosnia and Herzegovina was still part of Yugoslavia, which is rapidly separated. Since Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 March voted for independence, this act was committed by Croatian military aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 25 March on the orders of the Crisis Staff of the Bosnian HDZ Posavina blocked path between the Bosnian Krajina and Serbia. On 26 March Croatian Army and members of the Croat-Muslim paramilitaries committed a massacre in the village of Sijekovac near Bosanski Brod. Look closely Sijekovac killings. The massacre in Sijekovac killed a total of 46 Serbs. This massacre initiated major armed conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, SR. On 28 March two battalions of the 108th Brigade of the National Guard in conjunction with the local Croat-Muslim formations attacked villages between Bosanski Brod and Derventa. Serbian paramilitary forces led by Arkan, 1 April took Bijeljina, an important traffic hub in the northeast of SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, and killed several civilians. This act was committed by Serbian military aggression (not yet recognized) Bosnia and Herzegovina. This event Bosniaks feel like the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, but they forgot aggression and that the war was a civil war between the three ethnic groups, rather than a war of liberation. Croats have forgotten that the aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and they have committed, not only Serbs. Serbs have forgotten that in the beginning of the war had great support from the JNA, had a full military and logistical support to the FRY (Serbia) since 1992. to 1994. year. Unlike the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia), Croatia has participated directly in the war before 1 and 5 April 1992 until the last days of the war, while the Serbian directly participated in only part of the JNA and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until 1994. was indirectly involved (something like Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the war in Libya and Syria). The Srebrenica massacre was not caused by an army of the FRY (Serbia), but the Republic of Serbian army, paramilitary forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia), and some Western intelligence services. FR Yugoslavia (Serbia) was militarily and economically supported the Serbian Republic, but is not directly involved in Bosnia and Herzegovina (since she was under economic, military and sporting sanctions by the international community), unlike Croatia ditrektno who participated in military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially after Operation Storm when the Croatian Army entered deep into the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the military conducted covert operations to the Dayton Agreement. On 1 March 1992, the murder of an old wedding party in front of the old church in Baščaršija Bosnian War began. On 23 March 1992, Croatia began the intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 1 April 1992, she began Serbian intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 5 April 1992. Bosnia and Herzegovina declared its independence, but it was not the beginning of the war. This is the beginning of the siege of Sarajevo, and not of war. From 1 March (on the independence referendum) and 5 April (independence), there have been a number of incidents and massacres in which there were about 100 casualties. At the end of March record is sporadically firing (in Gorazde on 23 March, 29 March Kupres, Mostar and Derventa), to the conflicts since the beginning of April 1992. pervaded the SR BiH.--Baba Mica (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The deployment of weapons occurred about a month prior to significant hostilities, and a Serb groom was killed during march of 92'. As the massacre in Bijelijna occurred on April 1st. April 5th make little sense except with regards to its becoming international. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.223.12.203 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to say. It's true that the first serious armed clashes began in March 1992, with the erection of barricades around Sarajevo (planned and co-ordinated by the SDS), attacks on various other towns in Herzegovina, and shelling of Bosanski Brod (to the extent that it is compared to Vukovar) by Serbian forces occuring throughout the month, but there were more localised clashes than the outbreak of full scale war. The first major offensives by the JNA did not really begin until April, with the attack on Bijeljina on 1st, the bombardment of Mostar by the JNA on 3rd, the seizure of Banja Luka and shelling of Sarajevo on 4th, the attack on the interior ministry of Sarjevo by Serb militias on 5th, the attack on Sarajevo airport and Foca on 6th, with international recognition not coming until 7th, making it an international armed conflict. I would say it is more of a gradual 'slide' into war following the referendum, as it is difficult to pinpoint a single date where war started.Ana Radic (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The first casualty of war fell 1 March of Baščaršiji. Whether it was a deliberate provocation of the Bosniak leadership to thereby cause a civil war, and would provoke the Serbian side, or was it of reaction of an individual who had a personal conflict with the person killed in Baščaršiji, so it is used as a pretext to start a civil War, it is now a moot issue. The possibilities are wide, and we are not going to ever find out. It will perhaps find our descendants, and we can only guess. what is the essence of war is that this war began as a civil rather than interstate. The war in Bosnia began within Yugoslavia, and not within the sovereign would. 6 April, I recognized by the international community as a sovereign state, and in this state is largely a civil war was raging, and the 6th April that killed about 1,000. civilians. Well, Stash occurred from 1 March 6 April? As for the military intervention of neighboring countries, it was followed by between 1 March and 6 April. The first military intervention by a neighboring country was Croatia intervention. It began 26 March, 1992. the morning of airborne attacks across the Sava river in the Serbian village of Bosanska Posavina, and in the evening the same day the Bosniak village in Herzegovina. Croatia at that time was an independent and sovereign state. After the Croatian military intervention followed the Serbian military intervention 1 April airborne attack across the Drina River in Bijeljina. When it comes to the Serbian military intervention, I was five days of the SFRY which were Serbia and Montenegro. Up to 6 April Bosnia found itself deep in the whirlwind of war, and Sarajevo was bombed for 4 April. Let me repeat one more time? 1 March held a referendum on the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs boycotted the referendum, killing at Baščaršiji Serbs barricade. 3 March Bosnians are trying to remove Serbian barricades Serbs that correspond to fire and intrusion Bosnia civil war. Victims fall 5 March 16 March and 23 March. Followed by Croatia ivazija 26 March across the Sava, the Bosnian Krajina and Herzegovina. Followed by the Serbian side of the Drina attack 1 April to Bijeljina. 5 April, I declared sampstalnost, 6 April has been recognized by the international community....--Baba Mica

Expl

I already said: one reference doesnt mean that there is a new term in common usage. 77.238.203.68 (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The war in Bosnia was a civil rather than interstate

The war in Bosnia began interethnic conflict between the three nations 1 March. Before 6 April was followed by the invasion of Serbia and Croatia. The Croatian attack began the Sava and Herzegovina 26 March. Serbian attack began 1 April over the Drina River in the town of Bijeljina, in the ordered state security chief Jovica Stanisic, Serbia. 6 April came after.--Baba Mica (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

The source says "According to a leaked CIA report, the Serbian leaders and armies are responsible for 90% of the atrocities committed in this war and 100% of the systematic killing" Cultural Formations of Postcommunism: Emancipation, Transition, Nation, and War p252 This is continually being changed to ethnic cleansing, which is not what the source says. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That one is the reference from the book, but you've posted 2 sources. In the other one, the article states:

"One official, reading from notes he took from the report, quoted it as saying, "Serbs carried out at least 90 percent of the ethnic cleansings in Bosnia."

Since this one is from one who allegedly read the actual report, it's clearly more accurate (as accurate as a mere reference to a report can be).

Plus, as I said in the edit, you don't use "atrocities" in a Wikipedia article, just like you don't use "monstrosity", "horrors", "abomination". --JimmyBroole (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you will find that an academic source is better than a newspaper one. And who says we cannot use atrocities in an article? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"While it has been documented that crimes of war were committed by all sides to the conflict, the most exhaustive United Nations (U.N.) report, as well as an assessment by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), estimates the following proportions: 90% of the crimes committed were by Serb fighters, 6% by Croat fighters, and 4% by Muslim forces."[4] "In an exhaustive report to the United Nations, a special Commission of Experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that globally 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. These conform roughly to an assessment drafted by the American CIA."[5] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be still some misunderstandings, so I'm gonna rewrite what I've written days ago about the source/reference issue since I do have time (although limited) in my hands, but plaese give a feedback, like if you understood what I'm trying to say, or why you think something's wrong or right about it.

When a war starts off between 2 or more parties, there's a lot of things that happen, from every point of view: political, social, military, and so on. When we're talking about these subjects, understanding the difference between facts and claims is essential. While people on each sides die, and innocent people suffer the consequences of war, political entities more than often cross this fine line that exists (between facts and claims) for their own objective, much like typical propaganda does. And that's what you should have to avoid on a Wikipedia article.

In addiction to CIA being involved indirectly in the conflict, and therefore not being a desirable source for a neutral article, they have NOT provided a public viewing of their report, that if containing legit proofs, real life witnesses, photos, war data on military vehicles and manpower, burial sites, identification and numbering of bodies, and so on, it could be proven to be a fact, but still in that state debatable. I read "leaked CIA report", but still don't see any. All that you have posted are references not reports, do you understand this?

As for why you don't use "atrocities" or the word I listed above, it's simply because they're terms charged with emotive features, just like "beautiful" or "gorgeous", and thus not neutral. I'm not saying they should never be used, but used in the right way and only when necessary, and why would you use it here instead of more specific terms, other than wanting to give a more negative connotation to a faction more than the other? --JimmyBroole (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Two things, we use reliable secondary sources here, the CIA report would be a primary source which we avoid. The second, atrocities is not an emotive word, it is a descriptive word used to describe the atrocities which happened. Simple fact of the matter is we use what the sources do, and I have given enough sources now. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you understand the differences between report and reference to a report? --JimmyBroole (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY, I recommend you read WP:V and WP:RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that works well with a primary source that's open to public, like a book, where it's more desirable to base the article on a secondary source. But we're talking about a primary source we don't have our hands on, thus not even verifiable. The NYT has more coverage and fame than any other, say, Serbian or Bosnian secondary sources, but that doesn't make it a better one. Plus

"The second, atrocities is not an emotive word, it is a descriptive word used to describe the atrocities which happened"

The other article has specified "ethnic cleansings", so why are you stuck on "atrocities" which is more vague? --JimmyBroole (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We do not need the primary source for verification, that is why we use secondary sources. Serbian forces were responsible for more than ethnic cleansing, they were also responsible for the majority of mass rapes and 100% of systematic killing, hence the use of atrocities. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"We do not need the primary source for verification, that is why we use secondary sources." But that's incorrect, you use secondary sources because you don't read a book and make a synthesis on Wikipedia, you use an already published and analyzed source, because it holds validation by numbers and gives a common ground to all users. Again, "atrocity" in addition to being subjective (what's atrocity for who?) in comparison to "war crime" or "ethnic cleansing" (there are specific, objective, exact characteristics that describe them), it's vague, since it could include rape, killing of civilians, destruction of homes, torture, etc. And you keep ignoring the other source you've given us and I don't kno why. We can add "and all of the systematic killings" in the article if you want, that is written. --JimmyBroole (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have given three sources, all of which say atrocities. Which source are you saying I am ignoring? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Source #1: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/bosnia/ -> "90 percent of the crimes"

Source #2: http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=125 -> "90% of the crimes committed were by Serb fighters"

Source #3: Cultural Formations of Postcommunism: Emancipation, Transition, Nation, and War p252 -> "According to a leaked CIA report, the Serbian leaders and armies are responsible for 90% of the atrocities committed"

Source #4: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/09/world/cia-report-on-bosnia-blames-serbs-for-90-of-the-war-crimes.html -> "the Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that 90 percent of the acts of "ethnic cleansing"

They all come from that one CIA claim. The fourth one being the most specific, and the third one being the most vague (already explained why). So of the 4, why do you like "atrocities" so much? --JimmyBroole (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do I have to keep repeating myself here? Serbian forces were responsible for more than ethnic cleansing, they were also responsible for the majority of mass rapes and 100% of systematic killing, hence the use of atrocities. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm gonna be honest, I don't know what else to say, really. And I'm kinda tired too, it's not like I've written 3-4 words to be clear enough. Sincerely I don't see any other prospect than either making a report or incessant edit-warring. --JimmyBroole (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Factual accuracy and use of war-related terms

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we accept biased secondary sources, based on primary sources we don't have access to? --JimmyBroole (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a debate about the use of allegedly biased and inaccurate sources and of war-related terms. The user claims that, since one of Wiki's policies states that primary sources should not be used, that it is ok to use secondary sources that are based on the former, although this one being virtually non-existent. There are some heavy claims in the articles regarding the role of involved factions, that are absolutely defining and can't be ignored or treated lightly.

These sources are not only menacing the neutrality of the article by being released by biased parties, but also can't possibly cover appropriately the subjected reports, thus merely making a reference to them. There are inconsistencies throughout all the sources, some referring to "ethnic cleansing", another to "atrocities", and they're all based on 2 different reports; allegedly one made by the CIA, and the other one by the UN, and none can be found.

In addition, the user states that terms like "atrocities" are preferred to "war crimes" or "ethnic cleansing", although ignoring that atrocity as a term doesn't hold neutrality and can mean different things based on the reader and his interpretation (could be destruction of homes as it could be genocide), whereas technical terms like "war crimes" have specific, exact characteristics that describe them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBroole (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't read the entirety of this and the preceding discussions, instead I've had a look at the edit warring in the article history, and this edit just plain isn't right. If it's verifiable that James Waller made this claim in a book published by the Oxford University Press, referencing M. Cherif Bassiouni, then you need to present a modicum of such secondary sources that conflict with those claims in order to dispute that. If you're saying it's a claim that can't be explicitly contradicted because it's just so WP:FRINGE, you need to present a better case for that. The ratios of ICTY defendants seem to imply that there's nothing fringe about such a claim. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You've just paid attention to that edit, I wouldn't have deleted it if I didn't know the situation of the edits in the last 2 days. The original statement that we talked about was another, the one you're talking about is new, but very similar. Difference being that the old one had very similar (if not identical) results but from articles referring to an article made by the CIA. Thing is, as I said above, every single one of the article makes just references to a supposed report, and in this case it isn't even clear by whom ("a special commission of experts" who? From where? When?). Returning to the statement, here's the actual quote:

"In an exclusive report to the United Nations, a special commission of experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. Most significant, the Bosnian Serbs were the only party that systematically attempted to eliminate all traces of other ethnic groups from their territory."

That's it, nothing more. The last part also being laughable, for different reasons. But that's not the issue here. My issue is: how can we treat something as a straight fact by putting our trust on a single reference to a report? So unless we have another article that can oppose this view, that should be treated as a fact rather than a claim? How's that logic? Nobody's talking about fringe theories, but quality of information. Serbs have been antagonized for the whole duration of the war by Western media, even up to the NATO bombing in 1999, so it doesn't take a genius to realize that claims by the CIA are going to be biased. And I have nothing against biased claims that become facts, but people should see why those are facts. --JimmyBroole (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So you're basically saying you reverted something without looking at the content of the edit? As for the "supposed" report - it took me literally one google search to find http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/un_commission_of_experts_report1994_en.pdf I think you've exhausted the assumption of good faith here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• One editor claiming sources are biased does not make it so, the sources are reliable. Here they are. We use reliable secondary sources here, this insistence that the sources are not RS because the primary documents are not available is ridiculous. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Two things:

1. No, I just cited the reference from the book, which you can find easily on google. That is the exact citation that has been transferred on Wiki.

2. I didn't initially search for the report since it wasn't clear who made it (a special commission of experts? who?). Later (today) I found Cherif Bassiouni worked for the ITCY in 1992 (despite some controversies that I won't address here now). But if you took the time to even read the report, you'd have realized that there is no final, exact data on the total numbers, but mainly broad variety of information concerning the Bosnian War and categorization of war crimes. The whole paragraph dedicated to the 'ethnic cleansing' (which I did spent the time to read) explain in a very good way how these acts were carried out, its main characteristics, and other information. There is no "90 percent" in the report.

So let's take the sources. These are all the references extrapolated by the sources the editor found and provided us (within his accessibility to googlebooks I presume). The numbering is based on his own listing:

1."A CIA report attributed "at least 90 percent" of atrocities to serbian forces."

2."In an exclusive report to the United Nations, a special commission of experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. Most significant, the Bosnian Serbs were the only party that systematically attempted to eliminate all traces of other ethnic groups from their territory."

3. "The March 1995 report, issued by the Central Intelligence Agency indicated that "90 percent of 'ethnic cleansing' were carried out by serbs and ..."

4.a. "...untile March 1995, when it was fatally undermined by a leaked CIA study, which found that 90 percent of ethnic cleansing had been carried out by Serbs pursuant to a policy designed to destry nad expel the non-Serb population from Serb-controlled areas."

4.b "At the time internal CIA and State Department reports--subsequently leaked to the New York Times--indicated over 90 percent of the atrocities were being committed by Serbian forces, and the campaign very likely constituted attempted genocide."

5."While it has been documented that crimes of war were committed by all sides to the conflict, the most exhaustive United Nations (U.N.) report, as well as an assessment by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), estimates the following proportions: 90% of the crimes committed were by Serb fighters, 6% by Croat fighters, and 4% by Muslim forces."

Supposing that the report made by the ICTY is actual source that No.2 and No.5 are referring to, these are ALL derived from 2 main primary sources: one made by the CIA in march 1995, and the other one by the ICTY.

The one by the ICTY does not give clear, final information in the forms of number, but throughout the report it is clear that the majority of systematic ethnic cleansing was committed by Bosnian Serb forces.

While searching the one from the CIA, I found this 17-pages report, in which also suggests that majority of the crimes in Bosnia were committed by Bosnian Serbs, but also adding (p4):

"The vast majority of reporting indicates that ethnic serbs are probably responsible for at least 90 percent of the destruction, displacement, and loss of life associated with ethnic cleansing in bosnia"

Another statement made by the CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence on Ethnic Cleansing and Atrocities in Bosnia also says:

"Our analysis shows that the vast majority of the ethnic cleansing carried out in Bosnia since 1992 can be attributed to the Bosnian Serbs."

Concluding, being the one alleged CIA report the only one which specifically states definite numbers, and for the sake of accuracy (which people here seem to nonchalantly minimize), the article should be either based on that (that is, clarifying we're talking about ethnic cleansing), or a summary of both, without unnecessary use of terms like "atrocities" which are a mere generalization and simplification of the events that have characterized the Bosnian War, aside from demonizing a faction more than the other. Concluding, my proposal for the statement is:

"According to various sources, including one from the UN and one from the CIA, the vast majority of the acts of ethnic cleansing carried out in Bosnia since 1992 can be attributed to Bosnian Serbs." --JimmyBroole (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the UN report says 90% of crimes, plus secondary sources say crimes/atrocities, so that is what the article will state. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nah it doesn't, get some common sense man --JimmyBroole (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? All the secondary sources I have presented here say crimes/war crimes/atrocities. All of them are RS, so the article will reflect what these sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying the sources don't say it, I'm saying the ICTY never released anything like that, simply because it's a hard estimate to make, especially because of the various concealing of proofs by factions involved. Not to add that those numbers are (90%) referring to the systematical ethnic cleansing, according to both the CIA report and the ICTY report(That fairly said could not be the one we're talking about). I have no major problem with that statement being there if no one has a problem with it, I just want actual opinions from others on the matter, not only the usual "it's written on the article!!" "it's written on the article!!", it's kinda annoying. --JimmyBroole (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What part of we follow what reliable secondary sources say do you not understand? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The part where you use secondary sources whether or not they're consistent with what the primary sources say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22 --JimmyBroole (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with rephrasing this to be more specific. Indeed, it seems Waller conflated the two reports. But since both reports mostly say the same thing, it's no reason to discard that source as such. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's why I proposed the new sentence above, because the only actual data including numbers as "90%" is the alleged CIA report, and they refer to the ethnic cleansings. I don't think that the new statement removes anything from the previous one, or that it says something different, it's just not wanting to take something as accurate as numbers if we don't have 100% reliable source to back them up (and I personally don't think 5 different books related to war/genocide/crimes found on gooblebooks with mere references count as such) --JimmyBroole (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Terrible RfC - Minus failing to be neutrally phrased, I'm failing to see specific examples of content which is in dispute here. I glanced briefly at the diff offered by Joy [shallot] and would tend to agree with Joy that it's difficult to see why User:JimmyBroole chose to make that revision. If the contention here is that the secondary source used is biased, why not just point to a different "neutral" secondary source to quote a different number? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed, its awful. "Should we accept biased secondary sources, based on primary sources we don't have access to?"

A) no good evidence they are biased.

B) no evidence we don't have access to the primary source, which appears to be easy to find.

(I'm a "randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment" editor) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with the previous two commenters. I'm another feedback request service invitee, but I think NickCT and BoogaLouie are right here. I can't understand the problem that User:JimmyBroole has with the references in question, I'm afraid; I genuinely don't have a problem with Darkness Shines's perspective on the issue. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• No reliable evidence these sources are biased Extremely weak RfC. Move on. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIA claim on war crimes committed by Serbs

I have reverted the removal of the CIA per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Please stop removing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view :

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources :

Biased or opinionated sources:

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs."

Of course, was your source a direct link to the CIA report, with actual proofs and data, it would be just fair to leave it as it is, but this isn't the case. Not to add that your sentence is incorrect, as you wrote "90% of war crimes", whereas the article talks about "acts of "ethnic cleansing"".

I'm not deleting the entire statement, but altering it for the sake of fairness and neutrality of the article. -- JimmyBroole (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Two things, the first being this is not my source, the second is that the linked article says "C.I.A. Report on Bosnia Blames Serbs for 90% of the War Crimes", and ethnic cleansing is a war crime. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with JimmyBroole´s concerns. First, we need to be aware that CIA and United States at time of the report, 1995, were beligerants in the Bosnian War using air strikes against Bosnian Serbs. Second, war crimes is a much broader term than ethnic cleansing, the two are not the same and cannot be replaced one with another in such way. The way the text is now, citing that CIA claims, the way JimmyBroole fixed it, seems much more appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? I know for a fact that there are academic sources which state as fact that the Serbian forces carried out 90% of war crimes, will you also argue with those? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See Cultural Formations of Postcommunism: Emancipation, Transition, Nation, and War p252 "According to a leaked CIA report, the Serbian leaders and armies are responsible for 90% of the atrocities committed in this war and 100% of the systematic killing" Darkness Shines (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, you either link a direct source of the CIA report (or the other academic sources you know) with actual data and research for people to see, or the statement remains expressed as a claim, since that's what it currently is. And as FkpCascais asserted, "war crime" includes a vast spectrum of military violations, with "ethnic cleansing" being one of them. It's a specification, not a synonym. Thus, following the various motives that have been listed above (especially concerning the article neutrality), I invite you to leave the text as it is. --JimmyBroole (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, what with the best sources according to our policies saying I do not have to. I fully intend to revert your changes, and add the source mentioned previously by myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You're acting by your own, blatantly ignoring everything that I have written, carefully explaining to you why some principles exist and should be respected by the community of Wikipedia. Besides being a generally disrespectful behavior, this goes against what Wikipedia IS or should be, just to elevate and give visibility to one own's belief or opinion. I didn't even delete the statement, for respect, and since I think that every point of view SHOULD be visible, but AS IT IS, because it's extremely important to differentiate FACTS from CLAIMS, since the first one has way more weight than the latter, and thus should absolutely be handled with great care and attention. --JimmyBroole (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I am acting according to policy, unless you know of one which says we ignore academic sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We are not ignoring the sources, but just adjusting the statement based on the overall value, type, accuracy, and origin of said sources, thus being able to say when something is a fact ("CIA found out that..") or a claim ("CIA claimed that.."). Simple as that. As you can see I changed a simple verb and "war crime" to "ethnic cleansing", I don't see what is bothering you. --JimmyBroole (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

JimmyBroole is absolutelly right. Even your second source says "According to a leaked CIA report...". Regarding ethnic cleansing/war crimes, ethnic cleansing is much more specific and it is cited, changing it to a broader term in this case is controversial... and unecessary. FkpCascais (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you guys have reading issues? Are the quote I gave not clear enough? Obviously not, so a revert is due. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I readapted the text to a more proper wording. I see your intention. First of all, I have doubts if a 1995 CIA report has even a place next to YCT indicments, but OK, lets leave it there (I´m refering to the second place where it is cited), however it wouldn´t be bad to add that at time there was American and CIA involvement in the conflict, thus, there would obviously be a conflict of interess in their reports. Saying that CIA claimed that in a report is correct, your text how they found pushes things clearly to one side (you obviously defend the version that what they claimed in that report is a prooven fact, and they just "found the trouth", however, we must stay neutral and simply say what sources claim. Another case where you again clearly push things to one side is your partisan desire to want to replace atrocities with ethnic cleansing or war crimes.

So, what we have here? One CIA report from 1995 (period when US and CIA where directtly involved in the conflict) claiming Serbs (the side they were engaged in conflict with) commited 90% of the atrocities by that time in the war, plus a secundary source citing that report. Then we have you wanting to use those two sources in order to push a greater step beyond what is really possible by using those sources: found vs claimed where you want to adress the issue as if CIA found a prooven fact, and then you replace the word atrocities conveniently to either ethnic cleansing or war crimes. Sorry, cannot agree with your edit at all. Two words that mean much, and you know it, that is why you insist on them. FkpCascais (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think FkpCascais has said everything that has to be said, there's nothing more to add really. Darkness Shines, as I said before, find me the actual CIA report with all the data and numbers, and I'll add it myself. But in the meantime, just try not to ignore what people have to say, be reasonable and try to express yourself through argumentation instead of just reverting things. Otherwise you're just making people lose time and damaging your own reputation.

In addition, the only statements in which the number appears (excluding the title) are:

"the Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that 90 percent of the acts of "ethnic cleansing" were carried out by Serbs and that leading Serbian politicians almost certainly played a role in the crimes."

"One official, reading from notes he took from the report, quoted it as saying, "Serbs carried out at least 90 percent of the ethnic cleansings in Bosnia." Ethnic cleansing generally describes the practice, common in the Bosnian war, of killing, forcibly evicting and persecuting ethnic groups other than one's own."

Therefore, as it is the only thing we can lay our eyes on (the other source being just another citation to the report), and "ethnic cleansing" being mentioned twice (and it IS a specific war crime), I'm going to restore the article to my last edit. I hope we can finally conclude with the case. --JimmyBroole (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The source I added says atrocities, not ethnic cleansing. Please do not misrepresent sources again. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are UN chief and CIA reports used as factual evidence here, when duty of compiling list of war crimes and judging war criminals was handed over to ICTY. ICTY verdicts at least should be used as foundation for determining percentage of crimes committed. Sentence "Serbs committed 95% of crimes" is the most unscientific possible construction since it treats war crimes as something measurable in water balloon, not to mention it simply does not corresponds to ICTY verdicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.29.175 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Beginning of the Yugoslav Wars section, final para

The final para of Beginning of the Yugoslav Wars section, reads: The political inertia was later motivated by the central government as an attempt to avoid rising tensions with the JNA which could launch a full-scale attack on the republic at any time. Nevertheless, Bosnian Croats claimed disappointment with the Bosniak-dominated central government in Sarajevo, and would come to mobilize a local defence.

1). I'm not sure what this means (and suspect 'motivated' is the wrong word) … … 2).The claim isn't referenced. (I noticed it while doing some grammar/phrasing fixes, but couldn't fix this). Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence now makes sense (grammatically and historically), it's still a bit unsourced, ....but, what the f***, it's Xmas. Problems for another year! Pincrete (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I made the most of what was there. Sourcing remains an issue, but at least we can have legibility :) In general, the article is a mishmash, but at least now it tries to use the chronological order customary in historical articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

what is the bosnian♥™ war about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.100.213.9 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Turkey as a supporter for Bosnian side.

I want to add Turkey as a supporter of Bosnian side. These references are solid. But i want to establish a consensus in order to show my respect to other editors. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] (use google translate for Turkish web site refs) kazekagetr 19:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the content you wish to add? Also are we talking about diplomatic support/moral support/sympathy or more tangible military/economic support? I've only briefly looked at the sources, do don't have a formulated opinion. Pincrete (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC) … … also, having had a quick look, there is the issue of volunteers FROM Turkey and official Turkish support. Pincrete (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No specific content as you can see there are several contents in references. Just under the seciton of 'supported by'. kazekagetr 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked out all the refs, but an initial reaction would be that saying 'supported by' without saying WHAT the support was, would be too vague. I also wasn't able to establish whether sources endorsed OFFICIAL support, some referred only to volunteers from many countries (inc Turkey), which would NOT justify 'supported by' ('supported by Turkey' being very different from 'supported by some Turks'). I'm not an authority on this page/subject and am only voicing a personal opinion. Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It wouldnt be that 'vague' if you may check the infoboxes like Syrian Civil War or I dunno War in Donbass, you will encounter the same issue. Cause Turkey didint only sent volunteers but also arms and funding (if you read the refs you will see it for yourself) kazekagetr 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you wish to use the info-box. The info-box is meant to summarise main points in the article. If Turkish role is relevant, the article text is the first place to put the info. I know the info-boxes of some FY wars are so cluttered that they become un-readable, there is a danger of that happening here if (relatively) marginal participants are included. I still haven't read your sources, so can't comment on their content, if you think they have something substantive to say, why not put them in the text?Pincrete (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

i want to put it on the infobox cause iran and turkey were the sole supporters of bosnia during the war. i understand your fear, but it seems you dont understand my point on this issue. kazekagetr 09:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

At present we have only active participants in the info-box (we don't have Greece, Russia or other supporting countries for example). I personally would be very opposed to content in the info-box, which was NOT made clear in the main text. If there is reliable content, insert it in the text.Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've now looked quickly at most of your sources, some of them emphasise DIPLOMATIC support and pressure on the UN. One speaks of arms deliveries for a period (which didn't arrive, according to the same source), one speaks of about 12,000 volunteers from 12 countries (inc Turkey), two I couldn't access, one seems to be a blog and the final Turkish source translates very badly, but refers to about 170 volunteers from Turkey. I think it would be very hard to justify Turkey as an ACTIVE participant on the strength of these sources, though there may be other relevant info in them.Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

UNPROFOR casualties

The article states that "There were significant casualties on the part of International Troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some 320 soldiers of UNPROFOR were killed during this conflict in Bosnia". This is tagged as requiring a citation. I tried to find one for the 320 UNPROFOR deaths figure today, and quickly came across contradictory figures in the sources. There are some sources that do indeed say 320, such as this and this, but then there are others that say 326, such as this and this. We could perhaps get around this issue by saying "around 320" or something similar, but then the UN's own UNPROFOR page says there were 167 fatalities! Any thoughts? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's good it was tagged. Never take anything for granted. Quis separabit? 19:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

At least two of the 320-ish figures refer to 'casualties' (ie not fatalities?), is this the reason for the discrepancy? I would have thought that UNPROFOR casualties were easier to count accurately than others. Unless the discrepancy is resolvable, with such a huge margin, I can only think it appropriate to put both figures (crediting them to claimants).Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did wonder if there was the difference between casualties and fatalities, and that the two might have become confused between sources. I'll keep looking, and see if I can find some contemporary sources that could clarify. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure the fatalities/casualties distinction does explain it, as this source reports 167 fatalities and 924 casualties. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this source says "over 167", but also notes that these weren't all necessarily in Bosnia itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

212 fatalities in this source... Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This source from May 1995 states that there had been 155 casualties up until April 1995. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Such a huge discrepancy seems strange, with civilians, with 'the other side' (or where there were propaganda value) it would be more understandable. You would think that UNPROFOR deaths would be easily verifiable.Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite! I've asked the editor who added the 320 figure to the UNPROFOR article if they remember where it came from, which might help, but it was more than 10 years ago so it's a big ask. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The 212 figure (using Am Med Assoc figures) appears to be counting illness, which it also puts as 21% average of all the operation's deaths, that might explain THAT discrepancy.Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I have reviewed my printed documentation (Bosnie, Anatomie d'un Conflit by Xavier Bougarel; Croire et Oser by Philippe Morillon; and Histoire de la Bosnie-Herzégovine, by Thierry Mudry) without finding these numbers. That triggered a vague memory of struggling to find some of these statistics at the time, and I might have pulled this from some UN web page. I am sorry to be unable to help you further, and I regret not having have more meticulous sourcing standards at the time.

Do not hesitate to ask me further if I can be of help, for instance should you need references from the books I mentionned above or if you have French sources to review.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Rama. I don't blame you at all for not being more meticulous back in 2004 - Wikipedia was a different place then! Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Another source reports 79 fatalities (34 from hostile action, of which 22 were in Bosnia) as of March 1994. This source also reports 79. This source reports 124 fatalities as of 9 November 1994. It seems quite a big jump from that to 320 by the end of the war. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Peacemaker67 served as a UN peacekeeper in the Balkans. Can you help shed any light on this, Peacemaker? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

G'day all, part of the problem is that there were several UN-approved operations in the former Yugoslavia at the same time. My recollection is that the UN figure is about right for deaths as at March 1995 (320 is way out), but UNPROFOR continued to operate until the handover to IFOR in December of that year, and I am personally aware of at least half-a dozen deaths from traffic accidents, mines and snipers, four Brits in a helicopter crash, plus the two French soldiers killed in the Battle of Vrbanja bridge. As in all conflicts, it would include deaths from injury and illness. We should always differentiate between deaths (fatalities) and casualties (injuries/illness/wounds). Lack of a definitive figure is probably due to the lack of comprehensive historical work done by the UN, as any UN force consists of many contributing nations, who all do their historical documentation separately (or poorly or not at all). UN headquarters fold at the end of an operation, and their documentation just isn't archived and researched in the way national forces documentation is. Sorry I can confirm the exact figure. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker67, that's super useful. I wasn't expecting you to come up with an exact figure, so don't worry about that. All of the references I've found to 320/326 seem to be from post-2000, and I'm suspicious that that figure doesn't seem to be mentioned sooner after the end of the mission. I think that, for now, I'll report the UN fatalities figure in the article, clearly attributing it to its source. Suggestions on how to reflect the disagreement between sources would be welcome, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't cite Peacemaker67, though his account makes more sense than anything else so far! The UN figure does specifically say up to March '95, it is a RS fact that SOME deaths occurred beyond that date (specifically the French at Vrbanja bridge). Is it sustainable to insert the March date and say that several(?) are known to have died after that date? Is it worthwhile to say that other sources claim a higher figure? Not sure of answer to either.Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure either! There's also the question of how many of the UNPROFOR fatalities were suffered in Bosnia and how many were elsewhere... Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I wondered whether the discrepancy between 320-ish and 170-ish was caused by later authors 'lumping in' all peace-making/keeping actions in FormerYR (some of the 320 sources don't specifically say 'UNPROFOR'). I checked out the UN site for other UN FormerYR actions, but some had small figures, some no figures (and probably had no 'military deaths'). NATO air support deaths would probably not be included by the UN, but they are not numerous, I believe. Equally IFOR deaths.

I think that the 'several others' after the mandate expired might be worth saying. I also think that saying that some were accidents & natural causes is worth saying. Unless there is some good reason, I think it is legit to ignore the 320-ish figures, since we aren't sure of the basis of calculation. One problem with in/outside Bosnia, is that 'outside' might include some directly related deaths, however if there were a clear IN figure, I think that again would be worth noting. Re-reading much of the article today, I think it a bit clogged in places with excess detail and repetitions.Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC) … … ps (unconnected) good link replacement, there's also one on genocidal rape, which I decided NOT to use as the sentence refers to ALL three ethnic groups and only one is accused of using rape genocidally.Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My only concern with mentioning that there were more fatalities after the mandate ended is that while the source states that the duration of UNPROFOR was until March 1995, parts of the document go beyond that (see the estimated expenditures), and I suppose there's a chance that the fatality statistics extend beyond March 1995 too. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine, we already clearly state these are UN figures (ie not facts). I think brief mention that these include natural causes etc. is worthwhile, if only because most people would tend to assume otherwise.Pincrete (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, but do we know that the UN figure does include those deaths (sorry if I've missed something, but all these different sources have confused me!)? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can do much better than what we have (short of some reliable explanation for other figures). Some sources speak of deaths from hostile action, which would be interesting (but would these include stepping on a mine, or accidents as an indirect result?). More questions than answers, but as I said, what we have is prob. the best we can do. It is surprising that such an important matter is so poorly documented.Pincrete (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, I think it's this source that includes non-combat deaths, as opposed to the UN one. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, apologies, I read your 'do we know?' as 'we DO know'. I was relying on the general remarks in the sources and Peacemaker's remarks that ALL deaths are ordinarily included. If you are fairly clear that I am wrong, undo me, I'm busy elsewhere at this very moment.Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I'll remove it for now as I don't think we can say that for sure and the UN source is unclear about what it does include. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible that the discrepancy is because some sources may count casualties in Bosnia only, and others include war in Croatia as well? FkpCascais (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That's been discussed as a possibility, but the sources aren't clear enough about what they're referring to to really tell. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think the answer is no, because the UN webpage covers UNPROFOR as a whole, not just in Bosnia, and is the source of the lower figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Larry on FkpCascais's specific point, though a distinct possibility is that SOME are throwing in ALL International operations in formerYR up to 2000-ish, which, if true makes them valueless here.14:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)

I would suggest that you simply put the death toll at 167-326 (lower and higher toll), cite the sources, and let the reader decide if he should trust it or not based on the given sources. EkoGraf (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that works in this case. In some sources, it's unclear what/when/where is being counted and therefore may not even belong in this article.Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Impact of the war … neutrality ?

A neutrality tag was recently added to the Impact of the war section by Rms125a@hotmail.com. I'm not sure why. The opening sub-section Civil war or a war of aggression certainly seems 'off-topic' for the section and probably should be moved. My own feelings are that the whole article could do with some copy-editing and pruning, but wonder whether some more extensive criticism is meant.Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

HI. I reviewed the section and it was precisely Civil war or a war of aggression to which I was referring. I removed the tag as apparently some re-editing is pending. Thanks. Yours. Quis separabit? 21:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the sub-section to its own section but not edited it. A more apt title seems called for.Pincrete (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Massive civilian casualties.

Alan.Ford.Jn, I have just partly reverted you, your edits are here:[15] and here:[16]. What I left intact was the " Massive civilian casualties, for the Bosnian Muslim ethnic group." (I added the word 'mainly') in the info box. I presume it is this that you are referring to as having been discussed. You reinstated several errors of grammar, also several unsourced descriptions of books and I personally don't understand WHY it is better to say 'massive casualties' rather than give actual figures or link to those figures.

I had previously removed the names of the three main ethnic groups inserted by another editor (because saying 'Massive civilian casualties, for the Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs' is the same as saying for almost EVERYONE), but I linked to actual civilian casualty figures. However IF it is the general wish that Bosniaks be identified as the most numerous victims, I am happy to accept that. I am writing this partly for your benefit, as if I have misunderstood something, could we resolve it here? Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Update I've replaced 'massive' with actual (approx.) figures and replaced 'total' with soldiers figures, thus [17]. An alternative would be a single para 'approx. 100,000 total of whom at least X,000 were civilians.Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Pincrete, I think that works well. My only query is with the use of the 60,000 figure for military fatalities. The DRC source suggests fewer (and I presume that the civilian fatalities figure is based on that, judging by the table). Cordless Larry (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, yes you are right, I was slightly 'averaging' the two sets of figures used in the main body and adding 'Approx.' to justify. But it makes more sense to rely on the more recent RDC figures, hence I've modified thus [18].Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Using Prometej casualty figures

EkoGraf, I've just reverted your change of casualty figures as I feel a case needs to be made that the 'Prometej' figures are more reliable than the RDC ones. The article currently relies on the RDC figures in both info box and in the text. The info box should reflect what the text says or the article becomes 'internally inconsistent'. It may well be that there are good reasons for including the Prometej figures somewhere, but I feel a case has to be made for doing so.Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC) … … … After some research, I discover that the 'Prometej' figures are in fact the RDC figures in the 2007 'Bosnian Book of the Dead', the figures used in the article claim to be 2009 (ie more recent). However, 'our' RDC link is now dead and does not appear to be posted on any other site. Therefore I propose using the 'Prometej' link in some way (as an external?).Pincrete (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This source might be helpful, Pincrete. It's not the original RDC source, but an assessment of the RDC statistics. It states the the Bosnian Book of the Dead reported 39,199 civilian deaths, 1,034 police and 56,662 soldiers (p. 30). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hang on, that assessment is of the 2006 version of the RDC figures, so perhaps it's not that helpful after all. Surely if the figures were updated in 2009, this will have attracted more media attention. I'll see what else I can find in terms of secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an academic source reporting the figures. A footnote states: "We acknowledge with gratitude the data personally provided by RDC Director Mirsad Tokača on 8 June 2012, within days of the final tabulation". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

These figures seem consistent with those reported by the media. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The first source seems excellent, final figures which are unlikely to go 'dead'. Since text needs also to be updated (as well as info box), I'll look later.Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

2012 RDC casualty figures

Using the 2012 figures supplied by Larry above, I intend to update the casualty section (and mentions in lead & info box etc.). Rather than 'live editing', I intend to 'sandbox' the necessary changes and at the same time do some copy-editing/tidying. I've therefore created a sandbox here User:Pincrete/sandboxpublic, anyone wishing to join in/comment is welcome to do so.Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I've left a message on your talk page re 'casualties', as I hope you see the intention is to use the most recent RDC figures in both text and 'boxes' and to update the text accordingly. Also I think it slightly preferable to use a source in English, if two equally up to date ones are available. Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC) … … ps I THINK that the most up to date figures are 'Larry's' above. 'Prometej', although printed in 2013, refers to the Bos Bk otD as its source, that CAN refer to the database, but more usually refers to the actual book (2007). In many ways it does not matter WHICH figures we use, since changes are small between 2006-12, SO LONG AS we state clearly which we are using and don't have confusing contradictions between text and boxes.Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete Firstly, in regards to your revert. Like I said in the edit summary. The source is not Prometej itself. The figures cited by Prometej are per the Bosnian book of the dead (which is published by the RDC and their official and latest figures). I also provided a Reuters source confirming Prometej's figure is correct. The earlier RDC figure you cited in the article is from June 2009 (highly out-of-date) and plus that RDC link is dead. This figure (my figure as you put it) is from January 2013 and up-to-date. Its not from 2007 as you said. The official figure per Reuters from January 2013 and Prometej's figure both match. I do not see a reason not to use Prometej as a source even if its not in English. However, we can use both Larry's and Prometej's figures (both sources) because I checked and they both also match. Both sets of figures cite 95,940 sorted and 5,100 unsorted deaths. This is further confirmation that Prometej's figure is also the latest one and not from 2007. The book refered to by Prometej is the updated 4-volume version announced in January 2013. The one from 2007 that you mentioned was an unfinished version. However, there is a slight problem with Larry's figure (which we can still use for a breakdown by nationalities). Unlike Prometej's figures, Larry's figure breaks down the civilians and soldiers per nationality and not per military allegiance. You had Croatian soldiers serving in Bosnian ranks and Bosnian soldiers serving in Serbian ranks, etc. The Prometej figures give a breakdown per exact military groups: ARBiH, HVO, HV, VRS, APWB. EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why we can't cite both sources. We can also report the breakdowns both by ethnicity and by side in the conflict. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry That's what I had in mind. To use both sources. Your source Larry is excellent for a breakdown by nationality (Bosnia, Serbian, Croat) while the Prometej source is appropriate for a breakdown by which side they belonged to. EkoGraf (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I acknowledge my original revert may have been wrong as I hadn't properly read the 'Prometej' article (as I say in the sub-section immediately above). I'm not COMPLETELY sure though that Prometej ARE the latest figures, as although the article is 2013, it isn't made explicit when the figures are from. I am trying to tidy phrasing and whichever source we use, text and info boxes should align in order that we don't create a sea of unexplained contradictions. I agree that there is no reason to not refer to both sources. I think we need to be CERTAIN which are the final figures and use those for info boxes, however we refer to the other sources (Prometej is an informative article as well as having sourced info … ditto the 'Reuters'). I will look closely at the two sets of figures over the weekend to see where they match/contradict to see if that provides clues, it's possible we are disagreeing about nothing. I certainly agree that the 'additional breakdowns' in Prometej could be referred to and linked to even if they aren't the most recent.Pincrete (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete I think both Prometej and Larry's source have the most recent numbers because the Prometej overall toll of 95,940 dead sorted matches perfectly with Larry's source. Same goes for both sources male/female figures (86,039/9,901). So in essence, they both aligned perfectly in those tolls at least. You look it over and let us know. EkoGraf (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I think you are probably right, I simply didn't have time to put the two figures alongside each other last night, I will do so soon.Pincrete (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC) … … oops, Google books have locked me out of 'Larry's' source, so I can't look at it till Mon/Tue. In the meantime I'm still trying to tidy/update the text of the casualty section. … … ps the RDC page is also wildly out of date and 'unloved'.Pincrete (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are the figures by ethnic group from the book, for easy reference:

	Civilians	Soldiers	Total
Bosniaks	31,107	30,906	62,013
Serbs	4,178	20,775	24,953
Croats	2,484	5,919	8,403
Others	470	101	571
Unknown			5,100
Total	38,239	57,701	101,040

Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry,EkoGraf Thanks for the effort, I've actually got to a fairly advantaged stage here, of rejigging text, refs and boxes. Not until trying to work on it did I realise that the lead info box is now (thanks to EkoGraf) 2012, the casualties numbers box is 2009, while the text refers to 2007 figures. One small problem is my RDC numbers box doesn't outline properly. Any ideas? Pincrete (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm rubbish at tables, and don't actually know what you mean by that. Is it that the borders aren't working properly? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes SOME borders don't show correctly, but that's a detail, main consideration is whether text works. I just thought you or somebody might be be more format literate than I, but we're clearly both rubbish in that dept.Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you also Pincrete. When you are done with the table and rewriting the casualties section I will look it over as well. EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf, most of the text is re-written, there are a couple of points about methodology and results which I haven't phrased, but they are obvious notes, here. … … ps Apologies, you were quite right about Prometej, figures although proofs that they are 2012 are implicit rather than explicit ('10 years of work etc') therefore we need both.Pincrete (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete No problemo. :) EkoGraf (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Casualty section update

I am about to replace the casualty section as per above discussion.

My principal objective was to update text and boxes to reflect 2012 figures. Along the way I have 'pruned' or added some details and moved text. For clarity normally, rather than altering content or 'weight'.

The first paras now cover early estimates/problems of counting.

Within RDC I have made references to 2007 figures 'historical', in order to retain press descriptions and refs to methodology. I include only the 2007 total and a small amount of other text related to 2007 figures.

Within RDC, details of breakdown of figures now refer to 2012 'final' figures. I have moved tables to sit alongside text, percentage figures are my own calculations. A figure of 5,100 is variously referred to as 'Unknown' 'Unsorted' etc. in different 'breakdowns' of figures. Although I suspect 'Unsorted' is more accurate (since, for example, you cannot NOT know the gender of a dead or missing person), I have used the term 'Unknown' which is the term used in the main English source.

In general I have tried to remove use of 'casualties' where it could be ambiguous (prefering deaths), and removed other ambiguous or 'unfortunate' phrasing. I have generally removed descriptors (eg massive) when refering to casualty numbers.

I have updated some refs (to Wayback or to new source), and tried to mark dead or cit needed text (where I thought a ref. was attainable).

The sub-headings were largely for my own convenience, but could remain. A better final sub-heading could probably be chosen, since it is largely an 'anything else' category. I am unsure about retaining parts of 'Haris Silajdžić', towards the end, parts of which are unref'd and may be OR.

Minor point, but all borders do not show on the RDC casualty figures box, anyone know how to fix? Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on this, Pincrete. Where do the borders appear to be missing to you, because they look fine to me? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bottom of table (unknown status), but let everyone crucify me about the text changes first!Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That's got a border on my screen! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Further to my point above, the infobox states 'additional 5,100 killed in unknown circumstances [19], 'unknown circumstances' IS the term used in the source (Reuters), however this is the same 5,100 referred to as 'Unknown/ethnicity/gender/military status' etc in sources used for the figures. My suspicion is that the most accurate description is 'unsorted' or 'uncertain' (ie that sufficient data is missing to be unable to 'finalise' this individual), however no exact definition is given in the sources. My concern is that 'killed in unknown circumstances' is slightly ambiguous/misleading as it could just mean 'we don't know exactly HOW they died'. Is there a clearer term?Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This interview with Mirsad Tokača might be helpful (p. 22). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Extremely helpful and interesting, I will peruse and see where it can be used. As I thought, the 5,100 figure is the number about which some or other vital piece of info is missing, and is therefore not 'finalised'. Probably 'killed in unknown circumstances' is as precise as one can be.Pincrete (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The war began on March 1 and not on 6 April.

The situation is contradictory in itself. Where has it that in a country battles for cities to start a month before the war? It sounds ridiculous. This one has to be clarified. It became unbearable.--Baba Mica (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's often the case that wars are preceded by isolated incidents of violence. Dating the exact start of a conflict is difficult, and there is often disagreement, but we need to go by what the sources state. At present, the article cites a number of sources in support of 6 April as the start date. Can you provide some that give 1 March as the start date of the war? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a useful source, which we could use to explain that there is debate about the precise start date. I quote: "There is even some disagreement over the date on which the war began: the Bosnian Serbs argue that it started on 1 March 1992, with the shooting of a guest at a Serbian wedding in Sarajevo; others maintain that it began with the recognition by the European Community (EC) of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent state, on 6 April 1992". It then notes that the latter is the more common view. Cordless Larry (talk)

I think the wedding date is fairly problematic, it's a single death with no sign of it being 'organised/political' (it's referred to in Death of Yugoslavia Book ch.15 and more detail elsewhere of how the incident was portrayed in Srb media, and 'fuelled the fires') … the claim, if legitimated should be in text rather than infobox, since it is SO disputed.Pincrete (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the article text should at least mention that there is disagreement about when the war started. A Google search reveals a number of different start dates. This source surveys some of the possible dates. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that the disagreement should be included. Though health warning, Corwin is largely discredited and claims, for example, that as many Serbs as Bosniaks were killed at Srebrenica, the total of both being 3000, he might have got dates right though!Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well we clearly need to be careful about sources, but I'm sure there are plenty that discuss different possible start dates. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly no reason to NOT use him here, having read the piece, it puts into context the various claimed dates. Death In Y gives a slightly different description of the 'wedding incident', but equally supports that date as being the one pro-Serb sources often claim.Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, well I've made some additions. I've not used the Corwin source or mentioned the wedding incident yet, but perhaps we should. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about that, as we would need to give reasons for each date. Might be worth noting that the April 6th date is both recognition and start of a number of military actions (by VRS, I believe), those 2 events, I think, are the 'point of no return'. Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added this based on Hammond, but feel free to edit it as you see fit. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, I moved this material to a new chronology section (the structure of the article seemed odd to me, so I borrowed some headings from World War II). You then re-added it to the 1992 section. Did you mean to duplicate it? I can see the case for covering this there too, but perhaps we should use the exact same phrasing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, no, edit conflict possibly, but I was doing some tidying and moving and thought I'd accidentally removed yours. Your place is better and I will fix.Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about that, as we would need to give reasons for each date. Might be worth noting that the April 6th date is both recognition and start of a number of military actions (by VRS, I believe), those 2 events, I think, are the 'point of no return'. Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Pincrete. You mean to say that the war began military operations of the VRS. You forget one fact. The best example is Sijekovac. The massacre in Sijekovac did HV. Killed the 47 civilians. The crime took place on 26 March. It is actually Croatian invasion in BiH. Army neighboring state had done the crime. Is not this aggression? As for the military operations of the VRS, they started on April 1st. The same day, the JNA began operations. It started with Bijeljina. There has killed over 50 civilians by paramilitaries. Is not that war? As far as I know, March 26 and April 1, before the 6th of April. March 1st start, and everything else is a chain reaction. There is a lot of evidence about incidents and crimes between March 1 and April 6. I will send new information. Here's an example before our eyes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sijekovac_killings .--Baba Mica (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't understand your English nor your arguments, and think this is probably WP:OR. You still don't seem willing to understand how WP works, which is not your opinion, nor my opinion, but what the majority of RS say. IF there are notable historians who trace the beginning of the war to 'Sijekovac', then that information could be added to the article, otherwise it is simply one of many events leading up to the war. The 'Sijekovac' article anyhow makes it clear that it is still not certain what happened there. We are here to record history, not write it. Pincrete (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate what Pincrete has said, to say that the war started with the Sijekovac killings, we would need a source that says exactly that. Just giving examples isn't enough - we need a source that clearly states that the war started on 26 March. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I have an idea. To edit a special article about the conflict before April. My idea is to be called Bosnian clash 1992, 1992 unrest in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Civil uprising phase of the Bosnian War...

1 March – 5 April 1992(1 month and 4 days) --Baba Mica (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

These events are already covered in the background section of the article though (if there are important events that are not covered, they can be added there). An article called "Bosnian clash 1992" would probably fall foul of WP:NOTNEO. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Baba Mica, you now appear to be engaged in an edit war, a number of editors have explained a number of times that the infobox records ONLY the most commonly accepted start date, other interpretations, other dates, events preceding the start belong in the 'background' text (where most of them they are).Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

nb I have removed a section of this talk page, for edit reason given.Pincrete (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I give up. I set an example of rebellion in Syria before the outbreak of the Civil War. There is a special article about it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of daily politics. I will no longer appear here. Nobody understood me.--Baba Mica (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Baba Mica, there's nothing stopping you from creating a new article if you want to, providing you have the sources, but my point is that what you're discussing is already covered in this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

casualty figures

User:EkoGraf, regarding this edit, the reason for including the 'basis of calculations', is that there have been numerous calculations, employing different criteria. Some include all war related deaths (inc. disease away from war zones, or increases in criminal activity during war-time for example), some discount non-combat deaths (eg a person dying as an indirect result of battle conditions, but within a battle area). The figures we use and the criteria they employ are the generally most regarded ones, and the ones which are most fully explained. The inclusion of the criteria, was to clarify what the basis of the figures we are using was, and is a brief expression of those criteria. Of course it is understood that all deaths are 'war related', but that itself is a flexible term. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC) … ps, partly, the sentence is there to prevent other, less reliable figures, employing looser criteria from being inserted. Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Pincrete If you check all Wikipedia military infoboxes you will see most, if not all, include only deaths directly attributed to their respective conflicts. Thus, like I already said, making this sentence highly redundant. Besides, it was already explained the overcounting done in the early stages had been dealt with over the following years and that the current figures are for those that only died as a consequence of the war itself. EkoGraf (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:EkoGraf, OK, I tend to work on the premise that anything in relation to FYR wars needs to be 'cast-iron', rather than on 'conflict precedent'. Re PS If you revert me again I won't revert back because I'm not seeing a point for an edit war, I had no intention of doing so, Sir! Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that there are a variety of casualty figures for the Bosnian conflict, and the subject has been the subject of considerable controversy, I think there might be a case to qualify the infobox figure here, even if this is not the norm for such infoboxes. The most important thing is that the figures are explained in the main body of the article, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Larry, they are explained and ref'd, the problem is that a simple explanation of what is in/out is difficult since the orig. criteria are long, however the brief explanation is fairly accurate. Things like the siege of Sarajevo and the criminal nature of basic supplies to the city, make any criteria a bit problematic, which the authors acknowledge. Pincrete (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Pincrete Only wanted to say that if you reverted back I would not push the issue further and would drop it, since I'm fine with it ether way, but simply thought the sentence was un-needed. But again, if you want to re-insert it, I wouldn't argue or object about it any further. EkoGraf (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

We'll let Larry have the casting vote!Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I prefer inclusion, but it would be good to see other editors' views. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

False figures

Why is here Muslim propaganda figure listed as actual losses of Serb armed forces and civilians ? Actual number of losses is around 16 000 soldiers and 14 000 civilians, to list only 3 500 Serb civilians as killed is an insult to the victims. Only around Srebrenica there ware from 3200-3900 killed Serbs more than half of them civilians. I won't bother to list other sites of mass killings because I don't want to turn this into political discussion. Real figures should be listed and not maximum/minimum propaganda numbers of one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.199.254.246 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 January 2016‎ (UTC)

If you want to include different figures in the article, then you need to provide reliable sources for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Bosnian" War

Naming this was "Bosnian War" is the same as naming American Civil War - "Texan War". Suggestion : "War in Bosnia and Herzegovina" or "Bosnia-Herzegovina War" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.133.116 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Article names on Wikipedia are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the subject. See WP:COMMONNAME. If you have evidence that either of your suggestions is the most commonly employed in sources, please do provide it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bosnian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218063430/http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/utenriks/4260912.html to http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/utenriks/4260912.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/balkans-thousands-still-missing-two-decades-after-conflicts-2012-08-29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)