Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Vukovar: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→top: +{{Section sizes}}
 
(54 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Talk header}}
{{British English|date=September 2011}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Article history
|action1=WPR
|action1=WPR
|action1date=00:21, 25 July 2006
|action1date=00:21, 25 July 2006
Line 27: Line 28:
|currentstatus=FA
|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=November 18, 2011
|maindate=November 18, 2011
|otd1date=2006-11-18|otd1oldid=88597137
|otd2date=2007-11-18|otd2oldid=172297783
|otd3date=2008-11-18|otd3oldid=252656328
|otd4date=2009-11-18|otd4oldid=326455917
|otd5date=2010-11-18|otd5oldid=397522517
|otd6date=2012-11-18|otd6oldid=523493002
|otd7date=2014-11-18|otd7oldid=634194888
|otd8date=2016-11-18|otd8oldid=750003534
|otd9date=2021-11-18|otd9oldid=1055881316
|otd10date=2022-11-18|otd10oldid=1122578984
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|1=
{{British English|date=September 2011}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=FA
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPMILHIST|class=FA
|A-Class=fail
|A-Class=fail
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
Line 42: Line 52:
|B-Class-4= yes
|B-Class-4= yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5= yes|old-peer-review=yes
|B-Class-5= yes|Balkan-task-force=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes
|Balkan-task-force=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes
}}
}}
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Croatia|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Croatia|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=mid}}
}}
}}
{{contentious topics/talk notice|b}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2006-11-18|oldid1=88597137|date2=2007-11-18|oldid2=172297783|date3=2008-11-18|oldid3=252656328|date4=2009-11-18|oldid4=326455917|date5=2010-11-18|oldid5=397522517|date6=2012-11-18|oldid6=523493002|date7=2014-11-18|oldid7=634194888|date8=2016-11-18|oldid8=750003534}}
{{press
{{press
| title = Simbol pobjede, ambijent poraza
| title = Simbol pobjede, ambijent poraza
Line 60: Line 69:
| archivedate = 30 June 2012
| archivedate = 30 June 2012
}}
}}
{{Section sizes}}


== infobox HOS Šilić matter ==
== Thatcher ==

: In September 1998, [[Margaret Thatcher]] visited the ruins of the city and used it in a speech as a symbol for "eight years of Western weakness" and "failure of appeasement" when compared to "naive negotiators trying to reason with Milošević".<ref>[[#Congressional Record|Congressional Record]], page 8957</ref>
{{reflist}}
* {{cite web|ref=Congressional Record|title=Congressional Record, V. 145, Pt. 6, April 28, 1999 to May 10, 1999|year=2004|url=http://books.google.hr/books?id=8hGwXHr0eNEC&dq=margaret+thatcher+vukovar&hl=hr&source=gbs_navlinks_s|publisher=Government Printing Office|accessdate=14 April 2012}}

I'm removing the above part of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vukovar&diff=487367925&oldid=486438252 this edit] - the edit is hardly self-explanatory and Thatcher's opinion seems largely inconsequential. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 16:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:What exactly is the problem with Thatcher visiting Vukovar? You have to be more precise about that than just saying she was "inconsequential". Currently, under reference no. 167, even this kind of language is tolerated ("''They were helped by Central European scum. They crawled from under the papal tiara, as a dart of the serpent's tongue that protruded from the bloated Kraut and overstretched Eurocommunal anus''"), but her's is problematic?--[[User:Justice and Arbitration|Justice and Arbitration]] ([[User talk:Justice and Arbitration|talk]]) 12:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

:: The problem is [[WP:FACR]], as usual - additions of paragraphs of, well, less than brilliant prose, need to be substantiated with edit summaries at the very least. In particular, this doesn't seem like a secondary source. Does anyone else other than Thatcher think that her opinion on that is important enough to mention? That's the kind of content that wouldn't be a problem. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 18:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

::: I haven't found a single news article about it. It simply doesn't seem to have made much public impact. Thatcher is not exactly a consequential figure in the story of Vukovar anyway, considering she was out of office at the time of the battle. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 19:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

::::I think that the visit of a former prime minister of UK is far more noteworthy than including rants and silly phrases of no-name nationalists like Stanković and others. At least a mention that she visited the town should be warranted.--[[User:Justice and Arbitration|Justice and Arbitration]] ([[User talk:Justice and Arbitration|talk]]) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Tell you what, could you see if you can find any news articles about it? That way we would be able to get a better idea of its noteworthiness. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

== DW reference ==

* {{cite news | ref =Seeney | last =Seeney | first = Helen | url = http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,2129420,00.html| title = Croatia: Vukovar is Still Haunted by the Shadow of its Past| newspaper = Deutsche Welle | date = 22 August 2006 | accessdate = 14 April 2012}}

This reference is missing newspaper page number, which is FA standard (at least it was when the article passed FA). --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

:It's OK, Joy - if it's an online news story it doesn't need a page number. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 18:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

== Archiving ==

I have archived the "News reports" sub-section in the "References" section. Few links have been left unarchived because I was unable to archive them due to errors that occure during the process of archiving. --<font face="Old English Text MT">[[User talk:Wustenfuchs|<font size="3" color="Black">Wustenfuchs</font>]]</font> 16:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

== Early shelling ==

I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vukovar&diff=614149096&oldid=613316432 this edit] which had added July text in May content:

: Major shelling of Vukovar began on 4 July 1991 and thereafter the town was shelled regularly by the JNA and Croatian Serb forces, inflaming tension further. ref Prosecutor vs Mile Mrksic et al, 33-34 /ref

But it stands to reason that this claim does indeed exist in the relevant [http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mrksic/tjug/en/070927.pdf Trial Chamber Judgement] on pages 12-13:

: JNA forces sporadically shelled parts of Vukovar in June, July and August 1991. Houses in the centre of Vukovar as well as the Vukovar hospital were hit and damaged and civilians were wounded. The first significant shelling occurred on 4 July 1991. The predominately Croat Borovo Naselje was targeted from the direction of the predominately Serb Borovo Selo. In June and July 1991, shelling would take place once a day or every two days in Vukovar. The intensity grew on a daily basis.

The Appeals Judgements don't seem to mention this (I searched for "July", didn't find anything of relevance), so it seems that it stands. The association of JNA with these early mortars in Borovo Selo is somewhat tenuous, but the court did in fact seem to make it there. The article currently mentions 'repeated gun and bomb attacks' in the relevant place, referenced to a BBC report at the time. This source may have issues, but it's certainly better than news reports. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 22:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

== Duplicated ref argument ==

There are two cite news templates with duplicate refs:
* "Preminuo general Veljko Kadijević"
* "Blagoje Adžić je poveo totalni rat protiv Hrvatske"
Just a heads up, not sure which is correct. [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] ([[User talk:GregorB|talk]]) 12:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

== Serial commas ==

[[User:Geraldshields11]], I noticed you added a lot of commas. This is a featured article that has been proofread numerous times, so I'm not sure if we really need this mass style change. I agree with some of those placements, but some others appear excessive (cf. [[MOS:COMMA]]). I'm also not sure if we need to change to use the [[serial comma]] here, because a) the article is tagged as written in British English where this practice is less common, so it could be argued that you're messing with [[MOS:ENGVAR]] b) the article becomes internally inconsistent while you're changing this, which is against [[MOS:SERIAL]]. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 10:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
: Dear {{ping|user:Joy}}, Thank you for mentioning my wikignome work with the '''Oxford comma'''. Perhaps, editors can recast the sentences to remove whatever becomes internally inconsistent. Let us work together to make good articles great. [[User:Geraldshields11|Geraldshields11]] ([[User talk:Geraldshields11|talk]]) 17:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

== Displaced civilians ==

Knowing this is a Featured Article, I was expecting a certain amount of verifiability. You can imagine my shock and surprise when I found that one of the sources used to uphold the figure of 31,000 ethnically cleansed residents (the ICTY indictment of Milosevic) actually states 20,000 were deported. The other source mentions 31,732 people displaced from the Vukovar region as a whole, but gives no timetable as to when this displacement occurred nor a breakdown of who carried out the expulsions, if indeed every single one of the people included in the aforementioned figure was indeed forcibly expelled/ethnically cleansed.

Snooping around the Internet, it soon became clear that the figures 20,000/22,000 are almost always used (in news articles, scholarly literature, etc.), though genocide scholar Bartrop has published two books using the 31,000 figure (probably a case of [[WP:MIRROR]]).

Am I missing something here? [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk:23 editor|talk]]) 23:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

:Davor Marijan in his 2004 book ''[https://books.google.hr/books?id=Y6EkPwAACAAJ Bitka za Vukovar]'' wrote about 22,000 civilians, not 31,000.

:"Prema podacima Glavnog sanitetskog stožera Republike Hrvatske, u Vukovaru je poginulo oko 1100 civila i oko 600 branitelja. Među poginulima bilo je i 86 djece. Ranjeno je 2500 osoba, od čega su 570 ostali trajni invalidi. Bez jednog ili oba roditelja ostalo je 858 djece. Prognano je 22.000 Vukovaraca, a oko 1500 ih je odvedeno u srpske logore." Croatian Wikipedia also gives the 22,000 number. [[User:Tzowu|Tzowu]] ([[User talk:Tzowu|talk]]) 22:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like the input of other users if possible. Perhaps we're missing something? The 22,000 figure should be used, all things considered, IMO. If we fail to attract much attention, I'll be [[WP:BOLD|BOLD]] and make the change. [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk:23 editor|talk]]) 05:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|Tzowu}} Which page is that on? [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk:23 editor|talk]]) 18:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
:::page 284.[[User:Tzowu|Tzowu]] ([[User talk:Tzowu|talk]]) 12:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
:I've made the revision. Open to further discussion if necessary, as always. [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk:23 editor|talk]]) 16:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

==A couple of issues==

"Although the Croatian government sent some supplies and reinforcements in the early stages, the defenders received little of significance. This was partly because of the difficulty of reaching the town, but may also have been a result of the Croatian government's decision to supply large quantities of arms to the [[Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia|Bosnian Croats]] in advance of the [[Bosnian War]]. In doing so, it starved its own forces of weapons and ammunition."

Vukovar was indeed short of ammunition, but so was the entire HV. Official documents on the deployment of weapons and ammunition show that "the total amount of resources provided for equipping the HV", primarily ammunition, "55-60% was engaged for the purpose of the defense of Vukovar and OG Vukovar - Vinkovci - Županja". (Marijan, ''[https://books.google.hr/books?id=Y6EkPwAACAAJ Bitka za Vukovar]'', p. 281. From page 278 to 282 he writes about the weaponry and ammunition that Vukovar received).

The second content in question is this: "A 300-strong HOS battalion named the Black Legion led by Alija Šiljak operated in Vukovar under the Croatian Ministry of the Interior as an "anti-terrorist brigade"." [https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alija_Šiljak Alija Šiljak] fought in eastern Bosnia, and the HOS had 58 fighters in Vukovar (Marijan, p. 29), not 300. [[User:Tzowu|Tzowu]] ([[User talk:Tzowu|talk]]) 20:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on [[Battle of Vukovar]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=781238338 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/03/former-yugoslavia-war-crimes-hunt
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2011/03/war_crimes_ex-yugoslavia
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1362007/FILM.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/26774/suljic-dying-statement-against-mercep-impossible
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/40411/bajics-greatest-weapon-against-war-criminals
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1706658.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/balkans-remember-vukovar--for-the-sake-of-the-dead-and-the-survivors-who-must-bring-it-back-to-life-1138902.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2152008/gradmeta.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/still-hurting-vukovar-seeks-closure-after-hadzics-arrest/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/20/world/croatia-votes-for-sovereignty-and-confederation.html?ref=croatia
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/27/world/attacks-on-croatia-called-worst-of-war.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/21/world/croatian-cityscape-stray-dogs-rows-of-wounded-piles-of-dead.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/122328.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/605266.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2700243.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2795235.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3765199.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4521520.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4796470.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7016290.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8033635.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11689153
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14652784
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jutarnji.hr/davor-butkovic--i-srbi-su-branili-hrvatsku/901195/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Navy-International-2009/Croatia-names-Vukovar-class-FAC-acquired-from-Finland.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jutarnji.hr/pocelo-prvo-javno-sudenje-za-silovanje-u-okupiranom-vukovaru/149706/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jutarnji.hr/umro-marko-babic---odlazak-heroja-s-trpinjske-ceste/181177/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Spektar/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/71670/Default.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=698CE4D1-DC27-4E80-BCAD-A997BA10DFE2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Croatian-President-Says-No-Innocents-Will-Be-Convicted-of-War-Crimes-130369768.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430024215/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/anx/III-A.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/anx/III-A.htm

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

==Unusual edit==
I call upon Wikipedia users to give their opinion on this edit done by user:23 Editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vukovar&diff=787293338&oldid=787248794]. It seems questionable. No explanation was given: is it a bad source, or wrong wording, or something else? Having more information and details on the casualties is better than less. Either way, I think this is an interesting (and rare) source from a journal on the casualties, and should be included in the article in one form or another: [https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=234140].--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 15:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

::The article presently states that 1,103–1,503 JNA, TO and paramilitaries were killed. Your edit superfluously lists 204 TO members as being killed when the figure of 1,103–1,503 already includes those dead, resulting in confusion as to whether the death toll is higher than that already mentioned. The 550 missing overall is already mentioned, so adding it again is repetitive. The source seems reliable. You are free to re-add the info that→ 147 of the killed civilians were Serbs. That's the only addition I don't see any problem with. [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk:23 editor|talk]]) 15:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

::I do not quite accept your reasoning here. In the Infobox, in the "Units involved" section, the Yugoslav People's Army is included - and yet it is still broken down into Yugoslav Ground Forces, Yugoslav Navy and Yugoslav Air Force. I just did the same under the casualties section: yes, 1,103–1,503 were killed overall, and it was broken down into TO losses. On one hand, I can accept the argument that we don't have other figures for the dead (paramilitary, etc.), so we can leave the Infobox as it is - but why was it necessary to remove the entire info from the text, including the source? And why would you allow to only include the number of killed Serb civilians, but not also include the number of TO forces killed? --[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 11:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

:I'm happy with the latest addition and don't think anyone will object. [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk:23 editor|talk]]) 15:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on [[Battle of Vukovar]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=790809856 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69QDPkaZV?url=http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/26774/suljic-dying-statement-against-mercep-impossible to http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/26774/suljic-dying-statement-against-mercep-impossible
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/20/world/croatia-votes-for-sovereignty-and-confederation.html?ref=croatia
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69RtQCsj5?url=http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Spektar/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/71670/Default.aspx to http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Spektar/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/71670/Default.aspx

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 06:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on [[Battle of Vukovar]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=802020675 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161213060252/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/118/18422.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/118/18422.pdf
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69QcX2b0K?url=http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1362007/FILM.asp to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1362007/FILM.asp
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69QDJjmrh?url=http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/40411/bajics-greatest-weapon-against-war-criminals to http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/40411/bajics-greatest-weapon-against-war-criminals
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69QdCyH8i?url=http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2152008/gradmeta.asp to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2152008/gradmeta.asp
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69RpNbueP?url=http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/still-hurting-vukovar-seeks-closure-after-hadzics-arrest/ to http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/still-hurting-vukovar-seeks-closure-after-hadzics-arrest/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/20/world/croatia-votes-for-sovereignty-and-confederation.html?ref=croatia
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69Rt88RUB?url=http://www.jutarnji.hr/pocelo-prvo-javno-sudenje-za-silovanje-u-okupiranom-vukovaru/149706/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/pocelo-prvo-javno-sudenje-za-silovanje-u-okupiranom-vukovaru/149706/

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

== Misleading photo ==

I've removed the photo showing a child refugee, which has been in the article for many, many years. According to this [https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdenton/2560391298/in/album-72157605495402717/ Flickr caption ], written up by the individual who photographed the boy, it was actually taken in Dubrovnik. [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk:23 editor|talk]]) 23:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Battle of Vukovar]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=807369005 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024160124/http://www.ronhaviv.com/index.php to http://www.ronhaviv.com/index.php

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 14:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

== "Because you held wounded Croatian soldiers there" ==

Horton says that a pediatrician from the Vukovar hospital heard this in Serbia but doesn't specify ''who'' made the statement. Was it a person on the street or a high-ranking official? Horton's book appears to be the only source in which the exchange is mentioned. If we can't get a concrete answer, I suggest we remove it. [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk:23 editor|talk]]) 17:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

== Background / Ethnic tensions ==

I've changed a sentence which cites "Bassiouni, Annex IV. 28 December 1994" in a misleading way. The fact is that Communist sources and some Serb officials claimed, and some still make claims about exorbitant number of casualties of atrocities ascribed to their adversaries from the 1st half of the 20th century. I suggest to avoid making and discussing such claims here.
It is important that there were such claims and that a part of the population did believe in them, which fueled the ethnic tensions. It is, for this article, not important what parts of that claims are true. --[[User:Zzzrin|Zzzrin]] ([[User talk:Zzzrin|talk]]) 10:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
::The fact that post-war communist historiography spoke of over a million dead doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands of ethnic minorities weren't killed, as reliable sources attest to. Your wording isn't an improvement whatsoever. [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk:23 editor|talk]]) 01:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

== Battle of Vukovar ==

Why are sources being deleted and crimes in Battle of Vukovar being hidden? Some users here like Amanuensis Balkanicus want the crimes in the Battle for Vukovar to be hidden. This is the source that was deleted https://web.archive.org/web/20110106010123/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VIII-10.htm .Please return a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.142.116.206|93.142.116.206]] ([[User talk:93.142.116.206#top|talk]]) 06:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:This is an important fact concerning the Battle of Vukovar and in my opinion should be part of the article. Example: Battle of Stalingrad [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#Aftermath] "During this period of armed conflict with the Germans, the brigade's units killed 2,418 soldiers and officers and captured 8,646 soldiers and officers, escorting them to POW camps and handing them over." "Out of the nearly 91,000 German prisoners captured in Stalingrad, only about 5,000 returned. Weakened by disease, starvation and lack of medical care during the encirclement, they were sent on foot marches to prisoner camps and later to labour camps all over the Soviet Union. Some 35,000 were eventually sent on transports, of which 17,000 did not survive. Most died of wounds, disease (particularly typhus), cold, overwork, mistreatment and malnutrition."
*From source: "Aleksinac: (The existence of this detention facility has been corraborated by multiple sources including the US Department of State). The majority of men from Vukovar were transported to detention facilities in FRY by the JNA and irregular soldiers." "According to testimonies from ex-detainees at least 180 Croatian National Guardsmen from Vukovar were incarcerated in Niš." "Begejci: (The existence of this detention facility has been corroborated by multiple sources, including Helsinki Watch). The village of Begejci is situated near Zrenjanin, Vojvodina. There are several reports of a detention facility existing near Begejci which held mainly Croatian men from Vukovar." etc. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|talk]]) 10:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::The Battle of Vukovar did not end with the fall of the city, reasons of some editors not to include this information in the article such as "Its about Vukovar, not Sremska Mitrovica" I don't know what that should mean, the battle of Vukovar is made up of its inhabitants and soldiers who were after the fall of the city imprisoned in various camps in Serbia and it must be part of the article. @Amanuensis Balkanicus I'm not friend with these editors but I know them from editing articles and let them say their opinion here, you invite all the editors from wikipedia to give their opinion, I don't know what the problem is? [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|talk]]) 18:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Amanuensis Balkanicus explain why you delete what others write on the talk page ,and why a reliable source has been deleted ? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.142.116.206|93.142.116.206]] ([[User talk:93.142.116.206#top|talk]]) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Including any crimes perpetrated by JNA or Serb paramilitaries on people from Vukovar or Croatian forces that occurred during or soon after the battle is entirely appropriate, and in fact necessary for the article to be comprehensive. However, much of what is in the cited source is unclear about whether details provided by witnesses have been confirmed. The existence of several prisons/camps has been, but it isn't clear if the details of what happened to the alleged victims has been confirmed by the reporting agency, it even states "It should also be noted that the Commission had no basis to confirm the information contained in that source material.". So, this source is ok for establishing the existence of detention facilities it has confirmed in which people from Vukovar or Croatian forces that fought at Vukovar were held, but not the alleged actions taken against those held there. I suggest looking for later reports that summarise what crimes occurred during and after the battle. For example, [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=t0nYdgFrdG8C&pg=PA249&dq=crimes+during+and+after+battle+of+vukovar&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiawbuL9sjpAhULyzgGHZYFAE4QuwUIOjAC#v=onepage&q=crimes%20during%20and%20after%20battle%20of%20vukovar&f=false this source] mentions the Ovčara farmhouse facility and the execution of 260 POWs confirmed by the ICTY, it also included the Serbian trials of seven Serb guards that were involved in the massacre, and this should go in the article. In fact, the article says both 200 and 260, this should be amended to 260 as it was the court finding. [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=JB4UBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA392&dq=crimes+during+and+after+battle+of+vukovar&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiawbuL9sjpAhULyzgGHZYFAE4QuwUIUzAF#v=onepage&q=crimes%20during%20and%20after%20battle%20of%20vukovar&f=false This source] also has a good summary of crimes committed. Essentially, this is an FA, and better sources are required. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 02:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a reliable source and should be added to the Battle for Vukovar and other camps where the prisoners were later taken to Serbia. This source is from the Final report of the United Nations Commission of Experts, established pursuant to security council resolution 780 (1992), Annex VIII - Prison camps; Under the Direction of: M. Cherif Bassiouni; S / 1994/674 / Add.2 (Vol. IV), 27 May 1994.
Here are more sources about crimes in Yugoslav wars https://web.archive.org/web/20110430024215/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/anx/III-A.htm this author wrote a book as https://books.google.com/books/about/Crimes_Against_Humanity_in_International.html?id=MbiedpEFzbYC&redir_esc=y so it is a reliable source.
Please edit the article properly. Thanks. Here are more sources https://www.dawn.com/news/67874/11-years-on-croats-still-fear-serb-prison-camp
:As I said, the UNCE report is a reliable source for ''what detention facilities existed'', which is what its purpose was, as clearly explained in its introduction. It isn't a reliable source for ''what happened to the detainees'', for several reasons: it doesn't claim to be (see the intro); it is getting old (over 25 years) and doesn't reflect current academic scholarship on crimes committed during and after the battle; and it clearly states that these are "reports" or "claims" by people, it doesn't say they were investigated and substantiated. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 06:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand ,you are saying that this man M. Cherif Bassiouni is writing lies from the United Nations Commission of Experts?
:I am saying nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that it is reliable for the purpose for which it was intended, which is identifying which detention facilities existed during and after the battle. That is all it claims to do (read the intro to the report). It does not claim to be reliable for the details of what happened to the detainees in those facilities, it just notes that there have been claims made about their treatment, and in some cases, what those claims were. In no way does it claim to be a reliable source for what actually happened to those detainees, or to have investigated their claims and substantiated them. For that, you need to look at scholarly books on the Yugoslav wars (like the ones I have linked and the book you linked written by M. Cherif Bassiouni, and the findings of the ICTY. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 06:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
And then why do some users deny the claim that these facilities existed in Serbia, where the prisoners were later taken away, and delete it from the Battle of Vukovar. It is certain that when they arrived there, they did not enjoy it, but were exposed to abuse, torture and other things, some of them did not return alive. I ask someone to arrange it properly and not to hide crimes and camps.Thank you <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.138.27.53|93.138.27.53]] ([[User talk:93.138.27.53#top|talk]]) 07:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Who is denying these facilities existed? Show me a diff. As far as what happened at these facilities, other sources are needed. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 07:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Commission of Experts, the source is reliable and a report was written immediately a year after the prisoners were taken to Serbia and what was there. What you don't like about what is written in, it's your thing. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.1.189.211|78.1.189.211]] ([[User talk:78.1.189.211#top|talk]]) 08:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I have no opinion about what is written it as long as it is reliable. Some of it is, and some of it isn't. We only include the reliable stuff. Also, Balkans articles are often contentious, and to avoid it appearing that you are using multiple IP addresses to bolster your arguments, I suggest you get an [[WP:ACCOUNT]]. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 09:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the source from "United Nations" these are not some propaganda newspapers ,it is foolish to discuss whether this is a reliable source, so it should be returned what it is users Amanuensis Balkanicus, MareBG, Sadko they deleted, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vukovar&diff=957889439&oldid=957548316 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.1.189.211|78.1.189.211]] ([[User talk:78.1.189.211#top|talk]]) 09:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You clearly aren't reading what I am writing, so there is no point in further discussing this. You clearly don't have consensus for your edits, so drop it. If you persist in edit-warring after the protection is lifted, you will be promptly blocked. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 09:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
All right, don't admit reports from United Nations and spread the propaganda together with them ,and you want hide crimes. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.1.189.211|78.1.189.211]] ([[User talk:78.1.189.211#top|talk]]) 09:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Unfortunately, we need RS which talk about it. Since the reason for moving this information was "Its about Vukovar, not Sremska Mitrovica" I assumed that there was no problem with the source ie that it was vandalism but @Peacemaker67 explained everything and we have to respect that. We need RS. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|talk]]) 09:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:On wikipedia exist articles about this camps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begejci_camp] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staji%C4%87evo_camp] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sremska_Mitrovica_Prison] [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|talk]]) 10:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Normally there are, there are a lot of users who edited those articles, only here they must not be put to know where the prisoners were taken and what happened to them there. Well, the article is about the Battle of Vukovar and it is written that it is known where those prisoners were taken after the battle, so that explanation of "Its about Vukovar, not Sremska Mitrovica" and to delete the source and all that, is a fictional reason. It was deleted to hide the crimes and where those prisoners were later taken. The source is from United Nations. One who denies what is written, then it does not even recognize the United Nations as an institution. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.1.189.211|78.1.189.211]] ([[User talk:78.1.189.211#top|talk]]) 10:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

We need RS to have discussed it, per [[wp:undue]]. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

== Notes <s>Reference</s> section ==

Why are notes <s>refs</s> placed in one column? As a result we have extended page height for more then a hundred and fifty rows (assuming that simple format would placed them into at least three columns).--[[User:Santasa99|<span style="color:maroon;text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;font-size:0.8em;">'''౪ Santa ౪'''</span>]][[User talk:Santasa99|<span style="color:navy;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;font-size:0.7em"><sup>'''''99°'''''</sup></span>]] 10:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
:It looks like many are to the same source, and thus could be merged.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

: It shows up as two columns on my browser. As you can see in the source, the parameter used is colwidth=18em, and you can read more about this in the documentation of {{tl|reflist}}. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

:: The "em" parameter depends on dpi settings on one's own device. For example, 18em (as here) shows up as four columns, 20em as three on my browser (and it's not a huge monitor).--[[User:Tomobe03|Tomobe03]] ([[User talk:Tomobe03|talk]]) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

== Pyrrhic victory ==

This is deprecated in infoboxes per [[WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX]]. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 10:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
:So it says in the source. What will write something that is not? Then it is best to delete the word Pyrrhic victory from the World. You also have a Pyrrhic article so delete it too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory. I see that anyone can edit WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX so I could too. It remains to be seen who wrote it. And he should have gotten a consensus for something like that written, so that would be fine.[[Special:Contributions/93.138.63.81|93.138.63.81]] ([[User talk:93.138.63.81|talk]]) 11:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
::Then a lot of battles need to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Holme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Marshes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Plevna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenkins%27_Ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Defile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Sault ... etc Look at the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Military_history. Then Epirote Victory it does not exist, it must also be written differently here in infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asculum[[Special:Contributions/93.138.63.81|93.138.63.81]] ([[User talk:93.138.63.81|talk]]) 11:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
:::More [[whataboutery]]. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
:As MOS says we should not say it, we should not say it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

:: The manual of style is a guideline, while verifiability is a policy, so this is moot. Surely we can avoid this pointless argument by changing the citations to different reliable sources that use different terms to describe the victory? Can someone do that please? --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

:::Since [[WP:VNOT|verifiability does not guarantee inclusion]], this discussion is very much not moot. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

:::: Sure, but the same two sources that we currently reference for this claim are indeed used elsewhere in the article, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly exceptional about using them also for these claims. Indeed, if we were to remove this qualification that stays true to those sources, if we omitted this bit of information intentionally while continuing to reference them, that would be quite a bit of a problem with regard to the letter and spirit of the verifiability policy. Again, please don't hesitate to present equally good or better sources that simply don't use this qualification for the outcome of the battle, and there we go, problem solved. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

::::: There are two reliable sources that say it was a pyrrhic victory, other sources use language consistent with that. No-one so far has produced a single reliable source that contradicts that description. In general terms, we should reflect what the consensus of reliable sources say. At present they support a description of "pyrrhic victory", and so do the objective facts of the battle, for that matter. This is hardly a controversial description for anyone other than Serbs. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 08:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


There's been repetitive attempts now (from a Latvian IP address) to restore the name of Robert Šilić in the infobox, related to [[Croatian Defence Forces]]. I had removed it as it had been added without a rationale, even if nobody noticed that in quite a while (it happened after the FA review). I see we mentioned this briefly in [[/Archive 3]], but that by itself is not meaningful. It's probably some sort of a political talking point to include or exclude them, which likely shouldn't be relevant for the encyclopedia, instead the inclusion criterion is if and how this matter is described in reliable sources. --[[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 15:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::Nobody is suggesting that can't be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but the inclusion of "Pyrrhic" in the infobox is specifically deprecated. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 12:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


:This also reappeared in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vukovar&diff=prev&oldid=1224175840 this May 2024 edit]. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, the situation is the same as here [[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Szigetv%C3%A1r&action=history]] but they don't respect me because I'm some unimportant IP. I gave an explanation on the talk page [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siege_of_Szigetv%C3%A1r]] why you should stay Pyrrhic victory ,but delete that it is disruptive editing. Sources say differently which are in the article, both sources say that it is a Pyrrhic victory not just victory , but there is no answer, it is just deleted without arguments. I would ask someone there to say, should there be a Pyrrhic victory or not. [[Special:Contributions/93.136.115.120|93.136.115.120]] ([[User talk:93.136.115.120|talk]]) 06:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:02, 20 August 2024

Featured articleBattle of Vukovar is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 18, 2011.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 25, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 19, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 4, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
October 28, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 18, 2006, November 18, 2007, November 18, 2008, November 18, 2009, November 18, 2010, November 18, 2012, November 18, 2014, November 18, 2016, November 18, 2021, and November 18, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

infobox HOS Šilić matter

[edit]

There's been repetitive attempts now (from a Latvian IP address) to restore the name of Robert Šilić in the infobox, related to Croatian Defence Forces. I had removed it as it had been added without a rationale, even if nobody noticed that in quite a while (it happened after the FA review). I see we mentioned this briefly in /Archive 3, but that by itself is not meaningful. It's probably some sort of a political talking point to include or exclude them, which likely shouldn't be relevant for the encyclopedia, instead the inclusion criterion is if and how this matter is described in reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This also reappeared in this May 2024 edit. --Joy (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Vukovar&oldid=1241284418"