Talk:Battle of Borovo Selo/Archive 1

Archive 1

RfC summary

This is a summary for uninvolved editors who come here after reading the Request for Comment.

There have been discussions and edit wars, mainly about the insertion of a particular incident and its verifiability. What follows in this chapter are the summarised views of the two opposing sides, which we may call side A and side B.

NOTE TO THE OPPOSING SIDES: The summary of each side should not be signed by individual contributors, but should concisely present the opinions supported by that side. The total text for each side should not exceed 200 words. Do not edit the other side's summary!

Summary for side A

The insertion of a paragraph alleging the murder of a Serbian civilian by a local Croatian politician, especially as it would serve to justify the crimes that subsequently occurred, is according to Wikipedia’s verifiability policy, an outlandish claim that begs for strong sources. However, the only source provided is a book published by the Serbian Unity Congress, a highly controversial US-based lobbying group. In order to compensate for the fact that other claims in the article are all referenced with highly reputable sources such the ICTY, Jane’s Defence and The Strategic Studies Institute, an attempt was made to substantiate the alleged event by providing a link to an ICTY witness hearing which was on a closer inspection exposed as delusive. This tactic was subsequently abandoned and another link was submitted to “prove” that the book in question is “cited in Croatian newspapers”. The link in question was not even to the Croatian newspaper’s website itself, but to a Serbian site featuring what was suggested to be an English translation of an article that appeared in a Croatian satirical magazine. Even there there was no reference to the alleged crime but only one reference to the book.

(original dispute)

Text was tottaly wrong. In text was written that HDZ was winner of election. But I could only say that Croatian Democratic Union was completely defeated in 1990 multiparty elections in Vukovar primarily because Serbs and so-called Yugoslavs, who combined were the absolute majority of the population in the city and surroundings, voted almost solely for the SKH-SDP candidates.Vukovar was to elect five deputies to the Croatian Parliament (Sabor):SKH-SDP won four seats, while the fifth went to so-called independent candidate. In the Vukovar municipal assembly, which encompassed l17 delegates, Croatian Democratic Union won only 26 mandates.--Medule 08:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting because the details of political party representation in local Vukovar assembly do not belong in this article. I can concede that some elements are in need of change, but let's keep in mind that this is an article about a specific event, and should ideally include just enough background information to put it into context. You can edit, but please, keep your autistic Serb revisionist attitudes out of it. Next you'll be writing that the policemen were massacred to give their organs to sick little Serb children or some other nonsense. --Dr.Gonzo 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Text is still in the form of Croatian propaganda news. You try to cut out that some Serbs had been killed just day before incidents. Serbs had not been in atack. Polic was not true police. It was paramilitaries too. They are recruited several months before incident from local Croat extremists. You also try to cut that Croatian ministers had fired missiles on Borovo Selo without being provoked 1 month before incident and they destroyed one house.--Medule 23:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push any kind of propaganda, everything about the Croat provocations was in the article from the beginning. You, however, ARE trying to push your Serbian revisionist propaganda by making unverifiable claims. For example, the Croatian police was regular, all professionals, who have worked in the police for many years (how can one become a Special police member if he/she haven't had the training required?). You are also trying to hide the fact that those men were brutally murdered (their mission was to pacify and disarm the local serb paramilitaries, and bring the area back under legal control of SR Croatia, as it has been for the past 45 years), and their bodies mutilated (ears and noses cut off, eyes gouged out, some bastard Chetniks even threw grenades on the wounded while the ambulances tried to get them to a hospital). There is VIDEO EVIDENCE that supports this. Where is your evidence? I'm reverting your edits. --Dr.Gonzo 12:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You know very well that Tudjman recruited into police tousands of inexperienced policemen. That are usually people recruited several months before incident from local extremists. They are not well trained and therefore easily killed in ambush. Croatia had experienced police, but many Serbs were in and therefore Tudjman decided to form new police units out of inexperienced.

Some of these police units are formed in order to be new army, not police.You also try to cut that Croatian ministers had fired missiles on Borovo Selo without being provoked 1 month before incident and they destroyed one house. Therefore dont play game and try to say you are neutral.--Medule 13:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tudjman formed TO (Territorial Defense) as a reaction to imminent threat by Serb extremists who had already shown their true intentions when they started the "Balvan revolution" i.e. the barricading off entire sections of the country, expelling local Croat population, and de-facto rebellion in Krajina and Eastern Slavonia. Threat of war was very real, and the only kind of defense Croatia had was those TO units, since the YNA was completely dominated by Serbs. Secondly, you're lying, I didn't try to delete the fact that Susak fired missiles without provocation, look at the fuckin page history asshole! However, your edits to that paragraph are completely untrue. Only the barricades were destroyed in that incident and there were no human casualties. So, while it was a provocation, which do you think is worse - barricading off whole sections of the country or that one provocation? Medule, I have tried to be patient with you, but you have shown to be a common troll. I've looked at your contributions and they have all been about trolling on articles related to Croatia and inserting biased, unverifiable, malicious, and frankly, autistic pro-greater serbian views so typical of Serbia today. Get your head out of your ass and get a fucking clue, Serbia has to start admiting to itself what happened 10-15 years ago because those who do not learn from History are bound to repeat it. --Dr.Gonzo 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The first victim of inter-ethnic tensions fell on May 1st 1991 when Stevan Inić (born 1928), a Serb, was shot in head in the village of Brsadin near Vukovar from the gun fired by Croat Djuro Gelenčir, member of the Croatian Democratic Union's party militia. "Crimes against Serbs in Vukovar". You could not delete such facts,

I really like the link you provided as source to your claims. Marvelous! EurowikiJ 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That link , that book "Crimes without punishment" is also cited in Croatian newspapers. Look for example:[[1]]

Title

I can agree on the new title (Borovo Selo raid) to keep with the Wikipedias NPOV policy. However, I can't agree on changing anything in this article without further discussion. Pirkovank, please discuss before making any changes. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 18:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial link

The link which is the source of the event concerning the alleged murder of a Serbian man and indirectly "justifies" the subsequent murders of Croatian policemen has been retrieved on a web-site reeking of pro-Serbian nationalist propaganda. Some of the findings there include the following text:

• SREBRENICA ARCHIVE - 10th anniversary of the alleged Srebrenica genocide has stirred up the public. But they're not telling us the truth.
• United States Associates With And Actively Supports Albanian Criminals in the Balkans As Evidence is Hidden
• NATO War Crimes
• How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia
• NATO's Air War: Effective? Perhaps. Illegal and Immoral? Definitely.
• Bill Clinton Has Figured Out a Way to Keep Bombing Yugoslavia
• Freed American soldier writes to Serbian people

Hence, the deletion of the paragraph based on ridiculous claims. EurowikiJ 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not satisfied with that explanation. I had a look at the link and it is actually a book in Vukovar, in 1997. It is well referenced. Remember that we are discussing a particular reference, not the site where it is hosted on, which is simply an archive. If anything, they could be blamed for publishing it on the internet quite possibly without the authors' consent. Well, I am restoring the text and adding a link to the ICTY court proceedings on this war crime. Regards, Asterion 15:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

With all respect but it is your explanation, I fear, that leaves much to be desired. But let's start from the beginning. Here is the information we can get from by clicking on the link you supplied that should allegedly supports your claim. This is the only and, might I add, very interesting reference to the alleged crime:

5 Q. We shall go back to the inter-ethnic atmosphere and the situation in Vukovar and the Borovo Selo incident as well as its significance. But what about the 1st of May, 1991, in Brsadin near Vukovar, what happened there? Stevan Inic was killed by Djura Gelencir, an HDZ member. Do you know anything about this incident?

A. No, I've never even heard those names.

Q. Thank you. Let's go back to Borovo Selo...

To recap. A defense lawyer for Mile Mrksic, asks the witness if he/she knows anything about the crime to which the witness responds: "No, I've never even heard those names."

I think that this is quite obvious. I don't think you will need an extra explanation from me there.

As for the book, it was published the Serbian Unity Congress which is "the largest Serb- nationalist organization in the United States. Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is devoted to political lobbying on behalf of the regimes in Belgrade and Pale. The SUC is both a membership organization made up of individuals and an umbrella organization linking a number of Serb-nationalist groups. It represents the interests of Serbian political leaders by: i) lobbying as a political action committee; ii) sponsoring a disinformation campaign which targets the media, university campuses and research centers; iii) engaging public relations firms to lobby on behalf of the Serbian leadership in Pale and ensure representation during congressional committee hearings; iv) purchasing the services and support of journalists and speakers."

http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html

Hence, the linkS are removed as well as the reference to an alleged crime. EurowikiJ 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That link , that book "Crimes without punishment" is also cited in Croatian newspapers. Look for example:[[2]]--Medule 15:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That link , that book "Crimes without punishment" is cited not only in Serbs books, but also in Croatian newspapers. Look for example:[[3]]--Medule 23:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Asterion's changes, alleged crime, NPOV, verifiability etc.

I did mistakenly assume, albeit in good faith, that the changes to the article made by Asterion did indeed conform to NPOV policy. Instead of immediately and thoroughly checking the article, I devoted my full attention to adding references to it. Later, on a closer inspection of the text, I realized that the changes featured blatant POV pushing such as "break-away leaderships" and "serbian resistance" etc. which not only are far from neutral, but are also factually inaccurate.

ICTY clearly states in the amended indictment against Mrksic, Radic, Sljivancanin and Dokmanovic (Case No.IT-95-13a-I) article 4 that "soon after the 25 June 1991 declaration of independece, Serbs living in Croatia intensified the armed insurrection they had begun several months earlier which the Croatian authorities attempted to suppress. The federal Yugoslav Peoples Army (JNA) intervened in the support of the Serb insurgents."

In article 5 of the same indictment a reference is made explicitly to the Serb paramilitary forces.

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mrk-2ai1971202e.pdf

Jane's Defence which, unlike Serbian Unity congress, is a reputable source clearly states that "Slobodan Milosevic (...) exploited the growing discontent among Serbs (...) as a threat to their dominant position in the federation. Serbian nationalists embraced the traditional nationalist concept of a Greater Serbia - the unification of all areas with Serb populations so that no Serb community would be left under the control of another nation." There is no talk about Serbian minority rights nor could the latter ever be justification for a killing spree (especially the one on this scale). Also, any insertion of the said reference to substantiate the "minority rights" claim is misleading and false.

Repeated efforts to portray an ICTY link as an "ICTY court proceedings on this war crime" are false and (obviously deliberately) misleading. It is a transcript of the hearings that took place on November 30 2005 in the case Mrksic et al. (IT-95-13/1) "Vukovar Hospital. The alleged killing is once mentioned there:

5 Q. We shall go back to the inter-ethnic atmosphere and the situation in Vukovar and the Borovo Selo incident as well as its significance. But what about the 1st of May, 1991, in Brsadin near Vukovar, what happened there? Stevan Inic was killed by Djura Gelencir, an HDZ member. Do you know anything about this incident?

A. No, I've never even heard those names.

Q. Thank you. Let's go back to Borovo Selo...

To recap. A defense lawyer for the accused Mile Mrksic, asks the witness if he/she knows anything about the crime to which the witness responds: "No, I've never even heard those names."

The book issued by the Serbian Unity Congress which is the only source of this alleged incident does NOT comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy which clearly states that "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (...) Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.Serbian Union Congress is not a credible, third party source and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ONE SINGLE REFERENCE in a Croatian satirical magazine to the said book (and not even to the alleged crime) speaks for itself.

In conclusion, I have presented what I believe is hard evidence. In return I expect the same. Previous arguments such as "I am not satisfied with that explanation..." or vague references to Wikipedia's NPOV, verifiability guidelines etc. will be ignored. EurowikiJ 08:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been observing the situation here and I have to agree with EurowikiJ, the sources he cites are far more reputable than those provided by Medule. Therefore, if Medule doesn't provide more reputable, neutral sources for his claims, the article should remain AS-IS. --Dr.Gonzo 09:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem are not so much the sources now (both users have provided verifiable sources and, at least Medule, has not deleted EurowikiJ's ones) but the language used. With all due respect, this is not the language you expect from an encyclopaedia. Regarding EurowikiJ's Ad Hominem comments on "my intentions", I decline to reply, Dr.Gonzo. All I am saying is that the article is clearly written from a Croatian nationalist perspective and does not conform to Wikipedia:NPOV. If you take the interest on checking the article history, it was actually me who decided to swap the NPOV tag for the POV-Check one. However, given EurowikiJ's attitude towards lessening the language used against a less biased style, I have decided the NPOV is therefore the most suitable for this article. Regards, --Asterion 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with the statement that Medule's sources were neutral and verifiable, as they are all heavily biased, written exclusively from the serbian POV, and filled with partial truths and unverifiable statements. In any case, such heavily biased sources should not even be considered. On the other hand, the sources EurowikiJ provided in his latest revison are, to my knowledge, all from very reputable independant sources, and as such perfect for establishing NPOV.

Secondly, I can't agree with categorizing this article as "written from a Croatian nationalist perspective" since I can't find a single paragraph that would assert any kind of fact that is not verifiable through sources provided, and I see no inflammatory remarks either. Infact, the article, as it is now, is fairly sterile. However, if you feel that it still requires some elaboration and NPOV-ing, please feel free to do so, and I'll certainly support any edits that remain NPOV and help to elaborate the issue further. --Dr.Gonzo 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That link , that book "Crimes without punishment" is cited not only in Serbs books, but also in Croatian newspapers. Look for example:3 . Therefore that source is verifiable.--Medule 23:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That book is nothing more than a steaming pile of Serb propaganda, and one article in a SATIRICAL croatian newspaper cannot be considered a reliable source. Besides, I have yet to see the original article from Feral Tribune (not linked on some serbian propaganda site). The sources EurowikiJ cites are reliable, verifiable and neutral and therefore suitable for an encyclopedia. Yours are not. I for one will not allow you to keep pushing your revisionist apologist propaganda, this encyclopedia is not the place to vent out your frustrations. I'm reverting, and until you can provide us with more reliable sources I'll keep reverting because you are inserting unverifiable, factualy inaccurate data which is highly disruptive and considered vandalism. --Dr.Gonzo 00:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What you trying now to do to tell? That Feral Tribune was not serious in that article? Feral Tribune got international prizes as the best independent paper in Croatia. That journalist Hedl, who wrote about Vukovar Serbs had done film about Vukovar several months ago. If he takes the book Crimes without punishment as good source, you could not deny facts. That link , that book "Crimes without punishment" is cited not only in Serbs books, but also in that Feral tribune article in Croatia:[[4]]. --Medule 22:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, learn to speak English before editing English language Wikipedia, I can't understand a goddamn thing you're saying! I do understand however that you're claiming there was such a thing as "HDZ party militia" which is pure nonsense. PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCE! Until you do I can't allow this POV remark to stay because it is based on the writing of one Vojin S. DABIC and Ksenija M. LUKIC, both Serbs, both known propagandists, both with inherent bias. A very unreliable source indeed. The Feral article is about Merceps activities in 1991 and does not mention Borovo selo or Stevan Inic at all. So get a fuckin clue and stop reverting this article, or I'll have to put the matter before the administrators. --Dr.Gonzo 00:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again source is that book. Book is enough good source since it was used by Croatian journalist in the article I provided above.--Medule 11:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a "enough good source". The book is pure propaganda, and if you insist i'll get an administrator to tell you the same. The article itself has nothing to do with Borovo Selo incident and is thus irrelevant. I'm really growing tired of this, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. --Dr.Gonzo 14:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is ggod source since independent Croatian sources use it. It is connected to Borovo Selo raid since it happened day before it in same region.--Medule 23:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Feral article does not relate to this topic AT ALL!! Stop citing it as a source! It doesn't mention Borovo selo, May of 1991, or any other topic discussed here! I mean, WTF?? The only reason you're even sourcing that article is because it is probably the only article in any Croatian newspaper that ever mentioned that obscure piece of propaganda you call a reliable source! --Dr.Gonzo 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

New York Times article

That new York Times article is not from May and it is irrelevant.--Medule 22:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally a true statement. Rephrased the sentece and referenced it with the ICTY indictment against Vojislav Seselj. EurowikiJ 12:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Need for mediation

Will all the parties involved accept the friendly intervention of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal? This edit war has been going on for too long. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 12:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I am requesting page protection. This has been going on for too long. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 04:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a Request for Comments template at the top of the page, if you are all happy, I will go ahead with this. I will personally have no further involvement from this point on. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 05:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd add a comment, but I simply have no more strength to fight this. It's history we are talking about, and if we give in to those who make claims that in a war, only one side is pure white, the victims, and only one side is pure black, the agressors, I feel disgusted at the type of education our children will get. --serbiana - talk 05:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I have been asked by User:Asterion to interviene, but as I have become unactive on wikipedia, I scarecly must reject to comment. I hope that a solution will be resolved. All the best! --HolyRomanEmperor 06:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the new version by ChrisO

Very well written and sourced, and much more informative than before. I have no objections whatsoever to this version. I hope this can put an end to frequent revert wars, etc. Thanks again and keep up the good work ;) Oh, and by the way, I noticed that the literal translation of that cyrillic text reads "Incident in Borovo Selo", not "Borovo Selo raid" so you might want to correct that. Cheers. --Dr.Gonzo 19:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am very happy with the new text. The language used is more neutral and it is thoroughly referenced. I would appreciate if any changes are previously discussed on this talk page to avoid any unproductive edit war. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you have no objections, as it is croatian POV. Calling Serbs secessionist etc. while secessionists were Croats, and many many other POV problems. I will fix it promptly. Nelodkan 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nelodkan, can we draw a list of points you are not happy with? In all honesty, I placed the request for comments notice over a week ago and since Dr.Gonzo added his statement of views, this has remained uncontested. I find this very hard to understand indeed. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't. It's a tactic of continuos disruption of the article. You'll notice I had nothing to do with the new ChrisO version, and yet it is somehow "Croatian POV", in spite of the cited, neutral references. What more is there say? --Dr.Gonzo 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling one side or other paramilitary or secessionist reveals POV, as is stating contraversial claims as facts. Getting rid of POV words would improve the article, as well as attributing claims. Perhaps you dont notice POV since you hold it. But those who feel insulted by it this POV is obvious and pops out. Nelodkan 22:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, let me warn you not to accuse people of disruption. The real NPOV article should not offend anyone. This article as ChrisO puts it is offensive to Serbs, and you need to fix that. Calling Serbian concerns a "disruption" is very insultive indeed. Nelodkan 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Paramilitary is not a POV word. Look it up in dictionary, it means non-regular army. Para-military. Or would you prefer to call them drunken crazy Chetniks? That would be POV, I agree. Secessionist is also not biased because it accurately describes the intentions of those political entities. Sure Croatia was secessionist, but only after a certain point (that being May of 1991). The Serbs in Croatia were always secessionist in context of distancing themselves from the government in Zagreb. Don't try to muddle the issue, this is very precise and, in retrospect, accurate. --Dr.Gonzo 22:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made several edits of the worst POV, and commented each in summary. Also, there needs to be something said about plitvice bloody easter, since borovo selo raid was second to plitvice, in the similar action of croatian police. there are other problems, but for now this is what at the very least needs to be fixed. Nelodkan 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to merge both versions and removed a whole sentence which I deemed too POV: "citing concerns at the perceived "Greater Serbian" policies of the Serbian president Slobodan Milošević". The thing is that the actual falling apart of Yugoslavia was more to do with economic crisis than anything else (eg. Slovenian presidency unhappy with supporting a loss-making economy in Kosovo, for example). I changed some terminology too and also added the mention that the first barricade was set up by local Serbs to demaqnd someone's release? (I read this somewhere), only to be joined later by Seselj's people. So please don't get mad at me. I'm just trying to get some consensus here. If you think anything I added is wrong, just say it. Cheers, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your good will very much. You are a neutral user from out of the region, so your voice is trusted. As someone from the region, I can object about things which I find POV. In particular, I find words "secession" used for Serbs not good, since Serbs opposed secession of Croatia. Croats dont like the word secession used for them either, and it is not a big problem to find more neutral language. Choice of words is the least thing that should be an obstacle here. Also, joint criminal enterprise has to do with supposed organization to commit crimes (like ethnic cleansing), not the legitimate support. Milosevic never denied, in fact he was proud of the help for Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia Serbia provided. However, that does not mean he is automatically criminal by just helping Serbs. Please mind the distinction! Nelodkan 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Other thing, the ICTY thing is verifiable. However, in the text provided it is listed using different words. Is this what you are on about, Nelodkan E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we just go through paragraph by paragraph, please I know that someone is going to come around and revert the whole thing and we will be back to the original edit war situation. Please!E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say I will not interfere at all. Let's just see how deep the rabbit hole really is, shall we? Oh, and while you're at it, look at this users contribution history and tell me in all honesty that it's not someones sockpuppet. Just like Medule. --Dr.Gonzo 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You keep with your insults. There are plenty of Serbs who share my concerns. They are real concerns, and so you are better advised not to be disruptive with your accusations. If you get a version that does not offend me, it likely will not offend other Serbs. Anyway, your malicious coments are noted! I can just leave, and you will get people like medule that will just revert, Its not my problem anyway. Nelodkan 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your tactic is no different than Medule's. You'll just tweak and tweak until we get to the same biased Serbian version as before, and Croatians are vilified to the maximum possible extent. Oh yes, and of course, in a month or so, you'll forget all about this sockpuppet you call Nelodkan, and we'll never hear from it again. But I'm sure another sockpuppet will come along real soon, isn't that right? --Dr.Gonzo 23:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in this article, but since it was unlocked and I have reverted it with other people (for the language like "greater serbia" etc) I have payed attention to the new version. Amount of hatred you show towards Serbian editors is amazing. As for the central issue of the dispute - weather there were captured croatian militiamen or not, and what was the reason for the attack, I will check it. I suspect that there is another side of the story here. Nelodkan 23:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no, don't be fooled, I have absolutely no hatred towards the Serbian editors, but I have enormous amount of rage agains users who use sockpuppets. It's against Wikipedia rules, it's un-ethical, immoral, and just plain wrong. --Dr.Gonzo 00:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Asterion, I am relatively happy with the language, and have changed what was insultive. I would just make 2 more changes: avoid using secession (and palamilitary) words. And add reference to plitvice easter.

As for the topic of captured policemen, I dont know about the issue, but it was a matter of revert war. So, I suppose that there is something about that, but since I cant acess the referenced material, I cant judge it, and weather it is appropriately attributed. Nelodkan 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the ICTY reference but changed the description. It is indeed one of the charges on Milosevic's indictment. This is completely verifiable. Regarding the vocabulary issue, if we do not use secession for Krajina, it should not be used either as in "Croatia secession from SFRY". This is because it was ruled a posteriori that the country falled apart, so the whole secession thing is debatable. We could add a "See Also" for the Plitvice lakes link, if not there already. As I said, I am not very familiar with the story about the hostage policeman but if someone finds verifiable sources, I have no objections. I do not think there is a need to edit war. I will have a second read now. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrrgh! I hate "edit conflicts". I just lost my edits when I hit the back button. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry man ;) Be cool though, I see ChrisO is back ;) --Dr.Gonzo 23:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is too POV to stay: "fears of repetition of Ustasha crimes started to emerge in Serbian population, especially since Tudjman's election campagn was partly financed by Ustashe emigration", considering that "citing concerns at the perceived "Greater Serbian" policies of the Serbian president Slobodan Milošević" has come off. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I reinserted the Greater Serbian concerns bit, and requested citations for the "financed by Ustashe emigration" etc. If Nelodkan can't provide it it's gone before you can say yippie-kay-yay. --Dr.Gonzo 23:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I also think it's simply too much detail for this article. The reasons for the Croatian Serb rebellion are dealt with in some detail in Republic of Serbian Krajina. For the purposes of this article, we only need to note the Serbs' opposition to Croatian government policies, without going into a lot of detail about specific points of concern. It's also likely to confuse the general reader (what does "Ustasha" mean? what were the crimes referred to?). Accordingly, I've removed this line. The "financed by Ustashe emigration" is simply unsourced POV and needs to come out as a matter of course. -- ChrisO 23:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you 100%, but will he/she listen? --Dr.Gonzo 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think both should come off as there was never a real opinion poll at the time (I guess this was the last thing in their minds!) and all these concerns by both parties were speculation, posibly magnified for political reasons. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC

Isn't it a fairly obvious point that both sides - Croatians and Croatian Serbs - were secessionists? The Croatians wanted to secede from the SFRY (which, recall, wasn't wound up until 1992) and the Croatian Serbs wanted to secede from Croatia. Moreover, it wasn't simply a matter of the Croatian Serbs wanting to "remain within Yugoslavia" - the Croatian Serb areas of Croatia weren't a pre-existing political entity, unlike the Republic of Croatia. Remaining within Yugoslavia required the Croatian Serbs to create an entirely new entity, which is of course where the Republic of Serbian Krajina came in. -- ChrisO 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Croatian government wasn't openly secessionist (up to a point) because it feared the political and military repercusions of such actions. Tudjman actually opted for a loose confederacy for a LONG time, until it became obvious (around April-May 1991) that a conflict could not be avoided, and that YNA was openly favoring the Serbs. --Dr.Gonzo 00:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In his interview with Montenegrin television recently, Mesic has admitted that the confederation was ALWAYS just a tactical way to eventual secession. Second, Croatian Serbs didnt want to separate from Croatia, they wanted authonomy at the beginning, with Raskovic being their leader. that is well known, so secession is just a wrong term. But now it is avoided, so it is OK. Avoiding terms which are divisive is a good way to get a version which is not contraversial, and that is our goal I suppose. Nelodkan 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Still here (got to love insomnia... ) I just found this book. Maybe it would be worth it mentioning the role of Josip Reihl-Kir, the local police chief at Osijek, on keeping the tension down as opposed to the HDZ minister Susak, who pressured him to crackdown on Borovo Selo, against the former's advise. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Rules of engagement

(copied from Talk:Battle of Vukovar):
I think it might be worth reminding people of the basic rules of Wikipedia. A lot of the arguments over the previous version of this article were, I think, largely due to these policies not being followed. I've rewritten the article to make it strictly wikipolicy-compliant, and I intend to ensure that those policies are followed on this article:

• Don't add partisan commentary, and ensure that your contributions are written in a neutral tone. We're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a partisan screed. (WP:NPOV).

• Any additions must be sourced, cited and verifiable. (WP:CITE, WP:V).

• Any sources must be reliable. Newspaper reports, government documents, books and reports from well-known international organisations are generally regarded as good sources. Commentary on personal websites or the personal views of individual editors are not. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR).

If we follow these policies we should be OK. If you want to add something to the article, please make sure that it follows the policies above. I strongly advise that you do not edit war on the article (see WP:3RR), do not make personal attacks against fellow editors and do not delete sourced and verifiable content because it doesn't fit your POV. (Find a reliable counter-source instead). Otherwise, you may find yourself blocked (yes, I'm an administrator). This applies to all sides in the debate - there will be no favouritism! -- ChrisO 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Milosevic's support for the Serbs

We seem to have a dispute over the following lines (I've modified the wording of the first one slightly from the version changed by Nelodkan):

It is generally accepted by Western historians and analysts that Milošević's government provided the Croatian Serbs with substantial financial and logistical assistance. His purpose in doing this, according to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) prosecutors, was to support a "joint criminal enterprise" to create a new Serb-dominated state from which the non-Serb population had been forcibly removed.

with Nelodkan preferring the following wording:

The financial and logistical assistance that Milošević's government provided to the Croatian Serbs and the supposed influence that Milosevic had over Croatian Serbs was later a basis for indicment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) against Milosevic for his supposed membership in the "joint criminal enterprise" to alledgedly create a new Serb-dominated state from which the non-Serb population had been forcibly removed.

I think if a view is expressed in the article, we ought to attribute the view properly. It is simply a fact that (as I said) most Western historians and analysts do indeed regard Milosevic as being the enabler of the Croatian Serb rebellion. Similarly, it's a matter of fact that the ICTY took the view that I've summarised in the lines above (the wording is taken nearly directly from its indictment of Milosevic). Note that my wording doesn't state definitely that Milosevic did provide support nor that he did participate in a joint criminal enterprise - only that informed expert opinion and the ICTY presume that he did so on both counts. We're not here to write a definitive statement of events, only to summarise what our sources say about those events. -- ChrisO 01:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, from a Serbian POV it's higly unsettling to say that Milosevic had supported the Krajina Serbs and actively participated in arming them. But this is a view accepted by everyone except the Serbs themselves. It's obvious why. On the other hand we'll never get an official judgement because Slobo had to go and die on us. So what do we do then? Cite sources and avoid weasel words that's what. And in that sense your original version was perfectly OK, everything else is just dancing around the issue and is irking me to no end. Finish it already! You've got the sources, they are very clear, and there is no need to tweak this further. --Dr.Gonzo 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Milosevic admits supporting the Serbs himself. The problem with the passage was that it was claimed that this was "criminal enterprise" while it is not the case. The way it is now rephrased is fine. Support of the Serbs and Criminal enterprise are TWO different things. One is not contraversial at all (first sentence). The other, ICTY indictment, is. Nelodkan 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as we're happy on the wording now. -- ChrisO 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

On the point about the barricades that Dr. Gonzo and Nelodkan have been disputed, as far as I can make out from the sources the barricades had already been erected by the time Seselj arrived in Borovo. Judging from his own account he was sent/invited there to provide some extra manpower (and firepower, I would guess) to the local TO. If any of you have access to an electronic database of Croatian newspapers it could be useful to have a search of stories from April 1991 to find out just when the first barricades went up. -- ChrisO 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

ICTY indictment against Šešelj:"11. In the end of April 1991, armed local Serbs assisted by Seselj's men and other Serbian volunteers erected barricades in the village of Borovo Selo near Vukovar. On 1 May 1991, these armed Serbs took hostage a number of Croatian policemen who were sent to restore law and order in Borovo Selo. On 2 May, the Croatian police authorities in Osijek sent a larger group of heavily armed policemen to Borovo Selo to free the hostages. Local armed Serbs assisted by Seselj's men and other Serbian volunteers ambushed this group of policemen. Twelve Croatian policemen were killed and twenty injured in the fighting."

What more do you need? --Dr.Gonzo 01:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not the most important point anyway, but I parse that sentence to read as follows: the act of setting up the barricades was initiated by the "armed local Serbs". Seselj's men and the other Serbian volunteers assisted with the erecting of the barricades but did not initiate it. This implies that the barricades were already going up by the time Seselj arrived. I'm not sure it really matters anyway - let's not waste time on it. -- ChrisO 01:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It IS important because it establishes that those rebels were not acting alone but with assistance from armed radicals from Serbia proper. Some would even interpret this as an act of war. And, ultimately it doesn't matter who initiated it, they erected them together, meaning those volunteers were in it from scratch. --Dr.Gonzo 01:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The indictment was pretty vague at this point. Also, the ICTY indicments are known to be blatantly wrong on many points (especially fine points), so it can not be taken at face value - as a matter of fact, they were written in Zagreb (ICTY against Milosevic for Croatia) and come from the same propaganda kitchen as DrGonzo's POV. Indictment is hardly the best source. The question is, why were the baricades erected in the first place? I would say that it was because, after the bloody easter in Plitvice, when Croatian police tried to retake the local station, they were expecting attacks, so it was a defensive position against attacks of Croatian police. The conflict was between Croatian republic and local Serbs, over the control of the villages. Croats tried to take the villages by force, and Serbs, who knew what Ustashe did in WWII, were opposing this. That is the essence of the thing. As for legallity, certainly Croatia has broken many laws by then, as Spegelj Tapes show. Mesic was admited the authenticity of the tapes at the time, though many could not believe that such preparations were under way in Croatia. So, who started the war against SFRY is pretty clear. Nelodkan 02:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, right, "propaganda kitchen", I'll have to remember that one. Do you have any sources to support your claims? Because if you do I would be most interested. Oh, and by the way - "The conflict was between Croatian republic and local Serbs, over the control of the villages. Croats tried to take the villages by force, and Serbs, who knew what Ustashe did in WWII, were opposing this." Paranoia, anyone? --Dr.Gonzo 02:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying the fact that Serbs in Croatia at the time were very aware of the Ustashe crimes, and were frightened (you would say unjustly, but later events wold easily prove you wrong) from what will happen to them now that Tudjman is in power? Ustashe crimes played no role there? I dont believe you think that. But then, you can keep it to yourself... And for the sources, I will look for them later, and then put the thing into article, since it is clearly relevant Nelodkan 02:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm denying the fact that Serbs in Croatia were afraid of "Ustashe". They were afraid because rethoricists like Vojislav Šešelj, Vuk Drašković, Jovan Rašković, etc., etc. wanted them to be afraid. And they made damned sure that they WERE afraid because scared people are easier to manipulate. Everything that happened later stems from this.

Secondly, I would LOVE to see your sources on the statement that ICTY indictments were written in Zagreb! Please, please, provide a source, I can't wait to read it. It is very relevant indeed. --Dr.Gonzo 02:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Some do appear to have been written in Zagreb - check the bottom of the indictment where the prosecutor's signature is given. Zagreb is stated as the place of issue in several indictments. I'm not sure why. Presumably the ICTY has or had investigators on the ground who are or were based in Zagreb. -- ChrisO 08:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zagreb is a pretty obvious location to write the report as Borovo Selo is in Croatia indeed.E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Nelodkan was implying that the indictments were written by Croats, which is pure nonsense. They may have been written in Zagreb by officers of the court. --Dr.Gonzo 15:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourced info

HEY CHRIS, HEY HEY!!! I ADDED SOURCED INFORMATION! SURPRISED?!?! I guess your plan to block me is ruined. Or are you gonna do it anyways? Just to satisfy your need? -- serbiana - talk 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OH, OH, NICE ONE, REVERTING MY EDITS! CHRIS HATES SERBS!!! -- serbiana - talk 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you added sourced information, but copying and pasting pages worth of material isn't just plagiarism, it's a blatant violation of copyright. And you know what I've already said about personal attacks... see you on Friday. -- ChrisO 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Brom. - just rephrase it, and it will be Ok. Nelodkan 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

change

Hi, I slightly changed some points on the page: #1) the part where it said that most Serbs opposed the Tudman regime. Yes, that is true, they did, but they would have opposed ANY regime that called for independence because that was the thing they didn't want. Not just because of the president elected #2) the part where it says the Croatian police entered the village without "permission": why do they need "permission" to enter their own country? --Jesuislafete 03:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

The article's title - more specifically, the word "killings" - is not entirely appropriate and is potentially misleading. It is suggestive of a crime or a series of crimes (as committed by, say, a serial killer or an organized crime group), whereas the event in question was an armed conflict. The primary description of the event as an armed conflict applies without respect as to whether it was largely one-sided or not, or whether it involved (war) crimes or not. GregorB (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:MILMOS#NAME, Battle of Borovo Selo would probably be the most "correct" way to go. Combat started in the morning (sometime past 9:30, and lasted until 14:30), so quite a bit of shooting would have gone on even if the police were ambushed around noon.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

After review of Google books search results (wikipedia books excluded) the current title is far from common name. Furthermore there seems to be hardly anything established (incident, massacre, etc) reinforcing my belief that Battle of Borovo Selo is a neutral name conforming to MILMOS while not being in violation of WP:COMMONNAME.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The previous comment was six months ago, and the last article move was on 24 May 2006‎ (ChrisO moved Borovo Selo raid to Borovo Selo killings: Neutral title), so go ahead and move it, there is little in the way of presumption of controversy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Unit-specific insignia in the infobox

Hi! Please refrain from inserting unit-level insignia along for White Eagles in the infobox - the flags placed there indicate allegiance to a specific group or nation. Use of Serbian flag along with paramilitaries such as White eagle has been established by Featured Article review process for similar articles involving Serbian paramilitaries. Furthermore while use of graphics in infoboxes are generally discouraged, WP:INFOBOXFLAG allows this type of use of flags for military infoboxes. Moreover, MOS:LOGO specifically advises against use of such logos as proposed instead of the flag now in place as merely decorative and distractive. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/esi_bridges_id_1.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Borovo Selo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925052113/http://www.mup.hr/10351.aspx to http://www.mup.hr/10351.aspx

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)