Talk:Operation Maslenica

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) 11:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

UNPROFOR Casualties

The article fails to mention the casualties sustained by UN forces during the operation.DagosNavy 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

JNA?

The initialism JNA is undefined, and I for one do not know what it means. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the Yugoslav People's Army. I added a small clarification. Ucucha 15:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

“…commanded by the notorious Željko Ražnatović Arkan, improved Krajina-morale to a certain extent”

If this is not Greater Serbian POV, I sincerely don’t know what it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.110.221 (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Sanader's statement was supposedly made on May 1, yet the source dates the Mesić's reaction to April 27, so this can't be true. It is possible that the text conflates two unrelated events and corresponding statements. GregorB (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Losses

The text says that, regarding the 491 figure, "Serbian sources mostly agree", yet the sole Serbian source cited in the infobox says 348.

Regarding the Croatian losses:

• The infobox says 114, with a source
• hrt.hr source in the article says 57 (citing contemporary reports)
• In the same source, President Mesić says 185
• The same source reports Croatian MoD was unable to provide a figure

I suppose more research is needed here. GregorB (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)