Wikipedia

Talk:Siege of Dubrovnik

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Pixius in topic POV
Learn more about this page
Good articleSiege of Dubrovnik has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 27, 2013Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 1, 2012, October 1, 2015, October 1, 2016, and October 1, 2021.
edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:Flag HOS.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

POV

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

The article seems to be written just from the Croation POV. e.g. there are claims by reporters and witnesses from inside Dubrovnik that the shelling wasn't intense and the historic part of the City wasn't destroyed to the extend as the Croats claimed. And it is claimed that the Croation troops fired from hospitals and hotels to draw Serbian counter fire which could than be used for their Media campaign. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I explained in the edit description, the article could certainly use more sources and a neutrality check. However, adding a Serbian-produced video is certainly not a positive way to go. Speaking of "claims by some or other" is not really a reputable source. All sources named in the article so far are either from an impartial source (ICTY or foreign news agencies) or are positively discriminating (i.e. Serbian/Montenegrian source that talks about their attacks negatively). Only 3 of the 15 sources are Croatian (and another 3 are Serb/MN), so it can hardly be considered a one-sided article... Again, sources and constructive edits are welcome. The Spanish Inquisitor (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I will leave this here: https://twitter.com/undertakersu/status/1306338430369095680 The shelling was of the Croatian terrorist positions within the city. Now we can talk about POV of this article which is clearly strongly biased, and uses biased sources Pixius talk 13:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

What a comment by Wikieditoroftoday! Any normal person would say that even one bullet in a civilian area would be one bullet too many. There was no military value to be gained by the Serbs and Montenegrins in destroying a civilian UNESCO heritage-listed area - it was just gratuitous and wanton. So any comments about the intensity of the shelling miss the point. The point being: Any shelling was wrong and criminal in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.132 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you please write something more about the battle of the village Ravno ... What happened there i would like to know this if I`m an outstanding reader of this article and also I personally would like to know what happened there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.254.254 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another hopelessly lop-sided view of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. To give a simple example in the first line of the article, the author(s) claim that Serbs euphemistically label this phase of the war the 'blockage of Dubrovnik'. In fact, this is a label that can also be attributed to many Croatian media (http://www.domovinskirat.hr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=588:operacija-qajkulaq-blokada-dubrovnika-&catid=106:vojne-operacije-agresora-&Itemid=121).

Just take a look at the Serbian version of this article. It is just called "The blockade of Dubrovnik", while every other version calls it by its name, aka "Siege (or battle) of Dubrovnik". There was a bloackade of the city...but it certainly didn't stop just at that.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

2 Issues

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1. From What i've heard the forces attacking Dubronovik were mostly Montenegrin rather then Serb, and the JNA contained many Croat and Muslim fighters

2. A Ceasefire was called, that doesnt make it a Croatian Victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Of The Moas (talk • contribs) 07:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

True, the Montenegrin remnant of the Yugoslav People's Army was mostly involved in the Dubrovnik area, but it was subordinated to Belgrade. Momir Bulatovic was Milosevic's stooge for most of his term, until he later on actually showed some backbone and expressed his opposition of continuing the siege of Dubrovnik in 1992. Likewise, 70 percent of all JNA officers and non-commissioned officers were either Serbs or Montenegrins[1]. After Croatia and Slovenia declared independence, Bosniaks, Croats, Slovenes and even Macedonians massively left the army.
As for the issue of victory, let's examine what happened.
  1. Dubrovnik was never conquered
  2. Dubrovnik remained a part of Croatia
  3. Plans to create some new Serbian "Dubrovnik Republic" failed
  4. Croatian Army advanced steadily from the west and forced the Yugoslav Army to pull out of the area
  5. Further joint operations pushed the army deep behind Trebinje, which caused difficulties to attack Dubrovnik in the future
If that can not be considered victory, what can?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's just arbitrary bullshit, JNA pulled back because of international pressure, and that in the end Croatia managed to exterminate its Serb population that it started in ww2 with concentration camps, has nothing to do with actual battle.

File:Muzej DR.JPG Nominated for Deletion

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Muzej DR.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Dubrovnik/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll be taking this review. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Images: fine. Lead image is non-free; rationale is thorough and I accept it. The effective resolution is smaller than the current resolution because of the way the image has come to be on WP. I have added the Freedom of panorama template to a couple of images just to be clear. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Prose: I have made a series of small changes to the prose. The only change that needs checking is the change of "east" to "west" of Montenegro, since I could not see any way the proposed state in Dubrovnik could be east of Montenegro - the boundary river runs through Croatia. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing: every controversial statement is reference to some source. I've considered whether the range of sources is appropriate, particularly in the controversial areas. The claims made are not needlessly inflammatory, which reduces the need for even better sourcing, but regardless the mix of Western news reports, ICTY documents, and local/national news reports I think is satisfactory, all things considered. Going further (ACR or FA) I think it would be worth investing some time going even further to reduce the number of Serbian and Croatian references in controversial areas, even though, as I say, most claims are factual. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neutrality: fine, as per above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lead - a couple of small tweaks made, otherwise a useful and proper summary of the article. Layout - almost textbook; all sections of suitable length and on the whole meaningful. I've changed the semicolon usage to lvl four headings (even though they now follow a lvl 2) because I understand that usage is deprecated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Stable - nothing in the history leads me to believe that the article is unstable.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

'Coverage - very good, both broad and focussed. Thorough.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Copyright/plagiarism - I've checked a couple of sentences against both the web in general looking for similar passages and the English-language source in each case. I have been unable to verify that any given passage has not been taken from a foreign-language source directly, but since I have verify a couple I shall AGF on the remainder; I have no reason to believe otherwise. (Copyright and plagiarism is often endemic to an article.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Overall - Tomobe has fixed some harvnb problems I flagged at his talk page after I opened this review, and, as a result, I have no outstanding concerns. For the reasons given above, I am passing the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Siege of Dubrovnik/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==January 2013==

Assessment as a part of 2012/2013 WP:CRO drive, performed on 20 January 2013:

  • B1 (referencing) - criterion not met: The article has certain shortcomings in terms of referencing. Several paragraphs are left unreferenced, including the entire "Croatian counterattack" subsection. Generally, the references appear fine, but a half dozen seem to be missing.
  • B2 (comprehensiveness and accuracy) - criterion generally met, at least sufficiently for the B-class.
  • B3 (article structure) - criterion met.
  • B4 (reasonably well-written prose) - criterion met.
  • B5 (supporting materials) - criterion met. There are instances of sandwiching text between images or quote boxes (which seem to be overused for no apparent benefit to the article itself), which should be avoided if this article is ever going to GAN.
  • B6 (appropriately understandable presentation) - criterion not met. The background section comes off as quite confused, going at length on tangential issues and failing to mention others, more central ones - for instance that there was Croatian War of Independence going on. Another problem is infobox presenting belligerents as belonging to Yugoslav Army alone on one side, with no political entity associated with them. Absence of Serb rebellion in the area denies an elegant way out, but something should be done about this issue as the present situation gives an appearance of a coup d'état or something similar with a Yugoslav Army division or two running wild.
A lot of work went into this article, but it still falls short of the B-class. Consequently downgraded to C-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 18:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 06:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 56 external links on Siege of Dubrovnik. 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:

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) 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Dubrovnik&oldid=1210371318"