Talk:List of military disasters

This article incorporates content from List of commercial failures, formerly List of major flops.

Added Battles of Pliska, Arcadiopolis and Kleidion, arguing for remival of the Siege of Viena

These 3 battles were both utter annihlations of an army, so I belive they should count. The Siege of Vienna by Suleiman was just a failed siege; an unsuccessful campaign, but not nearly a disaster. Zapcre (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

== Western Bias/Prespective

How are we defining a Military Disaster? The First Gulf War for example was a triumph for the US but a Disaster for the Iraqis. What I see on this list is many examples of Imperial setbacks (Little Bighorn, Majuba Hill, Isandlwana) being labeled disasters which is fine, but not the Battle of Ommdurman or other significant defeats of non-imperial forces against Imperalist forces. Basically the problem I see with this page is it is a list of significant and "embarrassing" defeats of mostly England and the US which in the long-run didn't really have much an impact on those societies rather than a list of battles that actually destroyed a whole society. I would argue for example that the Battle of Midway was far more of a disaster for Japan than Pearl Harbor was for the US anyway something to think about. 138.28.241.32 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Guest User

Not a military disaster

Battle of Vukovar was not a military disaster for JNA as it is depicted right now. IP user first added battle on October 1st and I assume the same user is the one who added sources when there was a dispute about this entry. I think the references are wrong, IP user simply copied them from, I assume, article "Pyrrhic victory" which also mentions Battle of Vukovar (and he messed up links for those sources on this page). Problem is Battle of Vukovar was not a military disaster for JNA, the battle does not meet conditions that are mentioned in the beginning of the article:

1. chronic mission failure (the key factor) - not a failure for JNA, they took over the city

2. successful enemy action - there was none, Croats lost the town and large number of troops

3. (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure - JNA did not lose its command or control

however this battle could be seen as disaster if we apply these conditions to Croats: they failed to defend and keep the city, enemy took over city and they lost complete command and control over it. They also had around 50% of their total force killed, rest wounded. After the war much effort was put into propaganda how it was a crucial battle that turned the tide of war, but the truth is international community played key role in truce which followed after the battle. I also have issue that this battle is mentioned in both "List of military disasters" and "Pyrrhic victory" pages. If there is no objections I will remove this battle from article. Istinar (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar is a military disaster. Definition of Pyrrhic victory from the Pyrrhic victory page :A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Winning a Pyrrhic victory takes a heavy toll that negates any true sense of achievement or damages long-term progress. JNA army and Serbian forces they lost twice as many soldiers in the conflict and lost about 110 tanks and a couple of planes. Chronic mission failure: The plan of a greater Serbia failed, and the JNA and Serbian forces no longer attacked Croatia more strongly and lost the war afterwards. Pyrrhic victory is a military disaster.151.236.17.228 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar was not a military disaster. You are using definition from another page for another term. Croats did not inflict JNA with such losses that they were tantamount to defeat. JNA did not lose twice as many soldiers. Plan was not "greater Serbia" (term which itself is wrong translation) but to rescue surrounded JNA soldiers in Vukovar and to help citizens who were terorrised by a local Croat group. War itself ended 4 years later, when JNA did not even exist anymore and that end came in other part of Croatia. You also have not addressed the fact that this battle does not meet conditions set by this page, which I have mentioned before. If there are no reasonable counter-arguments I will be removing this battle from the list in next few days. Istinar (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Since there are no more comments I will remove the battle from the list. Istinar (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not establishing consensus. One user objected and you think that because there are no comments it means I can remove it. Wait for more people to comment. Thanks. Eyebeller 10:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have waited over a week for any other comment on this talk page. No one commented. If I remember correctly policy is if there are no other comments or objections for over a week, I can revert to my version of the article. Istinar (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Be patient. Where did you read that? WP:TALKDONTREVERT doesn't mention anything like that. Eyebeller 10:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And how long should I be patient? If there is nothing constructive added to this discussion in the following days I will remove this battle from the list. Reasons for that I have listed above. Istinar (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Wait until more people respond. Just because people didn't respond doesn't mean that they agree. Eyebeller 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tell me how does it work? Anonymous IP adds battle which does not meet conditions to be included in the list, and he does that without any consensus. I waited a polite amount of days for any sort of comment and the only one I get is one with arguments for a completely different article, which you can see above. And none of my arguments were refuted. I will not wait for months for someone to take a pity and comment simply for the sake of commenting without contributing to this discussion. If no valid objections along with something of substance come forward I will remove battle which does not belong in the list. Istinar (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

“ Plan was not "greater Serbia" (term which itself is wrong translation) but to rescue surrounded JNA soldiers in Vukovar and to help citizens who were terorrised by a local Croat group.” Ah no, where did you develop this theory? The plan was to conquer the territory and expand control. Incredibly wrong. Greater Serbia was an attempt. The idea was to establish areas with Serb populations and unite them. Also you left out the treatment of Croats terrorized by local Serb groups. Read the article Siege of Vukovar to get familiar with the subject. Perhaps the Vukovar massacre as well as deletion was done without fully understanding the subject. Wether it meets Criteria I will have to look into the page here. You have been reverted by multiple editors editors so it seems consensus is not there to remove it. The anti-Croat bias comes across in such claims and the account be the remover of sourced content appears to be an account made specifically to edit war on this page. I think an admin needs to step in. OyMosby (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not "develop" a theory. Claims of "greater Serbia" are a theory and it's a term wrongly translated. No, I did not left out Tomislav Merčep and his numerous killings which led to battle itself. Perhaps you should look up other massacres and crimes that are a fact but somehow not mentioned on this Wikipedia. Perhaps you need to understand that this battle does not meet requirements listed in this article at the beginning. That is something you and others conveniently skip over. The battle does not meet criteria here, that is something it takes only a minute to confirm. Or you could have simply read this take page. And I would advice you not to bait with nationalistic rhetoric such as accusing me of "anti-Croat" bias. Ridiculous. Istinar (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And judging by the IP address I would say that the guy that called you out here [1] is the same person who included this battle on the list in the first place [2]. He went to other editors that edit Croatian pages too I see [3]. Istinar (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How can I be that user if he doesn't have that ip address? I'm reading edits, so I told the other editors to take a look. But that is not a topic, but whether the Battle of Vukovar belongs to the list of military disasters and talk about it.93.142.78.117 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

So, that was you. Good to know. Istinar (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Istinar:, I did not “conveniently skip over” nor am I ignoring other massacres as you claim. The topic was Vukovar. It was a Pyrrhic victory and costly to the JNA. And how the “citizens who were terorrised by a local Croat group” while ignoring actions by Serb groups interestingly, are not relevant to a massacre that took place. Also yes, I am sorry for accusing you of anti-Criat bias and bad faith, but calling Greater Serbia ambitions a simply a “myth” is wrong.

Implying or claiming that the Siege of Vukovar happened because of a croats terrorizing civilians despite both Serbs and Croats in the city being complicit also was highly suspect. Gunmen from both sides burned and looted hundreds of houses and farms in the area. It was not one man or group of Croats that started the siege. You left out how Serb paramilitaries expelled thousands of non-Serbs from their homes in the municipality before Tomislav Merčep and his numerous killings. Which you claim “led to” the Vukovar siege. Again, you can see why I found your comments to be biased.

In 1990, an armed insurrection was started by Croatian Serb militias, supported by the Serbian government and paramilitary groups, who seized control of Serb-populated areas of Croatia. The JNA began to intervene in favour of the rebellion, and conflict broke out in the eastern Croatian region of Slavonia in May 1991. In August, the JNA launched a full-scale attack against Croatian-held territory in eastern Slavonia, including Vukovar. The idea was expansion into Serb populated area to be integrated into Serbia. Again hence my cynicism of your comments. This is explained in the article of the event. So that made me suspicious of your comments. Both a greater Croatia and Serbia were attempted during the war to unite specific ethnic groups on various territories into one. I dont think I am inept in the subject. As for the IP that contacted me. They spoke of two different pages. One mot related to you at all. So I’m not sure if these are the same people. It told the IP to make an account if they want to be taken more seriously and I advise the IP above to do the same. OyMosby (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention you repeating claim that a group Croats terrorizing Serbs started the Siege of Vukovar is not only a biased pov not fact, how the battle started is completely irrelevant. So I don’t get the point of being this up in the first place. Other than again engage in not so innocent practices here.

Also I informed the IP I am NOT and admin and NOT an “expert”. I am highly familiar with the subject and can bring in admins who are experts on the matter. Thing is you do not have consensus for the removal as numerous editors reverted you. So a consensus needs to be reached here before we remove the contentious topic. OyMosby (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

On top of all this, is this your IP here? If so you created an account to get around a page protection and an block to continue an edit war. Which is not a proper way to go as it violates Wiki rules. Also another IP here with the same removal pattern here @Eyebeller: thoughts? I may cal in admins. OyMosby (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations. All those paragraphs and not a single word why should this battle be included in the list of military disasters. Not a single counter arguments to the ones I made. You have derailed discussion on this talk page and dragged me down with you. As for the IP, one of those might be mine and I created account so that I may do proper editing. And don't lie that I tried to "get around a page protection", I did what you advocated here [4] IPs should do - create account. Istinar (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! You employed the tactic of Psychological projection. It wasn’t very effective. In all those paragraphs which you evidently did not read or lack the ability, I explained why it should stay. The IP at the top explained it further. Go read the Siege of Vukovar article and learned about an event you want to talk about. You started going on about who started the war and derailed subjects not me. So stop moping about a discussion you started. It was a military disaster as it was a hardly victory with colossal losses. As was explained to you many times. “IDONTHEARYOU” won’t cut it on this platform. The operation was an absolute disaster for all involved including the JNA. So I see no reasoning in you removing it. “One of these might be mine” oh lordy. This is too funny. What a coincidence that multiple ips were present. And on top of that you admit to violating the rules. Great job. You dragged yourself and everyone around you down as YOU started these various topics of the battle. I advocate IPs to make an account not circumvent edit war violations. Congrats, you played yourself. You still are completely outweighed via consensus. And you displayed to everyone your agenda here through your off topic rants about “who started the war (in your eyes) or is at fault” not to mention only mentioning crimes of one group. This is an easy one for the admins. @Eyebeller: thoughts as you were in this thread? I don’t think there is much more for me to say. I think I’m done here. Other user refuses to listen or stay on topic in the first place. I have to answer all the new topics they bring up. Sorry. OyMosby (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, congratulations. First you accused me of nationalism, then you threatened me with admins and now you are implying I am not mentally well. Thank you for those kind words. All those paragraphs which you wrote clearly do not explain why this battle should be included in the list. The IP at the top explained nothing, he used arguments from the page Pyrrhic victory and derailed the conversation in another direction, when I confronted him about the cause of war, you jumped in and conversation derailed even further. He started it and you continued it, my fault is in responding to you at all. So allow me to spell it out for the n-th time to all:

This battle does not meet conditions set in the article which define what is a military disaster:

chronic mission failure (the key factor)

successful enemy action (not to the JNA)

(less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure Istinar (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the book Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990–1995, Volume 1, pp. 99-100, the Battle of Vukovar fits in the definition of a military disaster, for the JNA forces. This is the assessment of the battle on pp. 99-100: "The campaign fell apart almost immediately as JNA forces bogged down in their attempt to reduce the Croatian-held town of Vukovar. The JNA initially attacked Vukovar to relieve the barracks there and dispose of the threat the town’s defenders would pose to the rear of the main JNA operation. As Vukovar sucked in more and more JNA forces—including all of the ill-suited armor-mechanized units previously earmarked for the main operation—the battle became a political symbol to both Belgrade and Zagreb of their determination to achieve military victory. The JNA’s failure to seize the town despite its overwhelming force would be a dispiriting embarrassment to the federal cause, while the Croatian forces’ prolonged resistance became an inspiration and rallying point for the troops and people of Croatia. When the JNA finally captured Vukovar in mid-November after two months of intense fighting, theirs was a Pyrrhic victory. The siege had completely disrupted the timetable for the JNA’s strategic offensive and dissipated the last of the JNA’s prewar spirit, which had already suffered catastrophic damage in Slovenia and in the battles for the Croatian barracks." Tezwoo (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the source you posted nothing in it says it was a military disaster. That is a false quoting. "The JNA’s failure to seize the town" - as far as I am aware JNA did seize the town. Again mention of "Pyrrhic victory", conflicting two separate terms. Either you suffered military disaster or Pyrrhic victory, it can't be both. And I honestly doubt validity of the claim that it was Pyrrhic victory, not when a source you posted is using Croatian unobjective terms about the war. So again, why should this battle be included if it does not meet requirements set in the article? Istinar (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The green text I highlighted follows the factors listed in the lead of the article:

• chronic mission failure (the key factor) - "The campaign fell apart almost immediately as JNA forces bogged down in their attempt to reduce the Croatian-held town of Vukovar." and "The siege had completely disrupted the timetable for the JNA’s strategic offensive"
• successful enemy action - "JNA’s failure to seize the town despite its overwhelming force" (there's also "Croatian forces’ prolonged resistance")

Yes, the JNA did eventually capture Vukovar, but only after months of heavy fighting and with a complete collapse of their plans, as the above source confirms. Tezwoo (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If campaign fell apart JNA would not take over Vukovar, again it was a heavy military and moral blow to Croats, international community pressured Milošević to halt further offensive. It was not a chronic mission failure because JNA captured Vukovar. I would not call having your entire fighting force wiped out "successful enemy action". Istinar (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention Istinar’s completely off topic comments such as “instead these conditions being a disaster only to “Croats: they failed to defend and keep the city, enemy took over city and they lost complete command and control over it. They also had around 50% of their total force killed, rest wounded.” while ignoring the fact that it was 36,000 to 1,800. That is quite humiliating for the JNA. For JNA losses: 1,103 killed, 2,500 wounded 110 tanks and armoured vehicles and 3 aircraft destroyed. So the false switcharoo falls flat. They don’t buy the “ Pyrrhic victory” definition. Alao “ After the war much effort was put into propaganda how it was a crucial battle that turned the tide of war, but the truth is international community played key role in truce which followed after the battle.” the agenda here is clear. International community didn’t prtake in the siege nor demoralize the JNA. Oh lordy. As Tezwoo demonstrated above such claims are a farce. And I always here them from a very special group. :) But ones own definitions are irrelevant. Thank you Tezwoo. Though it may fall on deaf ears.... I think we can close the books on this. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, lies. And I thought you said " I don’t think there is much more for me to say. I think I’m done here." It is not an off topic comment to point out that almost entire Croatian force was wiped out and that they lost the city. That sounds like a military disaster. I am not ignoring military size of both sides - it is not as important as you try to make it out to be. Casualties you posted is one of the estimates how many people JNA lost, there are even lover estimates than that. No, international community played a role in stopping the war and putting pressure on Milošević to halt the offensive. So again, why should this battle be included if it does not meet the three requirements set in the article? Your continued personal attacks on me and your clearly biased interpretation and argumentation is not how users are supposed to interact here. Istinar (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations again with further projections! Thank you for showing everyone who you are and what you are really all about. Calling me a “liar” along with these other conspiracy theories and provocations. It is evident to anyone I answered you off topic claims. As I said before. Nothing more to say TO YOU. I was talking to the other editor. But I see you crave my attention and want to further fight. No thanks. You haven’t brought any new or constructive arguments. And this is my last response to YOU. Learn to discern when someone is responding to you vs another editor. Haha, take care buddy. :) OyMosby (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you. Istinar (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We feel sorry for you and lack of self reflection. I was responding to another useer and you come in. Didn’t ask for your input. You complain of “personal attacks” yet began with this from the start. Seek therapy. And reflect on how you carried yourself before admins do it for you. Anyone can see the comedy here. So I’ll leave your insults for the records. OyMosby (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the provided reliable source (1 book) claim that it was "military disaster". That is WP:OR in best-case scenario. Unless other WP:RS are provided, the material is ripe to be removed.

Interpretations of events and numbers by editors who are not experts are generally not welcome, we should provide sources.

I could, for example, strongly claim that JNA was able to afford to lose much more men and equipment, while the Croatian army couldn't and it was, all in all, a big moral blow and a military loss for their side - and it was. On the other hand, it was also a blow to JNA in the sense that it delayed other plans and actions. All in all, provide proper non-partisan sources or the material will be deleted. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 07:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's no other source, I vote we remove this battle from the list. Istinar (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Balkan Battlegrounds Vol 1, p. 110 [5] says the battle "was a decisive factor in the disruption of the JNA's strategic offensive", that it "turned into a three-month, life-or-death struggle that sucked in nearly all of the combat forces earmarked for the main operation, leaving the offensive beached and gasping", "damaged the Army's already sinking morale and prestige", and that its belated capture was a "public relations disaster in the West" Finally, that it "came to symbolise the war itself, highlighting the Croatian's valiant efforts to break away from Yugoslavia". On the previous page, the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". Sounds pretty bad to me. Also, there is some coverage of the relative disaster of Vukovar for both the Serb/JNA and Croatian sides in Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies: A Scholars' Initiative, and there is also discussion of the mistake of not bypassing it. On page 247 it says that at Vukovar, "The army lost its timings and resources, but the most significant losses were its combat morale and credibility in the eyes of personnel and the public alike". I have requested access via WP:RSX. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Again this will likely fall on deaf ears as the original Ip then account holder went on about Croat forces failings rather the topic at hand. The agenda is clear here. Thank your Peacemaker for chiming in some sanity once again. I reverted the revert again. One more time and I will bring in admins. OyMosby (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You may not know, At West Point University they are learning how not to attack a city with the example of the Battle of Vukovar 89.172.24.203 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Balkan Battlegrounds is the most in-depth military analysis of the 1990s wars, so certainly a reliable source for a topic dealing primarily with the military effects of a particular battle or war. There are also sources that talk about the impact on the international level of the battle, such as The Death of a City: The Yugoslav Peoples Army Siege of Vukovar, 1991, Refugee Crisis, and Its Aftermath (it's a paper from 2019, but is not available online): "Most international actors preferred to keep Yugoslavia in-tact, whether because of obligations elsewhere, a realpolitik outlook, or simply a romanticization of Yugoslavism. The JNA’s destruction of Vukovar, however, dramatically altered international opinion. The JNA and Slobodan Milosević, henceforth, were identified as the primary aggressors during the Yugoslav Wars." Tezwoo (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:FORUM and off-topic. Do you have any reliable sources which claim that the battle was a military disaster? Is it the academy consensus? That is not the case, as far as I know. What has been presented is WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR and grasping at straws. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sadko: not sure if you saw @Peacemaker67: quote from a book that the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". So they are saying it was a military disasters among other disasters as well. Keep in mind, winning doesn’t mean it can’t be a disaster for your military. OyMosby (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Balkan Battlegrounds is very clear in their assessment of the battle and its impact on the JNA campaign, and the other source I mention deals with how the battle impacted international stance on the war, so I don't see what is here off-topic, OR, or whatever. Tezwoo (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sadko, not for the first time, your wikilawyering and linking of policy is completely off-base. I have provided reliable sources and provided quotes. How about you engage with the sources instead of this dismissive wikilawyering. I don't think you even understand the practical effect of the policies you so often link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure buddy. Thank you for letting me know. It's quite simple - I did not see your message. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Several problems with arguments pointed out by people who push to include this battle in the list.

First, Balkan Battlegrounds Vol 1 which is being quoted here says "the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". The source describes entire offensive as a disaster (and that statement itself is highly questionable) not the battle itself from what I can understand. The narrative that is being pushed here is that losing Vukovar was somehow a morale boost for the Croats and military victory - it was actually opposite. The battle itself, no matter how long and hard, was not a military disaster for JNA (but it was for the Croats). Next quote "The army lost its timings and resources, but the most significant losses were its combat morale and credibility in the eyes of personnel and the public alike" - losing combat morale and credibility are not military disasters. Balkan Battlegrounds is not very clear in their assessment of the battle. It was international pressure which led to temporary end of fighting, which we can see in Vance plan.

Second, on article Battle of Vukovar end result is described as Pyrrhic victory. Users here tried to use the same source to justify outcome of this battle both as the military victory and as military disaster. It can't be both. This article focuses on disasters, military defeats, putting battle of Vukovar on this list would make it the only battle where a side which did not suffer heavy casualties, did annihilate its enemy and captured its objective has somehow suffered military disaster.

Third, so that we would not have such long discussions and dishonest arguments from clearly overemotional users who might straight out ignore what other users say, three rules were set at the beginning of this page which determined what is a military disaster. Rules were set precisely so that not every battle could be shoved in here. You are all aware of them but because users here mostly choose to ignore those when I point them out allow me to repeat them:

1. chronic mission failure (the key factor)

2. successful enemy action

3. (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure

I have argued above and already explained why this battle does not meet these requirements.

I see no reliable sources that name this battle as "military disaster", this battle was first added without sources, and when they were added they were falsely quoted. Despite concentrated effort by users who edit Croat-related articles to put this battle on the list, I see no reason for it to be added, especially not when it does not meet the three rules. Istinar (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

” so that we would not have such long discussions and dishonest arguments from clearly overemotional users who might straight out ignore what other users say” again with these hypersensitive (pot calling the kettle black) projections and insults. I pity you mate. You accuse me of being a liar and then have the gall to say you feel sorry for me. It is clear you are emotionally bothered and invested here. And I don’t understand the anger. And breaking Wiki rules on personal attacks and circumventing via IP and account creation (which you admitted you did, I did not make up). @Peacemaker67: and @Tezwoo: and I have stated information backed by RS. I answered all your off topic points hence the long responses. Sigh..... Sadko acknowledged the info as well as they missed it before hand. Stay on topic. Had you done so to begin with there would be no need to adress countless of topic points and topics of yours. Peacemaker provided sourcing. The rest of us had a productive discussion. Enough with the “overemotional” and passive aggressive comments and libel. This isn’t Reddit. This is for mature talks. Case seems closed. Sourcing calls it a Military disaster literally. So clearly this is ignoring all of us and what we said. We can move on from this discussion I think. OyMosby (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your personal insults, threats and projections aside - you have not responded to any of three major points I raised. You simply chose to ignore them.

Since there are no more sources or arguments, or even constructive comments, I will be removing this battle from the list. Reasons are listed in discussion above. Istinar (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All I have seen is IDHT comments from you. You just ignore the sources that say it was a military disaster, like Balkan Battlegrounds. I have restored it. Get consensus here and do not edit-war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All I see are you and two other users who IGNORE THREE RULES SET AT THE BEGINNING and also ignore arguments I put forward. There are no sourceS claiming it was military disaster, there is only ONE source source claiming entire offensive was a disaster (but not the battle itself from what I can understand and what is being discussed here), which is strange considering JNA did not suffer heavy casualties, did take over Vukovar, did nearly annihilate or capture Croatian forces and even pushed offensive further until international community stepped in. Same source is falling into narrative-building pit (just like you and other users) when claiming fall of Vukovar was somehow a victory for Croats, ignoring that it was a military defeat, a blow to Croatian morale and that city had become part of Croatia only in 1998, three years after the end of war. Istinar (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for this deletion. You also do not set the rules for discussion, the "criteria" you are using is not based in reliable sources. This battle was basically the main operation of the offensive, which was a failure across several areas, according to Balkan Battlegrounds. I don't care what you consider to be "strange" according to your "criteria", we use what is in reliable sources, and as far as the Balkan Wars are concerned, it is very hard to go past Balkan Battlegrounds. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have consensus because I am arguing with people who push their agenda and are not honest. The criteria I am using is set at the beginning of the page, three conditions that determine what is a military disaster. You ignoring those shows how honest your discussion here is. Yeah, apparently this battle was a "failure across several areas" you say - just not the military one (or any other if we are being honest). You are actually arguing that because JNA did not suffer heavy casualties, did capture the city and destroyed Croatian forces (while also dealing a blow to their morale) has somehow suffered a military disaster. That is just dishonest. Battle of Vukovar was not a military disaster for JNA, but it sure was for the Croats. And if you are making argument that entire offensive was a disaster, then you need to make a distinction between offensive and battle itself. I have pointed out that your only source is flawed and is contributing a lot of what happened later in the war to this battle, which is simply wrong and is ignoring many factors of that war. Istinar (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I could find Balkan Battlegrounds is the ONLY source on the entire internet which claims this battle (offensive to be precise) was a military disaster, and it paints that operation with a rather broad brush. Because I have received no response to numerous problems I pointed out I will remove this battle from the list. Reasons are already mentioned above. Too many issues and uncooperative editors. Istinar (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

IN fact, I am wondering about many of the entries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

RS? There aren't any. Only one source claims that "the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA"", and I am quoting another user here, I was not able to check the source myself. Claim that offensive was a "disaster" is a stretch at best and that claim is for entire offensive, not the battle itself. Istinar (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The entire offensive was a disaster because this battle wrecked the offensive. An RS has already been provided, and Balkan Battlegrounds is freely available online. You don't have consensus, so drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like original research. I already explained to you on February 8th why this battle does not belong here. You ignored me and did not address any of my arguments. You don't have either consensus or sources to put this battle on the list, so drop the stick. Istinar (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Then we list the campaign, not the battle. If RS do not say the battle was a disaster it fails wp:v to say it was a disaster.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And even that claim is a stretch at best when you consider that JNA captured the town, wiped out or captured most of enemy combatants, struck a blow to enemy morale, did not suffer heavy casualties and continued offensive after that battle. Not to mention international pressure and Vance plan which led to ceasefire. Istinar (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Which is also wp:or, if RS say it was a disaster so do we, regardless of what we know to be the truth.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Stating facts is not OR, stretching supposed outcome of the offensive to the battle itself (after seeing sources don't say what it was claimed they say) is OR at best. There is only one source which claims this offensive was a disaster (only one I could find on the internet) and the way it is phrased makes that source suspicious. Second, you forgot three factors mentioned at the beginning of the article which battle must meet in order to be added to the list. Istinar (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not deal in fact we deal in WP:VERIFYabilty.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Any comment on the three factors I mentioned? Istinar (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we go with what RS say. If an RS says it was a disaster so do we, if is only one RS we might say "according to..." but as this is a list its a tad too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

According to reliable source The World's Worst Military Disasters: Chronicling the Greatest Battlefield Catastrophes of All Time by Chris McNab which set three factors as guidelines in this article - this battle does not belong on the list. Istinar (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That is one set of criteria, and I said the battle does not belong here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is another set of criteria mentioned earlier, in previous paragraph - "can range from a strong army losing a major battle against a clearly inferior force, to an army being surprised and defeated by a clearly superior force, to a seemingly evenly matched conflict with an extremely one sided result". Yugoslav army did not lose a major battle against a clearly inferior force, it was not surprised and defeated by a clearly superior force nor was it a seemingly evenly matched conflict with an extremely one sided result. At least it was not one sided for Yugoslav army. Istinar (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Have we reached Consensus yet? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So the proposal is to list the entire 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia, instead of just the battle of Vukovar?

Regarding Balkan Battlegrounds, that is a seminal work on the military history of the Yugoslav wars. It is misleading to call it an "only source". Keep in mind that we are not discussing a battle in, for example, the Vietnam War with dozens if not more sources of Balkan Battlegrounds' length and detail so that we can discard something if it's found in only one of them. Every article about a battle or operation from the 1990s I read on Wikipedia has that book as one of the main sources. Tezwoo (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is about right.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think @Istinar: misunderstood you and thought you meant not include the camping either just a side note. Istinar can verify if I misread. Though @Slatersteven: I thought you didn’t want to include the Battle/Siege of Vukovar? Now you propose to list all the sieges by the JNA in the 91 campaign? I mean I have non issue if RS states this but I believe Istinar will take the same disagreement with that alternative as well based on the rules they mention. The battle of Vukovar in particular was basically the main operation of the offensive, which was a failure according to the source Balkan Battlegrounds. Not sure why we would ignore RS. The Army barely winning the battle or now even worse reaching a stalemate with an “inferior” or weaker army is a military disaster for that army as the sources say. This passes even the other user’s self imposed rules. I think the sources specifically say the battle. Not the entire campaign of multiple battles. The Siege of Vukovar was outlined in the source I think. Otherwise all battles would be listed from the 1991 campaign? That’s a lot....OyMosby (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think @Tezwoo: and @Peacemaker67: already went in detail about that. There isn’t consensus yet to out the whole campaign as you suggest. But if the source includes the entire JNA campaign then that is what the source says. That’s a lot of JNA sieges and battles to be included. Siege of Dubrovnik and such... Either way Vukovar is included. So it so no consensus to remove Vukovar. OyMosby (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No as we go with RS, and this is not about battl34s, its about military disasters. If (as seems to be the case) RS say this was a disaster so can we. We do not have to, but we can.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep I was agreeing with going by RS from the start so I agree with you, Peacemaker and Tezwoo. You had stated you would remove The Siege of Vukovar earlier so I was confused. The RS marked it a military disaster as the others mentioned. CheersOyMosby (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole offensive (of which the Battle of Vukovar was the major action) was a military disaster, so it should be th e whole offensive, but the Battle of Vukovar should be mentioned due to its importance and role in the disaster. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup, precisely. OyMosby (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see consensus. I see people trying to justify sourceless addition to this list and when that did not work they ask to change entry from battle of Vukovar to 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia (an article which mentions no disaster, but mentions stalemate as a result and Vance plan, the one I already mentioned in discussion here).

It is not misleading to point out fact that Balkan Battlegrounds is the only source here quoted that claims this offensive in general was a "disaster", but not the battle in question (something users here claimed source says). I fail to see how can capturing a town and annihilating enemy forces in it be a failure. I see no reliable source here which says battle of Vukovar was a military disaster (because it was not). That was already explained in this discussion.

This battle does not meet requirements set at the beginning of this article which determine what constitutes military disaster: "Military disasters in this list can range from a strong army losing a major battle against a clearly inferior force, to an army being surprised and defeated by a clearly superior force, to a seemingly evenly matched conflict with an extremely one sided result" - Yugoslav Army did not lose against clearly inferior force, it was not surprised and defeated by a clearly superior force and this was not evenly matched conflict with an extremely one sided result. Not when result was stalemate (in case of battle of Vukovar victory) and Vance plan. This battle ALSO does not meet another set of requirements mentioned in this article: chronic mission failure, successful enemy action, total degeneration of a force's command and control structure. If you have no sources to back up your edits and if your addition to this list does not meet requirements set than that addition should be removed.

In this case both battle of Vukovar and 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia do not meet requirements set at the beginning of this article in order to be added on the list. Istinar (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No comments from other users who frequently post here or response to problems I pointed out, I see. I can only assume that by ignoring any further comments they hope to see this discussion archived which would mean no consensus and controversial addition to the list would remain. I would like to point out again that there are no sources which support the claim that battle of Vukovar belongs on this list (that was already discussed at length) and that this battle does not meet conditions set at the beginning of the article. Seeking help on dispute resolution boards was not helpful. @Nick-D: @GraemeLeggett: @Slatersteven: and @Sadko: what next? Is this highly controversial addition (at best) going to be removed from the list or not? If I receive no response does this mean consensus is to remove this battle? Istinar (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well WP:ONUS is clear, it is down to those who wish to add to convince.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep up engaging on the TP Istinar. Maybe some people are busy. I dislike using the Agency's documents as sources, they were an involved party. And there is no quote for Woodward 1995, p. 258. I am not able to verify it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, will do. I managed to find Woodward, on p. 258 there is no mention of "military disaster", only "Pyrrhic victory" with quotation marks quoting Miloš Vasić. IP user who added this battle simply copied sources from Battle of Vukovar page and posted them here as a source.Istinar (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

One person disagreeing with the other editors makes this closer to obstinacy than controversy. A lack of comment does not mean agreement with your points. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Asking someone to back up claim with a proper source is not obstinacy, trying to add content without proper sources is. Slatersteven has already said above "it is down to those who wish to add to convince". Istinar (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I put source from Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990-1995 , page 99-100 and 110 93.138.97.159 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You duplicated a source, source which was already disproved in discussion you are in right now. Istinar (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Istinar it is not a duplicate source the other is this is from Central Intelligence Agency Office of Russian and European Analysis year 2000 ,this is Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990-1995 year 200293.138.97.159 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Then you can provide the quote from the source (which seems to be mentioned 17 times in this thread).Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the interlocutors explained to you above that it was a military catastrophe and that is what the source says. What Pyrrhic victory than military catastrophe ? Everyone who knows military history knows that Pyrrhic victory is the definition of a military catastrophe in some battle. All that is needed is the name of the Pyrrhic victory and the source for it to be a military catastrophe, my opinion but i added more source which you deleted. 93.138.97.159 (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How (we) define it. chronic mission failure (the key factor) (does not fit that, after all it is a victory), successful enemy action, (does not fit that, after all it is a victory), (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure (which (as we say) is less significant, and thus is not a given, and even if it did, we say two of these are needed, not just one). Sp no, it is not clear that a Pyrrhic victory is the definition of a military catastrophe. This has (also) been explained many times, you need a source that says this was a catastrophe (see wp:v), not that you infer to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay it's your opinion is Pyrrhic victory is not a military disaster, my opinion is Pyrrhic victory is a military catastrophe. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. So we need to ask who knows military history to tell us if Pyrrhic victory is a military disaster93.138.97.159 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well one answer to that is do RS call a specific battle a military disaster. Which is what you are being told, do RS say it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I will no longer post the source that you deleted. My starting point is that Pyrrhic victory is a military catastrophe and that is enough, but I still put a source that describes that military catastrophe. I will not write anymore, let someone who knows military history join the conversation and explain it to us. Greetings93.138.97.159 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There are alrwady two different sources backing the claim thisnwas a military disaster. It was not disproven it was quoted above by Peacemaker67 and Tezwoo. Balkan Battlegrounds is biased? Also why is the other source in the article ignored? There isn’t really much more to cover here. OyMosby (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Then maybe you would care to repeat it, as I do not see any quote saying this battle was a military disaster (or to put it another way, no quote that contains the word "disaster"). What I see quotes saying it was a Pyrrhic victory.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Only one source claims it was "Pyrrhic victory" with quotations and it quotes a journalist not a military expert. Istinar (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And what are those two sources which specifically say this was a military disaster? Balkan Battlegrounds uses term " disaster" for the whole offensive not battle and it paints it with broad brush calling it "military, political and public relations disaster", the same source which uses such POV words as "Croatians' valiant effort" and other over the top descriptions. Once it was established this source does not back up the claim that this battle was a military disaster users here wanted to switch this battle with 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia which was a stalemate and mentions no disaster. If second source you speak of is Woodward she mentions no disaster at all, which I already explained. If by second source you meant The Death of a City that paper also mentions no "military disaster" specifically as was quoted here by other user. Istinar (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly to both of you I am not using “ Pyrrhic victory” as the logic even though Vukovar was definitely a Pyrrhic Victory. Came at a big cost. Correct @Istinar: Battlegrounds says the campaign of 91 by JNA was a disaster with Vukovar being a critical part of it. Hence a proposal to include the entire JNA campaign as Slatersteven suggested. And here is a quote from @Peacemaker67: “[the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". Sounds pretty bad to me. Also, there is some coverage of the relative disaster of Vukovar for both the Serb/JNA and Croatian sides in Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies: A Scholars' Initiative, and there is also discussion of the mistake of not bypassing it. On page 247 it says that at Vukovar, "The army lost its timings and resources, but the most significant losses were its combat morale and credibility in the eyes of personnel and the public alike". I have requested access via WP:RSX. ]” This was easily found by me in a few seconds skimming above. @Slatersteven: not sure if you missed Peacemaker’s entry. Also Steven you were in favor of including the entire campaign by the JNA as a disaster and I agree. I also agree with Peacemaker that Vukovar is a worthy mentioned highlight of the listed campaign. Being it was a critical moment in the campaign. @Tezwoo: am I interpreting the Balkan Battlegrounds source you provided correctly? I hope this clears things up a bit. Stay well everyone. OyMosby (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have reliable source which specifically says that battle of Vukovar was a military disaster (in those words)? Istinar (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I will check both “reliable” sources. They are reliable they seem RS. Unless you see that they ate biased or bad sources? One states the entire Campaign a disaster highlighted Vukovar in that camping. The other by PM Vukovar directly based on his entry. I will take a second look at the source if I can since PM says it may be limited academic access. I’ll bring whatever excerpts along with page numbers that way we have references everyone agrees on to point to. Will get back to you. Though not immediately. OyMosby (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So, you don't. Balkan Battlegrounds is being misquoted here (or OR take your pick) and I do find its POV wording biased. Woodward mentions no "military disaster". You had since December last year when this discussion started to put forward reliable sources, no one is going to wait for you, until reliable sources are here this battle should be removed from the list. Istinar (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In your opinion then all the battles that are here that are Pyrrhic victories should be removed from the list and half of them are without sources (because you are strictly asking in the source "battle vukovar is military disaster" that someone has to write just like that in order for you to believe that it was a military disaster, maybe someone will find it in the source), and all who put them are wrong, only you are right, who claim that Pyrrhic victory is not a military disaster. You are talking about the "key factor", the fact is that after the battle for Vukovar all the stronger attacks on Croatia stopped in the following years there were no more attacks on Croatia. Everything was stopped because the battle for Vukovar with heavy losses stopped the further advance of the army and military units from Serbia to Zagreb, which was the ultimate goal of the army. Which can be seen from various maps in the article battle for Vukovar which was the main target of the jna. It was like the battle of Sigetvar that stopped the 1566 Ottoman Empire towards Vienna, so they withdrew and did not attacked Vienna for the next 100 years. Now tell me, was that not a military catastrophe for the Ottoman Empire? It is also a Pyrrhic victory.93.138.97.159 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I said there are serious issues here with the inclusion of battles that are not called by RS military disasters. Again a source must say it is such a way that it is not open to interpretation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Istinar:. So I do. Read. Enough with the twisted belittling. No one here seems to be sharing your views on this matter. I have not been on this page that often yet you speak to me like I spend 24/7 on this subject as your account does. You asked right now to verify a quote from a book by PM. What are you talking about???? I’m not focused on just one article in Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 apparently does have the quote. Look up further. I even quoted him. I literally showed you what he quoted from the book. I am not the sole admin of this page. I said I would verify the source he presented. This was brought this year. This was presented only a few weeks ago not “since December” It’s not about me. Two other editors provided their sourcing. Have at em while I verify your claims and theirs. I don’t need these demands. @Slatersteven: saw it notable to include the camping on the list. Yet you don’t confront them???OyMosby (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I gave you sources which you deleted that speak of a military catastrophe for JNA , it would be right for you to put sources that say that it was not a military catastrophe for JNA and there is none here 93.138.97.159 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this you [6]? Istinar (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time for an RFC, we need fresh eyes to look at this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This is getting nowhere and just aggressive. RfC with neutral parties would help. Just be watchful of canvasing that always happens with Balkan RfCs as you know. Many treat RfCs as a “greater number of votes wins” when really it’s the closing admin that decides what makes most sense based on evidence and such presented. OyMosby (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: should the 91 JNA Campaign be an option as well as you and most of us agreed would be a good alternative? OyMosby (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Not yet, lets no complicate matters. Keep the RFC simple. We can discuss the campaign after.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for setting it up by the way! OyMosby (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Battle of Vukovar

Should the Battle of Vukovar be included in this list?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Phyric victory (with enemy forces and their positions annihilated all the same) can not be presented as a "military disaster". There is a lack of quality sources and academic consensus on the topic, which was brought up by fellow editor Istinar. No quotes or any additional details ore explanations were presented so that we could verify the 1 or 2 presented sources.Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support as part of the inclusion of the 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia in the list. The strategic offensive against Croatia as a whole, of which the Battle of Vukovar formed the principal operation, is described on page 109 of Balkan Battlegrounds as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". So, an authoritative source on the Balkan Wars of the 90s literally describes it as a military disaster. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I wrote my take in the discussion above already. The inclusion of this battle is in accordance to the Balkan Battlegrounds source, the most in-dept military analysis of the Yugoslav Wars. Including the entire JNA campaign is also fine by me. Tezwoo (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources for both Vukovar and the JNA campaign (although Balkan Battlegrounds is more than enough):

"The Battle of Vukovar was the key battle in Croatia’s Homeland War. By tying down the enormous Serbian military machine for several months, the defenders of Vukovar gave Croatia priceless time and space to create an Army sufficiently equipped and capable to defend newly born Croatia. And, by neutralizing enormous amounts of Serbian manpower and equipment, the defenders weakened the aggressor military, politically, and psychologically." Mario Sebetovsky: Battle of Vukovar: The Battle that Saved Croatia, p. 45

"“The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army. It also presented a turning point of international public opinion in favour of Croatia, contributing significantly to launching of procedure for recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence." Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991

"For the JNA, the Croatian campaign was a disaster, with many units failing to perform effectively, and popular resistance to reserve call-ups in Serbia." John R. Schindler: Unholy Terror, p. 66 Tezwoo (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I still see no mention of the Battle being a disaster.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What? It is a poor translation, but "The operation Vukovar" clearly refers to the JNA attack on Vukovar and is synonymous with the Battle of Vukovar. If you read the context, Nikolić clearly doesn't mean the overall strategic offensive. And catastrophe and disaster are effectively synonymous as well. Are you saying that there should be a separate List of military catastrophes? The parsing going on here is pretty fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I am saying it fails wp:v because it needs there reader to "see the context" of a poor translation. Maybe it does mean that, But maybe if I read it I would see a different context, but I cannot tell that from this quote. That is because (in English) operation and battle are not wholly synonymous. operation usually refers to a larger...operation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"Operation Vukovar" or "Vukovar operation" ("vukovarska operacija") was the name used by the JNA for the attack on Vukovar. It followed the naming convention from WW2 when most Partisan battles were called "operations" (Sarajevo Operation, Mostar Operation, Knin Operation, Trieste operation...). Tezwoo (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

As peacemaker said "its a bad translation". And Wikipedia is not an RS and Battle of Knin, so I am not sure what we are seeing here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What is a bad translation? The JNA used the name "vukovarska operacija" ("Vukovar Operation") for what is on Wikipedia titled "Battle of Vukovar". The entire offensive in eastern Slavonia was called "Eastern Slavonia-Baranja Operation" [7]. Tezwoo (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You will have to ask the person who claimed it was a poor translation as part of their argument as to why it means "battle".Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That is OR and "catastrophe" is only mentioned in the English summary of the article, not the body of the article. I found no mention of "disaster" or "catastrophe" when I read the article itself. The English summary is also different from Serbian summary which is at the beginning of the article and mentions no "disaster" or "catastrophe". Istinar (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It is actually WP:BLUE. The English summary of the article, as published originally in Tragovi, is where the words "“The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army." comes from. Obviously referring to the JNA as "that army". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Revisionist author who is not military expert does not mention specifically that it was "military disaster". Istinar (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose So far no source has been provided which says The battle was a disaster, any other matter if for another discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Battle should not be included in the list. Not one reliable source which specifically says battle of Vukovar was military disaster has been provided. Balkan Battlegrounds which is mentioned here calls entire offensive in Croatia "military, political and public relations disaster" (but not the battle) which is rather broad description and uses unobjective, POV wording to describe this offensive. Users who repeatedly mention this source either misquote it or simply do OR. This also does not meet WP:ONUS condition that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. When users saw this source does not support their claim that battle of Vukovar was "military disaster" they started campaign to call entire 1991 Yugoslav offensive in Croatia disaster, even though article mentions no disaster at all.

Regarding other sources users have mentioned: Mario Sebetovsky does not mention term "military disaster", his wording is rather POV and his claim of neutralization of "enormous amounts of Serbian manpower and equipment" is questionable since JNA suffered less losses and unobjective since we are talking about Yugoslav army here. Kosta Nikolić published his work in hrcak.srce.hr which is Croatian site and it looks like his work is used in further building of Croatian myth when it comes to Vukovar. He was also accussed of historical revisionism. His work mentions no "military disaster" and it seems quote "became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army" is taken from summary not the body of the work. John R. Schindler does not mention specifically that battle of Vukovar was a military disaster.

Further more this battle does not meet conditions set in the second and third paragraph of this article as to what constitutes military disaster. Those conditions are: "army losing a major battle against a clearly inferior force, to an army being surprised and defeated by a clearly superior force, to a seemingly evenly matched conflict with an extremely one sided result" and "chronic mission failure (the key factor), successful enemy action, (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure". If this battle is added I fear it may set a precedent and lead other users to add battles which clearly do not fit the list and back them with poor sources or none at all, thus causing even more confusion on this page. Istinar (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Your statement re accepting this addition may create further problems is a "thin end of the wedge" (logical fallacy). Stuff being added to wikipedia without sources is an issue (feature) all over wikipedia, and we deal with it to the best of our ability. Leaving out, or including this item will not alter that on this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Of all the facts I presented you have issue with my closing comment (an opinion) about what may/may not happen? And yes, I think that on this page some users would use this battle (if it ends on the list) as a precedent for future bad entries. Istinar (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no any credible source that can prove the battle wasn't a success.Sea Ane (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Really? So none of the sources used to support its inclusion are "credible" in your view? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The question is of it being a military disaster, which is a classification regardless if they won or lost. OyMosby (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - A direct quite was given multiple times and even already in the RfC “described on page 109 of Balkan Battlegrounds as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA".” So a disaster on many fronts, one of them being a military one. And it is obvious that this sets a positive precedent that you can’t disregard reliable sources just because you don’t want to. You have to accept the facts as an editor. OyMosby (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That is OR. Source does not call battle of Vukovar "military disaster". Istinar (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Look I’m sorry we got off on the wrong foot firstly. Second why is it OR if it says “ "military, political and public relations disaster”? Military is one of the disasters. I’m having trouble understanding genuinely here why it would be OR. OyMosby (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Because the source nowhere explicitly says that battle of Vukovar was a "military disaster". Istinar (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC) — Istinar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The source says it was an A) military B) political and C) public relations D) disaster. Comprehending the basic meaning of an English sentence is not OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Already explained ad nauseam above. Source (which also has other issues) calls entire offensive ABC "disaster" and not the battle itself. There were many battles and clashes in different places in this offensive, and source does not call this battle - battle of Vukovar "military disaster". Reading comprehension is needed to understand that. Istinar (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The source literally lists military disaster for the siege among other terms for the event. I’m not sure what is missing. Also surprised the same day another Balkan topic centric account pops up on the page about this specific event. Please note to all that this isn’t a popularity vote. Arguments are needed so stating one simply agrees with someone isn’t contributing to the closing admins decision. Simply an observation. Not accusing anyone directly. Just as a disclaimer. OyMosby (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, due to lack of sources describing the battle as a disaster per Slatersteven Idealigic (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Slatersteven proposed including Vukovar among all the military events in the 91’ campaign as a entire military disaster not just removing Vukovar with no replacement. Food for thought.OyMosby (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, per comments above and lack of sources. Elserbio00 (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – lack of sources stating that the Battle of Vukovar was a military disaster. Vacant0 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don’t really see how catastrophe (an event causing great and often sudden damage or suffering; a disaster.) isn’t the same as disaster. It was already sourced above “The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army. It also presented a turning point of international public opinion in favour of Croatia, contributing significantly to launching of procedure for recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence." Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991. So saying there is no source or sources are “lacking” is an invalid argument. I hope the closing admin takes note of this. Perhaps it was a language barrier issue. But Catastrophe is defined as a disaster. OyMosby (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not a fan of these lists in general, but if we are going to have them then entries should be directly supported by multiple, reliable, independent sources. A single source which says that a campaign was a disaster, with one or two others that generally indicate it went badly, is not enough to justify including an individual battle within that campaign. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see how the multiple reliable RS cited sources are not meeting criteria. Not every source for events on the list uses the same synonyms for the chosen general term of the article “Disaster”. That title isn’t sourced. It was just a general term chosen. There is more than one source defining it as one. Let alone It is not an official rule that more than one source is needed for any fact in an article. @Peacemaker67: who deals with military history on these parts typically, am I missing something here? I would think by now with all these sources this would pretty much be unanimous. :/ OyMosby (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: Here's the thing. It's not that multiple sources are needed for facts in every article. But with many of our lists the entries will quickly grow out of control and cease to be of any value unless we restrict them to the most noteworthy entries. The best way to do that is by requiring wide reproduction (i.e. across multiple IS/RS). The wording requirement can at times seem silly, but without it these lists tend to quickly lose focus. Like I said I'm not a fan of these in general, largely because there's it's extremely difficult to keep them neutral and of reasonable length while no creating through synthesis associations of the sort that none of our sources make, and some are just plainly silly. Anyway I've said my piece, and I'm about to be on wikibreak soon here anyway. I respect your position, and also recognize that there our larger philosophical differences at play here that will not be resolved in this rfc. Cheers, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)