Talk:Croatian War of Independence/Archive 1

Bold text

About the name of this article

Good, now that we finally have article about the war, it'd be nice if we standardised the name of it. Here is list of redirects we currently have:

• Croatian Homeland War
• Croatian Secession conflict
• Homeland war (Croatia)
• Croatian War of Independence
• Croatian war of independence
• Croatian War
• War in Croatia

It seems to me that only reasonable candidats are:

• Croatian Homeland War ~16.800, [1]
• Homeland war (Croatia) ~31.600, [2]
• Croatian War of Independence ~475, [3]

Homeland war is a redlink. Sooo, it seems to me that it'd be apropriate to move this article to Homeland war and then fix all this redirects... Any better suggestions? --Dijxtra 12:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if Homeland war (Homeland War?) is free, let's move in. If someone else comes up with another Homeland war in the future, just move to Homeland war (Croatia). --Elephantus 12:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The most common name is actually the simplest possible - "war in Croatia", with ~81.700 results.

I thought about that one, but I find it just way to much generic. --Dijxtra 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

However, that cannot be the sole criterion. I am not convinced that "homeland war" makes all much sense in English, not unlike the "patriotic war" the Russians had. I don't know whether there is any point in using a direct translation over the common phrase war of independence. Which is really the best explanation of the meaning if you think about it - domovinski rat means war for the homeland (not of or in), and by that it means none other than an independent homeland. If you put "Croatia" together with "war for the independence of the homeland", the most sane contraction is indeed "Croatian war of independence". --Joy [shallot] 12:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

From an outsiders perspective, Croatia(n) Independence War makes more sense. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 13:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Croatian war of independence" seems quite plausible to me too, but the fact is it has 100 times less occurrences than "Homeland war". While I agree that the count can't be the sole criterion, the 31.600 / 475 ratio tells us something, don't you think? I wouldn't be so sure that "Homeland war" doesn't make sence in English... maybe we should ask some English native speakers?

BTW, don't get me wrong, I'm not that much against the "war of independence" solution (if I get outvoted I'll agree with you in a split of a sec), it just seems to me that "Homeland war" is much more common... --Dijxtra 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, apparently "homeland war" has caught on as a sort of semi-official literal translation from Croatian, which could explain its high google count (used in many Croatian sources translated into English). It may (or may not) be associated in the mind of an English speaker with either South African homelands or the recent "homeland security" USA thing? --Elephantus 13:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "Croatian War of Independence" (note the capitalization) is a bit more natural and neutral since the phrase "War of Independence" is idiomatic [4] and the word "homeland" often has negative connotations in the English-speaking world, especially in North America [5] [6] [7]. This of course makes me wonder if the name has played any role in colouring negative perceptions of Croatia in the media and is also why you often see English language articles referring to "Croatia's 'Homeland War'" (note the scare quotes). --AHrvojic 14:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Hi - Dijkstra has asked me to comment as a native English speaker (and presumably also as someone who is "politically neutral" about the general situation in the Balkans as a whole). I'd say that Croatian War of Independence is preferable in terms of English to Croatian Independence War (compare things like the American War of Independence, for instance). The term "homeland war" isn't used in English (although I note the comment that it is a literal translation and is used in cases where Croatian information has been translated into English). I certainly wasn't aware of the term and if I didn't now know its meaning I would probably assume it was a synonym for civil war - that is, a conflict between two sides for control of an already independent country. I don't think there is a specific term in widespread use in English to refer to the war in Croatia, it tends to be regarded as one facet of a larger war - often called the "Balkans Conflict". Perhaps putting the article at Croatian War of Independence with redirects from Croatian Homeland War and Homeland War (Croatia) might be the best solution? Grutness...wha? 14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me, and I switch my allegiance to Croatian War of Independence :-) --Elephantus 14:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support Croatian War of Independence since it specific, to the point, and is most NPOV in regard to other options. Redirects from Homeland war and Croatian Homeland War are acceptable, others are too obscure and non-specific to be used IMO. --Dr.Gonzo 14:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Croatian War of Independence per above. Well, this is not an official WP:RM, but it certainly resembles one (and we alredy have 2 admins involved :-) ). Duja 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is difficult because two questions are compounded here: 1) what is the most fitting name for the 1991-1995 war in Croatia, and 2) what is the most fitting name for the Wikipedia article about the said war. In sense 1) I'd say Croatian War of Independence wins hands down, but in sense 2) we should still consider the fact that "Homeland war" carries much higher momentum, since in Croatia the phrase is now used almost exclusively; it's almost fait accompli as far as naming is concerned. However, having said all that, I'd still go for Croatian War of Independence... GregorB 18:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Dijkstra asked me to join the discussion, therefore I'll try to give you my opinion on that. Actually, I mostly contribute to the German Wikipedia. We recently had someone who copied this article ("Kroatien-Krieg" in German) to, let's say "Croatian War of Secession". Unfortunately, the text still has not been deleted - think mainly due to lack of knowledge on behalf of German admins. Anyway, in his version of the text, the controversial user is trying to create the image that it is actually Croatia, more specifically the HDZ, that is responsible for starting the war. There is no reasonable neutral reason given for these POV views. After I mentioned that the Badinter commission stated that there were no secessions, but that we speak of a "break-up of Yugoslavia" (don't now the exact statement in English now), nobody really had any better argument for not deleting the parallel article, but still nothing has been done. By the way, the process of separation started much earlier. We could go back to the last Yugoslav Communist Party meeting, to Titos death and even further to the events of the Croatian Spring. Therefore, we definitely cannot speak of a secession...

Anyway, why am I writing this? It's all about the name and there are people who would like to create the image that Croatia began with all the fuss. It's also about who started and who defended. I'm not saying that the name "Croatian War of Secession or Independence" could necessarily imply that one side started the war, but we have to be very careful. Somebody is not amused about the ending this war, not at all, and would therefore like to give the article a slightly different tendency... Something else: Germans are usually not very much patriotic, knowing what happened in the past. Therefore expressions like "homeland" are used very carefully or not at all. I know, this is not the German wikipedia, but anyway, think homeland is quite a new term, even in English (sounds Bush-like for me). For Germans "homeland" (Vaterland, etc. - there is no exact translation) would sound a bit strange, I think. Germans would not use it. Yeah, homeland is one of the most difficult words to translate too, I think (everybody, every nation, culture, is thinking of something else - what is homeland? a homeland without serbs? does the croatian homeland include herzegovina? etc.). However, I do know that it is called like that in Croatia. But for Croatians to say "War in Croatia" would sound quite strange, wouldn't it? Yep, I know it was here...

As a conclusion: I would suggest the neutral and simple name "War in Croatia" (There's a nice but very sad song about that...). You could also specify it with a certain time period (1991-1995), if necessary (or if there are other wars to come). This is also logical because then You could classify all the other wars much easier: War in Slovenia, War in Bosnia-Herzegovina, War in Kosovo, etc. Think this name is not giving any implications on who started and who defended his "old historic area of settlement". Yeah yeah, ok, I'm not going into further argumentation, knowing what will possibly come. Those German users who contributed in a discussion about the article name quite agreed to "Kroatien-Krieg", the short form of "Krieg in Kroatien" (War in Croatia) mostly used in German Media (apart from Krieg in Jugoslawien, Balkankonflikt or Balkankrise, etc.), but we will have a closer look at the outcome of the discussion here (We actually do mention the expression homeland war in the heading, which should be ok). If you disagree, "Croatian War of Independence" would probably still be a good solution. Hope I could give You further facts to think about. --Neoneo13 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree per Grutness and Dr.Gonzo. (^'-')^ Covington 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that we have a consensus on "Croatian War of Independence". So I'll do the move now. --Dijxtra 14:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

JNA role

I changed the intro somewhat and added a "prelude" section, which should explain the background a bit more; I hope you'd agree.

I find the explanation of JNA's role in the article somewhat confusing. My point is: at one point, JNA ceased to exist and was "officially" withdrawn from Croatia. Thus, Serbian forces in Croatia were, theoretically, operating independently, as Milošević did not want to "involve Serbia in war". I don't recall, however, when that happened, but it should be explained in the article.

Also, I think the Dubrovnik episode is somewhat unconnected with the rest of the war, and few words can be spared on that. By my reckoning, that adventure was semi-independently initiated by JNA headquarters in Montenegro and Montenegrin government. Is there a separate article on that? Duja 15:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

O nazivu Croatian War of Independence

Hrvatska je htjela samostalnost pa otuda i naziv.Boris Živ

Ovo nije Hrvatska Wikipedija, ako nisi mozda primjetio. Mozemo mi da kazemo da je i rat u Bosni bio rat za Veliku Srbiju i Veliku Hrvatsku, ali to se nikom ne bi svidjelo osim bosancima. Jedan Boris drugome: lijepo je sto ste nazvali ovaj rat Domovinski, bas ste me dirnuli, ali nemojte prevoditi takve stvari na engleski, glupo zvuci, OK? Htjeli ste da se odvojite i tocka, cak se i u samom clanku spominje Secession, it was a war of secession. Hvala. --serbiana - talk 01:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A war for independence is when you are ruled by another nation, like Kuwait was ruled for a short time by Iraq, or maybe France by Germany in WWII. When a country wants to secede, it is a war of secession and not independence. --serbiana - talk 01:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We had a discussion about how to name this article. And we reached a consensus. If you wish to change the name of this article, please discuss it first. Thanks. --Dijxtra 02:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

New Straw poll on the title of the article

I am starting a new discussion about the title of the article, since the previous discussion has been from the croatian POV. There are few possibilities on how to name the article

• Croatian War (most google hits)
• Croatian Secession War
• Croatian War of Secession
• Croatian War of Independence
• Croatian "Homeland" War
• Croatian Separatist War
• Croatian War of Separation
• Croatian War of Separation from Yugoslavia
• Separatism War against Croatian Serbs
• Croatian Patriotic War of Secession
• Croatian Chauvinistic War of Secession
• Croatian Nationalistic War
• Croatian National War
• Serbo-Croatian War
• Croatian War against SFRY
• Croatian anti-Serbian War
• Croatian war of national purification
• Croatian Ethnic-cleansing War

... (other suggestions, please add)

Praviljno 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Get a life. And info on the legal stuff re Yu dissolution [8], [9] Mir Harven 22:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

for the name Serbo-Croatian War--TheFEARgod 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this war had many different aspects, a think that the most neutral name for it is War in Croatia or Croatian war. --Marko M 09:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that this should be a separate article from Yugoslav wars, which I've most often encountered as the Wars of Yugoslav Succession. I think most English readers would have a hard time thinking of this as separate from the neighboring conflict in Bosnia. --Msr657 22:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming

It's completly fair to note the 1991-1992 war as the Croatian War of Independence - heck, if the Dutch and Americans can do it - why can't the Croatians? However, there is a very deep messup produced there. The 1991-1995 War against the rebel Serbs cannot be a War for Independence - it's simply a Civil War (refer to the article for more detail). This is why many see as if Serbia occupied a third of Croatia (mistakingly) - when a third of Croatia was fighting it's own little War of Independence... --HolyRomanEmperor 17:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a "Civil War", for a very simple reason. A "Civil War" is a war in which two sides fight over control of the central government of an entire country. Whether one thinks of Croatia or Yugoslavia (when referring to the "whole country"), that wasn't true during that war. Croats had no interest in taking over the entirety of Yugoslavia and controlling the central government in Belgrade. Later on, when the Yugoslav army abandoned attempting to conquer (or whatever euphemism of take over, impose control on, you prefer to use) the entire territory of Croatia, they settled on supporting the local Serbs in their attempt to secede from Croatia. That was not a "Civil War" either, because the sided didn't fight for control over the central government and the entire country. Only those wars are correctly referred to as "Civil Wars". The term "Civil War" was merely a propaganda euphemism used by assorted parties in a (quite successful, at first) effort to keep other countries from intervening, to the advantage of the Serbs. Sure, the JNA retreated, however, it left massive amounts of heavy weapons and other supplies for the "Krajina" Serbs to use. Later on, JNA officers were blatantly involved in the fighting. So no part of the war was a "Civil War". Even though the war was often fought by former neighbors, it doesn't qualify to be called a "Civil War", because of the goals of the opposing sides. -- Emil --

Aaaand, what about involvement of JNA? Wasn't JNA supposed to stop Croatia from getting independent? --Dijxtra 05:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was - in 1991-1992 (after which, it retreated). That was Croatia's War for Independence - not the 1991-1995 war against the Serbs (Croatian Civil War). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So those were two separate wars? --Dijxtra 16:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, they do overlap in 1991-1992; but were in effect, yes, two wars. I mean, the practical name to apply to the latter period is somewhat illogical. Should the Kosovo War now be called "Serbian War of Independence"? or... the Chechnian rebellion Russian War of Independence? or how about the Hueguenots' Republic in souther France that was destroyed with the capture of Cardinal de Richelleu with the capture of La Roshel - a "French War of Indepence"? Do you understand what I am aiming at? The name of this article is good - but in several parts of it - it's errorous. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but what I'm pointing here out is that current name is not wrong. Yes, we could discuss if it is 100% correct, but the thing is that by Wikipedia guidelines it is the most suitable one. We asked guys which are not influenced by POV and which are native speakers of English, and they proposed a solution which we accepted. The most common English name. Calling it "Homeland war" or "Croatian civil war" would be somewhat POVish, I'd say... --Dijxtra 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The term War of Independence is generally used to describe a war occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is subsequently known as a war of independence (taken from article War of Independence on Wikipedia). So, current name is not wrong. Boris Živ

No there weren't two separate wars. because in the whole time between 1991 and 1995. there was never total peace. There was a cease fire yes but the shelling continued allthough sporaddicly. It was not a Civil war because Paramilitry forces from serbia ( lead by Arkan, and others ) were comming from Serbia to fight in croatia. The odd thing is that Croatia took it's chance for independece following the Yougoslav constitution of 1974. which allowed Republics to separte form teh union if it's people decide that way. I personally think that the name "The Croatian war of Indepencdece" is a good one since it's the best english translation for teh Croatian word "Domovinski rat". Marko

Request for explanation of POV-Check

Hi SrbIzLike,

I noticed you put a POV-check on the Croatian War of Independence article. Can you please put an explanatory note in the discussion section, noting what needs to be changed so that the article conforms to NPOV.

Thanking you,

croatian_quoll 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I understand perfectly - but the simple ideology of fighting a separatist faction doesn't fit in a greater faction's "War of Independence". Let's say that Njegos's fights against seperatism in the Serb tribes are called "Montenegrin War of Independence"? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a war of independence because the central conflict was between the central Jugoslav (Serb dominated) authorities & the Croatian governement. It was conflict between a supra-state trying to survive & a state in the federation (that has been nominally independent before - Kingdom of Croatia, autonomy status under Pacta Conventa/Nagodba, NDH) seeking greater autonomy/independence. This is exemplified by:

- JNA units trying to take over (unsucessfully) boder posts in Slovenija;

- JNA units from Bosnia & Croatia effectively operating as one unit in operations in Croatia;

- The attack on Dubrovnik by JNA units from Montenegro & paramilitaries from Serbia;

- The forces from Serbia proper that crossed the border to take control of Vukovar & other areas of Baranja, Eastern Slavonija & Western Srijem;

- The arrival of paramilitary forces from Serbia proper (under Arkan & Captain Dragan respectively) to prop the Croatian Serb military in the aftermath of the Maslenica Operation by the HV;

To assert that it was a civil war is the same as asserting that the Dili massacre & involvement of the Indonesian military was a civil war. Likewise in Croatia, the minority was used to create a state of emergency which provided a pretext for the (JNA in the case of Croatia, Indonesian military in East Timor) to intervene on the grounds of restoring law & order or to protect the minority. croatian_quoll 06:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the East Timor case, the JNA did not had intentions to stop Croatia from being independent, but only to secure areas inhabited by ethnic Serbs that were included into Krajina. The independence of the rest of Croatia (outside of Krajina) was not disputed by the Serb side of the war. PANONIAN (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

General Cleanup

The information content of this article is good, however I have noticed many small spelling and syntactical errors. I'll fix any of these that I find, but I'm sure I can't get them all. I don't know enough Wikipedia code to post the cleanup banner on the article, and I'm not sure the amount of errors is great enough to merit it anyway, I just thought I'd post this in case anyone else might feel that such an action is neccessary. Schnabeltier Angriff 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

POV title

The title of the article should be changed to "War in Croatia", which is an objective and NPOV title. Current title is disputed and based on nationalistic view of HDZ political party from Croatia. It is disputed whether this war was "war of independence" or civil war between HDZ government and ethnic Serb citizens of Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement is a bit false. The government which was in power at the moment the war started was not HDZ government, it was coalition govermnet, "Government of National Unity" which had even Zdravko Tomac of SDP as deputy prime minister. Therefore, it was not HDZ government. Just to make things clear. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And here is my basic point why this was not "independence war": if somebody fight for independence, then must be another side in that war that dispute this independence to him. But, there was not such other side in this war. Other side in this war did not disputed Croatian independence, but only Croatian control over territory of Krajina. So, how can somebody to fight for independence if nobody dispute that independence to him? PANONIAN (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, again, false that nobody disputed independence of Croatia. Veljko Kadijević, the most powerful man in JNA, disputed it. It is simply not true that the conflict was a plane and simple civil war. It ended as civil war between brakeaway municipalities which formed Republic of Serb Krajina, but it started as war for independence since JNA aimed to topple down the Zagreb government and secure the status quo. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, in the Croatian language, this war is called "domovinski rat", which does not mean "war for independence", but "war for homeland". It was not war for independence, but for borders of Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the previous discusion we had about this. It is on the top of this talk page. Thank you. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the war had an element of gaining independence. But it also included the drive to enlarge borders (towards Bosnia and Herzegovina), and a series of extensive ethnic cleansing campaigns within Croatia. This goes beyond any 'independence' drive - as was the case for Slovenia. The title is liable to cause offence and must be changed. But surely, it is also covered in Croatia and Yugoslav succession wars? Politis 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the war did had element of independece war in its beginning when Croat troops fougth against Yugoslav army, but since Yugoslav leadership decided to "let Croatia go away", the war became a civil war between Croatian government and Serbs of Krajina, and later even a war for Greater Croatia when regular Croatian army went to Bosnia to fight against Bosnian Serb Army. So, the complexity of this war really cannot be explained by words "independence war". PANONIAN (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice, here we agree that the war started as a war of independence and that it ended as civil war. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And when did Yugoslavia (a euphemism for Serbia obviously since Yugoslavia ceased to exist when the Yugoslav federation collapsed) decide to let Croatia go away? Was it after or before the Yugoslav army troops destroyed Vukovar and slaughtered thousands of civilians there? Was this decision perhaps taken by the Balkan peacemaker and Yugoslav president Milosevic? And what is this drivel about Croatian army fighting in Bosnia while stubbornly adhering to an idiotic phantasy that Serbia had absolutely nothing with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? The wars in Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Kosovo were wars for independence because that was exactly what Serbia was trying to prevent by causing them. For those who hibernated during the 90s it suffices to check the ICTY indictments against Milosevic, Martic, Karadzic, Mladic and the rest of the gang.

And I would advise against listening to this Serbian extreme nationalist called Panonian whose whole purpose of contributing here is to spam articles with words Serb or Serbs (as of recently operating on Hungarian towns and villages) 83.131.88.235 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Afrika paprika (I know that it is you here), it is you who deleting word "Serbs" from various articles. Seems that you want to delete entire Serb history to show that Serbs actually yesterday came from another planet and that lands that they inhabit actually "always" belonged to their neighbours (including Croats of course). A clear example of chauvinism. Regarding the question when exactly leadership of Yugoslavia decided to "let Croatia go away", I do not know exact date, but it was in 1991, before Croatia was internationally recognized as independent. Also, SFR Yugoslavia ceased to exist only in spring 1992 when it was transformed into FR Yugoslavia. Do you want to say that Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia were part of Serbia before 1991-1992 and that they fought for independence from Serbia? No, they were part of Yugoslavia, as was Serbia all this time. Regarding indictments of Milošević and others, these indictments exactly claim that they were connected one with another like the people in gang, and only thing that was "proved" in their indictments are their "personal connections", so accusing state of Serbia which even did not had an army before 2006 for these wars is ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My goodness Panonian. Every single new post of yours reeks of desparation. I won't even try to answer your accusation of being "Afrika paprika" (what a ridiculous name - probably one of those numerous idiotic straw man sock puppets created with the sole purpose to prove that the Serbs here on Wikipedia are exposed to harrassement by numerous nationalist extremists from neighbouring countries. Oh, you poor innocent thing! Are we lacking arguments again? Yugoslavia ceased to exist on June 25 1991 when Croatia and Slovenia proclaimed independece, thus provoking the dissolution of the Yugoslav federation. [10] FR Yugoslavia that Serbia founded in 1992 was NOT the successor state to the SFR Yugoslavia which was also reflected in the fact that it could not take over SFR Yugoslavia's membership in the UN, IMF, World Bank etc. In fact, it wasn't until 1 November 2000 that this until then unrecognized country, became a member of the UN under the name Serbia and Montenegro [11]. I understand that the Serbian leadership claimed otherwise, but you Serbs should learn that there is something called international law that civilized countries abide by. This also answers your illogical rant in the next few lines. 83.131.75.59 11:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bla, bla, bla (that is the value of your "oppinion" about my "desperate" personality), and now concrete things: Yugoslavia had 6 republics, thus if 2 of them declared independence in 1991, the rest four did not, and the country still existed. Later, two more republics (BIH and Macedonia) declared independence, while Serbia and Montenegro proclaimed creation of new federation, and that is what made end of SFRY. Your claim that "FR Yugoslavia that was founded in 1992 was not the successor state to the SFR Yugoslavia" exactly prove my point that creation of FRY marked an end of SFRY. PANONIAN (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now your calling it a civil war, everyone knows that Milosevic's aims were for greater Serbia, and that included taking Croatias land, and hopefully uniting all Serbs under one flag. Serb aims were to dismantle Croatias freedom and "reach the Adriatic." If Anything it should be called Serb Invasion THE MILJAKINATOR 09:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The Milosević's aims were to abuse power as long as he can and to gain personal benefit from it. He never cared for any ideological cause (such is "Greater Serbia"). He was nothing but old-fashioned Mafia-boss that became a president. It is simple as that. He simply used Serbs that lived in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo to stay in power. That is the whole story of Milošević, and by the way, Franjo Tuđman was another Mafia-boss and he was very appreciative business partner to Milošević. PANONIAN (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You are suggesting that Milosevic as president of Serbia and later FRY didn't finance the Krajina and had nothing to do with the plan to connect Krajina, RS and FRY in one entity? --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on Milosevc was all about that, tahts y he and Tudman wished to carve up Bosnia and Hercegovin. To unite more serbs under one banner. Serbs always calimed the majority in the Formere Yugoslavia, and it was just a matter of time before thE CRoats uprising agnainst their oppression.Even NATO said that and beacuse that goal was threatening peace they bombed Serbia.Just like in Croatia, Milosevic's dreams in Kosovo were cut short again. AQnd by the way,wen Croatia and Slovenia brke away, it broke the old Yugoslavia. And world Authorities did not acknowledge the new Yugoslavia until 2000 wen it became Serbia and Montenegro. Un did not recognise it. iT WAS NOTAN officially accepted country. U cant accept that truth. THE MILJAKINATOR 00:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The exact reason why Milošević and Tuđman started war in Croatia is because they could not start war in Bosnia, so they started war in Croatia and later "exported" it to Bosnia. And NATO bombed Serbia because of the war in Kosovo, not because those in Croatia and Bosnia. Also, Serbia and Montenegro was formed in 2003, not in 2000, thus the country that was internationally recognized in year 2000 had name Yugoslavia. Try to read something before writting your posts here, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, schweppes, I made an error, of course, SCG came in 2003. However i didnt mean to write that Serbia got bombed becoz of Croatia, but if u read my sentence i wrote because they threatened peace, in their aims for a greater Serbia. And no there was No secret plan to start war together, Croatia, wished to seceed from Yugoslavia and get their independance. Not only that but thE kRAJINA Serbs backed by JNA and Milosevic, escalated tensions by declaring themselves autonmous and threatening Croatia's stability. And then the JNA and paramilitiries entered Slavonia and thats it. The war wasnt some secret plan to move into Bosnia. Everything was just for Milosevic's and every serb nationalists goal for a greater Serb, and that meant ocupying Croatias AND Bosnias Serb Population. THE MILJAKINATOR 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

An attempt of coolheaded discusion

Wikipedia has rules which were drown up so that we could all reach an agreement and so we don't spend our time in edit warring and insulting each other. One of this rules is WP:CONSENSUS. We had a discussion about how to name this article. The discussion reached a consensus. We named the article the way we did. Some people are objecting to this name. Let's make a discussion about it. After we make a discussion, we shall proceed as agreed. I the mean time, I will revert the unilateral name change in some articles because I consider that a disruption of Wikipedia. The name change is to be discussed and agreed upon here, not on other articles. Edits like this one are not helping us build a consensus but are inciting an edit war. Therefore I will now revert those.

Now, as for the name of this article, please propose some sane names (I think we all agree that names like "Separatism War against Croatian Serbs" are not helping us make a cool conversation), and then we'll discus... --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude Panonian, the Setrb Nationalist wants control of a Croatian article and to spread lies and deceit. Everyone knows the Serbs were at fault. Hes trying to hide and protect this insecurity of his.

THE MILJAKINATOR 09:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GO AWAY

---

PANONIAN, EVERYWHERE YOU GO YOU ATTEMPT TO SPREAD YOUR SERB NATIONALISTIC VIEWS. WE ARE DOING FINE WITHOUT U IN CREATING A NPOV, TRUTHFUL ARTICLE, THE MILJAKINATOR 08:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 08:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You forget to turn off caps... PANONIAN (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, how interesting that this sockpuppet appeared exactly now. What a strange coincidence... PANONIAN (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What Sockpuppet THE MILJAKINATOR 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pogađaj triput. :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

NEMOJ BIT BUDALA THE MILJAKINATOR 07:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really a war of Independence

This was not a war of Independence, but more like a Croatian war of Secession - secession mean, the formal separation from an alliance or federation. Independence from what? Croatia was a founding member of Yugoslavia. After 1945 and under the Croatian Tito, it signed into the multicultural federation. Then, in 1991 it voted to break away from Yugoslavia. And then there was a military conflict. The conflict was directed against invading FRY and then Serbian forces. But it was also a war to include territory outside its jurisdiction, to take over sections of Bosnia. It also included military opperations to empty Croatian areas of their native Serb population. Croatia deserves its independence but this is more complex than a simple war of independence. Croatian war of secession? Politis 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Same thing, essentially. Secession is an action, and - if it works out - independence is its result. Someone said that there is no such thing as successful treason - because, if it succeeds, it is not called a treason. Roughly the same applies here.

There is another aspect of the article's name that is probably lost on most people: all independence wars are - necessarily and by definition - civil wars. (One possible exception could be wars fought by former colonies; these may also be liberation wars.) But that's an entirely different issue, the one I won't get into now. GregorB 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Commanders

I believe it is very stupid to put Tudman in the Commanders list. What about Croatian Generals. We should put Milosevic and Milan Babic as well then.????

THE MILJAKINATOR 05:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict (emphasis mine):

commander1/commander2 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include army commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed. Ranks and titles should be omitted. The dagger icon (†) may be used to indicate commanders killed during the conflict.

I don't think we should go into any detail here, but if we do, we should list important, top-level figures like Zvonimir Červenko and Mile Mrkšić (see Operation Storm), not marginal ones like Ademi, Đanko and Norac. GregorB 11:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Who was chief commander of Croatian army? "The Commander-in-Chief of all Croatian armed forces in peace and war is the President of the Republic."[12] Therefore, chief commander of Croatian forces was Franjo Tuđman. Chiefs of Staff during the war were Anton Tus and Janko Bobetko. Therefore, I'll put those people in the infobox. --Dijxtra 09:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call. GregorB 18:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Since the current name of the article is incorrect and misleading because it were Serbs from Republic of Serbian Krajina that fought for independence from Croatia and Croatia did not fought for independence from Republic of Serbian Krajina, I propose that name of this article should be changed into its natural and correct name War in Croatia (1991-1995). PANONIAN (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I support name change to War in Croatia (1991-1995)

1. PANONIAN (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Lowg 06:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
3. --TheFEARgod 11:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose name change to War in Croatia (1991-1995)

• Bobblehead
• THE MILJAKINATOR 09:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• The Wanderer 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ante Perkovic 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• GregorB 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Dr.Gonzo 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

It was a Croatian war of Independece. Croatia and Slovenia wanted peace and Idependence from Yugoslavia...Yugoslavia said no and wanted war WHAT ELSE CAN YOU CALL IT??? Jagoda 1 05:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, it does get more complicated then that, however at the core, Slobodan Milosevic waged war with the Croats and then fuelled the situation to help the Krajina Serbs revolt against Croatia. So Croatia was fighting Krajina and the JNA.

This was an attempt against Croatias INDEPENDANCE AND AN ATTEMPT TO JOIN YUGOSLAVIA, and as such end Croatias independance as a free and autonomous nation.

THE MILJAKINATOR 09:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Croatia fought against JNA only in the beginning of the war (in 1991). After Croatia was internationally recognized, the JNA (or later VJ) was not involved in the war, and for most time of the war (1992-1995), Croatia fought AGAINST INDEPENDENCE of Republic of Serbian Krajina (If Croatia already was internationaly recognized independent state in this period, how it can fight for independence?) What happened to logic here? PANONIAN (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And now please see what this article claim (which totally contradict with its title): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence#1992_A_ceasefire_finally_holds Quote: "The final UN-sponsored ceasefire, the twentieth one, came in January 1992. Already in December 1991, after this series of unsuccessful cease-fires, the United Nations deployed a protection force in Serbian-held Croatia. The United Nations Protection Force was deployed to supervise and maintain the agreement. The JNA, the federal army progressively to withdraw from Croatia - even Krajina" "The warring parties mostly moved to entrenched positions as The Yugoslav People's Army soon retreated from Croatia into Bosnia and Herzegovina where war was just about to start." "Croatia became a member of the United Nations on May 22, 1992." "Armed conflict in Croatia continued intermittently at a small scale." And now you want to say that one internationally recognized independent country, member of United Nations, fought for its independence between May 22, 1992 and summer 1995?????? It simply does not fit into common sense. PANONIAN (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your own opinion of the events is not the most verifiable source. As Yugoslavia dissolved, it could only legally dissolve into its constituent republics. Yugoslavia's smaller successor state (after independence declaration of Slovenia and Croatia) decided to side with the Croatian Serbs, essentially violating its own laws by attempting to dissolve Yugoslavia along ethnic (as opposed to republican) lines. This successor state eventually abandoned Croatia, as you say, but not without leaving much of its equipment in the hands of the Croatian Serbs.

Yes, Croatia's independence was recognized, but as a foreign-armed minority separatist group held onto much of its territory, Croatia was not yet a sovereign state (a condition for independence). This had elements of a civil war. However, the conflict is legally viewed through the Yugoslav law from which it originated, and Greater-Serbian politics played from Belgrade influenced it.

It is quite obvious that the name "War in Croatia (1991-1995)" is an attempt to downplay the role of certain other nations in the conflict. There would be no RSK without the smaller successor state of Yugoslavia entering Croatia and it was during this time that the majority of Serb attacks came (Vukovar, Dubrovnik, etc.). I would rather see an article split (for example, Homeland War umbrella article, then Croatian War of Independence (1991-1992) and War in Croatia (1992-1995)) than a renaming.--Thewanderer 15:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite opposite: the current name of the article is an attempt to magnify the role of certain other nations in the conflict. Second thing, what I quoted there is not "my" opinion, but a text of this article that certainly was not written by me. This is not question about Yugoslav legality but about who fought for independence from whom. Regarding your view about sovereignty would you also say that Georgia and Cyprus are not sovereign states because parts of their territories are not controled by their governments? Once Croatia was internationally recognized as independent and admited to UN, we cannot call it with any other name instead of sovereign country. Regarding idea to split article into 3, I might support this idea, although the exact names of the 3 separate articles still should be discussed. PANONIAN (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest these names: the umbrella article should be named War in Croatia (1991-1995), and its subarticles would be: Croatian War of Independence (1991-1992) and Civil War in Croatia (1992-1995). PANONIAN (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get ahead of yourself. I said I would rather have a split than such a renaming. I would avoid both if possible. Also, this is not my view of sovereignty, but the Sovereignty article's: Further, it is generally held that another legal element of sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. ("No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty.") In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements.

Croatia's independence could only be completed once its sovereignty over Krajina territories was restored. It was all one process from 1991 to 1995. --Thewanderer 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Independence also means souverenity over entire territory. The goal was to secure independence while not losing any parts of our territory. Maybe we could rename it to "Croatian war of independence and of keeping its entire territory" ? --Ante Perkovic 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty simply means de jure sovereignty, not necessary de facto one too. Just compare Croatian case with cases of Georgia, Cyprus, Moldova, Somalia, etc. Once de jure sovereignty of one country is recognized, its fight for independence is finished, thus establishment of de facto sovereignty is nothing else but a technical problem in this case. PANONIAN (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding idea about 3 articles of the same war with different war names, I really can't express how silly the idea is. --Ante Perkovic 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Once Croatia established its independance from Yugoslavia and the United Nations accepted them, yes Croatia did have independance, but not over the borders of the traditional croatian republic, that constituted the former Yugoslavia, the country we are secceeding and as such gaining independance from. To gain control of Croatias, entire republic and to suppress, the Milosevic supported Krajina Rebellion, Croatia, had to undoubtedly take control of the rst of its country by force, since peaceful operations and cease fires, did not work. Croatia had every rioght to claim the Independance of the whole of CROATIA, that broke apart, and gained independance from yUGOSLAVIA.

THE MILJAKINATOR 22:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I feel that article titles should attempt to reflect a neutral POV as well, and I don't understand the resistance to a more netural and widespread use to describe the war. Something more concrete:

• Google Search

"Croatian War of Independence" -site:wikipedia.org 
531 hits [13]

"War in Croatia" -site:wikipedia.org
67,100 hits [14]

--Lowg 06:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Name

Firstly y do we write the defeat of Krajina forces, when it was a war of independance, and the serbs attacked Croatia first.

Because Operation Storm was intended to defeat Krajina forces. And it defeated Krajina forces. And, then the war ended. --Dijxtra 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You dont mention why it began do you now?? We wanted to gain our full and complete independance from Yugoslavia, this could not be done without taking our rightful territory. We defended our nation against the Serb and JNA intervention.

And what is the point of writing what it was called in Serbian, there is no point to that. It is the CROATIAN war of Independance.

And the Serbs took part in it. I mean, we wouldn't have that war if there were no Serbs, now would we? There fore, Serbs are a crucial part of that war, just as Croats are. --Dijxtra 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Domovinski rat. Who gives shit wat the serbs call it, they attacked us and now they want to call it a civil war.

People who read Wikipedia give a shit. --Dijxtra 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Serbs and Croats the same people, u gotta be jokin

DUDE YOU MISSED THE POINT CROATIANS AND SERBS THE SAME PEOPLE. ARE U ON A ANOTHER PLANET.

THE MILJAKINATOR

03:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is Jakov i just gotta get into my account lol, im a bit stuck. All fixed.

Yes the Croats did overrun the Krajina forces, but in doping so they only got back wat was rightly their's. The whole of Croatia (Including Krajina) secceeded from Yugoslavia. and then the Serbs and JNA attacked Croataia to cease that from occuring. That was the war of Croatian Independance. And i believe it so tremendously stupid to put Serbian Propaganda by claiming that it was a civil war. Mr Dijxtra do u want to tell me Croats and Serbs are the Same people?

Croatian War Of Independance Yes the Croats did overrun the Krajina forces, but in doping so they only got back wat was rightly their's. The whole of Croatia (Including Krajina) secceeded from Yugoslavia. and then the Serbs and JNA attacked Croataia to cease that from occuring. That was the war of Croatian Independance. And i believe it so tremendously stupid to put Serbian Propaganda by claiming that it was a civil war. Mr Dijxtra do u want to tell me Croats and Serbs are the Same people?

THE MILJAKINATOR 09:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No. "A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area."[20] What I'm trying to say is that Serbs didn't dome from Serbia and attack Croatia. They already were in Croatia. They were part of Croatian society. So, the Serb part of Croatian society and Croat part of Croatian society fought for control of an area. That is a civil war. So, the war started as the war of independece. But, after some time, when JNA retreated from Croatia, it was civil war in which Croatian Serbs fought Croatian Croats. Yes, Croatian Serbs did have help of Serbian Serbs, but that still doesn't mean that Serbia invaded Croatia. Understand what I mean? --Dijxtra 09:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Yes however, the initial beginning of the war who attacked who. and yes they are Croatian Serbs but ethnically they are still SERBS they fought against Croatians and were backed by the SERB Serbs AND JNA there is no way this is a civil war THE MILJAKINATOR 10:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Serbia-controled JNA occupied parts of Croatian and then, when confronted with lack of support from international community, they decided to let the weapons to the local Serbs, give them some generals, like Mladic, thet were paid from Belgrade and continued the war. So, weapons were sent from Belgrade, generals were from Serbia, money was comming from Belgrade ... and still, this was civil war with Serbia blissfuly detached from everything? Brilliant thinking. --Ante Perkovic 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dijxtra"

Forget it

I think this article should be left alone with the name "Croatian war of Independence" SIMPLE. that's what it was.

There are many topics about Balkans and its people that need to be looked at and re-edited to be unbias. Guys like Panonian and Ante Perkovic need to sit down and have a long chat to see what they can do to make articles unbias.

Jagoda 1 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Croatia's Independance

well i dont see the problem here. By the way im a Maltese Australian. Croatia was a republic of Yugoslavia and after its Independance was declared it broke away from Yugoslavia however because Milosevic wanted to promote his view of Greater Serbia and have the former union, he spurred on the Krajina Serbs and he himself attacked with the JNA Croatian territory. He wanted to go all the way to zagreb and to sse the Adriatic The Krajina Serbs were supplied in all ways and logistics by the Serb Serbs and the result of the war, was at the end Croatias freedom and nation

Bronco24man 11:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank God for Bronco. Like i said before TRUTH COMES OUT IN TIME. Thanks Falcon for your unbias view on this topic.

PS In Sydney Australia we have a soccer club called Hajduk Wanderers...it's a club who is half Croat and half Maltese run...but supported by all backgrounds. Take Care Falcon

Jagoda 1 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i no I live in sydney and i used to play for that club. Yeah well it seems that on wiki the only problem we have is with Serb nationalists who want to argue everything that doesnt present a rosy Serb POV. The truth is the truth and the world knows it.

thanks bronc

THE MILJAKINATOR 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you also have problem with Croats who actualy live in Croatia and who were here when the thing happened... --Dijxtra 07:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

DAT DONT MATTER ,MY FAMILY WAS IN DA WAR

AND MAN ur not a bigger Croat by being dere. Dta dont mean jack shit to me.

THE MILJAKINATOR 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I seriously dont believe that thats the view of most Croatians but it in fact only urs.

I was there a month ago.

THE MILJAKINATOR 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With all do respect, Dijxtra, Who gives you the right to speak on behalf of another person, and raise a point which is said to be false? It does not matter whether or not a person was in a war, and that person has moved out to another country, the point that matters is that, that person may have had a member of the family fight in the war. Is it then not fair that they get the same recognition, the same respect and most of all the right to speak based on what they believe happened? To question another pupils authenticity in reagrds of their culture, means you have some issues up your sleeves which need to be rectified sooner or later. A person may have knowledge in themselves and wish to pursue their point of view. By the way, living in Croatia, does not necessarily mean you are a a bigger Croatian, wake up to yourself, and think before you act and speak as sometimes it seems you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not Croatian, but I feel for the people who fought in this war, and most certainly those who died proud knowing they made a difference in the lives of many Croatians. Finally, it is not only you in the picture, there are others which form the jigsaw puzzle- that meaning the different pupils which fought in that war.

Chaldean Warrior 10:23, 1st September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm no big Croat (as you can see from my userpage), and it is really not that much complicated to be bigger Croat than me. Since I've been to Australia and have socialised with some Australian Croats, I'm quite aware that most of those people are quite big Croats and it would really be tremendously bold to declare yourself to be a bigger Croat than some of Australian Croats I've met. Put that aside, people on which behalf I speak give me the right to speak on their behalf. I assure you I am not the only Croat living in Croatia which is aware of the fact that Serbs which fought the war in questions were citizens of Croatia. My friends with which I have discussed this matter agree with me that Serbs who fought the war were mainly Croatian, not Serbian and those are people which give me the right to speak on their behalf. I'm terribly sorry for you if no person but yourself allowes you to speak in his/her name.

I would then like to remind you that Wikipedia is not about respect. It is not about leting everybody write what they think is the truth. It is not about collecting every existing POV. It is even not about the truth. It is about verifiability, and it is about NPOV. If you do not belive me, feel free to check this basic documents: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Now, it is realy nice to see you concerned about the right to speak freely. But I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a place where people come to speak freely, it is a place where people come to write an encyclopedia. The fact that somebody has something to say, some POV to express or feels that something is true and the other thing is false have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. Now that we know what Wikipedia is for, I'd like you to point out where I disputed anybody's right to speak freely. Thank you in advance. --Dijxtra 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Andrew, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't know you are new to Wikipedia, I realised that just now. I'm very sorry, I don't have the habit of biting the newcomers, I thought you are an established Wikipedia user. I'd like to apologise for assuming you are familiar with the rules of Wikipedia. As a new user, I'd recomend you to read this: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, so you can understand the way in which Wikipedia works. If you encounter any problems understanding principles of Wikipedia, feel free to contact me. I'm once again sorry for biting you... --Dijxtra 14:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe you should re-instate your wording in previous comments to others. It is also about the truth and your comments have just contradicted yourself. e.gIt is even not about the truth. then you say But I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a place where people come to speak freely, it is a place where people come to write an encyclopedia? Chaldean Warrior 10:23, 1st September 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit hard for me to understand which statements of mine are contradictory. Are you suggesting that "It is even not about the truth." and "But I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a place where people come to speak freely, it is a place where people come to write an encyclopedia?" I don't see how this two sentences contradict. --Dijxtra 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well an encyclopedia is about the truth, it is fact is it not? so therefore you are undermining our comments when your comments are false and contradictory in themselves. Chaldean Warrior 10:03, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

I see you didn't read the links I told you to read :-) Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. The first sentence will be enough, you don't have to read it all if it is to long for you. In fact, only the bolded part of the first sentence will be enough. Then you can return here to discuss. Thanks. --Dijxtra 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can read what I wish to read on my own accord, I dont need a parrot to tell me what to do Thanks. Anyways it seems that you have a selfish viewpoint on many situations, I believe you should get over what you think and take into account everyone elses point of view.

Tctctc, seems like you havent done you homework yet again... WP:NPOV, young padawan, WP:NPOV. We do not deal with points of view here... --Dijxtra 10:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I picked up on another point you stated, you said that serbs that fought in the war were croatian? what sense does that make? How can a serb then mysterioulsy turn into a croat? You dont seem to make much sense in your pointers, you can't just state that another croat allowed me to speak on behalf of them as you have not used quotes to reassure that. Once again you have pursued your "selfish" I want all the credit for comments, self.

Chaldean Warrior 12:17, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

Please review your userpage and remove the userbox which states you are native speaker of English. Because native speaker of English would know difference between "Croat" and "Croatian". But, since you don't seem to grasp it, here's the explanation for you: Croat is member of a nation called "Croats". Serb is a member of a nation called "Serbs". Croatian is that which belongs to Croatia (in this case, a person that is a citizen of Croatia). Therefore, a Croatian Serb is a Serb who is native of Croatia (click on the link if you don't belive me). I hope that now everything I wrote has sense for you. If you need more explanations of my rather complicated statements, feel free to ask. --Dijxtra 10:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems still like you are not making sense of yourself and I think that is the point to many other people. You stated I should take off my native speaking of english. Firstly what does that "Croat" and "Croatian" determine about how much english you know. Firstly we dont live in croatia so we dont study the difference between them. Secondly, english has nothing to do with the subject of history- apart from the fact that you need it to write. I dont see how your comment adjusts to the fact that an Australian should know the difference between "croat" and "croatian". You stated that a Croatian is that which belongs to Croatia (in this case, a person that is a citizen of Croatia). I strongly oppose this, there are many Croatians which are not citizens of Croatia, but are Croatian, once again your selfish POV. What makes you more Croatian then them? You always leave me wandering in awe and wander as you state comments which I always seem to grasp ahold of and refute. By the way this would of had been a better explanation Croats are a south Slavic people mostly living in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatians are the western group of South Slavic languages. You always seem to forget the importance of your explanations; the core. Your points to me are like a vase with no flowers EMPTY.

Chaldean Warrior 11:54, 3rd September 2006 (UTC)

I beg you to inform yourself before making a fool out of yourself. Please read this article: Croatian. This disambig page (among other things) says: "Croatian may refer to: Of or relating to Croatia". Therefore, "Croatian Serbs" (did you even bother to click on the link to see what "Croatian Serbs" are?) are Serbs who live in Croatia. Period. Damn, why don't you just read what I wrote and click on the links I give you? --Dijxtra 09:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting for a name change

The current name of the article is incorrect and misleading because the Serbs from the Republic of Serb Krajina that fought for independence from Croatia and Croatia didn't fight for independence from the Republic of Serb Krajina. Croatia wanted to seccede from Yugoslavia, and I propose that name of this article should be changed into its natural and correct name - Croat War of Secession.

I support name change to Croat War of Secession

1. --Svetislav Jovanović 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. --KOCOBO 02:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
3. --Serb ^talk 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
4. --Srbijanković 04:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
5. --Legija 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose name change to Croat War of Secession

1. THE MILJAKINATOR 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Chaldean Warrior 1:51, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)
3. Ante Perkovic 06:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Dr.Gonzo 12:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Dijxtra 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
6. The Wanderer 14:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Kubura 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC), see this [15] and this [16].
8. GregorB 21:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Roberta F. 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

any more serb propaganda on wiki?????

THE MILJAKINATOR 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be left for the Croatians to decide, and not for the bias serb propaganda. How could you change the name of this; Croatia war of independence to suit the needs for the Serbs? I mean I dont see the name Serbia in the heading do you? This should remain at this heading and left alone as it is a heading which allows people to know what the article is about. is there more serb propaganda up your sleeves?

Chaldean Warrior 1:51, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Andrew, I think it's sad that you're siding with the Croats just because you're Catholic, and Croats are Catholic. And then you call Serbs nationalists? This sounds more like a jihad than propaganda. --KOCOBO 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

KOCOBO, it is not because I am a catholic that I am with the Croatians, it is because I feel for their rights as a people, and can't stand serbian nationalists tampering their rich and pleasant history and culture. As for your comment on Jihad, I do not see how we are having a "holy war", if there is anyone showing signs of Jihad it is you, seeing as you are striving to enrich false accusations to try and impress your anonymous people. Before you go around and yet again make other false accusations,I believe it is time for you to open your smudged eyes and be a better and more profound person. Anyways, the word Jihad identifies the inner-qualites in which most Serbian Nationalists like yourself bear in your "black" heart.

Chaldean Warrior 2:39, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, OK, so if you were Christian Orthodox, you would still support the Croats... Yeah, right ;) --KOCOBO 01:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What does religion have to do with my inner-beliefs as a person. Even is I was christian orthodox I would feel for the rights of the Croatian people, and by the way how could you put these false accusations on me in saying if i was orthodox I would not support the Croatians? How would you know? Opps, i forget the serbs are so damn good and lieing and putting words in peoples mouths. Brainwashing, the word that best describes it. Dont just look at it because I am a Catholic, get rid of you black stubborn heart and think of it on a larger scale.

Chaldean Warrior 2:39, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

When will Serbs finaly learn to live with their dark past from 1990's? It would be about time. --Ante Perkovic 06:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ante there is no point in asking they are always is denial

Chaldean Warrior 6:28, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)

As we already concluded, Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia successfully in the first (shorter) part of the war, and the rest of the war had nothing to do with Croatia seceding from Yugoslavia but with Krajina seceding from Croatia. Therefore, the proponents statement is wrong and I object this renaming. --Dijxtra 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an unacceptable name. First off, even if it was a war of succession (which it wasn't), it would not be a Croat war, but a Croatian one. Certain users seem to be obsessed with "secession". How long would that obsession last if we renamed the article to Serb seccession from Croatia war?

Secondly, I think we should add a section to this article about the Badinter Commission showing how the most authoritative group decided that Yugoslavia ceased to exist (dissolved) rather than Slovenia and Croatia seceded from it. It's hugely important and this fact is also the basis of Croatia's declaration of independence. --Thewanderer 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Name change

This survey has not been listed at WP:RQM. The format is deffective and without proper calmed and steady discussion is deemed to fail or have no legitimacy whatsoever. Instead continuing with petty ethnic bickering and edit warring for the sake of it, I will invite the main actors to think about this and then listing the requested move for discussion as for wikipedia guidelines, providing a well-thought rationale. I want this to serve as a reminder too for Wikipedia policy against personal attacks and insults. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it'd be nice if the properly formated RQM waited until saaaay... 15.9., so we're sure everybody's home from the holidays. --Dijxtra 10:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Croatian War of Independence → Croat War of Secession – The name of the war depicts how the Croats called it, but there were two sides to the war. This way, the article addresses the reality of the situation back then. Svetislav Jovanović 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support

1. Strong Support --Svetislav Jovanović 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Very strong Support - of course, the Croats wanted to separate from Yugoslavia, not the Serbs. --KOCOBO 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support - Croats started this war, they wanted to secede from the federation, the new name of the article is good. I support the name change. Srbijanković 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong Support --User:LukaP
5. Support per KOCOBO, although I would like to add that I was disgusted that in the last survey, Jakov Miljak was buying Croat votes. It's just not cool. Croats have to face the fact that they started the war. --Serb ^talk 02:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support - this wasn't war for independence --Jovanvb 11:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support but then find more NPOV name 1991-1995 war in Croatia. --TheFEARgod 11:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support Andrija.b 18:04, Septembar 3,2006
9. Support I do think the name of the article should be changed as it was not a war of independence, but to the more neutral version suggested previously, War in Croatia (1991-1995) or 1991-1995 war in Croatia as suggested more recently.// Lowg ^.talk. 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support --Krytan 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Support --Medule 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Croats wanted to secede form former Yugoslavia. That should be stated in the article name. --Manojlo 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support (but to Croat'''ian''' War of Secession). More appropriate name of the war. Nikola 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very Strongly OpposeTHE MILJAKINATOR 03:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Strongly Oppose --Thewanderer 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC) This is a ridiculous renaming request, with users giving outrageous reasons for wanting to move the article. None of this is verifiable, and a certain interest group here believes that making up its own name for the war based on their own opinion is NPOV. I'm not sure if it's even worth trying to explain it to people who really won't care what I say either way (but I'll give it a shot). This can't be a Croat war of seccession. Croats didn't secede Yugoslavia. One of Yugoslavia's republics, Croatia, proclaimed its independence which was based on the fact that Yugoslavia had ceased to exist. Secondly, we have people voting to support the move based on "Croatia started it". This really has nothing to do with the war's name. Croatia had a legal right to declare its independence which was illegally denied it by the invading Yugoslav army and the Croatian Serbs who launched the war. None of you are voting with any useful facts or information, just your own opinions. If Serb users want to stuff the vote with immature one-line reasons given, good for them. However, such a vote will never be considerer valid until the proponents of a move get their act together and provide credible evidence, which can be genuinely supported by a majority.
3. Oppose - If anything, I am prepared to support a move to War in Croatia (1991-1995) only if clear consensus could be reached, as long as that stops the edit warring. I also have to remind some editors that the current name is *not* fruit of a unilateral move but of a previous survey, as studying the talk page history would determine. There has also been a call to stop any RQM survey until the second half of September and this has been disregarded, something I find quite unpleasant. On a practical level, even if the support side obtains more than 60% of the votes, nothing would stop them running a new survey if other editors believe it has been run under unfair circumstances, thus making this whole exercise pointless (the 60% mark may goes up to 80% for controversial issues, to ensure a good level of consensus and avoir re-runs) E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Strongly oppose. A spiteful, trollish, inane, and badly argumented suggestion. Consider this: "Croat War of Secession". GregorB 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   With your rationale, we definitely need to move this article as the current title is not very impressive google results as well. "Croatian War of Independence"// Lowg ^.talk. 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

   Why not? Then again, you'll have to ask yourself why do you support moving this article from a not very impressive title to an even less impressive one. GregorB 12:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. As Asterion, I might support "War in Croatia" or like, but the proposed title is a clear violation of WP:POINT (and votecasting and...). Duja 08:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Wording is very tricky here. One must understand that Yugoslavia was a federation of nations and 'nationalities'. As such the constituent parts had the right to declare (or fight for) independence. Croats fought for independence they were entitled to. In contrast "War of Secession" would probably better suit Republika Srpska Krajina.Tonycdp 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Croatia fight for its independence through entire war. At first against Serbia-controled JNA, then against Serbia-controlled puppets in so-called RSK. --Ante Perkovic 22:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose - We have discussed all this in the past. I really see no reason to change the title since it is concise and NPOV. Calling it "War in Croatia" is also completely unacceptable, since there were many wars in Croatia and that makes the title vague and non-descriptive. On the other hand Croatia waged only one war for independance, ever. --Dr.Gonzo 23:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose --Roberta F. 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Are you honestly telling me that it is Croatias fault they started they war???? That is the biggest joke. So we are supposed to be prejudiced and discriminated against by Serbs and not allowed our sovreignity???? And wen we want our country (Note peacefully) we are blamed for the Serbs attacking us. Please note that I did not buy votes. I asked three users to take a look at the survey. They didnt even respond to me. One didnt even vote. I made no difference to the vote. THE MILJAKINATOR 03:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Who did the Serbs attack? Themselves? The Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia, the Croats wanted to expell them from their own land, what were the Serbs supposed to do? Just sit around and do nothing. As far as the vote buying is concerned, you can call whoever you want over the e-mail or whatever, but not over Wikipedia. What you did in the past was wrong, but I forgive you. --Serb ^talk 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Bormalagurski, you said it: "you can call whoever you want over the e-mail or whatever, but not over Wikipedia". Since User:Svetislav Jovanović called people to vote over Wikipedia, this vote will not have credibility and is worthless because of this: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Thank you for reminding me to check. --Dijxtra 09:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, he said I can express my opinion. He didn't ask me to vote. --Serb ^talk 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And voting is not expressing your oppinion? Didn't you express your opinion by supporting this move? --Dijxtra 07:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I could've expressed my opinion in this discussion, I didn't have to vote. But, I chose to vote. --Serb ^talk 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, User:Svetislav Jovanović didn't ako people to vote. He just called them to express their opinion and called the change in their talk page "voting". It's a biiiiig difference ;)). --Ante Perkovic 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I DID NOT ASK AND I DO NOT NEED YOUR FORGIVENESS THE MILJAKINATOR 04:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but these serbs were Croatian citizens living in Croatia. Why should the Croats bow down to the Serbs needs, when they area clear minority. THey only rebelled because Milosevic gave them the chance to. Croatia wanted ALL of Croatia to seceed not just the Croatian parts so that included kRAJINA AS WELL. Doesnt a country have the right to its own land.

That is not true the Croatians call it the Domovinski Rat which means war for the homeland. THE MILJAKINATOR 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Croats call the war a War of Independence, why? Because they wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. Therefore, the article should be rightfully called Croat War of Secession. --KOCOBO 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Miljakinator, if the Croats didn't want to secede from Yugoslavia, there would be no war. They didn't secede from 1945 to 1991, and there was no war. In 1991, they secede, and a war breaks out. Hmmm... yes, the Serbs are probably guilty for wanting to stay in their fatherland... yes... --Srbijanković 02:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So your saying that we had NO RIGHT TO WANT OUR FREEDOM FOR CYING OUT LOUD

Croats wished for theri independance from the Serb dominbated Yugoslavia and this put a dent in Milosevic's aims for greater Serbia. Croatia separated peacefully but were attacked by the JNA and Serbs. Whe n the Croats were an established nation and had countered the JNA's attack in Slavonia and other regions (Dubrovnik etc) Yugoslavia conviently backed Krajina's rebellion and pretty much funded evrtything for it. It is hilarious that u say that it is Croatias fault for the SERBS ATTACKING THEM.

THE MILJAKINATOR 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your freedom? You're in Australia! You don't care about Croatia, thats why you don't live there! Where were you in 1991 when Croatia needed you? Heh, please, go outside and get off the computer... --Serb ^talk 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

NOW YOUR REALLY PISSING ME OFF.

I AM A HISH SCHOOL STUDENT I AM NOW 15. HOWEVER CROATIA IS MY HOME MY NATION AND COUNTRY. I DID NOT ASK WHERE I WANTED TO BE BORN. ARE U CRAZY JUST BEACUSE I LIVE IN AUSTRALIA I DONT CARE ABOUT CROATIA. R U NUTS. CROATIA IS MY LIFE BLOOD, MY HERITAGE ME. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFOR E YOU MAKE ACCUSATIONS. AND U NO WAT I BELIEVE THAT U SHOULD REMOVE URSELF WHERE YOUR NOSE DOESNT BELONG!!!!!!!!!!!

THE MILJAKINATOR 04:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I can bet that you've never even been to Croatia. --Serb ^talk 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

U idiot i have been to Croatia 4 times!!!!!!

THE MILJAKINATOR 07:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

All three of you which made the remarks KOCOBO, Srbijanković and Bormalagurski are dumb, dumb and dumber. Firstly, KOCOBO, you stated that Croats wanted the war to be called the War of Independence, if it was a secession they would of had a politcial meeting not a war. A secession means that you wish to break apart from a union and a political matter through series of steps; war not being one them. A secession is best described as America (North and South) which had a secession through a series of steps and meetings. WAR was not was caused the secession was it? So then, that means if you go to war, you are going their to fight for your country as you may have not had fair and equal circumstances which is understandable in this case, as serbs were horrendous, black-hearted people which took advantage of the Croatians. Secondly, Srbijanković you just contradicted yourself when you secede you do not go to war to solve the issue you do it through a series of organised steps. The Croatians then had a disadvantage the first time and declared war on Serbia in order to rectify the unfair circumstances. The war then pathed a new life for the Croatians, and gave them their own country, WHICH IS WHY IT IS CALLED THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, as they went to war and fought for their independence this has nothing to do with secession. Thirdly, Bormalagursk, you are a fool in yourself, do you get to choose were you wish to be born? NO, By the way the Miljakinator would have been just born in that year do you expect him to go to war whilst he is a baby? Please before you three go any further think before you act and dont attempt to bring the Serb Propaganda into the lives of outsiders. You have tried once to many times and you have failed. I feel for the rights of the Croatians as a people, and can't stand serbian nationalists tampering their rich and pleasant history and culture. Before you go around and yet again make other false accusations,I believe it is time for you to open your smudged eyes and be better and more profound people. The word Jihad best identifies the inner-qualites in which most Serbian Nationalists like yourselves bear in your "black" heart.

Chaldean Warrior 5:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so many personal attacks, Andrew. I think we, the users of Wikipedia, are pretty much sick of your stories of "Serb Propaganda", it's accenting how much you're pushing your Croat Propaganda. Go sing Danke Deutschland somewhere else. --Svetislav Jovanović 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

you should check my vote and consider the idea--TheFEARgod 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding various interpretation that Serbs fought for "independence", it's important to note that Badinter Arbitration Committee, set up by EU countries in 1900's, gave their oppinion on the right to self-determination of Croatia and of Croatian Serbs.

According to The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee:

---

Opinion No. 2

On 20 November 1991 the Chairman of the Arbitration Committee received a letter from Lord Carrington, Chairman of the Conference on Yugoslavia, requesting the Committee's opinion on the following question put by the Republic of Serbia:

Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?

The Committee took note of the aide-mémoires, observations and other materials submitted by the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia, by the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and by the `Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina'.

1. The Committee considers that, whatever the circumstances, the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of independence (uti possidetis juris) except where the states concerned agree otherwise.

---

As you can see in the text above and at the address I provided, Yugoslavia ceased to exist, Croatia was one of the successors and Serbs in Croatia, backed by Serbia, tried to change the croatian borders. --Ante Perkovic 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Protecting this page

Since this page has descended into edit war and there was not one constructive edit, I'm protecting it for now. --Dijxtra 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

I seem to have gone ino a rvert war with some guy that wants what (supposedly) happened to Krajina and stated that as the result, He also stated that this war was fought in Krajina. However this only represents a small portion of the war. The entire war was fought on Croatian soil and Krajina is a part of Croatia. The result was quite clearl the defense of Croatia iun the wake of attacks by the Krajina military and the JNA.

THE MILJAKINATOR 03:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So as to not confuse the issues here: the edit that says result is "Decisive defeat of the Republic of Serb Krajina Army" was originally mine, while the edit that says location is RSK was certainly not mine. "Defense of Croatia" is very vague and implies - since we agree Krajina is a part of Croatia - that Croatia was defended from herself. I don't remember Croatia being attacked by the JNA in 1995. GregorB 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And lets just forget about the 250,000 Serbs that were ethnically cleansed in 1995... --KOCOBO 19:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And lets just forget that 99% of them didn't even see one single croatian soldier, but were evacuated by serbian authorities. Of course, Serbs likes to call that ethnic cleansing, which is rediculous. --Ante Perkovic 19:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And lets just ignore the videos of Serb victims of Croat violence in August 1995, what happened to those who dared to stay in Croatia... Lets just forget that Croats were throwing stones and spitting on the Serbs that were leaving, and were told to leave or die. If thats not ethnic cleansing, I don't know what is. --KOCOBO 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)