Talk:Battle of the Miljevci Plateau

Untitled

this article is full of errors

nos kalik was starting point of croatian forces, miljevci action startet one month after desant on nos kalik...so vilage is not destroyed

answer:

it is the true, i was there ! the village of nos kalic, was not destroyed by the Croats, it is the Serb one who in 1991 burn and destroyed the house belonging to the Croats in this village. located near the Cikola river! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.60.174 (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2007‎ (UTC)

JNA

On June 21, Croatian forces attacked the area defended by the Serbian Territorial Defense forces and JNA forces

Can someone explain involment of JNA? --BokicaK 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The final vestiges of the JNA, based only in present-day Serbia and Montenegro are reported to have backed up the Serbs from Croatia from the beginning of the fighting to their own disbanding in 1992; after that, the Serbian administration in the FRY is reported to have financed and encouraged the Serbs of Croatia. Don't ask me how much is true: as a private researcher, I only read into so much of anything when it derives from opponent sources, but if you read about the conflicts between Serbs and Croats in Croatia between 1991 and 1992, you'll find that Serbs were in all cases backed by the JNA. Evlekis 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

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

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

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

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

Page moved

Hi all! I have moved the article from "Miljevci Plateau incident" to "Battle of the Miljevci Plateau" because the former title is not compliant to WP:COMMONNAME. The particular name yields zero results in searches such as Google books (when wikipedia results are omitted). I have instead checked solutions provided by WP:MILMOS#NAME and applied a generic title suggested there. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Miljevci Plateau/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Lead, "when the released prisoners of war informed the UNPROFOR." Need to say what the prisoners told UNPROFOR. Maybe "informed the UNPROFOR of the location of the corpses." or something similar?
   • Background, "the JNA stayed behind for seven to eight months." Why the vagueness about the timing?
   • Prelude, "claiming deteriorating battlefield conditions in general prevented the withdrawal." What sort of deteriorating conditions? Personnel? Weather?
   • Aftermath, " Two Croatian military police members were charged with Subotić's murder in 2011. As of 2013 the trial is ongoing." Why did it take almost 20 years for two men to be charged?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • What is Veritas (as in ""Mučki napad" [Furtive Attack] (in Serbian). Veritas." in Other sources)? What makes it a reliable source?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall a very nice article, as usual. A few prose niggles and one reference question, all of which are fairly minor. I made a few copyedits - please feel free to revert any that accidentally changed meaning or that you just don't like :) Let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I have replaced the source you pointed out and tweaked wording noted above.

The vague "seven to eight months" is now replaced by "up to eight months in some areas" - because the withdrawal was not uniform. The UNPROFOR began to deploy three months after the ceasefire but the process was not quite rapid. Finally, Yugoslav army stayed behind in Dubrovnik area the longest (UNPROFOR was not scheduled to deploy there).

I made an attempt at clarifying the deteriorating battlefield conditions. The HV claimed deteriorating security, i.e. that they expected the RSK forces to attack at one or more locations.

Regarding the 20-year wait for a war crimes trial - a newspaper article from 2001 (used in the article as a source) indicates the prosecutors office claimed to be working on bringing up the charges back then too, but it is apparent that authorities were dragging their feet, presumably hoping the thing would go away. I assume this would be possible only if suspects were well connected, but none of this can be referenced in any way -- therefore I'd rather leave the reader to put the two and two together - if that's alright with you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the work on the article and the explanations. Everything looks good at this point, so I'm now passing the article to GA status. Very nice work, as usual. Dana boomer (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of the Miljevci Plateau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/24/world/slovenia-and-croatia-get-bonn-s-nod.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centar-za-mir.hr/index.php.961.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923040416/http://narodne-novine.nn.hr:80/clanci/sluzbeni/1991_10_53_1265.html to http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1991_10_53_1265.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)