Talk:Pakrac clash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Don't etiquette all Croatian Serbs[edit]

Removing the word "rebel" from the article [1] is a kind of etiquetting of all Croatian Serbs.
All Croatian Serbs haven't rebelled. See how many of them remained loyal to Croatian government. See how many of them decided to stay and live in Croatian government-controlled territory, despite all anti-Croatian propaganda that was spread by JNA and Greater Serbian media. Just check how many of them were mobilized in Croatian forces and how many of them volunteered to fight in Croatian forces.
Finally, here you have info about the Croatian Serb intellectuals that wanted to find the peaceful solution through democratic dialogue in order to evade war (Croatian Serb warmongers have banned them) [2].
"Babić i drugi nisu htjeli pregovore sa Zagrebom, nego prekid svih odnosa...Osnivanje SDF-a u lipnju 1991., po njegovim je riječima, bio odraz htijenja da se izbjegne rat i traži mirno rješenje u Hrvatskoj. U SDF, čiji je Džakula bio jedan od inicijatora, bili su uključeni srpski intelektualci u Hrvatskoj koji su zagovarali demokratski dijalog kako bi se izbjegao rat, no naišli su na osudu vodstva SDS-a u Kninu koje je zabranilo osnivački skup na području tzv. SAO Krajine, kazao je svjedok". And you've deleted that reference (the site is Croatian Iuridic Portal, HINA was cited). That's vandalism.
Therefore, don't etiquette whole national community. Don't tag all Serbs as the "bad guys". Don't accuse all Serbs for rebelion. It's like saying "all Croatian Serbs are bad".
There's a reason why we need to use the attribute "rebel". CNN used the expression "rebel Serbs" for a good reason. This was also emphasized in Croatian parliament this year (Greater Serbianist were enemy of Croatia, not the Serbs). And representatives of Serb minority in Croatia also emphasize this: all Croatian Serbs weren't against the Croatia.
They find blaming the whole Serb community in Croatia as stigmatization of Serbs.
The chief representative of Serb minority in Croatia (at the time), late Milan Đukić, fought whole his political life against that prejudice.
Your edit is spreading national distrust [[3]]. Širiš nacionalno nepovjerenje. You're spreading bad and false prejudice. We don't need that. Kubura (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree that saying simply "Serbs" isn't ideal. My intervention was just an emergency measure to remove the massive over-use of "rebel". The existing text was unfortunately so poor I couldn't replace it with anything better so quickly. In any case, "rebel" is a word with heavy negative connotations in English, and can't be used here. In describing this phase of the war, you need to find less prejudicial terms for the various parties. "Local X'ian police forces", "X'ian militias", "opponents of X", "followers of Y", "forces loyal to Z", that sort of thing. Just take a look at how reliable sources are referring to these events: [4][5][6][7]. Fut.Perf. 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Heavy negative connotation in English or not, CNN uses that term.
CNN Interactive - Almanac - August 5, 1998 "In 1995, Croatian government forces seized the rebel Serb "capital" of Knin in a lightning assault designed to win back the breakaway region of Krajina after four years". Kubura (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Rebel, not "Serbian"[edit]

[8] These rebel policemen were Serbs, but not the Serbians. You've significantly changed the content, directly accusing Serbia.
Serb is a person of Serb ethnicity. Serbian is a person from Serbia (not necessarily of Serb ethnicity).
Future Perfect, if you're not clear with this, remember that CNN used expression "Bosnian Serbs", not "Bosnian Serbians". Kubura (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanking[edit]

Removal of whole groups of paragraphs is equal to page blanking [9]. That's vandalism.
I've sourced my edits. There's a section "References". One of references is available online (Vjesnik), so it's easy to check my edit. All the content, that's not on Vjesnik's site, is from the magazine Marijan Pinhak: Pakrac ne zaboravlja, Hrvatsko slovo, March 13, 2009, p. 8-9 .
How would it look like if I put [1] behind every pair of words? Do we need hundred [2] in a single paragraph? We have a section that's called References (or Sources).
Therefore, I'll restore the paragraph and reference it additionally. Kubura (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You did even worse, Future Perfect. You've deleted the referenced sentence that deals with BLP[10]. The source site is Croatian Iuridic Portal (that cited HINA's news). Iurists don't mess with those things. Kubura (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Where I cited BLP, I was referring mostly to a passage where a specific named police officer was mentioned, and his actions described in highly inflammatory negative terms. That passage was entirely unsourced. I don't know if the guy is still alive, but I'll assume that he may be, so this falls under BLP. Do not reintroduce anything about named people who are potentially still alive unless you have absolutely perfect sourcing. And in this case, partisan news articles from Croatia or Serbia just don't cut it. From what I can find, Hrvatsko slovo appears to be a highly partisan magazine, apparently of some nationalist political leaning. I very much doubt it qualifies as a reliable source at all. This article needs to be rewritten entirely on the basis of the best sources available: academic non-partisan history books in English. There is simply no excuse for using anything less than that. Fut.Perf. 20:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

[11] Type ctrl+F and Vezmar. "Naime, 1. ožujka 1991. godine tadašnji je načelnik pakračkog SUP-a Jovo Vezmar izdao zapovijed o mobilizaciji rezervnog sastava tadašnje milicije i to isključivo srpske nacionalnosti."
Vjesnik is Croatian daily newspaper.
"academic non-partisan history books in English". Well, this might look too segregative towards Croatian literature and Serbian literature. I agree that literature in English is more available, but that doesn't make it "neutral by default".
Sorry for rude word "segregative", but belittleing the small nations' literatures sounds terrible.
Even literature in English isn't neutral: it reflects the interests of the countries that were highly partisan in Croatian War of Independence. It also reflects the attitudes of political groups that sponsor those media, publishers etc.. Finally, literature in English isn't immune to prejudices. It's full of prejudices, stereotypes, misconceptions and conclusions based on lies, false informations, halftruths, hidden truths. Sometimes even the Serb hardliners better understand Croatian point of view than Anglosaxons.
Finally there were some areas that have never been visited by Anglosaxon authors (USA, UK, Australia, Canada...). Does that mean that those battles will remain forever hidden for English-speaking readers, since "no Anglosaxon author wrote anything about that"?
"Hrvatsko slovo appears to be a highly partisan magazine, apparently of some nationalist political leaning". Hrvatsko slovo is a cultural magazine.
Being anational doesn't mean being "neutral by default". Seeking "political correctness" by hiding the unpleasant truth that contradicts one's attitudes isn't neutral attitude.
Many of those magazines of anational political leaning never wrote a single word about Croatian victims.
About "nationalist": I've seen citing rastko.org here on en.wiki, but no reaction by admins.
However, I don't think that'll be any problems with the text that I wrote using Hrvatsko slovo as source. In fact, Serbs sources were mostly bragging with those facts.
If they digitalize their newspapers from 1990-1995...Kubura (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Worst POV stuff"[edit]

Don't explain your reverts via edit summary, Future Perfect. Point directly.
As I've seen, your edit [12] has etiquetted whole community of Croatian Serbs in Pakrac (rebel Serbs, your version was "(Croatian) Serbs", accused Serbia (Serbian police!) for involvement (rebel Serbs, your version was "Serbian"). You've neglected/ignoring the source [13]! Source explicitely said "32 rebel policemen" ("32 pobunjena policajca").
Your POV was changing "Serb rebelion" to "the conflict". Croatian, rebel Croatian Serb and Serbian politicians have been using (and they still do) the term "Serb rebelion" (Jovan Rašković said on the meeting in the town of Srb: "This is the rebelion of the Serb people!" (Ovo je pobuna srpskog naroda!). So, why are you making problems in the areas where both Croats and Serbs agree?
You allow yourself too much. An Iuridic Portal has given this info [14]. It's the testimony of one of leading persons of Croatian Serb community. And you've deleted that!
Pakrac police station was liberated, of course. And what about the liberaton of Smolensk on September 25, 1943 (as it says here Smolensk#Modern_history)? Why don't you dare to provoke Russian users? Would you dare to change that line in that article from "the city was liberated" to "they took the city" and, as explanation, give short edit summary "removed some of the worst POV stuff"? Would you dare to rename Liberation of Paris to the "Capturing of Paris" (and give edit summary "removed some of the worst POV stuff")? Would you dare to change the line " Canadian 3rd Infantry Division advanced...finally liberating the city..." with "finally taking the city" in Battle for Caen (with edit summary "worst POV stuff")? Would you dare to provoke the French and Canadians? Or it's easier to demonstrate force on small nations, like Croats? List of articles that contain word liberated goes on and on (Liberation of Arnhem Allies liberated..., Liberation of Saint Peter , Liberation of Bulgaria... Timeline of World War II (1944)). Kubura (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The world has recognised Croatia. The world exactly named the aggressors on Croatia. That's why is the term "liberated".
I'm sorry if my message above sounded too sharp, but your changing from "liberated" to "took" deeply hurts me. Russians, Poles, Bulgarians 'd feel the same in situations I mentioned.
If you want, I can find more references for that from literature, from Peace Conferences on former Yugoslavia, international mediations, etc..
Please, we don't need problems on areas where we can peacefully settle everything. Kubura (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to explain to you why "liberated" cannot be used. You'll have to find that out for yourself. And no, the fact that Croatia won the war and finally got its independence recognized does not justify stamping parties in this war "aggressors" and "liberators". If you cannot stop thinking of these events in these terms, this project is not for you. Fut.Perf. 20:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
not commenting on all the issues, but 'liberator' and 'aggressor' in this conflict seem overly POV, and should be avoided. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to swallow this one.
In a way, I understand you (if you were in my shoes...). Obviously noone from you had the experience that the bare existence of your country, your hometown and your life was endangered. Nor anyone of you prepared the space in your home, because it was reasonably to expect that the hometown/homevillage of your relatives will fall into enemy's hands. If you search available diplomacy correspondence, related scientific and publicistic works, you'll see that Gospić, Karlovac, Pakrac, Sisak, Osijek, Vinkovci, Zadar, Šibenik and Dubrovnik were seriously endangered.
To all of you, Greater Serbian attack on Croatia looked something like some movie or TV-serie that was aired for 5 seasons. Simply, "it happened to someone else, something from the TV-screen".
Therefore, it's impossible for me to clarify you this. One day you'll understand me. Kubura (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

In the light of the discussion above, I've rewritten the article using high-quality English-language academic sources and adding much-needed material on the political events that were associated with this incident. Some of the claims in Kubura's version appear to be dubious - for instance, that anyone was killed, since numerous sources say that the first deaths in Serb-Croat violence occurred later, in the Plitvice Lakes incident. I've also renamed it to the current title of "Pakrac clash". No English-language source refers to it as the "Battle of Pakrac", describing it instead as a "skirmish" or "clash" -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job, this is a great improvement. Thparkth (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The renaming may be a good idea, especially since from what I gleaned of the literature, there was heavier fighting a few months later (August 1991), which might in fact deserve the term "battle" more. Thanks to Chris for the rewrite. Fut.Perf. 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, if the literature in English uses that term, OK. Kubura (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, don't put me the words I haven't written.
Don't be superficial when accusing me.
The info about the "killed persons" wasn't mine [15]. Some user Tino1.
This is my last edit [16], before other users edited the article. It mentions no killed persons.
Just 3 wounded and 32 captured. Kubura (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

However, this version has no Croatian sources.
We need to enable the readers the original Croatian text.
The insiders always know more than the outsiders. So, no need for censorship.

That way the interested readers 'll be able to compare Croatian and non-Croatian views. Kubura (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^