Talk:Vance plan

Vance plan ≠ ceasefire agreements signed in Geneva or Sarajevo

The Vance plan was the UN's plan for dealing with UN protected and related areas in Croatia. The author of the concept was Marach Goulding. Cyrus Vance helped with its preparation and implementation. This plan was to be recommended to the UNSC after the unconditional ceasefire has been agreed. The Vance plan are not Geneva and Sarajevo ceasefire agreements. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The article unambiguously identifies that the plan was approved by the UNSC on 15 December by UNSCR 724, i.e. before a lasting ceasefire was in place, as supported by the sources offered in the article (Ramcharan, p.59). The Geneva Accord and the Implementation Agreement/Sarajevo Agreement were integral to the plan as explicitly supported by sources offered in the article (Trbovich, p.299) specifically linking the two documents to the relevant UNSC resolutions, and the offered sources explicitly supporting the claim that the Implementation Agreement and the Vance plan were synonymous (Balkan Battlegrounds, p.106). Further offered sources also explicitly link the Geneva Accord to the Vance plan (Armatta, p.196)--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting one part of my comment by inclusion of M. Goulding into the text of the article. This plan was UN's peacekeeping plan and most of other events were somehow linke to it. Yes, the ceasefire agreements were also directly linked to this plan because, as per my above comment, only after the unconditional ceasefire has been agreed the plan was to be recommended to the UNSC. But I believe that it is incorrect that any of ceasefire agreements was actually Vance Plan. Are there any other sources which support such assertion? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You have already been provided multiple sources above. Please provide sources to the contrary per WP:BURDEN if you think you have a case here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The plan was accepted and an advance party of 50 liaison officers dispatched (not merely recommended) by the UNSCR 724 on 15 December 1991 as I already pointed out - ahead of the ceasefire agreement (the Implementation Agreeement), agreed upon by Tuđman (on 25 Dec) and Milošević (on 31 Dec) and signed on 2 January 1992.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, I don't think you provided multiple sources for the following assertion: "In the final ten-day round of meetings Vance negotiated another ceasefire agreement ....The agreement would later become known as the Vance plan,... or Sarajevo Agreement." It is obviously incorrect. The ceasefire agreement is not Vance plan. You presented only one source written by unknown authors (Balkan Battlegrounds, p.106) which you say directly supports this assertion (please be so kind to provide a quote).
• No, per WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is you who added the above assertion to the article. I challenged it. It is, for now, poorly sourced. Please reply to my above question:" Are there any other sources which support such assertion?"
• I think that the rest of the text of the article and WP:COMMONSENSE contradict this assertion. What was presented to UNSC, accepted and implemented was not Sarajevo ceasefire agreement. It was the opposite. By signing the ceasefire agreements conflicting parties also confirmed the acceptance of the Vance Plan. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you noticed the short names in brackets followed by a "p." and a page number above? Those are sources providing direct support. I have therefore acted within WP:BURDEN and provided sources. I am glad that you have an opinion on this item, but it appears to be entirely baseless as in case of UNPA a while ago. Let me draw this for you:

Vance shuttle diplomacy --> Geneva Accord --> UNSCR 721 --> SecGen Report of 11 Dec (spells out Vance proposal) --> UNSCR 724 (adopts the report of 11 Dec --> Vance shuttle diplomacy (Tuđman and Milošević accept on 25 and 31 Dec) --> Implementation Agreement --> UNSCR 727 (explicitly says the parties take their commitments from Geneva and Sarajevo events) --> UNSCR 740 (establishes the ceasefire holds and deploys UNPROFOR)

Let me know if you can't follow this. Also let me know if you have divined that the Vance plan was a completely different document adopted by a different process. This type of behaviour you are engaging is disruptive per WP:HOUND.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. The short names in brackets do not directly support the assertion which equalize Vance plan and agreement on Sarajevo ceasefire (except one according to you). You failed to address the issues I presented and to reply to my questions:

1. Are there any other sources which support the above assertion which equalize Vance plan and Sarajevo ceasefire?
2. Will you please be so kind to provide a quote from the source (not verifiable online) written by unknown authors (Balkan Battlegrounds, p.106) which you used to support the above assertion which equalize Vance plan and Sarajevo ceasefire?

• I look forward to your replies on my questions which I need to better present more detailed explanation about this issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, this neatly follows well documented behaviour you exhibited against WP:ARBMAC drawing two instances of sanctions. You insist on me providing more and more sources regardless of sources provided in the article. If you cannot access Balkan Battlegrounds online, go to a library. Or buy the book.

You insist on other people having to answer to you but you ignore any questions you really have no answer to. So let me restate them:

Do you deny that the Geneva Accord is closely linked to formulation of the Vance plan?

Do you deny that the Implementation (Sarajevo) Agreement is closely linked to implementation of the Vance plan?

Do you deny that the Vance plan was presented in a UNGSR and adopted by the UNSC as described and referenced in the article?

Do you think that the Vance plan was a different document than one referenced in the article?

Do you think it was adopted through another mechanism and which?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vance plan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I have c/e'd the article, feel free to revert as necessary. "the UN would restore the area" this bit isn't clear. Do you mean the UNPAs? If so, why would the Croatians think that, given the terms of the agreement didn't include transition to Croatian control? And why would the UN try to achieve that given the agreement didn't include it? This is counter-intuitive, and needs some further explanation. The reference to Chapter VI/VII of the United Nations Charter needs more explanation, as these are the basis for authorisation of UN troops to use of force, quite important in this context given the UNSCR didn't explicitly state the authority. I suggest you consider using Template:Infobox treaty using the details of the Implementation Agreement, as it is the one that is really considered to be the "Vance plan"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I suggest you use the photograph of Vance next to the lead, and move the UNPROFOR deployment map down to the body. It is after all about his peace plan.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article is in good nick, on hold for seven days for remaining points re: criteria 1a to be addressed.All points addressed.

Thank you very much for the review. I have tried to address your concerns, but would like to have some feedback on the following:

• Regarding the copyedit, I have no qualms, except that the JNA in Croatian is "Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija" and in Serbian it is "Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija". I have no clue which is correct in SC.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I had a look in Google Books, and the Serbian version seems to have been around for much longer in academic publications in English, and the article on sc WP is at that name. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I clarified which areas were meant in "the UN would restore the area". In the same sentence: there's little I can add (and reference) as to why Croatians believed UN force would restore their control over the areas lost to the RSK-control. I seem to remember that was a prevalent (mis)conception, and the source available on the matter seems to support the claim that they believed so. Throughout the war people who "spoke" legalese interpreted various UNSC resolutions to authorities on either side of the frontline variously. Maybe that was one such interpretation, maybe wishful thinking. I simply cannot reference any such explanation. Hope the additional explanation in the article works.
  • That's fine, these things aren't always cut and dried. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Indeed the UNSC resolution establishing UNPROFOR makes zero references to ch 6 or 7. Instead it refers to ch 8 which contains some (vague to me) description what happens if someone confronts the UN force. No other provision on the rules of engagement seem to be included in the UNSC resolution. Added some explaination to the text.
  • Good enough. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I have moved the UNPROFOR deployments map next to the table defining UNPAs, that seemed more natural, and moved general location map to the lead instead. Hope that's fine.
  • THat's fine, it's a personal preference thing, and it is within guidelines. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• While there is information (JNA 9th Corps report) that the parties in Sarajevo were briefed on details of the Vance plan (pp.39-41), and that it is pivotal (along with the Geneva Accord) to the plan (as explicitly stated in the relevant UNSC resolution) I'm concerned such use of box in the lead (please note that a box is already used in the appropriate section) would give it undue weight relative to the Geneva Accords which also appears to be central to the plan (Armatta p.196). If there was a way to include both Geneva and Sarajevo documents in the lead (short of having two boxes, which seems clumsy) I'd be more than happy to move the box(es) there. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, that's fine. I can live with that, there really isn't an infobox that is flexible enough to do the job. Good job, listing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)