Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Vukovar/Archive 5

< Talk:Battle of Vukovar
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Joy in topic Pyrrhic victory
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Thatcher

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
In September 1998, Margaret Thatcher visited the ruins of the city and used it in a speech as a symbol for "eight years of Western weakness" and "failure of appeasement" when compared to "naive negotiators trying to reason with Milošević".[1]
  1. ^ Congressional Record, page 8957
  • "Congressional Record, V. 145, Pt. 6, April 28, 1999 to May 10, 1999". Government Printing Office. 2004. Retrieved 14 April 2012.

I'm removing the above part of this edit - the edit is hardly self-explanatory and Thatcher's opinion seems largely inconsequential. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with Thatcher visiting Vukovar? You have to be more precise about that than just saying she was "inconsequential". Currently, under reference no. 167, even this kind of language is tolerated ("They were helped by Central European scum. They crawled from under the papal tiara, as a dart of the serpent's tongue that protruded from the bloated Kraut and overstretched Eurocommunal anus"), but her's is problematic?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is WP:FACR, as usual - additions of paragraphs of, well, less than brilliant prose, need to be substantiated with edit summaries at the very least. In particular, this doesn't seem like a secondary source. Does anyone else other than Thatcher think that her opinion on that is important enough to mention? That's the kind of content that wouldn't be a problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't found a single news article about it. It simply doesn't seem to have made much public impact. Thatcher is not exactly a consequential figure in the story of Vukovar anyway, considering she was out of office at the time of the battle. Prioryman (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that the visit of a former prime minister of UK is far more noteworthy than including rants and silly phrases of no-name nationalists like Stanković and others. At least a mention that she visited the town should be warranted.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Tell you what, could you see if you can find any news articles about it? That way we would be able to get a better idea of its noteworthiness. Prioryman (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

DW reference

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This reference is missing newspaper page number, which is FA standard (at least it was when the article passed FA). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, Joy - if it's an online news story it doesn't need a page number. Prioryman (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have archived the "News reports" sub-section in the "References" section. Few links have been left unarchived because I was unable to archive them due to errors that occure during the process of archiving. --Wustenfuchs 16:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Early shelling

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reverted this edit which had added July text in May content:

Major shelling of Vukovar began on 4 July 1991 and thereafter the town was shelled regularly by the JNA and Croatian Serb forces, inflaming tension further. ref Prosecutor vs Mile Mrksic et al, 33-34 /ref

But it stands to reason that this claim does indeed exist in the relevant Trial Chamber Judgement on pages 12-13:

JNA forces sporadically shelled parts of Vukovar in June, July and August 1991. Houses in the centre of Vukovar as well as the Vukovar hospital were hit and damaged and civilians were wounded. The first significant shelling occurred on 4 July 1991. The predominately Croat Borovo Naselje was targeted from the direction of the predominately Serb Borovo Selo. In June and July 1991, shelling would take place once a day or every two days in Vukovar. The intensity grew on a daily basis.

The Appeals Judgements don't seem to mention this (I searched for "July", didn't find anything of relevance), so it seems that it stands. The association of JNA with these early mortars in Borovo Selo is somewhat tenuous, but the court did in fact seem to make it there. The article currently mentions 'repeated gun and bomb attacks' in the relevant place, referenced to a BBC report at the time. This source may have issues, but it's certainly better than news reports. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated ref argument

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are two cite news templates with duplicate refs:

  • "Preminuo general Veljko Kadijević"
  • "Blagoje Adžić je poveo totalni rat protiv Hrvatske"

Just a heads up, not sure which is correct. GregorB (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Serial commas

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:Geraldshields11, I noticed you added a lot of commas. This is a featured article that has been proofread numerous times, so I'm not sure if we really need this mass style change. I agree with some of those placements, but some others appear excessive (cf. MOS:COMMA). I'm also not sure if we need to change to use the serial comma here, because a) the article is tagged as written in British English where this practice is less common, so it could be argued that you're messing with MOS:ENGVAR b) the article becomes internally inconsistent while you're changing this, which is against MOS:SERIAL. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Joy:, Thank you for mentioning my wikignome work with the Oxford comma. Perhaps, editors can recast the sentences to remove whatever becomes internally inconsistent. Let us work together to make good articles great. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Displaced civilians

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Knowing this is a Featured Article, I was expecting a certain amount of verifiability. You can imagine my shock and surprise when I found that one of the sources used to uphold the figure of 31,000 ethnically cleansed residents (the ICTY indictment of Milosevic) actually states 20,000 were deported. The other source mentions 31,732 people displaced from the Vukovar region as a whole, but gives no timetable as to when this displacement occurred nor a breakdown of who carried out the expulsions, if indeed every single one of the people included in the aforementioned figure was indeed forcibly expelled/ethnically cleansed.

Snooping around the Internet, it soon became clear that the figures 20,000/22,000 are almost always used (in news articles, scholarly literature, etc.), though genocide scholar Bartrop has published two books using the 31,000 figure (probably a case of WP:MIRROR).

Am I missing something here? 23 editor (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Davor Marijan in his 2004 book Bitka za Vukovar wrote about 22,000 civilians, not 31,000.
"Prema podacima Glavnog sanitetskog stožera Republike Hrvatske, u Vukovaru je poginulo oko 1100 civila i oko 600 branitelja. Među poginulima bilo je i 86 djece. Ranjeno je 2500 osoba, od čega su 570 ostali trajni invalidi. Bez jednog ili oba roditelja ostalo je 858 djece. Prognano je 22.000 Vukovaraca, a oko 1500 ih je odvedeno u srpske logore." Croatian Wikipedia also gives the 22,000 number. Tzowu (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like the input of other users if possible. Perhaps we're missing something? The 22,000 figure should be used, all things considered, IMO. If we fail to attract much attention, I'll be BOLD and make the change. 23 editor (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tzowu: Which page is that on? 23 editor (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
page 284.Tzowu (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I've made the revision. Open to further discussion if necessary, as always. 23 editor (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple of issues

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Although the Croatian government sent some supplies and reinforcements in the early stages, the defenders received little of significance. This was partly because of the difficulty of reaching the town, but may also have been a result of the Croatian government's decision to supply large quantities of arms to the Bosnian Croats in advance of the Bosnian War. In doing so, it starved its own forces of weapons and ammunition."

Vukovar was indeed short of ammunition, but so was the entire HV. Official documents on the deployment of weapons and ammunition show that "the total amount of resources provided for equipping the HV", primarily ammunition, "55-60% was engaged for the purpose of the defense of Vukovar and OG Vukovar - Vinkovci - Županja". (Marijan, Bitka za Vukovar, p. 281. From page 278 to 282 he writes about the weaponry and ammunition that Vukovar received).

The second content in question is this: "A 300-strong HOS battalion named the Black Legion led by Alija Šiljak operated in Vukovar under the Croatian Ministry of the Interior as an "anti-terrorist brigade"." Alija Šiljak fought in eastern Bosnia, and the HOS had 58 fighters in Vukovar (Marijan, p. 29), not 300. Tzowu (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Battle of Vukovar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Unusual edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I call upon Wikipedia users to give their opinion on this edit done by user:23 Editor [1]. It seems questionable. No explanation was given: is it a bad source, or wrong wording, or something else? Having more information and details on the casualties is better than less. Either way, I think this is an interesting (and rare) source from a journal on the casualties, and should be included in the article in one form or another: [2].--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The article presently states that 1,103–1,503 JNA, TO and paramilitaries were killed. Your edit superfluously lists 204 TO members as being killed when the figure of 1,103–1,503 already includes those dead, resulting in confusion as to whether the death toll is higher than that already mentioned. The 550 missing overall is already mentioned, so adding it again is repetitive. The source seems reliable. You are free to re-add the info that→ 147 of the killed civilians were Serbs. That's the only addition I don't see any problem with. 23 editor (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not quite accept your reasoning here. In the Infobox, in the "Units involved" section, the Yugoslav People's Army is included - and yet it is still broken down into Yugoslav Ground Forces, Yugoslav Navy and Yugoslav Air Force. I just did the same under the casualties section: yes, 1,103–1,503 were killed overall, and it was broken down into TO losses. On one hand, I can accept the argument that we don't have other figures for the dead (paramilitary, etc.), so we can leave the Infobox as it is - but why was it necessary to remove the entire info from the text, including the source? And why would you allow to only include the number of killed Serb civilians, but not also include the number of TO forces killed? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with the latest addition and don't think anyone will object. 23 editor (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Vukovar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Battle of Vukovar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Misleading photo

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed the photo showing a child refugee, which has been in the article for many, many years. According to this Flickr caption , written up by the individual who photographed the boy, it was actually taken in Dubrovnik. 23 editor (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Vukovar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"Because you held wounded Croatian soldiers there"

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Horton says that a pediatrician from the Vukovar hospital heard this in Serbia but doesn't specify who made the statement. Was it a person on the street or a high-ranking official? Horton's book appears to be the only source in which the exchange is mentioned. If we can't get a concrete answer, I suggest we remove it. 23 editor (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Background / Ethnic tensions

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've changed a sentence which cites "Bassiouni, Annex IV. 28 December 1994" in a misleading way. The fact is that Communist sources and some Serb officials claimed, and some still make claims about exorbitant number of casualties of atrocities ascribed to their adversaries from the 1st half of the 20th century. I suggest to avoid making and discussing such claims here. It is important that there were such claims and that a part of the population did believe in them, which fueled the ethnic tensions. It is, for this article, not important what parts of that claims are true. --Zzzrin (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that post-war communist historiography spoke of over a million dead doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands of ethnic minorities weren't killed, as reliable sources attest to. Your wording isn't an improvement whatsoever. 23 editor (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Why are sources being deleted and crimes in Battle of Vukovar being hidden? Some users here like Amanuensis Balkanicus want the crimes in the Battle for Vukovar to be hidden. This is the source that was deleted https://web.archive.org/web/20110106010123/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VIII-10.htm .Please return a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.116.206 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an important fact concerning the Battle of Vukovar and in my opinion should be part of the article. Example: Battle of Stalingrad [3] "During this period of armed conflict with the Germans, the brigade's units killed 2,418 soldiers and officers and captured 8,646 soldiers and officers, escorting them to POW camps and handing them over." "Out of the nearly 91,000 German prisoners captured in Stalingrad, only about 5,000 returned. Weakened by disease, starvation and lack of medical care during the encirclement, they were sent on foot marches to prisoner camps and later to labour camps all over the Soviet Union. Some 35,000 were eventually sent on transports, of which 17,000 did not survive. Most died of wounds, disease (particularly typhus), cold, overwork, mistreatment and malnutrition."
  • From source: "Aleksinac: (The existence of this detention facility has been corraborated by multiple sources including the US Department of State). The majority of men from Vukovar were transported to detention facilities in FRY by the JNA and irregular soldiers." "According to testimonies from ex-detainees at least 180 Croatian National Guardsmen from Vukovar were incarcerated in Niš." "Begejci: (The existence of this detention facility has been corroborated by multiple sources, including Helsinki Watch). The village of Begejci is situated near Zrenjanin, Vojvodina. There are several reports of a detention facility existing near Begejci which held mainly Croatian men from Vukovar." etc. Mikola22 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The Battle of Vukovar did not end with the fall of the city, reasons of some editors not to include this information in the article such as "Its about Vukovar, not Sremska Mitrovica" I don't know what that should mean, the battle of Vukovar is made up of its inhabitants and soldiers who were after the fall of the city imprisoned in various camps in Serbia and it must be part of the article. @Amanuensis Balkanicus I'm not friend with these editors but I know them from editing articles and let them say their opinion here, you invite all the editors from wikipedia to give their opinion, I don't know what the problem is? Mikola22 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Amanuensis Balkanicus explain why you delete what others write on the talk page ,and why a reliable source has been deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.116.206 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Including any crimes perpetrated by JNA or Serb paramilitaries on people from Vukovar or Croatian forces that occurred during or soon after the battle is entirely appropriate, and in fact necessary for the article to be comprehensive. However, much of what is in the cited source is unclear about whether details provided by witnesses have been confirmed. The existence of several prisons/camps has been, but it isn't clear if the details of what happened to the alleged victims has been confirmed by the reporting agency, it even states "It should also be noted that the Commission had no basis to confirm the information contained in that source material.". So, this source is ok for establishing the existence of detention facilities it has confirmed in which people from Vukovar or Croatian forces that fought at Vukovar were held, but not the alleged actions taken against those held there. I suggest looking for later reports that summarise what crimes occurred during and after the battle. For example, this source mentions the Ovčara farmhouse facility and the execution of 260 POWs confirmed by the ICTY, it also included the Serbian trials of seven Serb guards that were involved in the massacre, and this should go in the article. In fact, the article says both 200 and 260, this should be amended to 260 as it was the court finding. This source also has a good summary of crimes committed. Essentially, this is an FA, and better sources are required. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a reliable source and should be added to the Battle for Vukovar and other camps where the prisoners were later taken to Serbia. This source is from the Final report of the United Nations Commission of Experts, established pursuant to security council resolution 780 (1992), Annex VIII - Prison camps; Under the Direction of: M. Cherif Bassiouni; S / 1994/674 / Add.2 (Vol. IV), 27 May 1994. Here are more sources about crimes in Yugoslav wars https://web.archive.org/web/20110430024215/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/anx/III-A.htm this author wrote a book as https://books.google.com/books/about/Crimes_Against_Humanity_in_International.html?id=MbiedpEFzbYC&redir_esc=y so it is a reliable source. Please edit the article properly. Thanks. Here are more sources https://www.dawn.com/news/67874/11-years-on-croats-still-fear-serb-prison-camp

As I said, the UNCE report is a reliable source for what detention facilities existed, which is what its purpose was, as clearly explained in its introduction. It isn't a reliable source for what happened to the detainees, for several reasons: it doesn't claim to be (see the intro); it is getting old (over 25 years) and doesn't reflect current academic scholarship on crimes committed during and after the battle; and it clearly states that these are "reports" or "claims" by people, it doesn't say they were investigated and substantiated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand ,you are saying that this man M. Cherif Bassiouni is writing lies from the United Nations Commission of Experts?

I am saying nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that it is reliable for the purpose for which it was intended, which is identifying which detention facilities existed during and after the battle. That is all it claims to do (read the intro to the report). It does not claim to be reliable for the details of what happened to the detainees in those facilities, it just notes that there have been claims made about their treatment, and in some cases, what those claims were. In no way does it claim to be a reliable source for what actually happened to those detainees, or to have investigated their claims and substantiated them. For that, you need to look at scholarly books on the Yugoslav wars (like the ones I have linked and the book you linked written by M. Cherif Bassiouni, and the findings of the ICTY. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

And then why do some users deny the claim that these facilities existed in Serbia, where the prisoners were later taken away, and delete it from the Battle of Vukovar. It is certain that when they arrived there, they did not enjoy it, but were exposed to abuse, torture and other things, some of them did not return alive. I ask someone to arrange it properly and not to hide crimes and camps.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.27.53 (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is denying these facilities existed? Show me a diff. As far as what happened at these facilities, other sources are needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Commission of Experts, the source is reliable and a report was written immediately a year after the prisoners were taken to Serbia and what was there. What you don't like about what is written in, it's your thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.189.211 (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion about what is written it as long as it is reliable. Some of it is, and some of it isn't. We only include the reliable stuff. Also, Balkans articles are often contentious, and to avoid it appearing that you are using multiple IP addresses to bolster your arguments, I suggest you get an WP:ACCOUNT. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the source from "United Nations" these are not some propaganda newspapers ,it is foolish to discuss whether this is a reliable source, so it should be returned what it is users Amanuensis Balkanicus, MareBG, Sadko they deleted, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vukovar&diff=957889439&oldid=957548316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.189.211 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You clearly aren't reading what I am writing, so there is no point in further discussing this. You clearly don't have consensus for your edits, so drop it. If you persist in edit-warring after the protection is lifted, you will be promptly blocked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

All right, don't admit reports from United Nations and spread the propaganda together with them ,and you want hide crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.189.211 (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we need RS which talk about it. Since the reason for moving this information was "Its about Vukovar, not Sremska Mitrovica" I assumed that there was no problem with the source ie that it was vandalism but @Peacemaker67 explained everything and we have to respect that. We need RS. Mikola22 (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
On wikipedia exist articles about this camps [4] [5] [6] Mikola22 (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Normally there are, there are a lot of users who edited those articles, only here they must not be put to know where the prisoners were taken and what happened to them there. Well, the article is about the Battle of Vukovar and it is written that it is known where those prisoners were taken after the battle, so that explanation of "Its about Vukovar, not Sremska Mitrovica" and to delete the source and all that, is a fictional reason. It was deleted to hide the crimes and where those prisoners were later taken. The source is from United Nations. One who denies what is written, then it does not even recognize the United Nations as an institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.189.211 (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

We need RS to have discussed it, per wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes Reference section

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why are notes refs placed in one column? As a result we have extended page height for more then a hundred and fifty rows (assuming that simple format would placed them into at least three columns).--౪ Santa ౪99° 10:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like many are to the same source, and thus could be merged.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It shows up as two columns on my browser. As you can see in the source, the parameter used is colwidth=18em, and you can read more about this in the documentation of {{reflist}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The "em" parameter depends on dpi settings on one's own device. For example, 18em (as here) shows up as four columns, 20em as three on my browser (and it's not a huge monitor).--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory

Latest comment: 3 months ago39 comments13 people in discussion

This is deprecated in infoboxes per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. FDW777 (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So it says in the source. What will write something that is not? Then it is best to delete the word Pyrrhic victory from the World. You also have a Pyrrhic article so delete it too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory. I see that anyone can edit WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX so I could too. It remains to be seen who wrote it. And he should have gotten a consensus for something like that written, so that would be fine.93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Then a lot of battles need to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Holme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Marshes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Plevna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenkins%27_Ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Defile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Sault ... etc Look at the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Military_history. Then Epirote Victory it does not exist, it must also be written differently here in infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asculum93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
More whataboutery. FDW777 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
As MOS says we should not say it, we should not say it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The manual of style is a guideline, while verifiability is a policy, so this is moot. Surely we can avoid this pointless argument by changing the citations to different reliable sources that use different terms to describe the victory? Can someone do that please? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Since verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, this discussion is very much not moot. FDW777 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but the same two sources that we currently reference for this claim are indeed used elsewhere in the article, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly exceptional about using them also for these claims. Indeed, if we were to remove this qualification that stays true to those sources, if we omitted this bit of information intentionally while continuing to reference them, that would be quite a bit of a problem with regard to the letter and spirit of the verifiability policy. Again, please don't hesitate to present equally good or better sources that simply don't use this qualification for the outcome of the battle, and there we go, problem solved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
There are two reliable sources that say it was a pyrrhic victory, other sources use language consistent with that. No-one so far has produced a single reliable source that contradicts that description. In general terms, we should reflect what the consensus of reliable sources say. At present they support a description of "pyrrhic victory", and so do the objective facts of the battle, for that matter. This is hardly a controversial description for anyone other than Serbs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that can't be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but the inclusion of "Pyrrhic" in the infobox is specifically deprecated. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the situation is the same as here [[7]] but they don't respect me because I'm some unimportant IP. I gave an explanation on the talk page [[8]] why you should stay Pyrrhic victory ,but delete that it is disruptive editing. Sources say differently which are in the article, both sources say that it is a Pyrrhic victory not just victory , but there is no answer, it is just deleted without arguments. I would ask someone there to say, should there be a Pyrrhic victory or not. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The situation is that we use what is in the reliable sources, that is how WP works. The reliable sources say it was a pyrrhic victory. Frankly, this "but pyrrhic victory is deprecated" is just nonsense. The MOS has no business deprecating content when the reliable sources clearly support that content. In this case, the sources support it. In many other cases, they do not, and the use of the term in those articles is not appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67 I made a dispute resolution request at [9], (just so you know) Noorullah21 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
That's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 210#Battle of Vukovar --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussion that is relevant here: Talk:Battle of Vukovar/Archive 4#Pyrrhic victory. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There's clearly not consensus here and that being the case MOS should stand. There's only one source that's RS here anyway, and that alone is not a compelling reason to ignore a very clear and specific MOS, especially on a topic that's got clear Balkans issues.

Unbh (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not true what you say that there is only one source where it is written the Pyrrhic victory. There is also on another source where it says the victory of Pyrrhus, which you tried to delete on page 258 Woodward, Susan L. (1995). Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Read https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&hl=eng&id=G4FpAAAAMAAJ&dq=balkan+tragedy+chaos+and+dissolution+after+the+cold+war&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%09++Pyrrhic Press the search button on that page and you will see that it says pyrrhic victory on page 258 of that book93.136.75.98 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I've read that source. It's a quote in the text from an editorial piece in a newspaper. It's not RS for this statement. See WP:RSEDITORIALUnbh (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a published secondary source that supports this conclusion and cites its sources, I don't understand your argument. How does RSEDITORIAL apply if we're not talking about a news publication? And what about the other source, and the argument laid out above - we take these sources seriously for all the other content in the article, but we're going to ignore their description of this matter because it doesn't match our manual of style?
More generally, the organic consensus has been for decades now that this is an appropriate description, and the article actually went through multiple reviews to become FA, and nobody had a problem with this, but now we're supposed to believe that this is a style issue that overrides all those reviews that all involved checking style? I'm very much unimpressed by this lack of a rationale here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Unbh It's not a newspaper quote because pyrrhic victory is written in parentheses (and long after "Pyrrhic victory" of the fall of Vukovar). It has nothing to do with the newspaper, but the author of the book only says the time when it was, that's why it's written in parentheses this (and long after "Pyrrhic victory" of the fall of Vukovar). Read the sentence a little better and you will understand.93.136.75.98 (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a cherry picked quote within a cherry picked quote. It doesn't state a conclusion. A single other source doesn't justify ignoring the MOS.
The article is a 10 year old+ FA. Standards were not the same then, wiki was barely toddling. there are many FA articles fosillised by [[WP:FAOWN]] that are really just [{WP:OWN]] and this is looking like one on them. Unbh (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly the opposite of what you say, the author of the book states the conclusion in which time it happened. So, according to him, it was during the time of the pyrrhic victory of Vukovar or the fall of Vukovar, as he wrote. That is why it is written in parentheses when it tells the reader the time when it was. So the author says that it is a Pyrrhic victory, not some quote from the newspaper that you want to take out of context here and that you are deceiving others that it is a quote from the newspaper.93.136.75.98 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
In five minutes, I found 3 more books where Pyrrhic victory is written https://books.google.com/books?id=wy3TBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA327&dq=Pyrrhic+battle+vukovar&hl=eng&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxj7Tn5_b4AhXtlosKHSO2AOEQ6AF6BAgJEAI#v=onepage&q=Pyrrhic%20battle%20vukovar&f=false page 327 , https://books.google.com/books?id=DmaBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&dq=Pyrrhic+battle+vukovar&hl=eng&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxj7Tn5_b4AhXtlosKHSO2AOEQ6AF6BAgDEAI#v=onepage&q=Pyrrhic%20battle%20vukovar&f=false page 62 , https://books.google.com/books?id=kSc9EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA351&dq=Pyrrhic+battle+vukovar&hl=eng&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxj7Tn5_b4AhXtlosKHSO2AOEQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=Pyrrhic%20battle%20vukovar&f=false page 351 93.136.75.98 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
For those that missed it the first time, the MOS is a guideline. This particular change to the guideline was made with a very weak consensus. When the reliable sources clearly support content we include it. Anyone who has read the key non-partisan texts on this battle knows it was a Pyrrhic victory. Edit warring about it is going to get reported. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Unbh, if you are going to overtly disregard WP:FAOWN it would be helpful if you could ping in the FAC coordinators and the original reviewers for their opinions. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

JFTR this account Unbh was apparently since blocked for egregious policy violations. I'm noticing this now that an anonymous user started soapboxing about the same phrase. --Joy (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Good grief... so sick of this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
There's no consensus about this above despite what you two seem to be trying to bludgeon through 37.245.173.184 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Dear anonymous user, if you want to make a change, please make an actual argument based on applicable policies and guidelines, or stop wasting our volunteer time. Edit warring over weird details is pretty much a classic style of abusing Wikipedia. --Joy (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
As the previous protection expired, the same ISP seems to have been used again to do the same kind of soapboxing. I noticed that the previous netblock was also blocked for some other abuse. I've protected it again, as this clearly doesn't seem to have been a matter for rational discussion. --Joy (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The absence of rational discussion is from two involved administrators bludgeoning and stonewalling their self-declared consensus contrary to the clearly divided view above and to the clearly established and explicitly stated MoS for infoboxes 37.245.77.159 (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The MOS and template guidance cannot deprecate any article from including an accurate description of the outcome of a battle that is based on the academic consensus of that outcome. Some editors appear to think that a poorly arrived-at infobox guidance is equivalent to a legal requirement. It isn’t. The Battle of Vukovar was pretty much a quintessential pyrrhic victory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This is fairly obvious, but let's point out for the record that you've been edit-warring over something you yourself declared to be more important - manual of style over verifiability, where one is a guideline and the other a policy, which is a non-trivial distinction. A divided discussion is resolved according to the policy on how we arrive at consensus; notice how it explicitly warns against being combative and unwilling to use dispute resolution mechanisms. --Joy (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
there isn't consensus though, there's just you two saying over and over again that there is. Two sources does not make an academic consensus either. THe use is deprecated in infoboxes, not in the article. The infobox is also supposed to be a summary of the article, which in this case doesn't even contain the description 'pyrrhic victory'! 2.49.18.70 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Please, do present evidence of a different academic consensus. The phrase seems to summarize what is described within the article quite well. --Joy (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
it isn't a good summary off the content of the article. To ignore the MoS there should be a lot more that two cherry picked sources - the second of which is invalid anyway as it's a primary quote from a newspaper in the source.
Indef protection of this article by an admin actively involved in the discussion is outrageous. You should remove it - I will not restore my edits 2.49.18.70 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The actual discussion was had, in 2011 and in 2022. This is not it. --Joy (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
And there's not consensus in either discussion. 2.49.18.70 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure there is, you're just continuing to wiki-lawyer around the facts. Flamewars on the Internet can be amusing, huh? --Joy (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This line should be altered/modified

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"As Yugoslavia began to break up, Serbia's President Slobodan Milošević and Croatia's President Franjo Tuđman began pursuing nationalist politics"

It's at the begining of the article and it's the third line (at the time I'm writting this).

It implies that Milošević and Tuđman are two sides of the same coin. It equates the plan of greater serbia by Milošević(as stated and concluded by the UN = "According to a 1994 United Nations report, the Serb side did not aim to restore Yugoslavia, but to create a "Greater Serbia" from parts of Croatia and Bosnia", https://web.archive.org/web/20120504142243/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/IV.htm) with Tuđman simply wanting out of yugolavia.

So I think that line leaves a wrong impression of Tuđman because of the part saying "nationalist politics". Here is part of a wikipedia article on nationalism: "In practice, nationalism can be seen as positive or negative depending on context and individual outlook. Nationalism has been an important driver in independence movements such as the Greek Revolution, the Irish Revolution, the Zionist movement that created modern Israel and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Radical nationalism combined with racial hatred was also a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Nationalism was an important driver of the controversial annexation of Crimea by Russia."

Milošević did ethnic cleansing and was a war criminal, here is a line from his wikipedia page:"After Milošević's death, the ICTY and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals found that he was a part of a joint criminal enterprise to remove Croats and Bosniaks from large parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina"

Tuđman wanted independence from yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was always underpinned with serbian nationalism and serbian centralization. Since Tito died it was a grave time for anyone that wasn't serbian to live in yugoslavia because Milošević had plans to take over the rule of yugoslavia, as evident by his agressive actions as soon as Croatia left Yugoslavia and by the increasing fear the Croatian people felt by staying in yugoslavia since Tito died.

So you can see how that line at the begining is not correct in a sense, it's correct on face value, but not on context. Milošević attacked Croatia, Tuđman didn't attack Serbia, he wanted out of yugoslavia, two very different types of nationalism.

I don't feel like editing that line because I'm new and I already made some mistakes regarding an article that I tried to edit because I'm not yet familiar with editing on wikipedia to the extent were I don't leave a mess and I don't want to leave a bad impression on the admins.

I hope someone with more experience adresses this. My proposal is this. "As Yugoslavia began to break up, Serbia's President Slobodan Milošević began pursuing nationalist politics" or to simply remove it. VEcev (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Something along these lines was in a recent edit I reverted. The issue here is that even the source you provided says:

During 1990, tensions had increased considerably throughout the former Yugoslavia as newly elected governments in the Republics expressed strong nationalist sentiments. In Croatia, for example, after Franjo Tudjman and the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ--Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica) came to power in April of 1990, a law was enacted adopting Croatian as the official language of state administration and the red and white checkered shield, a symbol of the Croatian nation, hanged from many windows. *73 Furthermore, many Serbs were dismissed from their jobs, especially within the police forces, and replaced by Croats. *74 In addition, the new Croatian constitution spoke of the «national state of the Croatian nation». *75 As one scholar put it, the constitution's repeated use of the term «Croatian nation» (Hrvatski narod) «has an ethnic rather then political connotation and excludes those not ethnically Croat». *76

Hence if we want to provide a more nuanced view on the two nationalists, a specific phrasing needs to be discussed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Vukovar/Archive_5&oldid=1224757351"