Wikipedia

Talk:Bosnian War/Archive 5

< Talk:Bosnian War
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Nitroerg542 in topic SFRY as participants
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

RDC 2012 casualty figures, dead or missing?

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
nb conversation copied from Jdcrutch's user talk page by Pincrete, in order to get broader input. Pincrete (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Jdcrutch, just to let you know, I partially reverted your changes. In one case, 'casualties' was the title of a paper. The figures themselves are actually 'dead or missing long-term', with the vast majority being confirmed dead, but without precise figures as to what that majority is. Also the 'unknown status' category is largely unknown as to whether they were military or civilian, or some other substantial piece of information. The ethnicity of this category is unstated, rather than 'unknown'. I've changed your 'deaths' to 'dead or missing', but omitted it where repetition would be cumbersome. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Thanks for letting me know. I should not have changed that title, and I'm glad you caught my mistake. On the other hand, the text of the article, which I didn't change, makes it pretty clear that the figures given in the tables are for deaths. It does say that, in 2007, the RDC published "a database that initially revealed a minimum of 97,207 names of Bosnia and Herzegovina's citizens confirmed as killed or missing during the 1992–1995 war." (Emphasis supplied.) But thereafter, citing 2012 figures, it refers only to deaths. For example,
The 2012 figures recorded a total of 101,040 dead, of whom 61.4 percent were Bosniaks, 24.7 percent were Serbs, 8.3 percent were Croats and less than 1 percent were of other ethnicities, with a further 5 percent whose ethnicity was unstated.
* * *
Civilian deaths were established as 38,239, which represented 37.9 percent of total deaths. Bosniaks accounted for 81.3 percent of those civilian deaths, compared to Serbs 10.9 percent and Croats 6.5 percent.
* * *
and, regarding the second table,
These figures were not based solely on 'battle deaths', but included accidental deaths taking place in battle conditions and acts of mass violence. Specifically excluded were "non-violent mortality increases" and "criminal and unorganized violence increases”. Similarly 'military deaths' include both combat and non-combat deaths.
(Emph. supp.) The numbers given in the text for deaths are identical with those given in the tables, originally, for casualties. All I did (that is, all I intended to do) was to make the tables say what the text says. I don't think you were right to change those edits, but I leave it to you to decide whether or not to undo that. The main thing for me was to eliminate the use of "casualties" as a synonym for "deaths".
I'll give you "unknown status", even though the number given under that rubric is identical with that given for "Ethnicity unstated", because the article does suggest that the dead of unstated ethnicity may also be of unknown status vis-à-vis military service (or maybe that those numbers just happened to be the same—it's not really clear).
At any rate, I appreciate your catching my error with that title, and your cordial disagreement, which I hope I've reciprocated. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I updated the text and table last spring to include the 2012 'final' report and figures, therefore if wording in text and table don't align, it is 9/10 my fault. The 'unknowns' (and I spent some time trying to fathom this), included unknown military/civilian but implication was that sometimes where other substantial info was missing, they were likewise included as 'unknown'. My recollection (9 month old) is that 'unknown' figures were almost identical to earlier 'still being processed' figures, ie that it is very possible that the 'unknowns' were still 'un-resolved' at the time they closed, though this was nowhere stated explicitly.
I'll go back to sources and if you are correct about deaths/missing, modify the text. I was extremely cautious about phrasing, but may have inadvertently left out-of-date info, or omitted an 'or missing' because I thought it had already been said. 'Casualties' was the term used by the RDC itself, though they were clear throughout their work that they were referring to dead and 'missing, presumed dead', therefore I have no objection to your change, which is more explicit, the only issue is whether they confidently state all as 'deaths', or whether they still said 'dead or missing' in their final 2012 figures.
The RDC's methodology was very rigourous, one of the consequences of their rigour was that the 'missing' were people who were almost certainly dead, but they lacked sufficient supporting info to state that confidently. A great deal of their early work was 'pruning' duplicate initial reports which had not been picked up because of variant spellings/DoBs etc on initial 'missing' reports by relatives, resulting in early very inflated figures.
Some of the lack of clarity, is in the original, partly because they were extremely cautious in their pronouncements. I was trying to strike a balance in my phrasing between clarity, and echoing their caution. I'll check sources sometime over the next week, and see if phrasing can be made clearer and more particularly whether final figures are 'dead' or 'dead or missing'. Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete Aha! I hadn't realized that you were the original (or at least the latest) author, but I was presuming that the text was authoritative, at any rate. Your caution is correct and laudable, especially given the politically and emotionally charged character of much of the information we encounter concerning that conflict. (Not knocking the RDC, though. I take your word for it that they were very rigorous.) I have my own views, too, of course, but, as I said earlier, my only reason for editing as I did was to make it clear that casualties ≠ deaths (or deaths + disappearances). I believe you'll honor that distinction in whatever revisions you may make. Thanks for being conscientious. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, I'm going to copy this conversation onto the article talk page. Whilst I was the 'copy-editor' of present text on this section, other editors acted as 'oversight' and may have views. Initial research last night compounded, rather than clarified the confusion, some of our sources for the 2012 figures boldly referred to 'deaths', whilst others continued to say 'd or m'. In context, the likelihood of any statistically significant number of 'missing' being found alive after such an interval is VERY slim, though I don't know if sources state that explicitly. 'Unknown' does appear to refer to 'unsorted' and is sometimes referred to as such by the source we use for civ/mil and ethnicity figures, the same figure (5,100) appears in a number of charts (such as gender - it isn't really possible to be fairly certain that someone is 'd or m' without knowing their sex). I used the term 'unknown status', as in the context of our chart, it is their military status which is unknown, though clarification of what this figure is would probably be helpful.
Your use of 'disappeared' may be useful, it may be clearer than 'missing', which suggests that they are likely to be found, I believe its use is justified. Pincrete (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

UK or US English?

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The article uses a mix of UK & US English (centre, but -ized), which should it be? Pincrete (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In an article on a non-US topic, I'm inclined to favor "international" (i.e., British) English. Practically, however, I'd leave it to whoever feels motivated to make a thorough revision of the article. Consistency is the main thing, since both dialects are "correct". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The majoriy was already UK (centre etc.). Yesterday I modified all the 'izes', so as nobody has objected, it is now UK English, (unless I missed anything).Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the rule is that, when there is no strong national tie to a subject, the variety of English of the first non-stub version of the article is adopted (see the Style Cuide). I may have misunderstood your first comment, but I'd like to point out that both -ize (Oxford spelling) and -ise suffixes may be used in British English (though any piece of writing should be consistent in which suffix it uses).     ←   ZScarpia   19:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
There isn't an obvious strong national tie, and I'm not sure what the original variant was. The article has been a 'bit of both' for some time, hence my action, hoping that if anyone objected, they would say so. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

War in SR Bosnia 1 March - 5 April 1992

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sijekovac_killings

The conflict was before the declaration of independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina.--178.222.31.32 (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:178.222.31.32 wars rarely start 'out of nowhere', it is acknowledged within the article that various incidents happened before all-out war. However we can only go on what the majority of sources say was the beginning of the 'war proper'. That is the reason for the present date.Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC) ps see this prev. discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on Bosnian War. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

90,000 Pakistani fighters claim and Pakistani involvement

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks to Pincrete for removing this claim. The source was a book that consists of Wikipedia articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that 90,000 Pakistanis were involved in the Bosnian War (supposedly 20% of foreigners fighting for Bosnia, thus implying 450,000 foreign 'Muslim' fighters). This is a recent addition and a very extraordinary claim, since whilst the number of foreigners is hotly disputed, estimates of the total of foreigners fighting for Bosnia vary from 300-6000. I've removed pending someone checking ths source and, if necessary rephrasing to attribute. Since the whole Pakistan involvement is largely reliant on this source, it would be good if someone could check all that content and rephrase as necessary. Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I've made a further edit regarding Pakistani involvement, since the sources appear to be saying Pakistan aided Bosnia, not the 'foreign fighters'. I think the whole Pakistan involvement should be checked by someone with access/time to do so. I am for example extremely sceptical that Pakistan should be listed as a belligerent if only support was given, the number of countries providing clandestine support/ selling weapons/ allowing volunteers to go to one or other of the three sides, would make a very long list of belligerents! Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC) … … … have removed Pakistan Intelligence as a belligerent. Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bosnian War. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bosnian War. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

EkoGraf, I THINK you were involved in the discussion some time ago about 'updating' all the casualty figures and text. One problem there was the mysterious 'other' category (5,100), which appears in all RDC figures (male/female, civilian/soldier, ethnicity etc.). It simply isn't possible to know that someone died and not know their gender, even if it is plausible to not know all other details about them. The conclusion I came to after much reading was that 'other' must mean 'unclassified' and looking at RDC's methodology this probably meant that one or more 'key facts' was missing, so they preferred to not include in main tables.

Another factor is that the ICTY figures are higher than RDC figures but without the 'other' category. Perhaps better than almost/over/ at least, we should put 'around'? Pincrete (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this, the first source cited gives a figure of 57,701, so "almost 57,700" isn't correct. How about "approximately"? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The second (non Eng) source is more recent, but I am happy with approx/around or simply the bare figure (the difference in numbers is tiny). Perhaps we should add the 'other' (5100) figure after military, though I can't think of a succinct way to describe them (Military status unspecified?). These are essentially people who RDC are close to certain are dead, but for whom they lack one or another piece of key info. Pincrete (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete Cordless Larry Yeah I was involved and made updates to the infobox and text (as we agreed), but forgot about the table. Both the first and second source are citing RDC figures. Difference is, the first source cites figures from June 2012 (outdated), while the second from February 2013, which is newer and more up to date. The second set of RDC's figures from February 2013 have also been stated to be final (no more updates), so this is the one we should be following when making our edits. So, considering that last RDC update puts military deaths at 56,694, then I think almost 57,700 is appropriate, but maybe we could settle on up to 57,700? I think the 5,100 unidentified dead should remain in the fourth (unaligned) casualties row of the infobox since it refers to unidentified deaths from all three belligerents (most likely both civilian and military). I think we should update the table in the casualties section of the main body of the article to reflect the February 2013 figures (its per the June 2012 figures at the moment). However, after looking them over, it seems there aren't many changes to be done. Basically, the only difference between the 2012 and 2013 figures is that in the 2nd set six Bosniak and one Serb soldier were detracted. In any case, we should discontinue to use RDC's outdated June 2012 figures, and use their final updated February 2013 figures. EkoGraf (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It isn't QUITE accurate to say 'up to'. The big difference, as you note, is that the 5100 almost certainly contain some of each. The difference between the two sources is trivial (7 people), why don't we either put the EXACT, later figure and add 'confirmed' + put in the 'other' (5100) as suggested above. I think that would give the most realistic overall account. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Ignore the above, I realised that since 'breakdown' is already included further down the info-box and in the 'casualties' section, it wasn't worth discussing and I simply replaced with a 'total dead' figure. Hope nobody objects.Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The casualty numbers listed are ridiculous. List either the ICTY Demographic Unit numbers or the Research and Documentation Center of Sarajevo numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.110.205 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:67.149.110.205, the two sets of figures were compiled at different times and according to slightly different criteria, the more authorative are probably RDC, but where more than one set of figures exist, it's fairly common to list both/more than 1. The main text (rather than the infobox) gives, or should give, the fuller picture. What certainly doesn't make sense is to 'mix and match' figures within the infobox, especially when these figures are not supported by the refs which follow (and should verify) the given figures.
Also, I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, since they aren't the ICTY ones we use.Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bosnian War. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Listing Mujahideen in info box as belligerents

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding this edit, and my revert. I would be glad of other editors' opinions whether it is apt to list Mujahideen as separate belligerents in the info box.

My concerns are various, firstly are they a separate unit (rather than a component of Bosniak Army) and are we treating them consistently with other 'foreign' units, such as Gk volunteers and with 'irregular' forces generally. Secondly, there is the issue of naming, in the West the term normally refers to 'distant' fighters (mainly Arab, but also from other countries), whilst ICTY uses the term to mean local (Bosniak) troops who fought with these units and some local sources use the term for all Muslim non-Bosniaks (eg Kosovans or Albanians). Thirdly, there is the question of numbers, not only are their numbers highly disputed, but are we clear as to whether they are already included by most sources as 'Bosniak' troops. Lastly there is the issue of whether info should be in the info-box, which is not develeoped in the article.

Thoughts? Since this insertion has been made before, I would be glad of input from editors as to whether they should be so listed, or how we should treat them and other 'irregulars'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave it out. Belligerents should be detailed in the article before they are included in the infobox. Perhaps appending "others" to the end of the belligerents list in the infobox is a solution (perhaps linking that word to the section of the article where the combatants are discussed?). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to add that groups like Hezbollah and the Gray Wolves should also be included.
No. Only military factions under a clear unified control should be included, not every single group of volunteers. There were volunteers from Greece, Russia, Sweden, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan... By that logic, half of the world should be included here just because a few hundred joined the ranks of a certain side. But there were only three clear sides fighting in this war: Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, Croats. Eventually also NATO which bombed in 1995. That's it. All other volunteers were incorporated into one of these sides. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bosnian War. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting edit to the casualty figures ( I have no clue how to edit on wikipedia, sorry )

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The casualty numbers seem to be fake news and from a strange source. The source given is some book which is fairly outdated as of 2017 (and is uncheckable via internet) and from some Bosniak internet news site with no real credibility behind it. The ICTY, which itself is quite authoritative, lists completely different casualties here: 

http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/War_Demographics/en/bih_casualty_undercount_conf_paper_100201.pdf

It gives overall 104,000 victims and a breakdown based on census data and available records. Most importantly, it shows 42492 military deaths on the Bosniak side, versus 25,609 civilian deaths. This is a huge change from the 30,521 soldiers and 31,583 civilians listed on here currently! The ICTY figure seems to heavily support that a lot more Bosniak soldiers died than civilians, supporting the overall trend among all three ethnic groups, while the current figures claim that more civilians died. If anyone thinks the current sources are good enough I highly recommend putting a dash or both figures in the infobox just for balance: Example being (under the Bosniak side):

30,521-42,492 soldiers killed (Sources here) 25,609-31,583 civilians killed (Sources here)

I would make this edit myself but I don't know how to use wikipedia, I hope someone can make this change. If we want real balance and objectivity we need to include figures from multiple sources, especially a very authoritative one such as the ICTY which has insider contacts to the entire war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenateissmall (talk • contribs) 06:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The ICTY figures are given and discussed at Bosnian War#ICTY figures. The figures you refer to as fake and from a strange source are actually from the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo, which is a credible and respected source. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The RDC figures (as well as the ICTY figures) are as good as we are going to get and have the advantage of 'giving names'. There are reasons for variations in figures, which include variations in the precise criteria for inclusion. One acknowledged factor is a tendency for relatives to report a person as non-civilian when they were part of 'irregular' forces, but not technically 'military'. The exact dates of reporting also affect figures, with a tendency for later figures to be more accurate due to early 'double reporting'. Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Al Qaeda in Bosnia

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Cordless Larry I wonder if you could offer an opinion on this edit. The WaPost 2nd para is accurate but I find the other claims and related article problematic, but I am not able to access the book used. There were several other edits added by the same editor which I have removed as the gave undue prominence to Mujahadeen/ Al Qaeda involvement. My own instinct is that (at a minimum) these should NOT be in WP voice. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I can access the relevant page of the book here. Does that work for you? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm "shut out" (reached my quota for this book, even though I haven't Google-booked anything for eons). It may work in a few days, this happens quite often to me and may relate to my location. Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Mysteriously, it now works. What the source appears to be saying is that funds which were ostensibly for Bosnian 'Islamic' charities, were actually 'creamed off' for Al-Qaeda. It does NOT appear to be saying that this money was spent, militarily or otherwise, in Bosnia. I'm going to remove this claim. Pincrete (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bosnian War. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bosnian War. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bosnian War (done)

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bosnian War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

  • From Bob Dole: "Crowley: It's the losing campaigns I remember most – CNNPolitics.com". CNN. November 5, 2012.
  • From Paris: "Paris Tourism- Key figures 2016". Paris Convention and Visitors Bureau. Retrieved 29 June 2016.
  • From Skelani massacre: http://www.srebrenica-project.com: Историјски пројекат Сребреница
  • From Hezbollah: "Jewish Leaders Applaud Hezbollah Terror Designation by France". Algemeiner Journal. 4 April 2013. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
  • From Ottoman Empire: Rogan, Eugene (2011). The Arabs: A History. Penguin. p. 106.
  • From International law: Power Politics, 1979, Pelican, p 108-12
  • From Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Bury 2008, p. 372.

Reference named "auto":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

How should we refer to 'Yugoslavia' in 1992 beligerents in the infobox?

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Currently, the infobox lists SFRY as supporters of the 'anti-B&H' side in 1992. In the 1992-94 and later sections, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (ie 'rump' Yugoslavia, consisting mainly of Serbia and Montenegro), are correctly listed as the supporters of that side. The Bosnian war is generally regarded as having started in late March/early April 1992, while SFRY formally ceased to exist in late April 1992, when Serbia and Montenegro formally declared the new, smaller federation (FRY) - but SFRY had de facto ceased to be a functioning unit some time before then.

Is it meaningful to list an entity as a beligerent that only even existed in the strictest, legal, sense for a few weeks of the beginning of the war? Or should we simply list FRY in this role from the beginning of the war? FRY being the claimant of the Yugoslav 'name' and inheritors of much of the Yugoslav army and heavy weaponry.

This is partly a technical question, but it has PoV ramifications since FRY claimed to be the rightful inheritors of the authority of SFRY - 'former Yugoslavia'. Therefore are we giving legitimacy to that claim by saying that SFRY (Yugoslavia) - which had for all practical purposes ceased to exist - initially supported the 'Serb side'?

I'm out of my depth as to how sources deal with this transition period, but fairly sure that most treat FRY as being - for all practical purposes - under Serbian control.

On a related issue, if anyone can think of a better/clearer way to refer to stages 1 & 2 in the infobox (1992 and 1992-1994 respectively), it would help as I'm sure this is not clear/obvious to most readers why/in what way that distinction is made. Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree re the removal of SFRY. "To October 1992" and "October 1992 - 1994", dodging the question of exactly when the war started? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. The infobox is confusing and rather messy. The proposed changes would have a positive impact. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to admit to a degree of ignorance/confusion as to when precisely SFRY ceased to exist - legally, or de facto, but I'm not sure I understand the logic of October 1992. If Slovenia and Croatia had already seceded and been recognised, and Srb+Mont had formed a new federation by late April 1992, and B&H had already sought independence, in what sense did SFRY exist in 1992? Did it have recognition at that time or meaningful organs of government? Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
SFR Yugoslavia existed until April 27, 1992. That same date FR Yugoslavia was formed. FkpCascais (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
SFRY is included porbably because of the intervention of the Federal Army. FkpCascais (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm proposing "To October 1992"/"October 1992-1994" because it is then that the Croat-Bosniak War starts and hence the 3-belligerent display is needed - nothing to do with SFRY, which under your proposal (which I have agreed with) would be removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, thanks for the clarification. I would endorse that change. FkpCascais, I understand why SFRY is there - as technically existing for the first weeks of the war, I'm not sure if you are saying you think it should remain. Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a fuzzy area, but we can stick to de jure dates. It isn't a big deal if the article explains the events as it should. 89.164.158.123 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the 'de jure' position is clear cut - doesn't that depend on recognition as well as claim - in this case claimed inheritance. My biggest concern is clarity, I'm not sure that it makes obvious sense to the uninitiated for a country to go to war that legally ceases to exist 3 weeks later. Pincrete (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
While I still favour removal, putting it in a parenthical note might be a second-best approach if other editors oppose removal. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The first proposal is very good, I would not step back from it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So, ah, Pincrete, seems like you have general support - want to go ahead and change it? Pinkbeast (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, I've removed SFRY, but I will leave it to you to make the "until October 92", changes, since I think you are more 'up to speed' on those than I at this moment. The 'until October' changes seem also endorsed above. Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Foreign fighters

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Unfortunately, while I don't think we needed most of that chunk, I think we're now in an awkward situation where I've expunged Igor Girkin from one side because we don't really need to get into individuals, but the (already extant) next para has Jackie Arklöv - indeed, it has a cite about Jackie Arklöv justifying a statement that neo-Nazis, plural, fought for the Croat side. (The cite doesn't even seem to say that Arklöv was a neo-Nazi, but other cites on his article seem to justify that).

Any thoughts on how to improve this? We could stick Girkin back in, but I don't really think that's ideal. Is there a cite I'm missing for the assertion re neo-Nazis, plural (or rather, in significant quantities?) Pinkbeast (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is about twice recommended length already. I've pruned/merged the recent additions further (to cover only main points). I would say remove Arklov or move it to the foreign fighters page. I would definitely say that the presence of any single individual (Girkin or Arklov or innumerable "Islamist" individuals who could potentially be included), should be excluded. Their presence is sourcable (though dubious phrasing in the case of Arklov .... neo nazis like ..), but not significant. Pincrete (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Also a bit of a tangle here in that the only reference for foreign fighters on the Croat side is specifically about Arklöv - and Foreign fighters in the Bosnian War has a cite we can't easily see (does it just pertain to the Italians or to the rest?) Pinkbeast (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

NATO WIKI Propaganda

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

One historian would ask itself question: If Serbs had: VRS: 80,000 troops 300 tanks 700 APCs 800 artillery pieces[5] + aid from AP Western Bosnia: 4,000–5,000 troops[6]

Croats: HVO: 45,000–50,000 troops[2] 75 tanks 50 APCs 200 artillery pieces[3] HV: 15,000 troops[4]

And Croats mostly were in war with Bonsiks

How on earth with 10 times more thanks and 20 times more of APC and comparable number of solders they ended up in 21000 vs 31000 military casualties. It is know that Serb civilians have been wearing military uniforms left from reserves even they were not military. So must be that many civilians are presented as military on Serbian side or more of military dead are presented as civilian on Bosniak side How relevant are these numbers if there were no other parties but NATO countries who participated in determination of casualties. At first glance it looks as civilian death tall of one side is artificially inflated. Again please can you show any conflict in which one side was dominating almost during the whole war that last 3 years, that it had such a supremacy in military arms and yet the military death toll is so comparable. It was all Western Media and also it is in this Wiki pages where it was stated that Serbs were dominating during all war, that they were masters of life and dead, that they were better equipped. Yet, they ended up with so comparable military casualties.

Just for comparison check military casualties of Germans killed by French and vice versa in World War II. When French lost the war in 1940 they lost way more man than Germans. If you compare similarly war between Polish and Germans and casualties caused by each one to other, Pols died in more then 10 times bigger numbers. If you take war in Vietnam US lost way less people in direct battles then Vietnamese. Similarly Japanese and Chinese in WW2 and Soviets and Afghani's in Afghanistan war. Then you can also compare Jews and Egyptians casualties in their war. In all these wars one side was 10 times stronger then the other it terms of military hardware and ratios are more then 10:1. Yet in case of Serbs+Croats vs Bosniaks it is almost 1:1. Definitely not more then 3:2.

Its incomprehensible beyond the reason.

97.126.30.19 (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

One does not need to be Einstein to realise that the more 'irregular' a conflict is, the more irregular casualty figures will be. However that is neither here nor there, casualty figures are based on best available historical figures, rather than what may or not be comprehensible to any of us. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of Einstein, it really must he heavy relativism to explain this claim. Again only Serbs had 10-20 times more artillery and tanks more then Bosniaks plus complete air-force. Add fact that Croats were also mostly in war with Bosniaks and they were also better armed then Bosniaks. It becomes theoretically impossible that military casualties were so comparable. When you say irregular conflict what other conflicts you know to be "irregular" so that we can do comparison? Finally what historical facts? All your references are one sided based on Bosniak claims and western claims with no participation of other parties. I think that Einstein eyebrows will go up seeing this inconsistencies in logic and lack of any comparable historical events. I listed you number of conflicts showing in such a situation so much different outcome then this one listed here and cannot find anything comparable to this among conflicts of that kind. I can list more of examples like Boxer war in China etc... In many of these wars difference in power was less then what was between Serbs and Bosniaks yet in all cases consistently casualties on of less armed belligerent were significantly higher. Here is another example war between Turks and Kurds where Kurds have 5-10 times bigger casualties then Turks. Is this for you "irregular" conflict?

172.58.41.189 (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We need more leaders in the Infobox

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I invite editors to insert more leaders in the Infobox of the Bosnian War among the Republika Srpska side. Because, according to the current state, it would seem that only two people led the entire Bosnian Serb forces during the whole war. Just because political and military leadership remained unchanged, does not mean that nobody else significantly contributed to the war leadership during the conflict. Both the Bosnian side and Croat side have at least three leaders in the infobox (the Bosnian side has five leaders listed). See also the templates for Croatian War of Independence and Kosovo War for comparison.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It does not say "everyone who significantly contributed" it says "Commanders and leaders" as I said to you on my talk page " There has to be some logical criteria - the infobox for World War II lists only Roosevelt (not Truman the US leader who took over for the last phase), only Churchill (not Chamberlain who was in charge for the initial period - nor the King who was Britain's head of state) - nobody's deputies, not the dozens and dozens of other states involved, only 'the big four' on the allied side and 'big three' on the axis side. IMO there is already an excess of info trying to cram itself into the Bosnian War infobox - which after all is supposed to be a clear summary of the most important points in the text, it isn't supposed to be an alternative to the article text." It particularly doesn't make sense to say "we need more" without any clear logic as to why, or to include people not mentioned anywhere in the article text.Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
World War II is a bad example, since the whole world participated in it and we had thousands of leaders from so many nations and coalitions. The Bosnian War, on the other hand, was much smaller and has no such need to shorten or compress the leadership list. If this is your only argument, then the whole rationale for blocking any expansion of participants in the infobox falls apart. As for the clear logic as to why: to avoid the misconception that only Karadzic and Mladic led the entire Bosnian Serb forces all by themselves, without anybody else. Krajisnik, Plavsic, Koljevic and others also participated. The Croatian War and Kosovo War should be used as an example, since they are much more similar in scale.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
And how many political and military leaders and their deputies for each of the states and 'entities' for each phase of the war should there be? None of whose roles is explored in the article of which the info box is meant to be a summary! The logic of who is included is at least fairly consistent at present, even so their is info-overload IMO in this infobox. The examples you gave above are just ludicrous (Croatian and Kosovan) since no one can have any idea who half the people are, thus negating the whole point of the infobox of giving a 'quick overview'. Karadzic and Mladic DID largely lead 'all by themselves' - of course they had deputies/colleagues etc, as do all leaders, but there is only any point in naming them when that is relevant to understanding what happened. This isn't an exercise in 'naming and shaming' and the article does not even have the aspiration of listing everyone involved in pursuing the war. Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Any argument for adding names to the infobox should be based on clear criteria for how decisions about who to include are being made. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Republika Srpska had one president and the VRS had only one Chief of Staff during the war. The ARBiH, the HVO, and the HV all had more than one, so their list is a bit larger, and could be even larger than the current one as not all are listed on the Croatian side. Tezwoo (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Iranian involvement

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Iran's IRGC was involved Farbne (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Turning the tide and ending the war.

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lead claims that Nato intervention (after Srebrenica and Markale) lead to end of the war "NATO intervened in 1995 with Operation Deliberate Force targeting the positions of the Army of the Republika Srpska, which proved key in ending the war". The body of the article implies that Pakistani supplied anti tank missiles achieved much the same effect "which ultimately turned the tide in favour of Bosnian Muslims and forced the Serbs to lift the siege" - the siege of Sarajevo I presume, though it is unstated there.

The two statements are not WHOLLY inconsistent, but they substantially clash and to a degree contradict each other. I'm not very familiar with the military aspects of the war, but wonder if anyone could fix/clarify/align the body and article texts. Pincrete (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

SFRY as participants

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:SRofSerbia, I believe that there was a fairly long-term consensus from some time ago that SFRY was never meaningfully engaged in the Bosnian war, even though SFRY had not formally legally dissolved in the first few weeks of the war, before Serbia and Montenegro became FRY.

Also, the claim indicated/implied by your edit's arrow is that SFRY became FRY in 1992, this claim, is not supported by international recognition AFAIK. Serbia and Montenegro (ie FRY) claimed to be the legitimate inheritors of SFRY, but was/were not recognised as such. Pincrete (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many well documented instances of direct military engagement of JNA / VJ (Yugoslav Peoples Army) units on the Bosnian territory, often as supporting elements to VRS units (case in point Operation Pancir 2 - the assault on Orahov Brijeg in a failed push towards Hum around Sarajevo), but sometimes also engaged in standalone operations (see Uzicki Korpus - Uzice Corps - and their many engagements in operations in eastern Bosnia).

Also instances of JNA air force engagements and sorties, and various forces that acted as paramilitaries (usually led by Serbian criminals - see Arkan, Ulemek Legija) directly supported by SFRY / FRY top leadership.

SFRY / FRY was involved very closely in all events of the Bosnian war and not rarely directly with their own units.

The argument that the Bosnian war was a civil war is incomplete at best and revisionist at worst - Milosevic was trying to exploit the political crisis of Yugoslavia in aims of achieving an ethnically homogenous and territorialy contigous de facto Greater Serbia - and there was carefully preplanned and executed manouvering in order to have plausible deniability of the now undeniable and demonstrable fact of SFRY / FRY direct conventional miliary involvement let alone involvement in terms of logistical, expert support and hybrid/unconventional/covert operations. Nitroerg542 (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_War/Archive_5&oldid=1248610647"