Talk:Croat–Bosniak War

Active discussions

Croatia's president appologieEdit

It is not true that Josipović apologized "for Croatia's involvement in efforts to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina" as you state it. If you follow the link by the text you can find real text of appologie: ".. I deeply regret that these politics contributed to the deaths of people and divisions that still haunt us." So he's not talking about division of Bosnia, he is talking about nationalism as predominant ideologie what caused war and suffering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.62.173 (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass removal of sourced text needs explanation.Edit

I want user Alan.Ford to explain his mass removal of referenced sections. I am unable to understand what or how this is an explanation: "are you kidding me? you haven't even read the article, haven't you realised that you put wrong paragraph into wrong section with false data? April 1993 comes after December 1992, not before". What I don't understand is: 1) "you haven't even read the article" -- what article are you talking about? 2) "wrong paragraph into wrong section" --what paragraph and what section? Explain 3) "With false data" --please explain what is false data. If you can make such a bold claim, you need to back it up. 4) What you are talking about with regards to "April 1993 comes after December 1992".

I do not want an edit war with anyone. However, blanking entire paragraphs is a form of type of vandalism. With serious accusations thrown at my sourced edits, I want an explanation on what is so horrendous that Wikipedia would justify mass removal. --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

After four weeks, User Alan.Ford.Jn has not provided any explanations for his deletions of sourced text and insistence on reverting the page back to the old version. How are we to resolve disputes if a user won't use the discussion page? Unfortunately it appears they have no inclination to do so. --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


I am sorry, I was on vacation. Let's start. The first rule is, that you should provide WP:RS. You didn't do that. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my previous comment Jesuislafete's edits are based on nationalistic propaganda, all my effort is to preserve consistency of the article based on WP:RS. Jesuislafete hasnt even read this article. He just included Croatian nationalistic POVs in the middle of background section destroying hronology of the events. Don't be silly man. It's so obvious. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is so obvious, then point it out. Do you realize you are using personal attacks without even backing them up? You have provided absolutely no reason why you keep reverting other than the edits are "nationalistic propaganda". How would you feel if I said the same thing about you and your edits? How would that solve anything? My edits are sourced and informative and add additional events. I barely removed previous content. You however, offer no explanation except to write 2 lines to claim my edits are "nationalistic" and leave it at that. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you list your WP:RS for beginning? Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we go sentence by sentence, you already destroyed the concept of the article, even timline, with the large amount of nationalistic trash. So, please tell me which would be the first sentence that you would like to add, based on WP:RS. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You are the one actually removing sourced information, so you start. By the way, your rhetoric is nonconstructive, and I cannot have a conversation with you when you use personal attacks. I am a seasoned Wikipedia editor with over six years of experience. I do not destroy articles. I have added edits to enhance and improve the quality of the page--THAT IS WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS FOR. Furthermore, you do not own this article. It is free for anyone to edit, myself included. So if I "destroyed" your timeline, tough. You tell me what information that I have added you object to and why. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


My edits:

::In April 1993 and early summer 1993, ABiH 3rd Corps units launched a series of heavy attacks against the HVO. On April 16 in the village of Trusina, members of the ABiH army sqaud called "Zulfikar" killed 18 Croat civilians and 4 soldiers.[1][2] According to witness testimony, the unit rounded up a group of Croat residents captured soldiers, bound and shot them. A member of the Zulfikar unit, Rasema Handanovic, admitted taking part in the murders under orders from commander Nihad Bojadzic who ordered the killing of the prisoners and “not to leave any survivors”.[3]

I added this because it was an event during the war.
You are not writing within the concept of the article. The concept is not to list any event related to Croats. It means we should mention all events with all sentences related to all testemonies. Are you aware, that there are hundreds of testemonies. Let's stick to the WP:RS, and how is this related to the course of the war.Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the problem: this is NOT YOUR ARTICLE. YOU do NOT decide what is "within the concept" of the article. There is no such thing. I provided sourced information, and you revert it with a ridiculous explanation. "The concept is not to list any event related to Croats"; what does this even mean?? --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

::The series of attacks culminated in a massive attack between 7 June and 13 June 1993 within, among others, the municipalities of Kakanj, Travnik and Zenica.[4] The ABiH 3rd Corps attacked towns and villages, subjecting predominantly Bosnian Croat, but also Bosnian Serb civilians, including women, children, the elderly and the infirm, to willful killings and serious injuries.[5] Further, in the course of, or after the attacks, at least 200 Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Serb civilians were killed and many more were wounded or harmed while attempting to hide or escape.[5] In a music school turned detention centre, 47 Bosnian Croats were held without food for the first week and in a cellar with no light for 45 days, and were beaten with telephone cables, batons and shovel handles during interrogations.[6] In several instances, ABiH forces killed HVO troops after their surrender.[5]

I added this because it was a great-scale event that happened. It was quite significant. So many killed.
First, it didn't culminate. Is there a court verification, that says it culminated in a massive attack?! Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

::During the night on September 8th or 9th, at 33 Croat villagers in Grabovica were killed by members of the 9th Brigade and unidentified members of the Bosnian Army.[7][8] Three combatants, Nihad Vlahovljak, Haris Rajkić and Sead Karagić were convicted for taking part in the killings.[9] A few days later on the 14th, in the village of Uzdol, it was reported that 29 Croat civilians and one prisoner of war were killed by the Prozor Independent Battalion and members of the local police force.[10]

I added this because it happened. Everything is sourced. However this line from you: "The village of Grabovica had been under Bosnian Army control since May 1993 and the relationship between the residents of Grabovica and the Bosnian Army soldiers who were stationed there was good" is not sourced and sounds a bit like a fairy-tale. Perhaps it's true, but what evidence is there? No source backs it up. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I also believe the timeline makes more sense with dates added to them. Also, you might want to research how timelines work. They do not always have to be completely linear; in a case like this, where you have an event like the siege of Mostar which lasted for many months, you can consolidate the information in one section, even if later dates overlap something else. It works because it is still in the same frame of conflict. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Alan Ford, if you wish to remove sourced info, you must demonstrate the source is unreliable per WP:RS. And it should take more than your opinion in that respect. -- Director (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Memic et al: Witnessing the Shooting of Captives". Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. 11 April 2011.
  2. ^ "Bosnian woman pleads guilty to war crimes". The Montreal Gazette. 28 April 2012.
  3. ^ "Witness Admits to Trusina Killings". Balkan insight. 02 April 2012. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Chuck Sudetich (30 June 1993). "10 Leaders in Bosnia Try To Heal Rift Over Talks". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
  5. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference ehak was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference UNHCHR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Kill All Croats in the Village".
  8. ^ "Trojici za Grabovicu 39 godina zatvora".
  9. ^ "Trojici za Grabovicu 39 godina zatvora".
  10. ^ "Judgement in the Case the Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilovic".

MoveEdit

I moved the page to Croat-Muslim war because the term is more often used then the earlier (current) one. I got some 630 635 results and some 380 342 results for Muslim-Croat War. Croat-Bosniak War shows some 90 results and Bosniak-Croat war shows some 30 resuls (Google Books). --Wüstenfuchs 11:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Google Schoolar also shows some 50 results for C-M W and some 20 results 12 for C-B W. --Wüstenfuchs 11:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Common name isn't the only thing that's taken into account for article titles. Using "Muslim", which constitute 1.57 billion people of the world and spans many ethnic groups, is an incredibly ambiguous title and unprecise as opposed to "Bosniak". --PRODUCER (TALK) 11:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's not a problem at all. Nobody can't be confused about that. Everything is explained in the lead and WP:COMMONNAME should be followed in this case, considering the number of results (900 to 100) --Wüstenfuchs 12:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying they can or can't be confused? Double negatives don't fly in English. The article title must be precise regardless of what the lede says. --PRODUCER (TALK) 12:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thx for the note. Also, I must agree with you about the WP:PRECISION, since the Google books is mixed up... Agreed to current title. --Wüstenfuchs 12:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you are looking at, but on Google Books I get 41 hits for C-M war [1], 16 hits for C-B war [2] and 44 hits for M-C war [3]. Doesn't look like a lay-down misere to me. I must agree with PRODUCER though, Bosniak is more precise per WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
[4] See here Peacemaker... 635. --Wüstenfuchs 12:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
click on the 5 at the bottom of the page. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
What about it? --Wüstenfuchs 12:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
what does it say at the top now? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
and I think the RfC is a bit of a hair trigger reaction. Discuss it here and see if we can get consensus (using the right number of hits from your Google Books searches). Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I noticed. But still it's significantly more then CB... The page is mixed up, when you click "1" it shows 1.300 results... :/ Nevertheless, Schoolar also shows more results for CM. --Wüstenfuchs 12:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd be working on the basis that there is no WP:COMMONNAME, so we use the principles listed at WP:TITLE. Precision is looking good. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree to the current title, we can close the discussion. --Wüstenfuchs 12:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Croat-Bosniak war is inaccurate because Bosniaks (Bošnjaci) called themselves Muslims (Muslimani) to First Bosniak Council, held on 27th November 1993. Then they took name Mulims-Bosniaks (Muslimani-Bošnjaci). In the Washington Agreement, it's only appear the name Bosniaks. Correct names of the article are: Croat-Muslim War and Croat-Muslim/Bosniak War! --93.180.108.49 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC) user Mostarac from croatian wikipedia

June 1993 Kakanj, Travnik, ZenicaEdit

This paragraph has again been the topic of an edit war. I think I've seen this mentioned several times by now. The NYT article is dated June 30, 1993, and it mentions the same three towns, but not with the same timeline. It is the ICTY case information sheet for Hadžihasanović & Kubura that does that, and indeed this paragraph seems to be a blatant copyright violation. It can be removed on that account, but not on account of being a hoax / not at all related to the sources included in the article, not supported by the sources, that the date is not even mentioned in the article or that it doesn't fit the timeline. Two years earlier in the article history, I found more contentious removals of the exact same paragraph [5][6][7][8][9]. Likewise, plain old edit warring to add it back is unacceptable. Yes, User:Alan.Ford.Jn and User:Jesuislafete, I'm looking at you two. Please figure out where exactly to put this information in the article, and do not copy&paste. User:Timbouctou, you get a free pass from me here because of the recent contentious block, yet, the edit warring policy did not go anywhere, so you're nevertheless playing with fire. Can't we just break with the history and deal with this issue properly? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh I just caught this because a) the article was put on my watchlist a long time ago, and b) I was not aware of the previous edit warring over the section. To me it just looked like vandalism. And although I am eternally grateful for your "free pass" - i.e. not punishing me for not violating any rules - both of my mistakes have now been corrected, so feel free to exclude me from this discussion. And since Jesuislafete's last Wikipedia edits were about a month ago, I'd say you and Alan.Ford.Jn are alone in the room here. Fruitful discussion and philanthropic use of bandwidth are bound to ensue, I'm sure. Timbouctou (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Edits by long-time users, with edit summaries invoking policies, cannot be assumed to be plain vandalism, so when you keep reverting them, you have to take a modicum of responsibility for that action. When you notice someone is being abusive, just report them, don't just keep reverting them until the sun don't shine. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that most of the content written under the chronology section is just a copy/paste from the ICTY, with some important parts left out or a few words changed. For example the first part about the conflict in Gornji Vakuf, it says in the article (which was almost all added by user Historičar): "Fighting then broke out in Gornji Vakuf on 11 January 1993, sparked by a bomb which had been placed by Croats in a Bosniak-owned hotel that had been used as a military headquarters. A general outbreak of fighting followed and there was heavy shelling of the town that night by Croat artillery." However, in the judgement it says that "Major Alistair Rule" "said that the fighting broke out in Gornji Vakuf on 11 January 1993, sparked by a bomb which had been placed in a Muslim-owned hotel used as a headquarters. A general outbreak of fighting followed and there was heavy shelling of the town that night". But the Chamber didn't end there and it wasn't their conclusion, but went on with the defence case, "The Defence also relies on an ECMM report of 19 January which states that, in addition to “a lot of mutual accusations and bitterness”, the ABiH commander in Gornji Vakuf recognised that the responsibility for the fighting “could be shared with some Muslim extremists”." They made no conclusion about who started the fighting in Gornji Vakuf on 11 January.
It also says in the article that "The Croat forces shelling reduced much of the historical oriental center of the town of Gornji Vakuf to rubble" and "The shelling campaign and the attacks during the war resulted in hundreds of either injured or killed, mostly Bosnian Muslim civilians". It is cited with the Kordić and Čerkez judgement, but that is not there. I checked the Prlić et al judgement, vol 2., where it says on pages 88 and 89 that "after the attack on 18 January 1993 by the HVO, the town of Gornji Vakuf was in flames and that some parts of the Muslim part of the town of Gornji Vakuf had been badly destroyed", but "Nonetheless, the Chamber has admitted evidence attesting that the destruction, in particular, of houses in the town of Gornji Vakuf did not merely result from HVO shelling but also from fighting inside the city between the HVO and the ABiH and from shelling by the VRS. Given all the evidence, the Chamber finds that the HVO was at least partially responsible for the damage and devastation in the town of Gornji Vakuf. However, the Chamber does not have evidence about the deaths of Muslim inhabitants in the town of Gornji Vakuf during the HVO attacks on 18 January 1993."
In the part about the Busovača attack, it says in the article "A police report shows that 43 people were massacred in Busovača in January and February 1993". On page 183 and 184 of the judgement it is "A police shows that 43 people were murdered in Busovača in January and February 1993". The sentence about taking civilians to Kaonik is also a copy/paste.
The Convoy of Joy Incident in "The June 1993 Offensives" section is 99% copy/paste from the Kordić judgement, from page 242. However, the defence arguments were again left out, which is strange since the Chamber made no conclusion other than that the crowds were under the control of Kordić and Blaškić. "The defence case concerning the convoy was that there was no plan to stop the convoy - its stopping was a spontaneous act by angry and hungry civilians. Several witnesses also testified that 20,000 Croat refugees had come from Travnik as a result of a Muslim offensive and that, immediately before the halting of the convoy, eight Croat children had been killed in a playground by an artillery shell: as a result tensions were very high". In the part about Travnik, everything starting with "However, according to an ECMM" is a copy/paste from page 246. Again, that is the Chamber listing what the prosecution said, but the defence was left out: "On 14 June 1993, UNPROFOR headquarters reported that the ABiH had decided to find its own solution in Central Bosnia, noting that “Ethnic cleansing, theft, looting and executions have been the principle (sic) characteristics of the last few days"
The list can go on and on about the cherry picked c/p from ICTY judgements or the prosecution arguments. There's also content which is referenced by other sources, like the part that according to the IDC, 2,000 Bosniaks from the Lašva Valley were killed, but that report covers all deaths during the war in the municipalities of BiH and from all sides they were around 2,000 in the 4 municipalities. Tzowu (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RubbishEdit

I suggest you delete the whole article and start from zero cause it has little to do with objectivity - looks like propaganda. Shame for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.198 (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda rubbishEdit

I agree. This article does not only look like propaganda. This is definitely propaganda with so many mistakes it can only be written from scratch! Rubbish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.178.253.193 (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Tapes"Edit

This is not the first time I ask for a better source of the alleged quote that was published in an Independent article in 2000 with a highly biased title, because that is the only place where it can be found. The "Muslimania" part also, another "quote" that can be found only in one place, in a news article from 2000. They don't have a date nor cite a source for the "quotes". Daily tabloids published all sorts of articles, rumors or bad translations. Something like that would certainly be brought up in some of the ICTY trials (like the correspondence with Herzeg-Bosnia politicians in December 1991 or the Brioni transcripts), and there is a huge number of them. Like the one where Tuđman said on a meeting of the Defence and National Security Council on 2 September 1993 that "... there is no ... nor has there ever been an agreement between Croats and Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding the division of Bosnia." Tzowu (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Independent and Telegraph aren't tabloids neither is Tim Judah's NYRB article. They cite the archive of 830 tapes and 17,000 transcripts that president Stjepan Mesic released. ICTY mention does not preclude them. --Potočnik (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yet they published a rumor or a bad translation of some article in Croatia, since nothing of that sort can be found anywhere else. What Mesić released that dealt with the wars of the 90s is available on ICTY pages. A "lets formally divide Bosnia and leave Bosniaks a Muslimania" or "Lets make a deal with the Serbs, Dayton isn't working" wouldn't go unnoticed, in fact it would be on of the primary evidence of the prosecution. He might have said that Dayton isn't working, as it wasn't working, or that an international conference should be held, but after taking another look at the article it is not writen as a direct quote by Tuđman. Anyway, there is no cited sources, no full quotes and no dates given, just an allegation in a news article. Tzowu (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you have anything to support your claim that its a rumor or bad translation beside personal speculation? The Independent says Channel 4 had "unprecedented access" to the overwhelming number of tapes and transcripts, while the Telegraph had a Zagreb correspondent, and Tim Judah has published multiple books on the wars by the Yale University Press. I'm not gonna speculate on how a prosecutor should do his job nor claim that I have personally searched the thousands upon thousands of ICTY transcripts. --Potočnik (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
What I asked for was a better source than a news article (or in the case of the Independent, it was actually about a Channel 4 video report in 2000) that gave a very questionable quote that is not supported by other sources, including scholarly ones. WP:NEWSORG says that "news sources often contain both factual content and opinion content". There are some Croatian articles about that report and the article in Indepentent, in which the president denied giving them tapes, just an interview, and called it sensationalistic:
1: "Britanci su od Mesića dobili samo intervju, ne i transkripte" (03.11.2000)
Suprotno napisima da je predsjednik Mesić britanskim novinarima dao na uvid dokumente iz arhiva i dopustio im da ih iznesu iz Ureda, glasnogovornica Šuman potvrdila je kako novinari nisu dobili nikakve transkripte
Britanska televizijska postaja Channel 4 u nedjelju je emitirala ekskluzivni prilog o arhivima u Uredu predsjednika na Pantovčaku. No, suprotno napisima o tome da je sam predsjednik Mesić britanskim novinarima dao na uvid te dokumente i dopustio im da ih iznesu iz njegova Ureda, visoki izvori s Pantovčaka u četvrtak su to najodlučnije demantirali te upozoravaju da se radi o građi koja je proteklih mjeseci stalno objavljivana u hrvatskim medijima, posebice u tjednicima.
Kako je domaćoj javnosti već poznato, Mesić je transkripte pronašao nakon preuzimanja vlasti, kada je kao nasljednik dr. Franje Tuđmana na funkciji šefa države otvorio arhive svojega prethodnika.
Glasnogovornica Ureda predsjednika Vjera Šuman potvrdila nam je kako su novinari televizijske postaje Channel 4 bili kod hrvatskog Predsjednika i s njim napravili intervju, ali nisu tom prilikom dobili nikakve transkripte. Gospođa Šuman naglašava da je ekipa Channela 4 snimila zgradu Ureda predsjednika, kao i prostoriju gdje se nalaze pohranjeni transkripti, a neke su od njih, i to one koji su objavljeni u hrvatskim medijima, i sami vidjeli, ali ih nisu dobili.
Stoga i priča o tome da su britanski televizijski novinari iz zemlje iznijeli 100 audiovrpci i 17 tisuća transkripata nema nikakva temelja, već se radi o tome da su novinari napravili senzacionalističku priču koja nema veze s istinom, naglašava Predsjednikova glasnogovornica.


2: "Uvid u transkripte imali haaški dužnosnici, a ne britanski novinari" (04.11.2000)
Uvid u transkripte dobili su dužnosnici Haaškog tribunala, a ne britanski novinari, kazao je predsjednik Stipe Mesić odgovarajući na upit o transkriptima koje su navodno novinari britanske televizije Channel 4 u rujnu snimali u Uredu Predsjednika.
"Novinari nikada nisu bili, nego su bili predstavnici Haaškog suda, a samo su tražili uvid u neke transkripte koji su izlazili u novinama zanimalo ih je je li to točno.
Oni mogu tražiti i prijepise preko Ureda (za suradnju)." Na pitanje koliko je transkripata dano na uvid predstavnicima Haaga, Predsjednik je rekao da su ih dobili svega nekoliko. "Ja sam u novinama pročitao da se radi o 17 tisuća. Toliko ih nema u cijelom Uredu. Ne znam što ih je posebno zanimalo, imamo tri osobe za to zadužene i ne znam tko je iz Haaga bio ovdje. Riječ je o transkriptima koji su već objavljeni, a njih je zanimalo jesu li autentični" dodao je.
Tzowu (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
What do you suggest we do? --Potočnik (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
A brief summary of what Channel 4 reported and a brief summary of the response by Stjepan Mesić and his office. Tzowu (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Schindler reliabilityEdit

Historian Marko Attila Hoare did a really scathing review of Schindler's book calling it a "inaccurate, unscholarly, poorly researched and politically motivated work of propaganda" and noted that "So dubious, indeed, is Schindler’s source material, that it is difficult to believe that he is using it innocently, or that he is attempting to convince anybody but the most naive of the merits of his case." [10] --Potočnik (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is also criticism on Hoare [11]. About his review of Schindler's book (it also covered 2 other books), which are related to the content added in this article, he says that regarding the attacks on Croat returnees, Serbs and Croats also attacked Bosniak returnees. Other notes are mostly about the Serb side during the war, Yugoslavia at the begining of the war, postwar SDA and WW2, and what Hoare wrote about the later is questionable. According to Žerjavić, 28,000 Muslims died as members of NDH forces and 11,000 as members of the Partisans. As for the Bosnian Croats, 22,000 died as members of the NDH forces, and 17,000 as members of Partisan forces, but OK, I won't go further off topic. Tzowu (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
We aren't discussing Gibbs and his book we're discussing Schindler and his book. Besides this review has been referred to as an "excellent, detailed critique". [12] Most references to Schindler in the article are relating to the SDA, Izetbegovic, the mujahedin, or Bosniak media. Hoare covers Schindler's writing on radical Islam (the entire proclaimed point of the book) and his highly problematic sourcing, giving a few examples of Haris Silajdžić and his supposed "Islamic holy war", HVO commander Vlado Šantić and his killing, and the mujahedin. Hoare specifically points out "Schindler suppresses or misrepresents evidence in order to make his case: that Izetbegovic and his fellow SDA politicians were radical Islamists." Indeed there is a claim in the article that there was a "rising policy of Islamization in areas under Bosniak control" which actually goes even further than Schindler, who attributes that to SDA control. I note you've gone the effort of pointing out if a source is from Feral tribune when the author Vjekoslav Perica did not do so in the body yet that level of scrutiny is not shared here. --Potočnik (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
For most of the content I added I did a lot, a lot of checking, especially for Schindler. For example about the two Croat policemen that were killed, Ante Valjan and Perica Bilić, both by planted bombs. Jozo Leutar was also killed by a car bomb, but I left out mentioning who Schindler said did it because there are different claims about it. I checked for the case of 8 children killed by an artillery shell in Vitez. That is mentioned in the ICTY and every year there's a commemoration to it [13]. That is how I found his book because I was looking for an English source that is not ICTY. Further, instead of listing all crimes committed by the mujahideen, which was the case before my edits, I added just "These fighters became notorious for the atrocities committed against the Croat population in central Bosnia". It's not hard to find an additional source for that either.
Mustafa Cerić became the reisul-ulema in 1993. Vejvoda and Dyker on page 105 say that the SDA ousted Selimovski, gained control over the Islamic Community and there are sources that call Cerić and the others pan-Islamists.[14] The 200,000 killed number was widely used and there are other sources that Senada Kreso from the Ministry of Information said that in June 1993.[15] The part about US intelligence is from Cees Wiebes' book [16] I double checked all of that before I added it and it wouldn't be hard to find replacing sources even if Schindler was removed. The content that Hoare mostly talks about is totally left out, even the killing of Šantić is not mentioned in the article, which was actualized recently when his son accused Atif Dudaković for his murder. He was then beaten a few days later.[17]
I also checked other sources, especially the mentions of war crimes with the findings of the ICTY and the chronology with it. I left out many content where I found two conflicting reports. CIA Battlegrounds is a good source, but not a perfect one without mistakes. Like dates and the description of some battles. The best example is Gornji Vakuf. CIA says the Croats started it in 12 January. ICTY doesn't make a conclusion who started it and just writes what both sides claim, saying it broke out on 11 January, and Shrader says the Bosniaks started it. So I added that there are "conflicting reports as to how the fighting started and what caused it".
Back to Schindler, the way Unholy Terror is writen is biased. That's why I used it with caution. However, alleged quotes that can be found in one source and conspiracy theories are put all over some articles with not much scrutiny. Tzowu (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd check the citations to Schindler's book myself, but I don't have personal access to his book and the limited view of Google books does not make it easy. Significant claims made by Schindler should certainly be bundled or replaced with a better source. Also I don't expect Hoare to list every example. Anyway regarding one of your points. The primary suspect in the killing of Jozo Leutar was HVO commander Ivan Andabak and five others. They went trial, but were later acquitted. The way it stands right it heavily implies Islamists did it, after all its coupled with two incidents that are attributed to them right before. Powerful people with clout conspire with others to achieve their goals. It's not unheard of and it certainly wasn't absent in the Yugoslav wars. This specific plot is pretty much confirmed by the ICTY so it isn't that far-fetched, but of course that can be dismissed as the ICTY being a kangaroo court favoring ethnic group X. You can also call the plan for Greater Serbia a conspiracy theory, but that doesn't detract it any bit. --Potočnik (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I also don't have access to the whole book, just what is available on Google Books. But you can see for yourself that there are far more serious charges against the SDA et al. in his book that I left out. I'm fine with both removing the mention of Jozo Leutar or mentioning who were the suspects.
In The death of Yugoslavia (or Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation, it's the same), it says that Manolić and Karadžić met in Graz on 26 February 1992, not Boban. It goes on with this: "Karadzic told Josip Manolic, one of Tudjman's most trusted advisors, who was representing the Bosnian Croats, that the Serbs must have a land-corridor across northern Bosnia. "Without the corridor any solution is out of the question." According to Karadzic, Manolic talked extensively in terms of population transfers. "He proposed that the Croats living in Serbia go to Croatia, and that the Serbs from Krajina, Zagreb and Rijeka go to Serbia. He suggested that pressure could be exerted to make them leave," Karadzid said." Toal and Dahlman's "reference 101" is this: "The first meeting was on 26 February 1992. There was a subsequent meeting in May and one in June in Nijvice."
In his ICTY testimony, Manolić said that he had a meeting on 26 February with Karadžić and that "This meeting was a definite response to Karadzic and the Serbs in Bosnia that the Croats would participate in the referendum."[18] So there are some different interpretations of the meeting. Tzowu (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Unless there are some concrete revelations in his case then I suggest we leave out Leutar. Burg and Shoup do not mention Boban, but say "The campaign against Kljujic was followed by secret talks at the end of February in Graz between Karadzic and Josip Manolic, an adviser to Tudjman. The Croatian position that emerged from these talks was not, on the surface, greatly different from that of the SDS. It called for a Bosnia Herzegovina made up of sovereign constituent nations linked together in a confederal relationship." --Potočnik (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you agree with replacing the current version regarding the meeting with Burg and Shoup's one? Tzowu (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding propaganda, this is what James J. Sadkovich wrote about Vulliamy:

"There is no doubt that interpretations regarding the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina differ sharply, and it is clear that propaganda often shaped accounts by both journalists and scholars. In his prize-winning book on the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ed Vulliamy provides not only a first-hand account of the conflict there, but also many useful examples of how propaganda techniques were inadvertently used by journalists to savage a particular side, in his case the Croats. For example, he employs “name-calling” when he portrays Muslim soldiers as “boyish” but refers to Croats and HVO members as “louts,” “bruisers,” “thugs” and “clodhoppers.” He offers “glittering generalities” when he writes that the “sacking of Prozor was the beginning of the second war of civilian ethnic cleansing,” and that the “siege of Mostar” was “one of the most brutal offensives of the entire war. He also uses “transfer,” the association of a group or an individual with other groups or individuals, when he suggests that the HVO admired the Ustaša and that Herceg Bosna was “the mirror-image of the Bosnia-Serb state,” and when he lumps Nazis, Fascists, Croats, and Catholics together by commenting that the Catholic shrine of Međugorje was “a base for the imminent ethnic cleansing of the Mostar region” with “statuettes of the Madonna . . . on sale in trays next to others full of Swastikas, Maltese Crosses and other Nazi regalia.” Vulliamy thinks the peace plan proposed by Cyrus Vance and David Owen “played fairy godmother to the Croats,” and he is convinced that Herceg-Bosna was a “nasty sort of place” and that Franjo Tuđman sought to create a Greater Croatia. But how reliable his account might be is not clear. Vulliamy seems to confuse Croatian Defense Forces (Hrvatske oružane snage–HOS) with the HVO, and in his recent testimony at The Hague, he said that he was not a “political” or a “military” reporter, and had only a “layman’s” knowledge of the area and its history and politics."

But nonetheless, full comments of journalists might be apropriate for a separate article about the Vance-Owen plan. Here there is only a small section about it. There are also sources that directly say that the plan was more favourable to the Croats than earlier peace proposals, like in the book "Territorial Proposals for the Settlement of the War in Bosnia-Hercegovina"[19], so I think that comments such as "borders proposed seemed so ridiculously advantageous to the Bosnian Croats" are not necessary. Tzowu (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed. --Potočnik (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Some mathEdit

How is it possible that "More Croatian soldiers died in fighting against the ARBiH than against the JNA or RSK forces in Croatia" if the estimated number of soldiers killed in the war in Croatia is between 6,788–8,784, and in the Bosnian War the HV-HVO had 6,000 soldiers killed, with the vast majority being HVO members? Tzowu (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Bobetko himself said at least 9,000 HV soldiers died fighting the ARBiH. --Potočnik (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe that 9,000 Croats or Croat soldiers from both the HV and HVO have died, which is also an overestimation (Goldstein says 10,000 Croats, both civilians and soldiers, died in the Croat-Bosniak war, which is also too high). The IDC from Sarajevo in the "Bosnian book of the dead" has the number of killed or missing HV-HVO at 6,000 total in the Bosnian War. [20] Tzowu (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough I independently noticed the same sentence. Jinx! I guess it's because it's a violation of WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The Gallagher source doesn't explain it, it just seems to reference it to a discussion between Stipe Mesić and Jovan Divjak in Magaš/Anić 2001 'Chronology 1985–1995' book, but I wasn't able to access the exact bibliography entry via Google Books to verify this, and a Google search for "2001 magaš anić chronology" brings up nothing, so we need some help here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Jovan Divjak said that in the conversation, he said "Sadly, more Croatian soldiers were killed in battles against the ARBiH than fighting in Croatia itself, against either the JNA or the Serb krajina forces" (page 102) Both Carol Off and Gallagher are using that conversation in what is referenced to their books. Tzowu (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Removed. --Potočnik (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


HV soldiersEdit

The 3,500-5000 number of HV soldiers in BiH was denied by Croatia and later the Herzeg-Bosnia leadership. Here is what Shrader wrote about it:

"A formal accusation by the UN Secretary General was of greater moment. On February 1, 1994, UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali formally notified the Security Council that, based on UNPROFOR reports, “the Croatian Army has directly supported the HVO in terms of manpower, equipment and weapons for some time,” and that the UNPROFOR estimated that, as of the date of the report, the Croatian Army had the equivalent of three brigades (some three thousand to five thousand men) of regular HV personnel in “central and southern Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Yet, one must ask where the secretary general got his information. It could only have been from UNPROFOR observers on the ground or from Bosnia-Herzegovina’s Muslim-led government, which, once conflict had broken out between Muslims and Croats, had a vested interest in blaming the situation on Croatian intervention. In any event, what constituted HV intervention? A few HVO soldiers wearing old HV uniforms and insignia, or a thousand-man HV brigade with all its authorized weapons and vehicles? The former there were aplenty; the latter existed in central Bosnia only in the imagination of some overwrought observers."

Anyway, the 40,000-50,000 number cited with CIA includes all HV personnel that joined the HVO. That's why I left out the flags when I added it to the inbox. Tzowu (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And Croatia and HB henchmen had a "vested interest" in denying it. As for intervention, the ICTY determined in Kordic & Cerkez that "Croatia exercised overall control over the HVO at the relevant time and provided leadership in the planning, coordination and organisation of the HVO and that there was an international armed conflict between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina." Indeed Croatia and its leaders should be above HB in the infobox. Further the ICTY found in Naletilic & Martinovic that "While volunteer defenders may have accounted for some of the HV troops present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is the Republic of Croatia that did in fact organise the sending of the vast majority of them, while attempting to conceal their presence by asking them, for example to replace their uniforms and insignia for those of the HVO. The Chamber notes that HV troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina maintained their rights as members of the HV, including the right to a monthly salary. The Chamber notes that in early 1994, while declaring that it had no moral right to prevent the Croatian volunteers from helping the imperiled BH Croat community, the Government of the Republic of Croatia admitted the presence of regular HV units, albeit limited to the border areas, and stated that it would organise their withdrawal."
What's your issue with the Prlic quote? --Potočnik (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's loook at what the Chamber in the Kordić and Čerkez trial found about the international conflict:
"1. Although no Croatian army troops were sighted in Central Bosnia,115 neighbouring areas outside Central Bosnia played a strategic role in the conflict between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims (for example, Gornji Vakuf and Prozor fall within the Route Triangle, which, on the evidence of Michael Buffini , was the only operational route between Croatia and Central Bosnia). What is required in relation to the first criterion for determining the international character of an armed conflict, is proof of Croatian intervention in the conflict. This proof may come, not only from evidence of Croatian troops in Central Bosnia, but also from evidence of those troops in neighbouring areas of strategic importance to the conflict in Central Bosnia. There were several sightings of Croatian troops in those areas, and the Chamber infers that some of these troops were being deployed in relation to the conflict in Central Bosnia between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims."
"2. Moreover, in cases where the Croatian troops in the areas mentioned above were not deployed in the struggle against the Bosnian Muslims, but to fight the Serbs, that support had a strategic impact on the conflict between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims, by enabling the Bosnian Croats to deploy additional forces in their struggle against the Bosnian Muslims. For that reason, the Chamber concludes that Croatia’s support of the Bosnian Croats constitutes Croatian intervention in the struggle between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims."
"3.While volunteer defenders may have accounted for some of the Croatian army troops seen by the monitors and other bodies, they cannot account for the vast majority of Croatian army troops seen in the neighbouring areas of strategic significance to the conflict. The Chamber observes that, even if these persons were not formally part of the Croatian army, they were Croatian citizens, militarily involved in the struggle between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims, in which struggle Croatia was also involved. Moreover, even if it is acknowledged that some of the Croatians involved in the conflict were volunteers and their presence is discounted, this would not affect the general finding by the Trial Chamber that there were Croatian troops involved in the conflict."
They based their judgement on the deployment of troops on the frontlines against the Serbs, which helped the HVO to reallocate their troops, and volunteers from Croatia that were sent by the Croatian Government that were Croatian citizens. That is a "HV intervention". The Prlić alleged quote ("Croats, like the Serbs, carte blanche to divide the country along ethnic lines") is again a quote based on a single source. Cigar used "Ian Traynor "Croat Aggression 'Seekts to Build on Peace Plan Gains'" The Guardian, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 9" as a source. "Croat Aggression", sure... Tzowu (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Croatia shouldn't be above HRHB in the infobox, it should be "Supported by: Croatia" below the HRHB. I don't see Russia above the two pro-Russian republics above in the War in Donbass. Tzowu (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It says "in cases where the Croatian troops in the areas mentioned above were not deployed in the struggle against the Bosnian Muslims" meaning that they didn't solely fight the Serbs. In any event see the verdict against the "Herzeg-Bosnia Six": "the conflict between the HVO and the ABiH during this period was of an international character. Evidence showed that troops of the Croatian Army fought alongside the HVO against the ABiH and that the Republic of Croatia had overall control over the armed forces and the civilian authorities of the Croatian Community (and later Republic) of Herzeg-Bosna." To just put "support" is a vast understatement in face of the sources. --Potočnik (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Those were the troops from the 175th, Zrinski battalion, etc., the ICTY regarded what were officially listed as volunteers by Croatia as Croatian troops. In the Bosnian War article, although similar judgements were made in cases against Serbian leaders about an international conflict, it says "Supported by: FR Yugoslavia" from 1992 to 1995. The war in Croatia is also determined as an international conflict, but the RSK is listed first. Actually, FR Yugoslavia is not even mentioned in the infobox. Tzowu (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I've swapped the two belligerents, kept the placement of leaders, and edited the lead from "supported" to "controlled". --Potočnik (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

QuotesEdit

OK, so there is a quote by Kordić stating that Herzeg-Bosnia is Croat land and Ignac Koštroman (who?) about being an integral part of "our dear State of Croatia". There is also a view of Tuđman about Muslims being Croats of Muslim faith from 1990, that BiH should have been included in SR Croatia from 1980, etc. And then there is Blaž Kraljević's quote about the integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe I can find dozens of Tuđman's quotes about the exact same thing, however, I doubt I can find quotes such as these:

Kraljević: "I am holding all formations of HOS on these lands and in cooperation of HOS and Bosnia, and Croatia to quickly as possible come to the realization of Croatian goals, therefore, Croatia to the Drina"

Kraljević: "we think that now the Croatian nationalists have a word, therefore, Ustaše and Ustaše sympathizers, and not some kind of sundowners and Communists such as the HVO boss, Mate Boban"

Kraljević: "I'm staying here for homeland ready, I will create with other people, other Croats, Muslims and others, a free, independent state of Croatia, of course, from Sutla to the Drina, a country of freedom and democracy"

Kraljević: "We in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I guarantee you in the name of HOS, we will do everything to drive out the killers, that is the Chetniks, across the Drina and to ensure that that part of Croatia be ready to join the Croatian motherland."

It's interesting that Hoare missed them about the fighter for integral Bosnia. What I'm asking is, who is Ignac Koštroman and is all of this really relevant? And should we include something about the elections in BiH in 1990? Tzowu (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also out there is Herzeg-Bosnia leadership claiming "Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina must finally undertake a decisive and active policy which will lead to the realization of our age-old dream - a common Croatian state" and Mate Boban saying "the Serbs are our brothers in Christ, but the Muslims are nothing to us, apart from the fact that for hundreds of years they raped our mothers and sisters". Take a look which quotes are used at the Croatian War of Independence (ex: "Croats became refugees in their own country.") if you want. Kraljevic is absolutely relevant. The HDZ-HVO and HSP-HOS rivalry is a major part in this story and while such an integrated Bosnia and Herzegovina admittedly would be amalgamated into Croatia they obeyed the Bosnian government and Kraljevic was even an ARBiH Staff member. Busovača was one of the areas where the first disputes arose. These quotes give context to the mentality of HB leadership and the HVO there. Yes, the elections should be included at the very least to neatly establish all these party acronyms being thrown around. --Potočnik (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is a quote about the "age-old dream, a common Croatian state". And then like 7 more quotes in just one section. The Croatian War of Independence article doesn't have it that way. The ICTY judgement against Kordić has hundreds of pages so it can go into detail as of mentioning what Ignac said on 16 January celebrating the international recognition of Croatia. And all these discussions took place when a war was being fought in Croatia and it was not certain what will Izetbegović do and will there even be a proclamation of independence. For example, on that meeting of Tuđman and the leaders of HDZ BiH (including Boban, Kljujić...) everyone talked about that, how Izetbegović will stay in a Yugoslavia. Tuđman said there "Da je Izetbegovic prihvatio nas prijedlog, nas nacrt o konfederalnom savezu suverenih drzava, - vjerojatno ne bismo imali rata protiv Hrvatske.", when talking to Kljujić who was saying that Bosniaks will be on the Croat side. (this is from the transcript of the meeting, I don't know if there is a secondary source for all of them) But I think that the background section is already too large compared to the rest of the article for me to implement other quotes.
I don't say that the rivalry between Kraljević and the others is irrelevant, but some seem to avoid (I mentioned Hoare, but there are others too) the fact that Kraljević celebrated 10 April, talked positively about Pavelić, spoke about Croatia to the Drina... Tzowu (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Not at its full extent or as a quotebox. Honestly it should probably replace Kljuić's resignation quote since its repeatedly stated by the ICTY. Regarding the body, I stick with quotes rather than summaries as people can interpret them differently. Regarding the background: the devil's in the details. The background section has about 4,000 words whereas the chronology has about 6,500 words. The chronology section is much more splintered giving it that appearance plus many sub-sections have their own dedicated articles. At present the background covers 1990 to 1992 and the chronology 1993 to 1994 so I wouldn't say there's too much there. I'd argue the background is just as important as the chronology since its what led to the war in the first place. --Potočnik (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Croat–Bosniak War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead proposalEdit

The Croat–Bosniak War was a conflict between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the self-proclaimed Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, backed by Croatia, that lasted from 19 June 1992 – 23 February 1994. The Croat-Bosniak war is often referred to as a "war within a war" because it was part of the larger Bosnian War. At the begining of the war, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and Croats fought on the same side against the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), but by the end of 1992 tensions between them increased. First armed incidents occurred in October 1992 in central Bosnia between local Croat and Bosniak forces. Their military alliance held out until early 1993 when their collaboration fell apart and the two former allies engaged in open conflict.

The war escalated in central Bosnia and soon spread to Herzegovina, with most of the fighting taking place in those two regions. The Bosniaks were organized in the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH), and Croats in the Croatian Defence Council (HVO). The war generally consisted of sporadic conflicts with numerous ceasefires signed in the course of it. However, it was not an all-out war between the Bosniaks and Croats and they remained allied in other regions. Several peace plans were proposed by the international community during the war, but each of them failed. On 23 February 1994 a ceasefire was reached and an agreement ending the hostilities was signed in Washington on 18 March 1994. The agreement led to the establishment of the Croat–Bosniak Federation and joint operations against the Serb forces.

Both sides committed atrocities against civilians and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indicted high-ranking Croat and Bosniak officials for war crimes. Due to the involvement of the Croatian Army (HV) that supported the HVO, the ICTY ruled in cases against Herzeg-Bosnia political and military leaders that the conflict was international.


Any suggestions/additions? The wording can change significantly if there are changes in the Prlić et al. case, and as it is a first instance verdict I left out the quote. The Russo-Georgian War has "backed by Russia/Russian-backed" so I replaced "controlled" with "backed", though post-Soviet conflicts mostly use "supported by". Regarding the dates, is 19 June really the start of the war? Most sources I saw have the start of the conflict in either October 1992 or January/early 1993. In the article about the war in Croatia, the incident with the first fatalities is stated as the start of the war, which would in this case probably be October 1992. Btw, in the Hadžihasanović & Kubura trial, the Chamber concluded that the conflict in that case was an internal armed conflict. [21] p. 8-9. Tzowu (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

1. The ICTY specifically used the terminology of "controlled", both "supported" and "backed" are absolutely terms of lesser connectedness between the two parties. The specifics of the Russo-Georgian War apply to it and it only. AFAIK the heads of those puppet states haven't been tried in an international tribunal.
2. The ICTY rulings are far too vague. Who are these "high-ranking Croat and Bosniak officials for war crimes" that were indicted/convicted? The war crimes need to be fleshed out in the body and summarized in the lead.
3. Military territorial changes need to be mentioned as does the extent of Croatia's involvement. The Hadžihasanović & Kubura case was against Bosniak commanders. The verdict notes the prosecution never bothered to prove international involvement, so the question was never in focus in that trial, and they went with the "default" conclusion that it was internal.
4. The 19 June 1992 date is a relic attributed to Hadžihasanović & Kubura p 153. In the source there is no explicit statement that ICTY considers it the official beginning of the war. Ramet gives the date of "October 1992-February 1994". We can add a note that there was no formal declaration of war between the parties and point out clashes began in October 1992, possibly using 18 October as the beginning date as it's the first clash.
Here's a revised version, primary changes underlined:
The Croat–Bosniak War was a conflict between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the self-proclaimed Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, controlled by Croatia, that lasted from 18 October 1992 to 23 February 1994. It is often referred to as a "war within a war" because it was part of the larger Bosnian War. In the beginning, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and Croats fought in an alliance against the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), but by the end of 1992 tensions between them increased. The first armed incidents occurred in October 1992 in central Bosnia between local Croat and Bosniak forces. Their military alliance held out until early 1993 when their cooperation fell apart and the two former allies engaged in open conflict.
The Croat-Bosniak War escalated in central Bosnia and soon spread to Herzegovina, with most of the fighting taking place in those two regions. The Bosniaks were organized in the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH), and Croats in the Croatian Defence Council (HVO). The war generally consisted of sporadic conflicts with numerous ceasefires signed in the course of it. However, it was not an all-out war between the Bosniaks and Croats and they remained allied in other regions. Several peace plans were proposed by the international community during the war, but each of them failed. On 23 February 1994 a ceasefire was reached and an agreement ending the hostilities was signed in Washington on 18 March 1994 by which time the HVO had lost half of its controlled territory. The agreement led to the establishment of the Croat–Bosniak Federation and joint operations against the Serb forces which helped alter the military balance and bring the Bosnian War to an end.
Both sides committed atrocities against civilians and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indicted high-ranking Croat and Bosniak officials for war crimes. Due to the involvement of the Croatian Army (HV) that supported the HVO, the ICTY ruled in cases against Herzeg-Bosnia political and military leaders that the conflict was international, finding that a joint criminal enterprise existed that sought to annex or control parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in correspondence with the borders of the 1939 Banovina of Croatia.
I mostly agree with this. The JCE is a first instance verdict, if it will be in the lead then that should be stressed out as well. About the controlled/supported/backed by issue, I used that article as an example because there the involvement of one country was much higher than Croatia in this one. The ICTY in the Prlić et al case said that "the Republic of Croatia had overall control over the armed forces and the civilian authorities of the Croatian Community (and later Republic) of Herzeg-Bosna." They didn't say "Herzeg-Bosnia was controlled by Croatia". Overall control is in fact less than effective control, the first term would mean that "a state has a role in organizing, coordinating or planning the military actions of the military group, in addition to financing, training and equipping or providing operational support". The second one, effective control, would mean that all operations were fully directed by a country, not just assisted, and that the country had full authority over a group that completely depended on its aid. "Controlled by" is an overemphasis of overall control. Tzowu (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Fine with me. How do you suggest we incorporate "overall control"? I'd make it "which was overall controlled by Croatia", but it sounds a bit awkward. --Potočnik (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm still for "backed by" or "supported by". In the judgement they list financial support, logistical support, joint operations, sending officers... that all falls into support. Tzowu (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The ICTY's original "overall control" terminology should be used, how's this revision: "The Croat–Bosniak War was a conflict between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the self-proclaimed Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, over which Croatia had overall control, that lasted from 18 October 1992 to 23 February 1994." Also regarding the first instance bit the Rajic, Blaskic, and Kordic and Cerkez judgments all state that it was international. [22] The first instance bit needs to apply to the Banovina part: "Due to the involvement of the Croatian Army (HV) that supported the HVO, the ICTY ruled in several cases against Herzeg-Bosnia political and military leaders that the conflict was international. In a first instance verdict of the Prlić et al. case it found that a joint criminal enterprise existed that sought to annex or control parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in correspondence with the borders of the 1939 Banovina of Croatia." --Potočnik (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Overall control is a term used by the Tribunal, it is the same thing as support. "This requirement, however, does not go so far as to include the issuing of specific orders by the State, or its direction of each individual operation. Under international law it is by no means necessary that the controlling authorities should plan all the operations of the units dependent on them, choose their targets, or give specific instructions concerning the conduct of military operations and any alleged violations of international humanitarian law." Tzowu (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's the same thing then why replace it? Especially if specific requirements were met to deem it "overall control". --Potočnik (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I really don't see a reason to make some weird wording when a simple "supported by" or "backed by" can be placed, just like on other articles dealing with the Yugoslav Wars. After all, you replaced "supported by" with "controlled by". Tzowu (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Using "of which Croatia had overall control" would not be that weird especially if we are aiming for precision in the article. If the terms were equivalent then the distinct "overall control" terminology would be redundant and wouldn't be in use by the ICTY. There being other articles that happen to lack the specificity is hardly a reason to forgo using the term in this article. --Potočnik (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a terminology used by the ICTY do determine whether there was an international conflict, the overall control test, contrary to the ICJ that uses the effective control test. When reading the definition of it given by the ICTY, it's completely sufficient to say that Herzeg-Bosnia was supported by Croatia. Tzowu (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
How about we use "supported" in the first liner and use "overall control" in the ICTY part. Also regarding the first instance bit the Naletilic & Martinovic case also confirms the "overall control" and that there was a goal for "the incorporation of Croatian provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina into a single Croatian state". Here's my proposal:
The Croat–Bosniak War was a conflict between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the self-proclaimed Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, supported by Croatia, that lasted from 18 October 1992 to 23 February 1994. It is often referred to as a "war within a war" because it was part of the larger Bosnian War. In the beginning, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and Croats fought in an alliance against the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), but by the end of 1992 tensions between them increased. The first armed incidents occurred in October 1992 in central Bosnia between local Croat and Bosniak forces. Their military alliance held out until early 1993 when their cooperation fell apart and the two former allies engaged in open conflict.
The Croat-Bosniak War escalated in central Bosnia and soon spread to Herzegovina, with most of the fighting taking place in those two regions. The Bosniaks were organized in the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH), and Croats in the Croatian Defence Council (HVO). The war generally consisted of sporadic conflicts with numerous ceasefires signed in the course of it. However, it was not an all-out war between the Bosniaks and Croats and they remained allied in other regions. Several peace plans were proposed by the international community during the war, but each of them failed. On 23 February 1994 a ceasefire was reached and an agreement ending the hostilities was signed in Washington on 18 March 1994 by which time the HVO had lost half of its controlled territory. The agreement led to the establishment of the Croat–Bosniak Federation and joint operations against the Serb forces which helped alter the military balance and bring the Bosnian War to an end.
Both sides committed atrocities against civilians and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indicted high-ranking Croat and Bosniak officials for war crimes. Due to the involvement of the Croatian Army (HV) that supported the HVO, the ICTY ruled in cases against Herzeg-Bosnia political and military leaders that the conflict was international. It found that Croatia had overall control of Herzeg-Bosnia and that there was a joint criminal enterprise existed that sought to annex or control parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in correspondence with the borders of the 1939 Banovina of Croatia.--Potočnik (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. The JCE is a first instance verdict:
The Croat–Bosniak War was a conflict between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the self-proclaimed Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, supported by Croatia, that lasted from 18 October 1992 to 23 February 1994. It is often referred to as a "war within a war" because it was part of the larger Bosnian War. In the beginning, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and Croats fought in an alliance against the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), but by the end of 1992 tensions between them increased. The first armed incidents occurred in October 1992 in central Bosnia between local Croat and Bosniak forces. Their military alliance held out until early 1993 when their cooperation fell apart and the two former allies engaged in open conflict.
The Croat-Bosniak War escalated in central Bosnia and soon spread to Herzegovina, with most of the fighting taking place in those two regions. The Bosniaks were organized in the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH), and Croats in the Croatian Defence Council (HVO). The war generally consisted of sporadic conflicts with numerous ceasefires signed in the course of it. However, it was not an all-out war between the Bosniaks and Croats and they remained allied in other regions. Several peace plans were proposed by the international community during the war, but each of them failed. On 23 February 1994 a ceasefire was reached and an agreement ending the hostilities was signed in Washington on 18 March 1994 by which time the HVO had lost half of its controlled territory. The agreement led to the establishment of the Croat–Bosniak Federation and joint operations against the Serb forces which helped alter the military balance and bring the Bosnian War to an end.
Both sides committed atrocities against civilians and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indicted high-ranking Croat and Bosniak officials for war crimes. Due to the involvement of the Croatian Army (HV) that supported the HVO, the ICTY ruled in cases against Herzeg-Bosnia political and military leaders that the conflict was international and that Croatia had overall control of Herzeg-Bosnia. In a first instance verdict of the Prlić et al. case it found that a joint criminal enterprise existed that sought to annex or control parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in correspondence with the borders of the 1939 Banovina of Croatia.
Tzowu (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Separated:

Both sides committed atrocities against civilians and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indicted high-ranking Croat and Bosniak officials for war crimes. Due to the involvement of the Croatian Army (HV) that supported the HVO, the ICTY ruled in cases against Herzeg-Bosnia political and military leaders that the conflict was international. It found that Croatia had overall control of Herzeg-Bosnia and that there was a goal to annex or control parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in correspondence with the borders of the 1939 Banovina of Croatia. In a first instance verdict of the Prlić et al. case it determined that a joint criminal enterprise existed for this purpose. --Potočnik (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In the final judgement in the Kordić and Čerkez trial, and Kordić is the highest ranking Croat politician convicted by the ICTY, it didn't found that, that is from the first instance verdict in the Prlić et al. case. I also looked at what they found regarding the overall control and it's exactly logistical support and participation in the planing of operations that meant overall control, and thus an international conflict, not direct involvement.
"The Appeals Chamber finds that on the basis of this evidence, even taking into account that there was no requirement for Croatian troops to be present in Central Bosnia, that no reasonable trier of fact could have found that Croatia directly intervened in the armed conflict in Central Bosnia."
"The Appeals Chamber now turns to the question of whether the HVO [Croatian Defence Council] acted on behalf of Croatia. It will examine whether the Trial Chamber erroneously held that these criteria were satisfied and thus Croatia exercised overall control over the HVO:"
a) The provision of financial and training assistance, military equipment and operational support;
b) Participation in the organisation, coordination or planning of military operations.
"The Appeals Chamber finds that on the basis of the evidence set out above a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond reasonable doubt that Croatia exercised overall control over the HVO at the relevant time."
The "involvement of the Croatian Army (HV) that supported the HVO" is not what the Appeals Chamber concluded. It is the logistical support, military equipment, help in planning of operations, etc. Text in the lead regarding the ICTY is already too much as there is also a verdict from the Hadžihasanović & Kubura trial where the Chamber found that there was no international armed conflict in Central Bosnia in 1993 (it doesn't matter why they ruled that way, that is their judgement) and the JCE notion is not only in the Prlić et al case, there is a first instance verdict by the Bosnian Court that a JCE existed against the Croat population of Bugojno, which was overturned on appeal. Anyway, here is my proposal:
Both sides committed atrocities against civilians and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indicted high-ranking Croat and Bosniak officials for war crimes. In cases against Herzeg-Bosnia political and military leaders the ICTY ruled that Croatia had overall control over the HVO and that the conflict was international. In a first instance verdict of the Prlić et al. case it found that a joint criminal enterprise existed that sought to annex or control parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in correspondence with the borders of the 1939 Banovina of Croatia.

Tzowu (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok I put it in. --Potočnik (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Karadordevo agreementEdit

this article has a statement: The Serb and Croat political leadership agreed on a partition of BiH with the 1991 Karađorđevo agreement and the 1992 Graz agreement, leading the way to a tripartite division of the country. Is this true? 89.164.228.131 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Prlić quoteEdit

I don't see any real discussion on this. Only you saying that you dislike like the source's headline. Removing it on these grounds is ridiculous. --Potočnik (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Anything can be found on the internet and such controversial quotes (and there are many false quotes in english language sources regarding this topic, as can be seen in the case of Channel 4 "tapes") should always be double checked, especially claims that one of the highest figures said how they were given a permission to divide the country or that Muslims were not a nation. Tzowu (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So now we throw this Guardian source (and potentially all English sources with quotes) out the window because of the Channel 4 tapes incident that occurred 7 years after this source was published? Prlic and other "highest figures" were convicted for war crimes against Bosniaks. This quote is not that far out there. --Potočnik (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Using caution doesn't mean we throw everything away. If a certain quote for such a sensitive topic can be found just in one source then it certainly is contentious. At the time (August 1993) the Guardian also had a text which included this: "Indeed so much has the slashing of neck arteries been the historic way of the Croats that one wonders if our version of the native name should not be pronounced with a dipthong to rhyme with throat". The verdict is a first-instance one and the "consistency" of the ICTY is well known. Tzowu (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Caution at whose discretion? Who sets the arbitrary limit for what's enough sources? I'm assuming this slash quote, as vulgar as it is, is part of an opinion piece and not a news article. Also it is Edward Pearce, who appears to have a pro-Serb slant judging from other quotes, that wrote this and not foreign correspondent Ian Traynor. In any event we can discredit most if not all ex-Yugoslav newspapers using this "X once had a text that said" method. --Potočnik (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Just like the contentious content from Schindler was avoided, and there are sources that talk about media bias of the time, particularly British newspapers. Again, this doesn't mean that what they wrote is by itself contentious, but some of it can fall into WP:EXTRAORDINARY ("reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character"). Owen wrote a book about the Vance-Owen plan and doesn't even mention Prlić. The "quote" also doesn't seem as a direct citaton of Prlić but an opinion of the author that the Vance-Owen plan "gave Prlić a carte blanche..." not that "Prlić said it gave him a carte blanche...". Aside from what his ultimate goal might have been, he would hardly go out in public and say outright that he is going to divide Bosnia. In a private meeting with other politicians? Maybe. To a foreign correspondent? Not likely. Unfortunately, page 125 of Cigar's book is not available anymore and the Guardian article is not available either. Only an extract from the same page of Cigar in another book about how he critized the Vance-Owen plan as it favoured ethnic partition. Tzowu (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
What sources? I can't go off vague claims. Is there anything specific to this article or author? In the case of Schindler there was a historian specifically reviewing his work. It's a quote of Prlic not Traynor and do tell how in the world this is "out of character". This type of nationalist rhetoric was common and you've got the "highest figures" declaring they're pursuing "age-old dream, a common Croatian State", president Tudman calling Bosniaks as "Croats of the Islamic faith", and his puppet Boban referring to them as "rapists". No part of this is "out of character". --Potočnik (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
For the media in general there's Mark Almond, Sadkovich and even Hoare ([23]), I didn't say there was something specific about Traynor. As the Guardian article is not available (it's on their digital archive, but a subscription is needed) I can't see what he exactly wrote. It wouldn't be the first time someone wrongly cited a source, like Kumar's reference to Owen's Balkan Odyssey regarding a statement by Šušak. And these statements you mentioned, true or false (whether someone believes Mesić and Kljuić) are done in private meetings and revealed after the war, unlike this one.
It would make no sense for someone like Prlić who two or three months earlier said "It makes no sense for us to make any deals with the Serbs", "Only the Serbs want a Muslim-Croat conflict", and "We want a Bosnia and Herzegovina that will have all the attributes of a state. But we want a certain level of autonomy" [24], to suddenly say something like the discussed quote, found in only one source which can't even be reviewed anymore. Tzowu (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The Hoare paper says some (Herman, Chomsky, and the like) have taken the view that "Western media" had an anti-Serb bias, not an anti-Croat bias. He concludes that "in reality, journalists and reporters were deeply split over both wars [Bosnia and Iraq]" and that "the media in Britain and the US have not, therefore, been guilty of ‘anti-Serb bias’ or of ‘demonising the Serbs’; nor have they upheld the policies of the British government or made propaganda on its behalf; nor have they been a monolith; they have, on the contrary, represented a diversity of opinions."
What makes "sense" is subjective. That article and the one you mention are 3 months apart and there's nothing sudden about it. It comes after the VOPP was drafted which, as you know, is regarded by many as being interpreted by the HVO/HB as the greenlight for ethnic cleansing. The statement is in sync with both the timeline and nationalist rhetoric within that clique. --Potočnik (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
And its regarded by others as giving a green light to the ARBiH to seize control of province 10 and prevent a potential Croat entity. There was no conflict between the HVO and the ARBiH in February 1993. In 99% of the country they were still on relatively good terms and cooperating. On 3 March Izetbegović and Boban signed an agreement on the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan. Three months earlier Prlić gave support for further cooperation. So there is no reason for Prlić to suddenly say "I believe the plan gave the Croats, like the Serbs, carte blanche to divide the country along ethnic lines", a single source line. The Serbs were the ones who would lose the most as they had to retreat from about 25% of the territory they held and split the RS into five parts. Tzowu (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
You had Prlić in January ordering the plan be implemented unilaterally regardless of other signatories and clashes broke out the same month. Our interpretations of whether he might have said it are besides the point. Cigar quotes the Traynor source as Prlic having said that. Unless there's direct evidence to the contrary i.e. that these are actually Traynor's words and it is being misquoted then there isn't much to argue about. --Potočnik (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
He issued an order for both the HVO to subordinate to the ARBiH and the ARBiH to subordinate to the HVO, depending on their province. This would coordinate the forces better and improve the joint defence, eliminating the parallel authority and the double chain of command, which was the main reason for the fall of Jajce in 1992. The local clashes in Gornji Vakuf started on 11 January, before that decision of 15 January. If there really was such a statement by Prlić then the ICTY would include it as well, it would not be in just one source. Tzowu (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The ICTY mentions clashes in multiple municipalities, not just Gornji Vakuf, and that they occurred "at the same time" these orders (Prlic's initial to Rajic's suspension) were being given. God knows how many quotes are in the thousands of transcripts that the ICTY has a hold of. The judgement from the Herzeg-Bosnia case alone is 6 volumes while being light on direct quotes. One can't really point to the absence of one and treat that as evidence. Again I don't know the circumstances of Traynor's quote. It could've been him, Prlic, and an interpreter or just the two or a press meeting. Who knows. In any event this isn't like nowadays where you can easily pull 20 sources for a quote from yesterday. Not everything is digitized and readily open to the public. --Potočnik (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Those were all low scale confrontations even for the standards of this conflict, throughout February and March everything was calm. I know it's hard to do a fact check in this case, when almost no contemporary news articles are available online and there aren't many books focusing in detail on this war. The ICTY is often the only source to verify something, though interpretations of various meetings, statements and the context in which they were given often differ. I've taken a look at Prlić's Appeal brief [25], there are notes about the VOPP, but nothing about an interview from February 1993 or anything related to the topic question. Tzowu (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The article says "Jadranko Prlic, effectively the prime minister of the Croatian mini-state, does not bother to hide his contempt for the Muslim majorities in some areas and insists that the Vance-Own plan gives the Croats, like the Serbs, carte blanche to divide the country along ethnic lines. The Muslims are not really "a nation", he asserts, scornfully adding that they are busy trying to acquire "the characteristics" of one." --Potočnik (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
That sounds to me as his own interpretation of Prlić insisting on the implementation of the VOPP, which would by itself mean the internal division of the country into ethnic provinces. He didn't use quotation marks like in the second sentence. Tzowu (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

And why is Hoare's term ("support for Bosnian Croat separatism") better than "support for Herzeg-Bosnia"? The second one is more neutral and there are enough sources for that wording as well. Tzowu (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it's what Hoare said? He specifically used the term "separatism" and to simply brush it with "Herzeg-Bosnia" is to purposely change his intended meaning. --Potočnik (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
But there are sources that don't use that term so I don't see a reason to stick with it instead of keeping a neutral point of view. Tzowu (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Only Hoare is being cited here. We're not supposed to twist a source's meaning for the sake of NPOV. --Potočnik (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, what about a source to an AP article which says he was the "Bosnian Croats' chief supporter in Croatia" as a replacement? Tzowu (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There's zero reason to replace Hoare. --Potočnik (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
There's at least one reason to replace Hoare, and that is WP:NPOV. Tzowu (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Link which part says that such a scholarly source should replaced with a news article. --Potočnik (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a news article, I suggested that because it had a similar wording. There's also Goldstein who writes something like that, just not in those exact words. Tzowu (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Then include him alongside. --Potočnik (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croat–Bosniak 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}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my last edit: 1. There's literally no proof for that 22,000 number which Feral blurted in one of its issues. WP:EXTRAORDINARY 2. HVO doesn't (yet) receive pensions. 3. That "HV members committed war crimes" is referenced to a quote which says "Members of the regular Croatian army committed atrocities during the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina", so this relates to both the entire Bosnian war and the Croatian War of Independence, outside the scope of this article, without explicitly mentioning this war. 4. Tuđman did not write that BiH "should obviously have been included in the composition of the Croatian federal unit", he made a comparison with the joining of Vojvodina to Serbia and said that "according to the same yardstick should have been made a part of the Croatian federal unit". 5. BiH is under its constitution a national state of the Croatian nation, there's nothing contentious in that notion. Tzowu (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Destruction of religious buildingsEdit

Currently, sourced with Sells and Walasek, it says in the article that "the ARBiH generally had respectful attitudes/policies toward the religious property of Christian communities" and "there was no Bosnian government policy to destroy Catholic churches", while the HVO "engaged in the deliberate destruction of Muslim buildings".

Sources of the Islamic community in BiH say that the HVO damaged or destroyed 138 congregational mosques, 63 small neighbourhood mosques, 18 Quran schools, 2 dervish lodges, 4 mausolea/shrines and 84 buildings of religious endowments. According to the book Raspeta crkva u Bosni i Hercegovini, that documented the destruction of Catholic sacral objects, 75 Catholic churches, 94 chapels, 49 parish houses, 7 monasteries and 69 graveyards were either damaged or destroyed by the ARBiH or mujahideen forces (page 357). Schindler in Unholy Terror p. 100 writes: "The Muslims' religious-cum-ideological agenda was apparent in their frequent desecration of Catholic churches during the fighting. Many were burned, while others were defaced in a grotesque fashion."

I don't think that it is such a big difference in numbers that it could be said how one side "deliberately destroyed religious objects", while the other side did almost nothing wrong. Tzowu (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Both Walasek et al. and Sells are scholarly works that specifically deal with the issue of destruction of cultural heritage (and rigorously review such primary sources). Schindler's disputed work, with an obvious agenda, on the other hand does not (interesting to note that Prlic tried to use it in his defence). Walasek et al. conclude that "It is clear that neither the Bosnian government nor the Bosnian Army had any policies of encouraging attacks on the sacral structures of other faiths, let alone systematically destroying them. On the contrary, there is ample evidence not only of official policies and order proscribing such attacks, but of actively providing protection for Christian religious structures and investigating any attacks that did take place." They note though there were some "assaults" by ARBiH at "vary degrees of vandalization , desecration and damage to interiors."
They have determined the veracity of such numbers and reports. To ignore the scholarly sources and take all figures at face value and make our own judgement isn't an option. --Potočnik (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Judging by their activity and other works, Michael Sells and Helen Walasek also have a clear agenda, but my intention was to add all views about the issue, not replace it just with a quote of Schindler or something like that. So my idea is that the section would first have a list of destroyed or damaged religious buildings, and then "all majority and significant minority views". Tzowu (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croat–Bosniak 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 18:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Number of casualtiesEdit

The Telegram.hr article by Goranko Fižulić counted all war related deaths in 1993 in the Vrbas, Neretva and Central Bosnia regions as casualties of the Croat-Bosniak War. He probably found it in this article, which was added by me as the 1993 numbers for those three regions are closer to the actual number of casualties than deaths in the three regions from 1992-1995, but those are not the official casualties number for the Croat-Bosniak war.

Article: "According to this data, in Central Bosnia there were 5,149 casualties in 1993, of which 2,893 were Bosniaks, 1,951 were Croats, 289 were Serbs, and 16 were other ethnicities. In the region of Neretva river, encompassing Herzegovina, out of 2,764 casualties in 1993, 1,760 were Bosniaks, 779 were Croats, 205 were Serbs, and 20 were other ethnicities. Out of 16 municipalities in the Vrbas region, two municipalities were affected by the Croat-Bosniak conflict: Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf-Uskoplje. There were 1,908 casualties in the entire region in 1993, of which 946 were Bosniaks, 524 were Croats, 431 were Serbs, and 7 were other ethnicities."

Telegram: "Istraživački i dokumentacijski centar u Sarajevu objavio je 2007. rezultate svojih istraživanja prema kojima je u tom ratnom sukobu poginula 9821 osoba, od čega 5599 Bošnjaka, 3254 Hrvata, 925 Srba i 43 osobe ostalih nacionalnosti. Znači, u hrvatsko-bošnjačkom ratnom sukobu, ubijeno je nešto više od trećine svih poginulih Hrvata, odnosno 8,2 % od ukupno poginulih Bošnjaka."

Maybe it wasn't clear enough that the IDC data relates to both the Croat-Bosniak War and the war with the VRS. Tzowu (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You need sources for this claim. I can currently neither confirm nor deny this. It might be that the article misattributes the casualties for the entire war to this conflict which ended in 1994.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Bosniaks: 2,893 (Central Bosnia) + 1,760 (Neretva) + 946 (Vrbas) = 5,599
Croats: 1,951 (Central Bosnia) + 779 (Neretva) + 524 (Vrbas) = 3,254
Serbs: 289 (Central Bosnia) + 205 (Neretva) + 431 (Vrbas) = 925
Others: 16 (Central Bosnia) + 20 (Neretva) + 7 (Vrbas) = 43
These numbers are the same as in the Telegram.hr article. Tzowu (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, we need a source that overrules the Telegram source. Where do you get these numbers from? What would you suggest to write in the infobox?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Here are the numbers from IDC: [26]. There's a more up to date version in Bosanska knjiga mrtvih, but it's not available online. Until a reliable (rough) estimate is presented (maybe there is one, but I don't know about it), the casualties part of the infobox should be left blank. Tzowu (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Return to "Croat–Bosniak War" page.