Talk:Bosnian War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Western Bosnia

...to be included in the infobox?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mujahideen

Well, those people fought in BiH as Islamists. They came to fight with their "Muslim brothers", and so to whitewash the Islamic element is ridiculous.--Hadžija 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not Jihad. We can call it volunteers from Islamic countries, not some jihadist - ridiculous. I will then add that Russian and other volunteers were more or less some evil crusaders. That is, also, ridiculous, so I will ask you to be reasonable and not spread propaganda of some Jihad in Bosnia, where those powerfully armed Bosniaks (and yes, 500-1000 volunteers) attempted to restore Ottoman empire and other silly ideas. --HarisM 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And, lastly, as example that you are spreading propaganda is fact that you wrote Arabic. Well my dear, not all volunteers were Arabic. As I said, we can solve it as people, or you will be hard on it and continue insisting on lie that in Bosnia was some Jihadist war, or something similar. Bosnian Muslim people here fought for survival, nothing more or less. Naming them jihadist is silly, really silly, even it is true that various volunteers fought for Bosnian army, and they came form many Islamic countries. Be reasonable, because I can also be hard as you, and we will just make stupid edit war. --HarisM 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like the way you're setting up straw men. I didn't say that anyone wanted to restore the Ottoman Empire, nor do I think that they did. I am merely using commonly used terminology that is used to refer to those "Islamic volunteers". Why don't you check out this book: [http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaidas-Jihad-Europe-Afghan-Bosnian-Network/dp/1859738079]. I'm not just making this up, as you seem to believe.--Hadžija 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit contravenes WP:POINT, by the way--Hadžija 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And another book for you: [http://www.amazon.de/Kinder-Dschihad-Generation-islamistischen-Terrors/dp/3492049338/sr=8-4/qid=1169249761/ref=sr_1_4/028-7288899-8116533?ie=UTF8&s=books]--Hadžija 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mentioned Islamic volunteers. Point is that you can't know that those volunteers who came from Islamic countries believe in jihad nor they are some extremist of any kind. There was professional help, military advisers and etc. So, we will call them jihadist, all of them? Please... use the right term. Jihadist has no connection whatsoever with War in Bosnia. You are just trying to show Bosnia as some big terroirst cell, which is total fabrication, you are basing those claims from some books. You forgotten that in Bosnia there is EUFOR and American forces, actually a lot of them. Intelligence organizations maybe know better than some authors of books, which are by them self very controversial. Bosnian Muslim people are more grateful to American troops (which are waging war on those evil jihadist), and as matter of fact, Bosnian government (oh yes, in time when Muslim was in chair, president khem) have good relations with United States, supporting them in Iraq and Afghanistan by sending troops.

Last, but not least, American parliament sent a very clear message: Bosniaks (yes, those people who were alongside with those evil jihadist) are victim in Bosnia. You should know this facts, official facts, those books are just propaganda.

Next time, I will make some kind of vote, or invite administrator to clear this thing out. Maybe it would be good that some user with more knowledge make decision. Even, I think that I have more precise definition of volunteers that fought alongside with Bosnian army. --HarisM 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You are ignoring the sources above ("some books" as you put it).
2. You have not presented any sources which contradict the sources I've presented.
3. You assume bad faith ("You are just trying to show Bosnia as some big terroirst cell") in contravention of WP:AGF.
4. You justified your edit based on your political mini-essay above, which is wholly irrelevant (and erroneous in many respects).

--Hadžija 04:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

08:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)24.80.66.158==== Sources referring to "mujahideen" or "jihad" in the context of the war in BiH ====

• BBC News
• BBC News (2)
• Middle East Quarterly (article by S. Schwartz, a Muslim)
• [http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaidas-Jihad-Europe-Afghan-Bosnian-Network/dp/1859738079 Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network]
• [http://www.amazon.de/Kinder-Dschihad-Generation-islamistischen-Terrors/dp/3492049338/sr=8-4/qid=1169249761/ref=sr_1_4/028-7288899-8116533?ie=UTF8&s=books Die Kinder des Dschihad. Die neue Generation des islamistischen Terrors in Europa]
• Spiked
• Guardian

--Hadžija 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's propaganda, and you know it. How do you dare to call, let's say some military advisors or soldiers jihadist, but they are not? I will not discuss anymore with you. I can't find sources, because there is no sources that will convince people like that there was no silly jihadist war in Bosnia. Oh yes, you can see practical sources, as mass killings of Bosniaks throughout the war and so on. Your nickname Hadzija explains much of that. Ok, let's settle it this way. As you - Hadzija believe in that jihadist war, I believe that volunteers from Russia, Grecee, Ukraine and others were Crusaders. I will put citation needed - because, just like you and some others BELIEVE in that. Really, they were crusaders. You ask for it. Or we will be blocked, baned or settle like people and don't express our own statements and beliefs. --HarisM 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW, Serbian wikipedia: El Mudžahedin je ime paravojne jedinice koja je tokom rata u BiH delovala na području srednje Bosne i Hercegovine, a činili su je uglavnom dobrovoljci iz islamskih zemalja, koji su se borili u sastavu Armije Republike Bosne i Hercegovine. Njeni su članovi počinili mnoge zločine nad Srbima i Hrvatima u tim krajevima.

It's true that they committed crimes, but that doesn't make them jihadist, and it is obvious that you don't know the real meaning of jihad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarisM (talk • contribs) 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

So the BBC is "propaganda"? I agree Stephen Schwartz is a propagandist - a pro-Bosnian Muslim propagandist... And the Guardian, that's "propaganda" too? I've reverted your edit (re: Crusaders), because you have no sources for it, it's facetious, and contravenes WP:POINT (as I noted above when you did it before). If these sources (BBC, Guardian) are so obviously wrong, you should have no trouble finding sources that contradict them.--Hadžija 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are such ignorant. :) --HarisM 16:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a well-constructed and coherent argument...--Hadžija 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Noticed you reverted yet again, despite not presenting any sources to contradict some leading media outlets.--Hadžija 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are ignorant becuase of fact that you want present and put jihad name on any volunteer in Bosnian army. Thats wrong, and that flag is also wrong, and can't be used in this context of Bosnian war. You may do anything, you wish, but mine definition is more precise and right - Volunteers from Islamic countries. You can't challenge that. --HarisM 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You're beginning to sound like a broken record. On the one hand, we have several reliable sources (the BBC for a start), which meet the standards set out in Wikipedia:Verifiability (which incidentally states that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"). On the other hand, we have your original research (in contravention of WP:NOR). Your argument rests on the supposition that you know better than the BBC. That may well be true, but if it is, why can't you find any sources that agree with you? And if you think you know better, but can find no sources, then too bad - Wikipedia is built on sources. Why don't you write about it on your blag?--Hadžija 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring the things that I said. You definition of volunteers is wrong. I didn't deny that there wasn't some soldiers who believed in such jihad, but you can't say that all 1000 (wow, what a number) volunteers were jihadist. There is no proof for that, and again, mine definition is better, more accurate, better, better, better. Simple as that. But Islamophobia is doing it just fine, i can see ;) Do what ever you wish, I see that this topic isn't only topic where are you promoting some of your personal beliefs. --HarisM 19:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And you have contavened numerous Wikipedia policies. WP:V (you haven't presented any sources and dismiss reputable ones such as the BBC), WP:NOR (you've edited the article based on your own theories in the the face of sources which contradict your view), WP:POINT (inserting "Crusaders" to make the point that there were no Jihadists) and WP:NPA (calling me "ignorant" and an Islamophobe). // Hadžija 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK Hadzija, you are very funny :) (Is that NPA or what?) --HarisM 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That isn't NPA, but is avoidance of discussion. I believe that you should now present your references which say that Russian volunteers were crusaders, that Muslim volunteers were not mujahideen, that BBC or "Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe" are propaganda, or anything else that supports your claims. Nikola 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose a new name for article: Jihad in Bosnia. Pathetic. We should replace ARBiH flag with jihad flag to make it right. There is no hope for some people. This is sad day, not for this article, but becuase of voting result in Serbia, which confirmed all ready some facts that are known. That is explaination why the articles regarding Bosnian War are so haunted. There is no hope for some people... --HarisM 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that attempting to label all "foreign" fighters who participated in the armed conflict in Bosnia as either jihadists or crusaders is not a neutral view. Jihad means a "holy war" and while udoubtedly some of the Islamic fighers were motivated by personal asiprations of waging a "holy war" there is simply no way to prove or know whether all, some or most were "Jihadist" and this term clearly does not fit the criteria for unbiased encyclopedic content as it attempts to label a diverse group of individuals. Some of those fighters on either sides were likely motivated by various reasons, from religious, nationalistic, pan-Slavic aspirations to pure thrill seeking. If you insist on using a term that describes somebodies motivation to fight then include all the motivations or stay out of it altogether. Either identify the nations from which these fighters came, or identify the religion and nation. If you are compeled to include evidence that some of these were "Jihadist" go ahead and elaborate who and why belives they were Jihadists but don't say it as a matter of fact just because some media outlets have termed it this way.24.80.66.158 08:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't use terms "jihad" or "jihadist" anywhere. Nikola 16:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important that both Western-country editors and former Yugoslav country editors here both retain their respect and not dwindle down their arguments into insults.

This is rather a very complex issue. The Islamic term "Jihad" is ambiguous in itself as even properly stated on the article page, can mean several things. Originally it was meant as a Muslim war against infidels, while it can also mean any sort of Muslim struggle or war in general. It is safe to say that the term isn't entirely inappropriate, as it is indeed a fact that a brigade of mujahideens from Middle Eastern countries were sent in aid with the Bosniak people during the war. There is no doubt that this military aid is nothing but a religious alliance. Islamic Middle Eastern countries would have zero business with the Bosniak people if they did not have a common belief and struggle - to drive away invaders from their Muslim land. Bosniak generals and politicians also officially use the term even to this date for these foreign soldiers as Mujahideen.

I believe that the true issue here is the negative perception in this Islamic principle as being some sort of terrorist principle. Like viewed by most Muslims today, Al-Qaida has turned the Jihad principle of Islam into a barbaric death term which only disgraced their own religion and dwindled it down into a barbaric belief for the Western world. I would say that mentions of Jihad in this article would not be inappropriate. MrBosnia (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They shold definatly be included in my opinion as they form an interesting and oft overlooked area of the wars in BiH and Kosovo - that of subversive western involvement. See: [1][2][3]For example (UTC)

Result

Hi! I have reverted in the result of the Bosnian war cause the only winner of the war is the Bosnian state who finally was recognized in its entire territory during the Dayton accords. And please, dont forget that RS and Herzeg bosnia was not a part of the Bosnian state between 1992 - 1995. But through the Dayton accords, the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina was recognized as a independent, sovereign, recognized nation with different form of politics and with two entites.

And the most important part, Bosnia got its independence from Yugoslavia and Dayton accords recognized it. And also, never forget that RS was INDEPENDENT between 1992 - 1995 but after Dayton accords, it became part of the Bosnian Herzegovinian state.

Pozdrav // Alkalada 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that from a legal point of view Herzeg-Bosna and Republika Srpska were part of BiH 92-95. That would be logical, as RS and Herzeg-Bosna were not internationally recognised states. Yes, they were de facto independent, but not de jure.--Hadžija 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and both parts were peacefully reintegreated into the Bosnian state in 1995. Dayton accords confirmed Bosnia as a states consisting of two entities and Bosnia had in 1995 finally left Yugoslavia. Alkalada 20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

BiH left Yugoslavia in 1992. It wasn't established in 1995.--Hadžija 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You just dont get it, dont you?

Yugoslavia didnt recognized Bosnia independence in 1992 and used aggressions. But when Dayton accords were written down, then Milosevic, in the name of Yugoslavia (now Serbia) recognized Bosnia. RS was independent between 1992 and 1995 and they wanted to be independent. But because of the situation 1995 when RS got military defeated and Bosnian forces was 25 km from Banja Luka, then they were forces to accept peace where it clearly stated they were part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I remember Karadzic who said 1992 that Bosnia will not exist anymore. This clearly shows that RS and its politicians never wanted to be part of BiH, only reason they wrote Dayton was because they were defeated military from august to oktober.

RS was a country with borders between 1992 and 1995, not it is a part of a country named Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alkalada 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems you don't "get it". RS was not de jure independent. It wanted to be, but it wasn't. It was not an internationally recognised country. BiH was internationally recognised since 1992, therefore it was not "established as an independent state" in 1995. For someone who seems to think they know what they're talking about (and you're quite aggressive about it), you display a remarkable ignorance of the facts. // Hadžija 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dayton recognized Bosnian independence which Karadzic didnt. Karadzic didnt recognized the state of Bosnia and because of that I must write that Dayton recognized the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And for your sake... RS didnt won the war, it dint won anything at all.

It isnt a serbian state, because in RS, both bosniaks, serbs and croats are constitutional. And RS has no borders with Federation, in RS Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian is officiall languages. And RS is a part of BiH. Alkalada 12:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, did you even read what I wrote. BiH was de jure independent since 1992. Its independence was internationally recognised since 1992. Everything else you say is true (but irrelevant), except RS does border the Federation. It's an administrative border, but it is a border. Basically, I'll try to break it down for you. BiH was not internationally recognised as an independent state in 1995, that was in 1992. What is so hard to understand about that?--Hadžija 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RS DOES NOT HAVE ANY BORDER WITH THE FEDERATION.

Why? Because it is the same country!

And the thing is that the serbs and croats didnt recognize Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, but after the heroic defense of our country by our heroic Army of the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the serbs and croats got military defeated and were forced to recognize Bosnia and accepted to live in a Bosnian state.

And look at the result now, RS is so unhappy that they want independence. But thanks to us, zlatni ljiljani, RS never got the independence Karadzic wanted. Alkalada 12:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. No border. IEBL doesn't exist.

Fact, as a result of the war, RS, which previously did not exist was created. Whether that was "victory" is subject to interpretation, and anyway link to Dayton is sufficient. Nikola 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This user Alkalada is so funny. He should start a new career as a comedian. I'll cite him: 'And the thing is that the serbs and croats didnt recognize Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, but after the heroic defense of our country by our heroic Army of the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the serbs and croats got military defeated and were forced to recognize Bosnia and accepted to live in a Bosnian state.

And look at the result now, RS is so unhappy that they want independence. But thanks to us, zlatni ljiljani, RS never got the independence Karadzic wanted.'

Well isn't that funny, heroic defense by the heroic army of BiH. I don't think so because you lost all your teritories to Serbs during the war and you were left with a little piece of land in the centre and all the teritories that Serbs took they ethnicly cleansed (Serbs are smart people, they know that bosniaks muslims breed like bunnys). The only heroic defense was doned by croats who defended their Herzeg-Bosnia from the Serbs (exept Posavina). Heroic Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina hahahahha, Alkalada stop it you're killing me with laughter. They are full of bravery because they rushed at Croats with 10:1 ratio to Bosniak muslims with their fellow mujaheedines or whatever you call them.

RS isn't unhappy because they will get their independece not now but maybe in 40-50 years when they get support from great America because Russia is already on their side whatsoever. So shut up Alkalada because you're dumb. Narsil14 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Narsil14, you are disgusting. Frankly, I've gone to great troubles myself to remove the nonsense about a general anti-Bosnian genocide - but I'll remind you, much of the research necessary to debunk the so-called "Bosnian genocide" was done by Bosniak Muslims - they did the research to debunk slanders against Serbs, so you can at least show Bosniaks as a group the respect to avoid such disgusting insults. PS the 100,000 number came from the hard work of Bosniak Muslims - do you prefer the lies of 200,000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.34.181 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing Section

For yet another time I have added a clarification to the end of the section on "ethnic cleansing" to point out that Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are in fact all South Slavic peoples. This is important because many people, especially in North America, tend to believe that the various forms of mass elimination/exodus that occured during the Balkan wars (regardless of the perpetrating party) were "racial" genocides when they were actually based upon culture and religion.

Kahriman - perhaps it is more accurate to say that Bosniaks are the descendents of South Slavs that converted to Islam. I offer this because the idea of Bosniaks being significantly different from Serbs and Croats from an ethnic (genetic) standpoint isn't realistic. Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks are primarily a mixture of the Slavs who migrated to the Balkans from the northeast, and the peoples who inhabited the Balkans when the Slavs first arrived (Illyrians, Thracians, and so on). I'm quite sure there is also an element of the peoples who lived in the Balkans before the Illyrian tribes migrated there. (In some regions there probably is even a bit of impact from Gothic and Ottoman invasion.) The reason people refer to Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks as "ethnic groups" is because of the distinct cultural and national identities that these peoples have formed. Anyhow, unless you contest the point that the South Slavic groups are not different ethnic groups in the genetic sense, I will repair the section.

---

"Serbs and Croats are both South Slavic peoples, and Bosniaks are the descendents of Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam"

You said that! That is false and discriminating. That is true that Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats have same root, but they also have the same roots with slovenians, russians and other slavs. Bosniaks are the descendents of South Slavs that converted to Islam is also wrong because serbs, croats and bosniaks separated themselves by culture and religion. After converting to monotheistic religions, croats mostly became chatolics, serbs mostly became ortodox and bosniaks mostly became bogumils. After conquering Bosnia by Ottoman empire most of bosnian bogumils coverted to islam. So it is not true that converting to islam is something what define someone as Bosniak. There are proves witch says that bosniaks are older then bosnia (i can give them to you if you want). Anyway, point is that Bosniaks existed before converting to islam. Thought the centuries, separating from each other by culture, tradition and religion, Bosniaks, croats and serbs became three different nationalities with same root, but still three different nationalities. When one group of people (same nationality) kill and deport (violate) other group of people only because of thier nationality, that is ethnic cleansing. Is it clear now? --Kahriman 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it IS ethnic cleansing. However, a great many people - especially here in North America - associate the term "ethnic cleansing" with "racial genocide." They see it as exclusively a genetic term and not as a cultural or national one. That is why some consensus should be reached on how to clarify that in the relevent section. There is an enormous population in the United States, for exmaple, that believes Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are genetically as different from eachother as Prussians are from Hebrews. Anyhow, I agree that my earlier assertion suggests that Bosnia did not exist before the Islamic conversion, and I apologize for that. I referred to Bosniaks as Islamic South Slavs because that is essentially their modern designation, although that of course is not the only distinction between Bosniaks and the other South Slavs. On a sidenote, it is certainly true that Bosniaks could trace part of their genetic roots in the Balkans further back in time than the Bosnian territory itself. That is also true of the Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians and to a lesser extent the Croats and Slovenes. That is because the Slavs who migrated to the Balkans from the northeast only account for a small portion of the genetic makeup of most South Slavs. Back on topic: I am willing to limit that portion of the addition to the "Ethnic Cleansing Section" to something along the lines of, "Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are all South Slavic peoples who developed different cultures, nations and religious beliefs over time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.110.138 (talk • contribs)

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOCUMENTATION OR EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF 'BOSNIAN' ETHNICITY PRE-OTTOMAN TIMES. THEY WERE SIMPLY SERBS OR CROATS THAT LIVED IN BOSNA. BOSNIAKS ARE A CONSTRUCT OF TURKEY Well, I don't know. But it would be easier if you could cite some reliable sources for your claim. Also, please sign your entries and don't use all capital letter.Osli73 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The war template is just plain bad

For example: Kravica attack was tiny compared to numerous other sieges, battles and fronts (and itself part of Srebrenica campaign, and so the killings part of Srebrenica massacre). I think it's FUBAR and should be deleted, but maybe someone would also try to make it right (like maybe, only important thing with their own articles for now). --HanzoHattori 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Neonazis and islamic terrorist

Allied against innocent Serbian defence forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Administrator's should consider that this is making mockery of Wikipedia and its project with that flags, neo-Nazism and other crappy conspiracy theories. Good luck, an just continue, you are making fun of yourselves. It is pathetic to watch all this. --HarisM 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article describes the volunteers on the Croat side as "Western radicals", they were in fact neo-Nazis who wanted to continue WWII battles. 217.134.124.136 16:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See. I rest in my case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarisM (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

You haven't presented any case yet. Searchlight is a respected anti-fascist publication. You seem to want to cover-up fascist activity. Calling these people "Western radicals" is just an insulting cop-out. 195.92.67.74 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, oh wow. --HanzoHattori 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow indeed, they didn't just attack Serbs: From the Croatian News Agency-HINA; [4]

The only foreign volunteer convicted of war crimes is neo-nazi Jackie Arklov, when he was in Croat army. Emir Arven 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure many other foreign volunteers committed war crimes as well. 195.92.67.75 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Swedish Neo-Nazi Indicted For War Crimes Committed In Bosnia

Monday , 17 July 2006

A Swedish neo-Nazi has been indicted for war crimes he allegedly committed in the 1990s in Bosnia-Herzegovina where he fought on the Bosnian Croat side, prosecutors announced in Stockholm on Friday.

Jackie Arkloev, a naturalised Swede born in Liberia in 1973, is charged with committing war crimes, including the ill-treatment and torture of Bosnian Muslim prisoners in the Bosnian Croat-run Gabela and Grabovina detention camps in 1993, while fighting as a volunteer within the ranks of the Croat Defence Council (HVO), Prosecutor Lise Tamm told Swedish radio.

Arkloev is currently serving a life sentence for murdering two Swedish police officers in 1999 after a bank robbery in which he participated together with two other neo-Nazis and members of the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang Tany Olsson and Andreas Axelsson.

In 1995, Arkloev was sentenced by a Bosnian court to 13 years in prison for war crimes, and the sentence was later reduced to eight years. He was sent to serve the sentence in the central Bosnian town of Zenica, but after spending seven weeks in prison there, which he described as the worst experience in his life, Sweden asked Bosnian authorities for his extradition, guaranteeing that he would serve his sentence in a Swedish prison.

On arriving at Stockholm airport, Arkloev was released under as yet unclear circumstances. During the extradition process the Swedish authorities apparently rejected the Bosnian indictment for lack of evidence.

Following his arrest in 1999 and conviction for the murder of the two policemen, under the pressure of a sizable Bosnian Muslim community in Sweden and at the urging of the government in Sarajevo, the Swedish judiciary reopened an investigation into Arkloev's role in the 1992-1995 Bosnian war.

The first investigation again ended inconclusively, but as the pressure continued a new investigation was launched on January 4 this year with new evidence, which resulted in a new indictment.

The new indictment is based on new witness statements, Prosecutor Tamm said. 217.134.234.94 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1539218/posts]

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Tuesday, April 5, 1994, PAGE 1,

Germans, Austrians recruited

NEO-NAZIS HELP CROATIANS IN BOSNIA by Eric Geiger, Chronicle Foreign Service Hallein, Austria

Excerpts from the above article (quote:)

When wars approach their end - as the one in Bosnia sporadically appears to be doing - ugly matters that have been submerged from public view tend to float to the surface. One such matter in Bosnia is the role that HUNDREDS OF AUSTRIAN AND GERMAN NEO-NAZIS MERCENARIES have played in the 23-month-old conflict, Europe's bloodies since WWII.

The neo-Nazis, recruited for Croatian extreme-rightist irregular militias and paramilitary forces, may finally be out of work if the current Croat-Muslim truce holds. But the foreigners' legacy of BRUTALITY will not soon be forgotten by their battle-field foes and civilian victims... ... ...

Underground neo-Nazi publications in both Germany and Austria published fervent appeals for volunteers "to help out Croatian comrades in defense of the white race". (Sic! Serbs are also - white). A similar appeal was run by the German periodical Der Freiwillige (The Volunteer), the official organ of HIAS, the legally incorporated mutual aid ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS OF THE WAFFEN SS.(!)

HUNDREDS of skinheads and neo-Nazis in both countries - including many sought by the police for variety of offenses - reportedly responded to the appeal, designed chiefly to woo volunteers for the rightist Croat militia HOS, led by Dobroslav Paraga...

Volunteers sent back glowing reports about their ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION in Bosnia by their comrades-in-arms of the HOS, A WELCOME COMPLETE WITH "HEIL HITLER" SALUTES and the waving of swastika flags. Some also found their way to regular paramilitary units of the Bosnian Croat army and were accorded an equally warm welcome. ...Most of German speaking volunteers in Bosnia, however, are not remorseful. A young Austrian neo-Nazi recently on brief "home leave from the Bosnian front" was quoted by newspapers as saying that German speaking mercenaries - paid $60 a month - have often been involved in "ethnic cleansing operations"... ... "Our job actually is quite simple," the youth said. "After regular Croat militiamen capture a village, they earmark houses of Serbs... for us so we can loot and destroy them." He said the swaggering German-speaking mercenaries generally have an image among the Bosnian Croats as exceptionally tough and MERCILESS - "A SORT OF NEW GERMAN SS" - and for that reason are often given dirty, dangerous assignments.

(End quote) 217.134.234.94 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More evidence of neo-Nazi activity;

"The effort to organize young German neo-Nazis and send them to Croatia to fight and kill for the Ustashe-as the SS had once done- was organized largely by the Movement representatives in Hesse, Bavaria, and, for logistical reasons, as it was directly on the border with Yugoslavia-Austria. The main man in charge in Germany was Nero Reisz. He organized transport and took care that everyone got uniforms and weapons. Then Michel Faci and his right-hand man, Nikolas, organized most of the Croatian neo-Nazi units, training both young Croatians and Germans who'd come down for the ride."

From "FUHRER-EX, Memoirs of a Former Neo-Nazi" by Ingo Hasselbach (with Tom Reiss) Random House, London, 1996. [http://www.amazon.com/Fuhrer-Ex-Memoirs-Neo-Nazi-Ingo-Hasselbach/dp/0679438254] 217.134.233.164 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected at m:The Wrong Version. Edit warring parties are kindly invited to resolve the conflict at this talk page for inclusion or removal of the material. Protection is not endorsement of the current version of the article. Since I'll likely be absent for the next few days, please request for unprotection at WP:RFPP when the matter is settled. Thanks. Duja► 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that my UN cited source was removed, if that is not vandalism somebody shot me! Ancient Land of Bosoni

---

Unprotected (but now really, my bad). Duja► 08:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

International conflict

Here are the sources (ICTY judgements) about the character of the war:

Conflict between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia

The source No.1

Prosecutor v. Rajic, Case No. IT-95-12 (Trial Chamber), Review of the Indictment pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, September 13, 1996, para. 13, 26, 32: “[F]or purposes of the application of the grave breaches provisions of Geneva Convention IV, the significant and continuous military action by the armed forces of Croatia in support of the Bosnian Croats against the forces of the Bosnian Government on the territory of the latter was sufficient to convert the domestic conflict between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Government into an international one.” “[B]etween 5000 to 7000 members of the Croatian Army, as well as some members of the Croatian Armed Forces (‘HOS’), were present in the territory of Bosnia and were involved, both directly and through their relations with Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna (‘HB’) and the Croatian Defence Council (‘HVO’), in clashes with Bosnian Government forces in central and southern Bosnia. [T]he Bosnian Croats can, for the purposes of these proceedings, be regarded as agents of Croatia in respect of discrete acts which are alleged to be violations of the grave breaches provisions of the Geneva Conventions. It appears that Croatia, in addition to assisting the Bosnian Croats . . . inserted its own armed forces into the conflict on the territory of Bosnia and exercised a high degree of control over both the military and political institutions of the Bosnian Croats.”

Blaskic, (Trial Chamber), March 3, 2000, para. 83-123: The Trial Chambers concluded that “[b]ased on Croatia’s direct intervention in BH [Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina]” there was “ample proof to characterise the conflict as international,” and that Croatia’s “indirect control over the HVO [Croatian Defence Council] and HZHB [Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna]” and “indirect intervention” would “permit the conclusion that the conflict was international.” The Trial Chamber found that “Croatia, and more specifically former President Tudjman, was hoping to partition Bosnia and exercised such a degree of control over the Bosnian Croats and especially the HVO that it is justified to speak of overall control. [T]he close ties between Croatia and the Bosnian Croats did not cease with the establishment of the HVO.”

Kordic and Cerkez, (Trial Chamber), February 26, 2001, para. 108-146: The Trial Chamber concluded that the relevant issues were (a) whether Croatia intervened in the armed conflict between the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina through its troops and, alternatively, (b) whether the HVO [Croatian Defence Council] acted on behalf of Croatia. “The Chamber concludes that the evidence in this case satisfies each of the alternative criteria set forth . . . for internationalising an internal conflict.”

Conflict between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)

The source No.2

Tadic, (Appeals Chamber), July 15, 1999, para. 156, 162: “It is sufficient to show that [the Yugoslav Army] exercised overall control over the Bosnian Serb Forces. Such control manifested itself not only in financial, logistical and other assistance and support, but also, and more importantly, in terms of participation in the general direction, coordination and supervision of the activities and operations of the VRS [the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Republika Srpska]. This sort of control is sufficient for the purposes of the legal criteria required by international law.” “[F]or the period material to this case (1992), the armed forces of the Republika Srpska were to be regarded as acting under the overall control of and on behalf of the FRY [the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)]. Hence, even after 19 May 1992 the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina between the Bosnian Serbs and the central authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina must be classified as an international armed conflict.” See also Tadic, (Appeals Chamber), July 15, 1999, para. 87.

Mucic et al., (Appeals Chamber), February 20, 2001, para. 33, 48, 50: “The Trial Chamber’s finding as to the nature of the conflict prior to 19 May 1992 is based on a finding of a direct participation of one State on the territory of another State. This constitutes a plain application of the holding of the Appeals Chamber in Tadic that it ‘is indisputable that an armed conflict is international if it takes place between two or more States,’ which reflects the traditional position of international law. . . .” “Although the Trial Chamber did not formally apply the ‘overall control’ test set forth by the Tadic Appeal Judgement, . . . the Trial Chamber’s legal reasoning is entirely consistent with the previous jurisprudence of the Tribunal.” “The Trial Chamber came to the conclusion, as in the Tadic case, that the armed conflict taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina after 19 May 1992 could be regarded as international because the FRY remained the controlling force behind the Bosnian Serbs armed forces after 19 May 1992. . . . [T]his Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the facts as found by the Trial Chamber fulfil the legal conditions as set forth in the Tadic case.”

---

I rest my case. Emir Arven 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

CfR notice

Just a notice to participants in this page: I've nominated two related categories for discussion:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_27#Category:Bosnian_genocide for merging
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_27#Category:Bosnian_War for renaming.

Duja► 10:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC) this sucks

Problem with color uniformity in graphics

In the "Front Lines pre-Dayton Accord" graphic the images are Croat - Green Bosniak - Blue Serb - Red

But in the "Ethnic Distribution in 1991 Ante Bellum" image its Croat - Blue Bosniak - Green Serb - Red

This is very very confusing when the two are practically superimposed on each other as they are in the article. 129.107.73.116 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No Milosevic involvement?

It’s pretty curious to see the main infobox and the first paragraph of the article not mentioning the main creator of the Yugoslav Wars in general and the Bosnian War in particular: the Serbian dictator SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC.

We see the Chetniks are doing a fine “name cleansing” in articles here in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.232.230.78 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I removed his name several months ago as he was erroneously identified as being the commander of the VJ during the during the 1992-5 war. It is a matter of opinion whether he was the "main creator" of the Yugoslav Wars and if he was a dictator. Oh I am not a Serb so no need to make any accusations of me being a Chetniks! -- Phildav76 19:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Time line confusion

The The pre-war situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina section of the article is confusining as the chronological order of the events is not obvious (for example the Cutileiro-Carrington Plan happened before the referendum) and dates are lacking. -- Phildav76 19:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

My edits, explained

FR Yugoslavia was not a combatant, nor was it in control of the RS or VRS. Of course it aided them in various ways, but then all sides were aided, by Croatia, Iran, the US & etc. The simple fact is that the war was fought between the groups in BiH. The reason I have not removed the Tudjman for the BiH Croats is because the army of Croatia fought in BiH. However, I am inclined to remove him too.

I have removed the picture, as it is clearly meant to give a biased image of the war. You glance, and a burning building catches your eye. You look right - Mladić is having a good laugh with his buddies, and a UN soldier is in despair. As they say, the best liars tell the truth, but only part of it.--Hadžija 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also added that when the war started is a matter of dispute. I began to write a note for the infobox, but it would be too long. I'll write a little section on it in the article.--Hadžija 19:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ICJ concluded that Serbia participated with its Army and Police in Bosnian War. It says:

Of the military and paramilitary units active in the hostilities, there were five types of armed formations involved in Bosnia: first, the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA), subsequently the Yugoslav Army (VJ); second, volunteer units supported by the JNA and later by the VJ, and the Ministry of the Interior (MUP) of the FRY; third, municipal Serb Territorial Defence (TO) detachments; and, fourth, police forces of the Bosnian Serb Ministry of the Interior. The MUP of the Republika Srpska controlled the police and the security services, and operated, according to the Applicant, in close co-operation and co-ordination with the MUP of the FRY.

Regarding the picture, it is correct because ICJ also concluded that Mladic is guilty of genocide commited in Bosnia. Do you want me to quote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.32.143 (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Could you link to the judgment? Also, please stop justifying mass reverts on the basis of this one thing, when you are reverting a load of other edits too.--Hadžija 12:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I put direct link to judgement in pdf format. Regarding your edits, they are not confirmed by the courte. Provide the judgement and I will accept that. 85.158.34.173 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted, as your explaination is lacking for this, and indeed this is only one of many edits you should have explained here. In the document you link to, you cite this:

Of the military and paramilitary units active in the hostilities, there were in April 1992 five types of armed formations involved in Bosnia: first, the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA), subsequently the Yugoslav Army (VJ); second, volunteer units supported by the JNA and later by the VJ, and the Ministry of the Interior (MUP) of the FRY; third, municipal Bosnian Serb Territorial Defence (TO) detachments; and, fourth, police forces of the Bosnian Serb Ministry of the Interior.

This refers to the very start of the war (which you left out before), when the JNA was still withdrawing from newly independent BiH. Furthermore, where in this passage does it say that the FRY was allied with the nascent Republika Srpska, that it controlled it, or that it fought for it? Answer: nowhere. The JNA was "involved". Dad's Army was "involved" in WWII as well you know... --Hadžija 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Here are the sources about international conflic confirmed by ICTY: Conflict between Croatia and Bosnia and Conflict between Bosnia and Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). This is the summary of ICTY judgements about international conflicts in Bosnia. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is very a good quote: “It is sufficient to show that [the Yugoslav Army] exercised overall control over the Bosnian Serb Forces. Such control manifested itself not only in financial, logistical and other assistance and support, but also, and more importantly, in terms of participation in the general direction, coordination and supervision of the activities and operations of the VRS [the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Republika Srpska]. This sort of control is sufficient for the purposes of the legal criteria required by international law.” “[F]or the period material to this case (1992), the armed forces of the Republika Srpska were to be regarded as acting under the overall control of and on behalf of the FRY [the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)]. Hence, even after 19 May 1992 the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina between the Bosnian Serbs and the central authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina must be classified as an international armed conflict.” The Dragon of Bosnia 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In short: Armed conflict after 19 May 1992 in Bosnia must be classified as an international armed conflict. But this is just the judgement summary, I can provide it all in the whole spirit of justice. All judgements are open to public. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why “War in Bosnia and Herzegovina” instead of “War of Bosnia and Herzegovina” or “Bosnian War”?

Would anyone present a plausible reason to the article be named this way? It seems like the term “War in Bosnia and Herzegovina” is a very pro-Serb one.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.232.231.107 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 May 2007.

The title is War in Bosnia and Herzegovina because it is an accurate and plausible description of what the article is about. Cannot see how is can be considered pro-Serb. -- Phildav76 16:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell this to Korean War. Should it bee "War in South Korea and North Korea"? The Bosnian War was not only "war in Bosnia and Herzegovina". For example, WWII there was such. --HanzoHattori 17:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well "Korea" covers both N & S Korea and it is the name the war generally known as. Well the article name is specific to the war that was specific to B-H. Other wise it could be War in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995) Phildav76 -- 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Common name is Bosnian War. As I can see it was redirected to War in B&H. I think it should be returned as it was, because the current name just doesn't fit. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it should be. [5] VS [6] - almost 10:1. --HanzoHattori 13:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just an issue of precision/scientific vs. colloquial use. Note that most of hits for the current title come from various official reports, while Bosnian war is more frequent in press and one-off usage. Encarta has it unther WBiH title, and Britannica under "Bosnian conflict". I don't mind it either way, though. Duja► 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Books 1 - 10 of 233 on “War in Bosnia and Herzegovina”
• Books 1 - 10 of 709 on “Bosnian War”. --HanzoHattori 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So? --HanzoHattori 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Today I tried to move from War in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Bosnian War, which is the most known name, but it didn't work. Why?--Epcott (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)]

That'll be because a page called Bosnian War already exists. It redirects to this article. If you want to move it, you'll have to get Bosnian War deleted first by tagging it with {{db-move|War in Bosnia and Herzegovina}}. However, a word of warning: that is supposed to be used when the move in uncontroversial, which I'm not sure this is judging by the above. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems like someone is making POV-pushing again, trying to gradually bring “Bosnian War” back to the “War in Bosnia and Herzegovina” title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.181.67 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Percentages

It's nearly impossible to get 99.43% of voters to agree on anything. Especially in a multiethnic country on such a complex topic as independence. It's equally doubtful that 96% of Serbs would vote against any peace agreement after 2 years of civil war. How do you conduct a referendum amid a civil war, anyway? IMHO, either those numbers are fake, or both those votes were fabricated. --Itinerant1 10:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. In a much more clear-cut case of referendum for independence - that of Lithuania (monoethnic country with a serious grudge against USSR) - the number of votes in favor was around 90%. --Itinerant1 11:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Finding a definitive set of figures for the 1992 referendum is not easy. The best I could find was this [7]. Look on page 42. It gives a turnout of 63.4% -- Phildav76 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

1992 - start of the war

It seems the two first paragraphs in the 1992 section cover the same issue. I suggest either merging them or outright deleting the first paragraph (and keeping the second one). CheersOsli73 13:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

recent research on casualties of the war

• Research shows many estimates of Bosnian war death toll were severely inflated by Associated Press. Published: June 21, 2007

I've posted this reference if someone wants to update the article. // laughing man 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bosnian Book of Dead

Someone recently added a section on The Bosnian Book of Dead. However, since this is merely supporting previous research (carried out by the same institute mentioned in the Casualties section) I see no reason to give it a separate section. I can't see that it adds enough new info to merit it's own sub-section. I think it should be removed, although the references could be kept. Any comments? CheersOsli73 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be a seperate section, but the Casualties figures need to be updated with the results from this data. Yes, it's the same organization, but they have revised their numbers lately. Also, I think we need to point out that the new total (~97k) is the absolute minimum number of casualties. This statement is supported by the report itself. Dchall1 05:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dchall, I agree, we should update the existing Casualties section with these revised/updated figures. As for the accuracy of the figures, if I remember correctly, the statement in the article was that while the figures are not absolute/definite, they are unlikely to increase by much (<10,000 ?). So, I'm not sure the article needs to get into the finer details (anyway, most people reading the article would know that such figures are not going to be exact/absolute). CheersOsli73 10:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No argument. I'm just saying we shouldn't say "97k died, and no more". The number from the study is merely the baseline, as the maximum number of confirmed and documented deaths. Dchall1 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

Article shouldn't contain unreliable data without verification. For instance this part was added by anon and readded by Laughing Man:

(Curiosity: Ex Muslim leader, and member of the first presidency of post Dayton BiH, Alija Izetbegović, claimed in one TV interview that US president, in that time Bill Clinton, had stopped Muslim-Croat forces to take Banjaluka, threatening that NATO forces will stop bomb Serbs, and if Muslim-Croat forces tries to take Banjaluka, NATO will bomb them).

First, there is no information about interview, which interview, when etc. Second, Alija Izetbegović was not ex-Muslim leader, but leader of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (memeber of UN), which means the terms are wrong. Third, there were no Muslim-Croat forces, but officially recognized Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatian Army. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong information from the judgment

Jonathanmills wrote, that: "However, the ICTY appears not to deny that 'the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians'"

Which is false.

The sentece from the judgment goes like this:

"As the Defence was reminded many times during the trial, the fact that the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians, an argument brought up mutatis mutandis by almost every Serb accused and Defence counsel before the Tribunal, is irrelevant in the context of this case."

So this is clear example of revisionism by Serbs accused and convicted in ICTY, and is irrelevant according to the court. The Dragon of Bosnia 10:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on JNA columns in Tuzla and Sarajevo

The attacks on the withdrawing JNA (Yugoslav army) columns by Bosnian Muslims aren't listed at all. The peaceful withdrawal was agreed upon beforehand. The Tuzla attack resulted in 200 dead (mostly 18 year old conscripts) and 140 caught and later tortured. It was broadcast live on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusanv (talk • contribs) 07:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

--

Ethnic cleansing.

First of all, the Bosniaks too, with their terrorist mujahediin ja al-qaida allies commited numerous war crimes, including ones of ethnic cleansing (the article makes it sound like only Croats and Serbs did it). Also what happened in Srebrenica was not genocide, many of people killed died in fire fights (were armed soldiers / militia) in the woods and mountains trying evade the Serb forces, also for the rest, shooting POW's (captured soldiers, militia, able bodied men) does not constitute a GENOCIDE. Might be a war crime, but certainly not a genocide. And many things can be said of the whole legimacy of the rebelion / insurgency of the Moslems as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Ethnic cleansing.

Yes, I also have a question about the ethnic cleansing block. Weren't 32,000 Jews killed during the ethnic cleansing?

Royaljared 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(mis) interpreting the ICJ findings

The article has two blocks of text on the ICJ ruling which I'm not sure are correct or comply with WP:NPOV.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling of 26 February 2007 effectively determined the war's nature to be international, thus exonerating Serbia of responsibility for the genocide committed by Serb forces of Republika Srpska.

1. It doesn't seem logical to say that because they determined the conflict to be international (did they?) Serbia was "thus" exonerated of responsibility.

Despite the evidence of widespread killings, the siege of Sarajevo, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing and torture conducted by different Serb forces which also included JNA (VJ), elsewhere in Bosnia, especially in Prijedor, Banja Luka and Foča, as well as camps and detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosnian Muslims were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia.[4] The court concluded that the crimes, including mass killings, rapes, detentions, destruction and deportation, committed during the 1992-1995 war, were "acts of genocide" according to the Genocide Convention, but that these acts did not, in themselves, constitute genocide per se

1. It doesn't seem NPOV to refer a court ruling by starting out with "Despite...." and then listing offences, to continue with "...the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide... were only met in Srebrenica".
2. Finally, it seems a bit misleading since what the ICJ seems to be saying that these acts "could not be qualified as genocide"[8] and that "The Court found that it had not been proven that those crimes had been committed with a specific intent "to destroy as such" the protected group of Bosnian Muslims in part or as a whole"[9], which it sets as a requirement for genocide. I'm not a legal expert, but it seems to me that what it boils down to is that the ICJ does not find that there was genocide outside of the Srebrenica massacre. If you read the AP pressrelease (which is the other source here) it quite clearly states:

The judges found that Serbia, though it supported the Bosnian Serbs, fell short of having effective control over the Bosnian army and the paramilitary units that carried out the massacre. It also rejected Bosnia's argument that the accumulated pattern of atrocities during the war, fueled by Serb nationalism and driven by Serbian weapons and money, was tantamount to responsibility for genocide.

Unusually for such an important case, the judges were in accord, voting overwhelmingly in unison on the various points of the decision with only one or two dissenters.

and completes by saying

Despite the evidence of widespread killings, rape and torture elsewhere during the Bosnian war, especially in detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide were met only in Srebrenica.

I think the text in question should be replaced. Comments?Osli73 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Mujahideen

I reverted Dragon of Bosnia's deletion of the external link Bosnian Mujahideen, which he based on the assumption that the word doesn't exist. In fact it does.

"The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" was the title of a research paper presented by a conference held by the Swedish National Defence College's Center for Assymetric Threat Studies (CATS) in Stockholm in May 2006 at the request of Dr. Magnus Ranstorp - former director of the St. Andrews University Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence - and now Chief Scientist at CATS.[10] The paper is available for download at the [CATS website.http://www.fhs.se/upload/Webbadmin/Organisation/CATS/Kohlmann.doc]

Evan F. Kohlmann is a terrorism researcher and a consultant to the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation and runs the Web site [www.globalterroralert.com]. In addition to the above report (also [http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaidas-Jihad-Europe-Afghan-Bosnian-Network/dp/1859738079 published as a book]) he has been published by several respected journals, including Foreign Affairs, a journal published by the Council on Foreign Relations.

I agree that there are other terms for these fighters, "El Mujaheed" or just "Mujahideen" are often referred to in media[11][12] and [13] as well as by the Bosnian courts in their indictments of former Bosnian Mujahideen suspected of various war crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osli73 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He has been deleting reference to the term again, along with deleting information about Iranian Revolutionary Guards working in Bosnia. He says that USIP is not a reliable source I guess, but doesn't say why. <eleland/talkedits> 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I removed a link to the mediated article written by Osli73, who also included the link in other article. We should first wait outcome of the mediation before including it in other articles. Second, senteces regarding Iranian Guard should be verified according to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." As it is just a report from American organization, and we are aware of American-Iranian love, it is normal to conclude, it is not a fact. It is a claim, and cannot be included as an evidence. On the other hand if you have such an evidence, there are so many courts. I am a law student, I know what I am talking about. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you - as far as I can tell, USIP is a reliable source. I'm not sure what "American-Iranian" love you are talking about. Besides, neither this source nor Osli's article allege that the RG were involved in the fighting. It's not that outrageous a claim that Iranian personnel were in-country during the war. Dchall1 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about propaganda war from both sides (American and Iranian). That is way I would like to avoide such sources as long as they are not confirmed by the court. Because it can be misleading for the readers, and we shouldn't allow Wikipedia to be the source for unverified claims. I am not denying this (during the war both America and Iran cooperated in order to stop genocide, this is probably the only thing connecting America and Iran together to cooperate). I was searching the documents, judgments etc but unfortunately I wasn't able to verfy this. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The ICTY is not there to write a comprehensive history of the conflict. Just saying it wasn't confirmed by the court doesn't have any bearing on whether it's suitable for inclusion in Wikipeida. The presence of IRG in Bosnia was reported in reliable sources; they may have been wrong, they may have been undoly beholden to what USA officials told them, but you can't go about removing the information without discussion whatsoever. Try and some civil discussion before you expurgate seemingly well-sourced information, please. <eleland/talkedits> 02:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:The Dragon of Bosnia has been deleting the Bosnian Mujahideen article and any references to it since its creation, mainly based on ill founded claims that the information is unreliable or biased. However, I can't see how. I've been forced to seek very time consuming outside mediation to avoid continued vandalism by him on that article. However, he continues to delete any references to it on other articles.Osli73 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil when using the term vandalism. Your accusation is wrong. You can see my arguments here. There are already articles which cover the topic. And according to your block log you are the one who vandalised Wikipedia so many times, that it is very strange from you to talk that way. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the link to a general article on the role of foreign volunteers during the Bosnian war with a link to an article specifically about the Bosnian Mujahideen as well as mentioned them in the body text as well. Surely, a more specific article must be preferred to a general article.Osli73 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The term you are using is not validated, it is not common and it is mediated. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Dragon, the term is valid and the only reason the article is being mediated is because I asked for it as a means of resovling the constant deletion of the article and links to it by you and Gandy Gandy. So, the fact that it is being mediated in no way reflects on the quality or merits of the Bosnian Mujahideen article, only on your editing style.Osli73 (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

revert of edits by The Dragon of Bosnia

Hi, I have reverted repeated WP:POV edits by The Dragon of Bosnia. Here is why:

1. Bosnian mujahideen: he has repeatedly deleted the link to this article (which he has tried to delete in itself several times)
2. International conflict: he presents the war simplistically as an "international conflict" when in fact it was primarily a local conflict/civil war with some foreign involvement (on all sides).
3. Misrepresenting the ICJ judgement: he states that the "ICJ effectively determined the war's nature to be international, thus exonerating Serbia of responsibility for the genocide committed by Serb forces". Not only does this not make sense it misrepresents the ICJ's conclusion. It did not state that it was an international conflict. Also, by not mentioning that the genocide the ICJ was referring to was the 1995 Srebrenica massacre he leads the reader to believe that it was referring to an alleged wider genocide during the war. By citing a number of war crimes ("Despite the evidence of widespread killings...") he calls into question the ICJ's judgement - a case of WP:OR.
4. Skewing civilian casualty numbers: by stating that "Of the 97,207 documented casualties, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks..." instead of being clear and saying "However, 83% of civilian victims were Bosniaks" he is misleading readers to assume that Bosniak victims were 83% of 97,207. He also draws the conclusion that "The percentage of Bosniak victims would be higher had survivors of Srebrenica not reported 1,800 of their loved-ones as soldiers to access social services and other government benefits." Not only is the materiality of this deviation not determined, there is nothing stating that it would not apply to victims from the other sides of the war as well.
5. Mass rapes: he includes a disproportionally long subsection of mass rapes during the war which is also porly sourced and overtly WP:POV.
6. Links: he, again, excludes links to the Bosnian mujahideen article for no apparent reason.

I would urge admins involved in this article to please review / reign in The Dragon of Bosnia or become more involved in the article. An edit war is slowly breaking out here which I would like to avoid. However, I don't want to sit idly by while the WP:POV and WP:OR edits are being included in the article. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will only write comment about question if this has been civil war or international conflict.

• Bosnia has declared independence on 1 March 1992 and this independence has been internationally accepted on 6 April. Between 1 April 1992 and 12 May 1992 "Yugoslavia" has been in war with Bosnia and Herzegovina because only on that May day they have Yugoslav Army has officially left Bosnia. I am sure that nobody will question fact that between 6 April and 12 May Yugoslav Army has been making war actions against Bosnian Army. During that period Serbian forces has taken control over 60-70 % of Bosnia. Only after 12 May we can speak about civil war if somebody want to call civil war when Internationally recognized country is in war against puppet state created by military force of another state. All in all point is that between 6 April and 12 May 1992 we are having internationally conflict and nobody can question this fact !
• If we look period after 12 May then we are having UN resolutions. I will give her resolution from:

91st plenary meeting 18 December 1992

..."2. Strongly condemns Serbia, Montenegro and Serbian forces in the

Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for violation of the sovereignty,

territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, and their non-compliance with existing resolutions of the

Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the London Peace Accords

of August 1992;

3. Demands that Serbia and Montenegro and Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and :Herzegovina immediately cease their aggressive acts and

hostility and comply fully and unconditionally with the relevant resolutions

of the Security Council, in particular resolutions 752 (1992) of 15 May 1992,

757 (1992) of 30 May 1992, 770 (1992) and 771 (1992) of 13 August 1992, 781

(1992) of 9 October 1992 and 787 (1992) of 16 November 1992, General Assembly

resolution 46/242 and the London Peace Accords of August 1992;"

In my thinking question if this has been civil war or international conflict is solved. I know that there will be comment how UN has been against Serbia and Serbs...--Rjecina (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

UN is most relevant information source, so that comments should be ignored. --HarisM (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Haris, as you'll see, I'm not questioning that it was an international conflict (as well). However, it was primarily a civil war between the Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims/Bosnian government. In addition to this, there were other countries involved in different ways (Croatia, Serbia, Iran, Nato/UN, etc.). To simply write that it was an international conflict is therefore misleading.Osli73 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It was both. But you cannot judge one conflict as mainly something. If it was international (and it was) there is no discussion. That is a fact, and there so no mainly international, primarily civil, and other - like that terms. If you found any other realiable source that states it was primarily a civil war, I can agree. Nature of conflict was international, court didn't said it was as well international, but primarily civil. --HarisM (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Haris, most media describe it as a civil war. However, I agree that there were outside forces involved, most importantly Croatian regular troops were present in Bosnia, Yugoslavia gave material support to the Bosnian Serbs, Iran and the US gave material support to the Bosnian Muslims and, finally, Nato/US forces became directly involved in the conflict. However, it was still primarily a civil war fought by different factions within the country. Osli73 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM - blanking

@OSLI73 deleted this part which is clear example of vandalism - blanking WP:Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason."

He deleted this part:

According to numerous ICTY judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.

Soureces:

• Summary of ICTY verdicts I
• Summary of ICTY verdicts II

We are all witnesses, @OSLI73 is presistent in his deletion of this significant part, it's time that someone block OSLI73 and NIRVANA77 for repeating vandalism (blanking). Grandy Grandy (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reverts to User:Grandy Grandy's version of the article

I have reverted a number of edits by User:Grandy Grandy (GG) which I believe are cases of WP:POV. Many of the reasons are the same as for reverts of edits by User:The Dragon of Bosnia described earlier.

1. Bosnian mujahideen: this should link to the specific article on the Bosnian mujahideen rather than the general article on volunteers. GG has repeatedly deleted the link to this article (which he has tried to delete in itself several times).
2. International conflict: GG presents the war simplistically as an "international conflict" when in fact it was primarily a local conflict/civil war with some foreign involvement (on all sides).
3. Misrepresenting the ICJ judgement: he states that the "ICJ effectively determined the war's nature to be international, thus exonerating Serbia of responsibility for the genocide committed by Serb forces". Not only does this not make sense it misrepresents the ICJ's conclusion. It did not state that it was an international conflict. Also, by not mentioning that the genocide the ICJ was referring to was the 1995 Srebrenica massacre he leads the reader to believe that it was referring to an alleged wider genocide during the war. By citing a number of war crimes ("Despite the evidence of widespread killings...") he calls into question the ICJ's judgement - a case of WP:OR.
4. Skewing civilian casualty numbers: by stating that "Of the 97,207 documented casualties, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks..." instead of being clear and saying "However, 83% of civilian victims were Bosniaks" he is misleading readers to assume that Bosniak victims were 83% of 97,207. He also draws the conclusion that "The percentage of Bosniak victims would be higher had survivors of Srebrenica not reported 1,800 of their loved-ones as soldiers to access social services and other government benefits." Not only is the materiality of this deviation not determined, there is nothing stating that it would not apply to victims from the other sides of the war as well.
5. Mass rapes: GG includes a disproportionally long subsection of mass rapes during the war which is also porly sourced and overtly WP:POV.
6. Links: GG, again, excludes links to the Bosnian mujahideen article for no apparent reason.

I would urge admins involved in this article to please review / reign in Grandy Grandy or become more involved in the article. An edit war is slowly breaking out here which I would like to avoid. However, I don't want to sit idly by while the WP:POV and WP:OR edits are being included in the article. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

@OSLI73 deleted this part which is clear example of vandalism - blanking WP:Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason."

He deleted this part:

According to numerous ICTY judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.

Soureces:

• Summary of ICTY verdicts I
• Summary of ICTY verdicts II

Why? Grandy Grandy (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nirvana77, since you are now insisting on the same edits as User:The Dragon of Bosnia / User:Grandy Grandy, could you please explain the reasons for your revert, with specific reference to my comments above? If you do not reply I will take it that you have no reasons for your edits and revert it. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Would the editors who insist on reverting to User:Grandy Grandy's version of the article please answer the issues I raise above. Until you do, it is very difficult to understand your arguments for GG's old version.Osli73 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't put it right way. There are no his/her/their version. There are just a lot of users who contribute. You can like/dislike it, but you can't just come and delete a half of the text, without any kind of reasonable explanation and asking for answers?! Comparing your version with the last reasonable one, reveals heinously erased parts including sections, links, sources etc. Just scroll it to the bottom[14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.75.202.131 (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, I'm not quite sure what to make of your reply above (I guess I feel it's not a reply to the points I raise at all). The way I see it, the main points of dispute between us are those six which I list above. If we are to resolve our edit dispute, it would really help if you adress those specific points. If you believe there are other points where we disagree, please let me know and we can add those to the list above. That way, we can deal with them one by one in a systematic way. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The following comment was moved from User:osli73's talk page:

We decided to use the casualties numbers from RDC a while ago considering they were much more recent and much more detailed and yet you are insisiting on using a diffrent number but only for the serbian side. The RDC numbers has to stay, that is one benchmark you have to meet if we are to have an aggrement how the Bosnian war article is to look in the future. Meet us halfway. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana77, I have no problem with the RDC's casualty figures. I'm not aware that I'm suggesting anything else. However, I do have an issue with how you wish to present them. Again, it would be most helpful if you could adress the (six) issues I list above. Or if you have any of your own, please add them.Osli73 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Bosnian mujahideen: I have no issues with having an section within the article highlighting this, although i would strongly suggest that we in the infobox refer it to volunteers from islamic countries considering many that did come and fight for the bosniaks during the war was not there for the same reason.
2. International conflict: The ICTY considered it a international conflict do to Croatia's indirect control over HVO and Serbia's indirect control over Republika Srpska. I agree with it to some extent. Croatia's Operation Storm involved the Bosnian war to an large extent. NATO's bombings of Republika Srpska at the end of the war. I would call it debatable.
3. Skewing civilian casualty numbers: I have no problems with clarifying the numbers.
4. Mass rapes: I would agree to shorten the section a bit but still having some of it left considering the mass rapes was a singnificant part of the war. The sources are good enough in my opinion but as i said, i have no problem with shortening the section, but i dont agree with totally deleting it.
5. Links: Same as above, although not in the infobox. Rather in a own section in the article.

Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana77, thank's for your comments on my points above. I'll take them in order.

1. Bosnian mujahideen: I don't think we need to give too much space to these in the text. However, I do think the link in the infobox for Bosnia should be to the Bosnian mujahideen as this is the article that specifically deals with the only foreign volunteers which the Bosnian government received.
2. International conflict: as most sources present it, the Bosnian war was primarily a civil war between the three ethnic groups. However, it was also an international conflict, with involvement of Croatia, Serbia and a number of other states/organizations. However, I believe that it would be wrong to so simply present it only as an international conflict, which implies that it was not a civil war.
3. Skewing civilian casualty numbers: if you agree with my presentation of the figures I am happy.
4. Mass rapes: I have no problem including it in the article but feel that it needs to be shortened to an appropriate length (eg Bosnian mujahideen) and phrased in a NPOV way (this may include deleting "mass" or "systematic" and these are points of contention. However, please take a look at sources from NIOD on the rapes which I have suggested in the Mass rapes in the Bosnian war article's talk page.
5. Links: I see no reason not to include a link to Bosnian mujahideen in the links page.

So, in conclusion, barring the points mentioned above (mass rapes, etc.), I'm not sure exactly what your opposition to my version really is. Could you please clarify that. CheersOsli73 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My main concerns with your version was, the deletion of the entire mass rape section, the change from RDC numbers in the info box, linking bosnian mujahideen in the infobox. But i think we are on good ways to resolving this edit war. Of the things you pointed out i agree wit most of it, although not with linking Bosnian mujahideen in the info box, although i can agree with a compromise with the text of "Volunteers from Islamic countries" and linking it to the Bosnian mujahideen article. I agree that the war was primarily an civil war but became an international conflict with interventions from Croatia and NATO. Currently it states in the articles intro "The involvement of NATO, during the 1995 Operation Deliberate Force against the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska internationalized the conflict, but only in its final stages". I think that summs it up nicely. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, very good. It seems we are getting near a compromise/understanding. I'll summarize, please let me know if you agree or not:

1. Revert to my version
2. Change numbers in infobox to RDC figures (honestly, I wasn't aware they were not in line with the RDC figures)
3. Change to "Volunteers from Islamic countries" but link to the Bosnian mujahideen article
4. Present it as a civil war but then add that a number of other states were involved (primarily Croatia and Serbia/Yugoslavia but also Nato and, to a limited extent, Iran).
5. Include a section on the role of rapes in the war (though I would prefer if we used the NIOD sources I've mentioned before[15][16].

CheersOsli73 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1. With the changes we have discussed, yes.
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. Agreed
5. I would most rather just split the section and use the material at hand.

Regards--Nirvana77 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nirvana77, OK. However, to avoid any misunerstandings on point 5, could you please propose a text here on the talk page which you would be happy with? I urge you to take a look at the NIOD sections on the Bosnian rapes and their role in the war as well as consider the section's relative length compared to the rest of the article and important subtopics in it. CheersOsli73 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give my opinion about these issues, you can read my earlier comment above, I wasn't registered, and the comment is signed with my IP address: 217.75.202.131. OK, let's start:

1. Disagreed, it's irrelevant anyway, but this way it looks better (volunteer is probably more appropriate term).
2. Disagreed.
3. Disagreed.
4. Disagreed.
5. Disagreed.

Explanation:

2. I would like to reply to this statement made by Osli73: International conflict: as most sources present it, the Bosnian war was primarily a civil war between the three ethnic groups. However, it was also an international conflict, with involvement of Croatia, Serbia and a number of other states/organizations.

I just read the sources. And your statement is completely false. According to the Court it is international war, acctually according to five different judgments it is international war between Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. It has nothing to do with "a number of other states/organizations".

Let me quote the sources: [17], from the Tadic case:

Hence, even after 19 May 1992 the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina between the Bosnian Serbs and the central authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina must be classified as an international armed conflict.” See also Tadic, (Appeals Chamber), July 15, 1999, para. 87.

From the Mucic case:

The Trial Chamber came to the conclusion, as in the Tadic case, that the armed conflict taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina after 19 May 1992 could be regarded as international because the FRY remained the controlling force behind the Bosnian Serbs armed forces after 19 May 1992

And there are three more cases all about international war, see the source.

As a court judgment is the strongest kind of source, I can't agree with your erasure of that part, and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

For now I will skip other counts and reply to mass rape issue or count 4. (I will give my comment about other counts after we resolve these issues first because these parts were heinously erased). Osli73 states that the section is "disproportionally long subsection of mass rapes during the war which is also porly sourced and overtly WP:POV." Again I read sources and I think this statement is false. Let's look together for example at this source: [18] It is International Court source (not poorly sourced):

And here is a quote about the rape:

Dragoljub Kunarac also knew that Muslim women were specifically targeted, as he himself took several of them to his men and raped some of them himself. In the course of one of these rapes, he expressed with verbal and physical aggression his view that the rapes against the Muslim women were one of the many ways in which the Serbs could assert their superiority and victory over the Muslims. While raping FWS-183, the accused Dragoljub Kunarac told her that she should enjoy being “fucked by a Serb”. After he and another soldier had finished, Dragoljub Kunarac laughed at her and added that she would now carry a Serb baby and would not know who the father would be. In addition, the accused Dragoljub Kunarac removed many Muslim girls from various detention centres and kept some of them for various periods of time for him or his soldiers to rape.

There is a part about systematical rape:

The Trial Chamber also notes that the consistency of these occurrences and the predictability of the women’s fate were particularly evident with respect to the accused Dragoljub Kunarac and his group of soldiers. The girls and women, who were selected by Dragoljub Kunarac or by his men, were systematically taken to the soldiers’ base, a house located in Ulica Osmana Dikica no 16. There, the girls and women, whom he knew were civilians,1371 were raped by Dragoljub Kunarac’s men or by the accused himself.

To conclude: Osli73 statement about "porly sourced and overtly WP:POV" is far far away from the truth. That part of this article is well sourced and WP:NPOV as the source is International Tribunal.

That'all for now...Goodbye. Texwiller071 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Texwiller071 on the mass rape section. After reviewing the sources i dont really see a reason to cut it short, the section isn't even that long. The war became an truly international conflict first with Croatia's Operation Storm and NATO intervention in the closing months of the war. But it is debatable if the war was an international conflict before then aswell. Osli73 also takes away an exaggerated amount of text in the intro wich i dont really see any reason to do. And i dont see any evidence that Iran was involved in the war even at a limited extent. The rest of Osli73,s changes i dont have any major issues with, at least for now. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana77, not sure why you changed your mind. However,

1. Intro.: it's far to long (probably as a result of everyone trying to squeeze 'their' bits in there)
2. International conflict: the article currently begins "...he Bosnian War, was an international armed conflict that took place between March 1992 and November 1995". I'm not saying it wasn't an international conflict, I'm just arguing that it was much more of a civil war and that it would therefore be wrong to so bluntly state that it was an international conflict.
3. Iran: I'll find you the sources. Basically, Iran supplied arms and military advisors to the Bosnian government.
4. Rapes: I have no problem including section on rapes, however, I would like to rewrite it taking into consideration the NIOD report sources I've referred to earlier. Would you be OK with that? If not, we could at least limit the dispute to that section. OK with you?

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, i agree with the changes we disscused. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana77, OK, I'll make the necessary adjustments then. I'll leave the rapes section as is (we can always discuss that later).Osli73 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Osli73, about your counts:

1. Intro - Disagreed, it doesn't matter whether intro is too long, if it is sourced with neutral/relaible data (ICTY is such source, better than Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian). The real problem emerged when you heinously erased those sourced parts and included something else. It's not just the first sentence, it's a whole part based on international judgments.
2. Rapes - Disagreed, When you erased it for the first time, you said it was poorly sourced, which was false, as anyone can see. The source is ICTY. Now, you want to include poor source for real such as NIOD report, and everyone knows that The Netherlands was compromised in Srebrenica during massacre. For these subtile topics such as mass rape, we should include just the verdicts/checked information, not speculation. Texwiller071 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

The page has been protected for two weeks. Please discuss the issues out on the talk page and seek some help if you have difficulty in reaching a compromise. Vassyana (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blew the germans

"Following the declaration of independence, the Serbs blew the germans and attacked different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina." WTF??? --212.247.27.105 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Vassyana (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dab

{{editprotected}} Somebody please disambiguate "racial" to Race (classification of human beings). --Closedmouth (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Vassyana (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Osli73 removed half of the introduction section. He removed:

• [19] - ICJ: The genocide case: Bosnia v. Serbia - See Part VI (2) - Entities involved in the events
• [20] - ICTY: Conflict between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
• [21] - Courte: Serbia failed to prevent genocide, UN court rules
• [22] - Sense Tribunal: SERBIA FOUND GUILTY OF FAILURE TO PREVENT AND PUNISH GENOCIDE
• [23] - Statement of the President of the Cour
• Bosnia's Book of Dead - BIRN Report

etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.36.123 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get serious

We must get serious about this topic. I had to react, really.

Osli, you removed this quote, which is sourced and neutral because it starts with "according to" sentence:

According to numerous ICTY judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro).

This quote is sourced with those two links (HRW):

[24] [25]

Removal of this source is pure evidence of your vandalism. Why do you do that?

You also removed this sentence:

According to ICJ judgment, Serbia gave military and financial support to Serb forces which consisted of the Yugoslav People's Army (later Army of Serbia and Montenegro), the Army of Republika Srpska, the Serbian Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska and Serb Territorial Defense Forces. Croatia gave military support to Croat forces of self-proclaimed Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia. Bosnian government forces were led by the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Which is sourced with this link (ICJ):

[26]

I don't care about your fight with sockpuppets, that doesn't make you honest in this edit war because you were also sockpupet once, I condemn them as well as you, but they made very good point about your deletion. Would you please explain why did you remove all those sources HRW, ICTY and ICJ? Why do you do that? Be aware that these sources are most verifiable, neutral, and correct, there should be no discussion about that, or? --HarisM (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Haris, to begin with, it is very difficult to understand what your point is here. If we are going to have a dialogue here, it would be better if you were more systematic and structured. My reply to your comments above:

1. just because something is sourced it is not necessarily (a) NPOV or (b) justified to include in the article. A sourced statement can also be (c) interpreted incorrectly/misused.
2. I have no problem with the second quote you cite above starting "According to ICJ judgement..."

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict HarisM v Osli73

Haris, below are my main objections with the version of the article you are supporting. As you will see, these are the same issues I have had with User:Grandy Grandy/User:The Dragon of Bosnia earlier. If we are going to have any kind of productive discussion, I would ask you to please answer all of these in a systematic and concise manner.

1. Bosnian mujahideen: this should link to the specific article on the Bosnian mujahideen rather than the general article on volunteers. Your version deletes the link to this article.
2. International conflict: your version presents the war simplistically as an "international conflict" when in fact it was primarily a local conflict/civil war with some foreign involvement (on all sides).
3. Misrepresenting the ICJ judgement: your version states that the "ICJ effectively determined the war's nature to be international, thus exonerating Serbia of responsibility for the genocide committed by Serb forces". Not only does this not make sense it misrepresents the ICJ's conclusion. It did not state that it was an international conflict. Also, by not mentioning that the genocide the ICJ was referring to was the 1995 Srebrenica massacre he leads the reader to believe that it was referring to an alleged wider genocide during the war. By citing a number of war crimes ("Despite the evidence of widespread killings...") he calls into question the ICJ's judgement - a case of WP:OR.
4. Skewing civilian casualty numbers: by stating that "Of the 97,207 documented casualties, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks..." instead of being clear and saying "However, 83% of civilian victims were Bosniaks" you are misleading readers to assume that Bosniak victims were 83% of 97,207. You version also draws the conclusion that "The percentage of Bosniak victims would be higher had survivors of Srebrenica not reported 1,800 of their loved-ones as soldiers to access social services and other government benefits." Not only is the materiality of this deviation not determined, there is nothing stating that it would not apply to victims from the other sides of the war as well.
5. Mass rapes: your version includes a disproportionally long subsection of mass rapes during the war which is also porly sourced and overtly WP:POV.
6. Links: you version, again, excludes links to the Bosnian mujahideen article for no apparent reason.

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding you answer:

I have no problem with the second quote you cite above starting "According to ICJ judgement..."

Tell me, why do you have problem with the first quote then?

"According to numerous ICTY judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro)."

The above quote is in the spirit of neutrality, it is sourced with five different ICTY verdicts summarized in two HRW links:

[27] [28]

I will tell you what I think. Removing the first quote, is sneaky vandalism. You admitted that you don't have a problem with the second quote which has the same structure as the first one.

And please, if you want to discuss, you should first answer my questions, not just copy/paste your old story. That's just the way you avoid answering my question. You are too repetitive, and don't read others or even acknowledge them... --HarisM (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Haris,

1. Again, it's not very clear what quotes you are referring to or what questions you want me to answer.
2. Regarding the first and second quotes which you refer to, as I state above, I agree that outside countries were involved in the war, as determined by most commentators/historians. However, what I oppose is the description of the conflict as primarily an "international conflict" when in fact it was first and foremost a "civil war". The international involvement was secondary (or, at least until the very end of the conflict). That is what I mean and what I wanted to suggest with my edit.
3. The reason I am repeating the points I raise above is because you reverted to a version by User:Grandy Grandy / User:The Dragon of Bosnia in relation to which I had already raised and discussed these points. Since you are now supporting his old version, I raise the exact same issues again. They are still valid.
4. I do read you comments and arguments. However, I find it a bit difficult to answer them since I find them a bit unstructured and unclear.

CheersOsli73 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The ethnic map is showing 1981 census, not 1991

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Bih_1991.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.138.80 (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus about sources

Because of never ending edit warring in articles about Yugoslav Wars we have created consensus about sources for related articles. Sources in this list are not only sources because we are free to use any NPOV source but this one will be very hard to defeat with other sources.

vote:

Source	Mike Babic	Rjecina	Civilaffairs	DIREKTOR	HarisM	B.Fever	Berkowitz	Ijanderson977
Amnesty International	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK [1]	OK
Human Rights Watch	OK	OK	OK*	OK	OK	OK	OK [1]	OK
United Nations Security Council resolutions	OK	OK	OK-fact	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
United Nations General Assembly resolutions	OK	OK	OK-fact	OK	OK	OK	Depends [2]	OK
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
Helsinki Watch	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
ICTY court decisions	OK	OK	OK-fact	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
ICTY Self-incrimination	OK	OK	OK**	OK	OK	OK	Depends	OK
Report of Secretary-General to the Security Council:	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
BBC	Depends	OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK [3]	OK
CNN	Depends	OK	OK***	OK		OK	Depends [3]	Depends
New York Times	Depends	OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK	Depends
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
United Nations Commission on Human Rights	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
Reuters		OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK	OK
Agence France-Presse		OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK	OK
International Herald Tribune		OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK	OK
The Guardian		OK	OK***			OK	OK	OK
Sydney Morning Herald		No	OK***					OK

From vote it is possible to see that only Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations Security Council resolutions, United Nations General Assembly resolutions, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Helsinki Watch, ICTY court decisions, ICTY Self-incrimination, Report of Secretary-General to the Security Council, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has not recieved negative vote so we are having consensus about them.

It is important to notice that using for ICTY Self-incrimination is valid only like guilty plea or if there has been latter court action against Self-incrimination person.--Rjecina (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Strenght?

Hi everybody, I'm from the Dutch wikipedia and I'm having a presentation on the independence of Kosovo at college, so I ended up on this page. As far as I know it's not true that Bosnia had the most infantry, I've read it in a book about the Bosnian war, and there it said that Bosnia had the smallest amount of soldiers. I believe that they had an infantry of 90000 men, but I'm not sure. I guess the numbers on this wikipedia article are written by someone pro-Serb. But if somebody knows for sure, that these numbers are true I would like to know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.60.150 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Autumn

Autumn is a season betweeen winter and spring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.157.18 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

I looked up in the sources, and according to IDC which looks as most credible to me, IDC (Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo) and which is also mostly used in this article, and according to them 66 percent of victims were Bosniaks, 26 percent of victims were Serbs and 8 percent of victims were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people.

I couldn't find anywhere the composition of civil victims in the sources, so please, show me where it is.

Also, if it is about civil victims, and if it is correct, then the sentence "Of the 97,207 documented casualties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks, 10 percent of civilian victims were Serbs and more than 5 percent of civilian victims were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people." should be corrected, since there was 38,645 documented civilian victims, and not 97207 (that was total). -- Stijak (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since many civil victims on all sides were reported as military victims by their families, I propose that we write only about victims in total, although table can stay. -- Stijak (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The numbers about civilian casualties are presented in the below source, the very first source:

Of the civilians, 83 percent were Bosnian Muslims, 10 percent were Serbs and more than 5 percent were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Jews or Roma.

• www.iht.com - Bosnian War Victims

It is based on official IDC research used even by Serbian side in Bosnian genocide case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.75.202.131 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let it be your way, but, I corected the number in the same sentence to civilian victims, becouse it is distribution of civilian victims. -- Stijak (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The number 32,723 included by User Stijak is not correct number. It is not confirmed by the source. It is an old number for Bosniak civilians killed in the War not the number for overall casualties. Number of overall civilian victims is close to 40,000. As it is well known, many Serb civilians were killed by Serb forces located arount besieged towns (by snipers and Grenades), so the table about casulaties by warring sides should be corrected, because many Serbs and Croats were killed on Bosnian side and now they are included in Serbian or Croatian side. I examined the source, and couldn't find the number of civilians, just the sentece about percentage of civilians by ethnic groups. So it is the best not to include wrong numbers if it is not confirmed by the source. I have a research by IDC, about all victims, and if I find some free time, I will write those precise numbers and correct the table. Kruško Mortale (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But, read that sentence again, and now there is an impression that 97000 is civilian count, and, that of those 97000 83 percent were bosniaks, 10 percent were serbs, etc..., and that is just wrong. -- Stijak (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such impression to quote that part:

Recent research have shown that most of the 97,207 documented casualties (soldiers and civilians) during Bosnian War were Bosniaks (65%), with Serbs in second (25%) and Croats (8%) in third place.[11] However, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks, 10 percent were Serbs and more than 5 percent were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people.

It clearly says "that most of the 97,207 documented casualties (soldiers and civilians)". In the second sentence it says: However...etc.Kruško Mortale (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have problem with this statement, but, the statement you put on the page is completely different:"Of the 97,207 documented casualties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks, 10 percent of civilian victims were Serbs and more than 5 percent of civilian victims were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people." I will correct it to the statement in this talk page you wrote. -- Stijak (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That number 32.723 is the same source which claims this civilian distribution as it is in this sentence, so if you feel that this is not right, than you should correct distribution too. I agree that many civilian victims were interpreted as military, and probably vice versa, so it is not easy to say how many there were civilian victims. But, total number is much more confirmable, but, then, we should stick to total numbers and total victims distribution, and not mix both in the same sentence in this confusing way. -- Stijak (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The source clearly states the percentage of civilian victims by ethnic group, and we should stick to the source, nothing more, nothing less.Kruško Mortale (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As it is well known, many Serb civilians were killed by Serb forces located arount besieged towns (by snipers and Grenades), so the table about casulaties by warring sides should be corrected, because many Serbs and Croats were killed on Bosnian side and now they are included in Serbian or Croatian side. Kruško Mortale (talk)

It very hard to prove and come to correct numbers. Also, not all bosniaks were killed by the serbs. Not even by Serbs or Croatians, as bosniaks had two fractions for some time in the war, and probably some bosniaks were killed in their war. It is very bumpy ground and we shouldn't speculate how many people were killed in this conflicts. -- Stijak (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not bumpy ground, I have precise information about all the victims, including Fikret Abdic army, it was a small fraction located in a town of Velika Kladusa and a few villages. As I said, I will try to correct those numbers, but right now I am very busy. Please try to avoide speculation and controversy as you did now when you included number of 30,000-40,000, because there is stil 14,000 missing people not included in the victims statistics, so it is more likely to be 40,000 to 50,000...For know the only precise information is that IDC database has 97,700 names of all casualties and the process is not over yet, the number is growing every month...3 thousand names were added since Serbia used this information in Bosnian genocide case...Kruško Mortale (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent news from Reuters:

• Deaths in Vietnam, other wars undercounted - study, 19 June 2008:

“ In Bosnia, the researchers figured 176,000 war deaths, up from the 55,000 previous estimate. ”

"Bosnian War of Independence"

user:Ancient Land of Bosoni keeps changing the lead sentence to refer to the Bosnian War of Independence or Bosnian War of Liberation. I maintain that these changes are not only not necessary, but encyclopedic. There are no sources listed that reference this term. A google search on the following terms seems conclusive:

• "War in Bosnia" - 233,000
• "Bosnian War" - 233,000
• "Bosnian War of Independence" - 1,510
• "Bosnian War of Liberation" - 0

I know I'm at two reversions already, but unless I see some reliable sources that refer to this term, I'm going to keep reverting this per WP:NPOV. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If we look Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina then it is maybe possible to call this Bosnian War of Independence but because we are having article about War in Bosnia and Herzegovina (not in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) then this is not War of Independence.--Rjecina (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The google search result only supports my edits, the search shows that the term is used in several news articles. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please show me that the majority of reliable sources refer to the conflict as the "Bosnian War of Independence" rather than simply the "Bosnian War". // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is frankly unnecessary with you, it is obvious what side you are on. And you should know that encyclopedic articles are about the truth not choosing sides. Your arguments are so weak, not only the majority term should stand, but even less common variations. REVERT. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't produced a single source meeting reliable source criteria using the term "Bosnian War of Independence". // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rape section

I've also removed several detailed paragraphs on mass rapes. We currently have three detailed and well-sourced paragraphs discussing this issue. The additional paragraphs go into incredible detail on individual cases, and I can't see how they are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okey, I've had it with you frankly. Could you honestly tell me what your problem is? 1. Stop spending so much time on controlling this article and reverting everything in favour of hiding crimes and minimalizing serb attrocities. You seem biased! 2. The individual cases are not there for the details' sake, but to show the terrible and vile degree of pepreation on the civilian population. Sometimes examples give the reader the best understanding and feeling of what was going on. REVERT. p.s Do you really believe I will let you revert hours of work just like that? Dream on. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know wether you lack compassion, understanding, or what, but the reader needs (and most want) graphical explainations of examples, to get a serious grip and understanding of the extent of inhumanity. The examples are merely used for this crucial purpous. An encyclopedic article is the border between fact and litterature, it must be dynamic, and not only static. No reader should leave this article without having A FULL INSIGHT INTO the lives of these women under captivity. We owe it to them, the truth, the factuality and the reader. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now elaborated on the significance of the case study. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why this section needs to be included in this article. There's a whole article on Mass rape in the Bosnian War which would be a much more appropriate place for this material. This article is supposed to be a top-level overview of the subject; details like this belong in subarticles. I'm not going to remove it again, but if you're not willing to remove it and nobody else chimes in, I'm willing to start an RFC on the material. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the removal. I completly forgot the fact that there is a main article on the subject. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, glad we could work this out! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do too. I just visited this page for the first time, and while I completely sympathize with the psychological and moral issues inherent in rape in general and mass rape in particular, I think that the divergence into individual, specific cases (and the endless restatement) actually undermines the scope and brutality of what happened here. Rape is never "okay," but conducted on this scale, it is far worse, and this article is most effective when it focuses on that point (i.e. seven out of every 100 Bosniak women, resulting fear of men and sex, etc.). Jsamans (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading this page for the first time I must say this section seems very badly written, no offense intended, with inconsistencies such as saying girls as young as 15 in one place then later saying as young as 12 and 14, and multiple instances of the same sentence. It badly needs cleaning in my view which I will do later in the week if no one objects that it needs doing? --Curuxz (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In Mass rape and psychological oppression (reference to a movie)

The reference [67] concerning the mass rape in War crimes section is a reference to a movie Grbavica. Although the movie (Grbavica) is nice, it can not serve as a reference to a real event, unless it is a documentary, which this movie is not. I would suggest to remove this reference or replace it with appropriate one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.180.87.254 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the movie reference, since no one seems to have objections or other ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanenbau (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good move if it's not a documentary. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of army tanks posessed by the ArBiH in the beginning and during the war

Users have written everything from 100 tanks in the end of the conflict to a total of 850 in the end. I say the figure was 0 tanks posessed in the beginning of the conflict, and an amount of 100 tanks possesed at the end of the war. This is at least what I've always heard from various sources. I will however admit that I can't find any source of the number of tanks in the beginning (no one seems to), but from expirience the Bosniaks were left without any heavy artillery or tanks in the beginning. During the war they conquered tanks from croats and serbs? Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If no one soon joins the discussion (and shows engagement) I will have to interpret this as okey for me to write my oppinion. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

-> the bosniaks had in the beginning of the war only a small number of tanks, but a year later, the NATO and the islamic countries had bought so much tanks that they were really strong. 100 tanks is not realistic, in my opinion. they also conquered weaons from the croats and serbs, that's right. the number of 850 tanks seems not to be too much, the infantery is also wrong - they had in the last two years especially very good weapons, and were stronger than the VRS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.46.55 (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I decided on writing that the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina obtained 100 or more tanks at the end of conflict and much fewer at the beginning. As for the infantery I'm unsure. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

-> They had many soldiers - more than Croats and Serbs together. I think they had 200,000 or more men unter weapons. By the way, the number of serbian tanks is very wrong, they didn't had 750 tanks. A more realistic number: 280 tanks. ->see here [http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Army_of_Republika_Srpska ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.21.180 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read the article, but it doesn't cite any sources at all. How, and can we, trust what says there? Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

-> because there it has to be logically, the serbs hadn't got 750 tanks, thats a dream and propaganda... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.55.134 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Koridor 92

This article is incomplete with out some sort of analysis of this important Bosnian Serb offensive... Maybe someone could translate the one in Croatian, Serbian, or Bosnian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.192.57 (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

impartial article

"Much of this is due to the fact that they were much better armed and organized than the Bosniak and Bosnian Croat forces. Attacks also included areas of mixed ethnic composition. Doboj, Foča, Rogatica, Vlasenica, Bratunac, Zvornik, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Kljuc, Brcko, Derventa, Modrica, Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Brod, Bosanski Novi, Glamoc, Bosanski Petrovac, Cajnice, Bijeljina, Višegrad, and parts of Sarajevo are all areas where Serbs established control and expelled Bosniaks and Croats. Also areas in which were more ethnically homogeneous and were spared from major fighting such as Banja Luka, Bosanska Dubica, Bosanska Gradiska, Bileca, Gacko, Han Pijesak, Kalinovik, Nevesinje, Trebinje, Rudo saw their non-Serb populations expelled. Similarly, the regions of central Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo, Zenica, Maglaj, Zavidovici, Bugojno, Mostar, Konjic, etc.) saw the flight of its Serb population, migrating to the Serb-held areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

-from this we can understand the serbs killed and expelled bosnians and croatians from the lands which they occupied unlike the bosnians who did nothing to harm the serbian population inhabiting the mentioned regions.So the serbs just packed up and left,unharmed,while the bosnians were slaughtered and chased away?let us be realistic...both sides share the same amount of guilt,the civilian population of both sides has suffered,not only the bosnians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexv123 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

-I agree with you. War is not so simple as this article claims, and the Bosnian War is not a surrogate for, say, the Nazi invasion of Poland (which was so one-sided as to defy analysis). I'd also like to see more attention paid to the role that the NATO countries had in effectively preventing the Bosnian government from defending its own citizens, through the imposition of arms embargos that virtually everyone recognizes has minimal effect on the Serbs or Croats. Jsamans (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "RDC" :
  • Research and Documentation Center; "The Status of Database by the Centers"; current - January 2007 [http://www.idc.org.ba/aboutus/Overview_of_jobs_according_to_%20centers.htm]
  • Research and Documentation Center; "The Status of Database by the Centers"; current [http://www.idc.org.ba/aboutus/Overview_of_jobs_according_to_%20centers.htm]

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New Image

Dunno where to put it, but I took it at the Newseum in DC and it might add something to the article. Thanks! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Manjaca camp.gif

The image Image:Manjaca camp.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Serb populated lands and Dayton Accords

At the time of signing the Dayton Accords, Croat-Bosniak federation held about 55% of teritories, and Serbs held only 45% (you can check that in Holbrooke memoirs). Basicly in DA Serbs got Mrkonjić, Šipovo, Ribnik (and some villages around there) which vere prevously serb populated, and some villages around Krupa and ozren, while they returned Odžak (croatian municipality), some croatian villages around Šamac, ethnicly mixed region around Sarajevo (only Ilijaš had serbian majority, everything else had Bosniak) coridor to Goražde and some serb and bosniak villages in eastern Herzegovina (around Mostar and Konjic).
So statment "Serb faction forced to concede Serb populated land to a Bosniak-Croat federation" is false. Also prior to DA serbs removed Croat/Bosniak population from large parts of BiH, most notable Posavina, eastern Bosnia, Prijedor region as some towns in Bosnian Krajina.
In DA Serbs got (in percents) large tracts of land, more that they controled at the moment but lost important town areas in Sarajevo. Croats had given majority of the land and get practily nothing in return (few villages in Posavina) and Bosniaks profited the most. They've gotten key areas around Sarajevo, coridor to last remaining eastern bosnian enclave and some key positions on the mountins of Eastern Herzegovina while they've given little or almost nothing for it regarding to military state on the fild.

• Regarding prewar situation by DA serbs gained key towns and positions in northern (Posavina, Prijedor ...) and Eastern Bosnia, while loosing some sparcely inhabited towns/villages near Croat BiH border in western Bosnia).
• Bosniaks gained some sparcely inhabited (by Serbs) land in Western Bosnia (Petrovac), lots of lands in Central Bosnia (mostly Croat) and Northern/Eastern Herzegovina (Croat in Northern, serb in Eastern), and area around Sarajevo while they almost lost whole of Eastern Bosnia, key towns of Northwestern Bosnia (Prijedor), and some area in Southern Herzegovina (town of Stolac where they returned after the war).
• Croats ethnicly lost the most; almost whole of Posavina (they had some small villages/enclaves left there by the border), large parts of Central Bosnia which where one day part of Banovina Croatia (towns of Bugojno, Travnik, Fojnica...)and area of Vareš-Sutjeska beyond that, and some villages of Northern Herzegovina (Konjic villages, Bijelo Polje, etc), while they gained control of the mountinous lands near croatian-BiH border northern of Livno and old-town of Stolac (most of the municipal villages had Croat majority prewar), while also loosing some Croat villages in Eastern Herzegovina (near Stolac and Ravno).

Summary: Croats lost the most by DA (but they gotten peacfull reintegration of Eastern Slavonia in Croatia), Serbs had some changes and were given the quantity over quality, while Bosniaks were given quality of the land while recognising there war loses agains the serbs and conquest agains Croats. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)--Čeha

Result conclusion removal by Nirvana77

I decided to re-insert text written by user:R-41, and deleted by user:Nirvana77 in the template, because Deyton agreement was not the only result of the war. Historičar (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to my version. Please try to read comentars above and stop revert war (both of the sides) ! --Čeha (razgovor) 21:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Users Historičar and Čeha want to change result from simply Dayton Accords to "Internal partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to the Dayton Accords, Serb faction forced to concede Serb populated land to a Bosniak-Croat federation. Massive civilian casualties for the Bosniak faction, many thousands flee their homes either due to ethnic cleansing or flee the country as refugees." I would like to see a change "many thousands flee their homes either due to ethnic cleansing or flee the country as refugees." to "millions of refugees" considering it was recorded around 1,326,000 refugees, and not thousands. --Nirvana77 (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You could have read my version before you puted my changes in the same basket as Historičar's :D
My change is "Internal partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to the Dayton Accords . Massive civilian casualties for the Bosniak faction, many thousands flee their homes either due to ethnic cleansing or flee the country as refugees."
Because Serbs goted more land than they given, and only minority of that what they returned was prewar serbian inhabited land.
As for milions, if it is one million than it is not many of them. Could hundreds of thousands be more apropriate definition ?--Čeha (razgovor) 13:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentance "over a million refugees created" would work? The rest i have no or little issues with it at the moment, but others might have. --Nirvana77 (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be apropriate ?
"Internal partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to the Dayton Accords . Massive civilian casualties for the Bosniak faction and over a million BiH citizens (of all nacionalities) fled their homes either due to ethnic cleansing or as refugees."
If somebody has an issue he/she should then discuss it on the talk pages:)
--Čeha (razgovor) 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is good proposal. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing was not the only reason why people fleed the country. Refugees is a natural element of any war, with ethnic cleansing or not. "Internal partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to the Dayton Accords . Massive civilian casualties for the Bosniak faction and over a million refugees created." is better in my opinion.

Eric's edits

Hi there, I've taken the liberty of making some changes to the introduction.

• it was a bit confusing that the intro first states that it was an intl. conflict and then goes on to say that the Operation Deliberate Force internationalized the conflict. I've basically stated that it was a war between the three ethnic groups with the Serbs and Croats supported by their 'mother countries' (though without stating to what extent).
• i've deleted the long harangue about ICJ rulings and tried to summarize it to make it an easier read.

Hope to have improved the introduction. Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikarver (talk • contribs) 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not confusing, because there is an explanation just after the first sentence. Historičar (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Map of genocide in RS

[29]--Čeha (razgovor) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Chetnik cabal rules in the site

Wikipedia: one of the few places in the Universe where the NATO bombing of Serbia is considered “a worse war crime” than the Srebrenica Massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.86.134 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

About the names of the Yugoslav wars

Why the war in Bosnia is called "Bosnian war" and the war in Croatia is called "Croatian war of Independence"? The Bosnian war was also a war for the independence. --190.172.241.209 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Osli73 - sockpuppet

It's proven that Osli73 is a sockpuppeteer of many accounts he used in editing Bosnian related articles. The last one is: user:Erikarver, for more information go to: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Osli73_(2nd). So I ask admins to be more carefull regarding Osli73. As you can see, his last edit was to delete a huge portion based on WP:RS: [30], because he is acting according to Serbian propaganda, which is trying to remove information related to war crimes committed by the Serbs and its role in Bosnian war. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is removing information as a consequence of exposure to Serbian propanganda any less valid than adding it in the first place as a consequence of exposure to Anglo-American/Croatian/Bosniak propaganda? It should not be assumed that the Serbians are somehow the only people capable of such things. Matisia (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why only the Croatian war is called "of indipendence" and not the same for the Bosnian war?

NOT NEUTRAL: Why only the Croatian war is called "of indipendence"? Maybe the the Bosnians lost, but it was the same a war of indipendence. Thanks DCGIURSUN (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

They just don't call it like that themselves. No NPOV point here in my opinion.--Dans (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Look Kruško, first of all, you're reverting uncontroversial improvements to the article alongside that which you dispute. Is it too much trouble to edit the article and change only that which you don't agree with, or do you have to remove the entry of AP Western Bosnia and the addition of the {{noflag}} template for NATO?

Second, here's the disputed text:

"The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was at the time was not supported by the majority of Bosnian Croats and Serbs (who each had their own hostile entities). Consequently, it was representative mainly of the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) ethnic group in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself. The post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina encompasses all three Bosnian ethnic groups."

Exactly which part of these three sentences are you disputing as "incorrect"? Last time I checked there was bloody WAR between the RBiH government and its ethnic Bosnian Serb population. To say that the government didn't have support among its Serbian population is a damn understatement, and you are disputing it? This note is essential for understanding this complex conflict.
Also, would you kindly explain what all this has to do with the UN and its recognition of RBiH ("...if you have any other argument that RB&H wasn't UN member provide it")? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not followed the chronology lately, but I can get Kruško's point: RBiH was the only internationally-recognized government by that time, subject of an aggression war (as per OSCE definition). So, the note seems not very useful to me too: if we want to specify other facts related to separatism, we'd better put it in the text of the article.--Dans (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as I said before, this has nothing to do with international recognition (which is not disputed). This is a simple note pointing out that RBiH did not have the support of its Croatian and Serbian populations (in fact, its Croatian and Serbian population nearly wiped it out, ffs). Its is absolutely essential to understand that, de facto, the RBiH was primarily a Bosniak faction in this war. Should this point be elaborated further and more thoroughly in the text? Absolutely. Isn't it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Federation or Republic?

Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Flag of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (The modern state is not a "republic".)

Now I know someone will protest about this, so I'm asking the question in advance: what was the relationship between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina between March 1994 and December 14, 1995, i.e. between the Washington Agreement and the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords?

Its a bit of a confusing legal point. The territory under the control of the hostile CR Herzeg-Bosnia and Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was united by the Washington Agreement into the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
1) Was the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina formed as an entity within the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina already in 1994 in Washington? (This seems to me illogical and unlikely, because the Bosnian Croats are unlikely to have agreed on submitting outright to the RBiH government. The naming also would make no sense: who plans on creating an entity under virtually the same name as the state its part of, unless its a desperate move in Dayton?)
2) Or was the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina essentially renamed into the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina upon merging with the territory of CR Herzeg-Bosnia? (which lasted up to the Dayton Peace Accords.)

This is significant for the new infobox, which specifically addresses the period of 1994-1995. Which flag and which entity should we use in that period? The RBiH or the FBiH? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Federation was just internal organization in the areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a majority Bosniac and Croat population. Here is agreement, I will ask you kindly to stop vandalizing this article with lies and other Forgery! [31] Kruško Mortale (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, we've determined the status of the FBiH prior to Dayton, thank you. Now since the Bosniak and Croatian forces assisted each-other in offensives in 1994 and 1995, and attacked Serbs in coordination with each other (see sources in the Operation Storm article) we can list them properly as joint combatants in 1994-1995. They were certainly no longer at war after Washington, so listing them as opposed forces while in fact they were cooperating and planning offensives in concert would be misleading. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Massive Rape in Bosnian war

The text only cites Serbs raping Bosnian women. This is not the same as what the linked, expanded article says. So there must be a problem here somewhere with neautrality.

From the expanded article on Bosnian war rapes: "During the Bosnian War many women were raped on all sides. Estimates of the numbers raped range from range from 20,000 to 50,000" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.130 (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the text, removing the section that is missing references. It now has the same referenced sentence of the expanded article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.130 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)