# Talk:Baćin massacre

Requires substantial clarification. If 56 were killed at Krečane, how many were killed at Hrvatska Dubica and Cerovljani and which killings are taken into account so that a total figure of 83 killed can be reached?  23 editor (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed 56 bodies were recovered from the mass grave at Krečane. However, a number of people were not buried - their bodies were thrown into Una (and there was possibility that the river flow washed away a number of bodies in the period while the bodies were left unburied or from the shallow grave at Krečane - not my "research" but an ICTY conclusion contained in the Martić vertict). This is to say that the number of 56 is correct as far as the number of exhumed bodies at Krečane. The number of 83 killed (at the minimum) at Krečane on the same day or around that day was produced at the Martić trial (referenced inline) consisting of 43 detained in Dubica, 30 in Baćin (admittedly 2 of those 30 were buried in Dubica and 1 in Baćin itself), and 10 from Cerovljani. The figure was, of course, limited to those persons whose death was ascertained by the ICTY beyond reasonable doubt - others are excluded. Perhaps the article would benefit from a simple (or simpler) clarification than this, so if you could chip in, I'd be most grateful. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense now. As far as simpler clarification is concerned, my knowledge about the events in question is admittedly very limited, so I don't think I have much to offer here other than some brief copy-editing. 23 editor (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad that you pointed out the bit that needed to be clarified. Also, I really appreciate your copyedits - those really help improve readability of text I contribute. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Baćin massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/03/world/belgrade-sends-troops-to-croatia-town.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/02/world/rebel-serbs-complicate-rift-on-yugoslav-unity.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206043704/http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2762010/domovinskirat.asp to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2762010/domovinskirat.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206034515/http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2872010/domovinskirat.asp to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2872010/domovinskirat.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206043623/http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2922010/domovinskirat.asp to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2922010/domovinskirat.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)