# Talk:Croatia–Serbia border dispute

Excellent job - as always!
Some remarks:

My understanding is that the Serbian claim is based on the Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia (a.k.a. Badinter Arbitration Committee). The relation between the BAC ruling and the claim(s) is perhaps not fully clear from the text.
There is a nice source that might be used if it's not redundant (not sure, haven't checked): http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=158656
I seem to remember an interesting story about how the border was drawn by the Đilas commission. Some time in 1945 or '46, Đilas and the others simply sat in a jeep and drove through the region, visiting village after village and asking who lived there, Croats or Serbs. Can't really find a source for it, and it doesn't really matter since the article sums it up accordingly ("primarily on ethnic principles").
I'd add a word or two on how the dispute affects the local population (chiefly the landowners).
Not sure about the organization of sections - it appears a bit unnatural that the article ends with a section named "Start of the dispute". This might be important for context too.
B Class through and through, quite obviously GA-bound and almost there. GregorB (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.
The BAC did not say anything about where the borders were, just that they were inviolable. I'll clarify that bit.
Thanks for the new source, I'll have a look.
Regarding organisation of sections, I thought to have a section describing the subject-matter, and then how it came about, i.e. I wanted to avoid overly long introductions. I admit the arrangement is not the most common, but I guess I'll get more feedback at GA and later on.
The source used (Fontes) retells the story on Đilas, but I rather summed it up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That's correct, the BAC ruled on principles, not on actual border lines - but I seem to have gotten the Serbian position wrong, they apparently reject the BAC findings.[1] GregorB (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That's right. Serbia itself asked the BAC to rule on the Issue no.3 (borders) and then disliked the outcome and rejected BAC findings in consequence. The BAC work is relevant to the dispute only in the extent that it determines that the borders defined post-1945, are in force post-1991 - wherever they may be.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree. GregorB (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Actualy the BAC has not ruled on anything. The principles they have used are contradictory to constitution of the SFRY. Second, you cannot cut something in half and observe only one half. As commission could rule on events in '90, they had to look for a cause. And cause starts in 1918 when Croats and Serbs were 50:50 in territory of SHS. Thus, first and foremost Serbs are not minority in Croatia but constitutive people - this first item is being pounded down to Earth, revealing bias of the commission. second, there is no oxford comma in Serb-Croatian, as Croatian constitution was interpreted. I purposely write "interpreted", as the commission was from its start biased. Furthermore the commission does not have any legal "weight" Pixius  talk 15:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Croatia–Serbia border dispute/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: WritingEnthusiast14 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are my comments and decision on this article:

Is the article well-written? - There's not really any outstanding issues that are worthy of a fail, but there's some minor ones. Here's a couple:
Under the "Recent Developments" section, there's a sentence that says "By 2011, Serbian diplomats made several requests to the EU, asking it to pressure Croatia to resolve the dispute before Croatia's accession to the union out of fear that it might follow the Slovene example and stall Serbian accession similar to the impasse between Croatia and Slovenia over their border disputes and the subsequent blockade of the Croatian EU accession negotiation process." This sentence is very long and seems a bit run-on to me, so I'd suggest clarifying it and breaking it up into smaller sentences.
Under the "Start of the dispute" section, there's a sentence that says "No further changes to the border were agreed." As a matter of professionalism, I think there should probably be an "upon" at the end of this sentence. However, I already took the liberty of adding that myself.
Is the article verifiable? - Yes.
Is the article broad? - Yes.
Is the article neutral? - Yes.
Is the article stable? - Yes.
Is the article illustrated by images with proper license information? - Yes.
Final decision - As I mentioned above, there's some minor issues, but I really don't think they're outstanding enough to warrant a fail or "On Hold". Therefore, I'll  Pass this article, but I would recommend fixing the run-on I mentioned above and perhaps briefly scanning over the article briefly for clarity. Thanks, --Writing Enthusiast (talk | contribs) 18:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegedly, Croation police have prevented people from entering Siga. Now, I know we can't point out in the article that this means they're claiming sovereignty over it (until someone else points this out), but doesn't it deserve a mention at least?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.207.45 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 

That could also mean the police prevented someone from crossing the border claimed by Croatia - the article says the journalists tried to access the area overland (undisputedly Croatian territory), not directly by crossing the Danube (i.e. the line claimed by Serbia as the border). I think this event should be noted, but at the Liberland article instead.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Croatia–Serbia border dispute. 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 http://www.afp.com/en/news/polish-tourists-proclaim-kingdom-enclava
Corrected formatting/usage for http://enclava.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There's been some back-and-forth about the inclusion or not of various micronations which claim land on the Croatia-Serbia border. Specifically, accounts with an association to a Republic of Kekistan have been inserting references to this micronation into the article. The two references they supply are a link to the UK Russian embassy tweeting the hashtag #FreeKekistan, and an article on the Republic's website which discusses this tweet. Kekistan is a meme which has gained widespread attention, and this micronation seem to have attached themselves to the meme to feed from its popularity. Kekistan has been discussed online since February 2017 whereas this micronation was founded in March or April 2017. I think it is very unlikely that the Russian embassy was referring to this micronation when they tweeted about Kekistan. Even if this was the case, being mentioned once in a tweet from an embassy Twitter account is no proof of international recognition. Since there have been no neutral, notable sources provided which discuss this micronation, I would argue that it is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Lost kettle (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Re the Croat-Serbia page, as can be seen from the user "Lost Kettle"'s profile description, mentioning green people, and a reference to the PCF, he is biased. His profile description details are a mockery of us. He even literally stalked me in person, and seems to be mentally unhinged. He just tweeted abuse at us. The edit has a reference, and should not be deleted - the Kekistan comment has more substance than the Autia comment which is there. Ericmbana (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I always try to assume good faith but this is stretching credulity. I set out an argument, based on evidence, in line with Wikipedia policies on sourcing and notability, as to why the 'Republic of Kekistan' is not notable. In response you start talking about "green people" and "PCF" - and then make wild accusations of stalking and Twitter abuse. Nothing in your reply addressed the crux of my argument: Kekistan is not notable. As corroborating evidence, an attempted article on Kekistan has just been deleted as an "obvious hoax". The fact that the "Sovereign Order of Kekistan" have responded by trying to organise a protest at Wikipedia HQ strongly suggests that you were never intending to contribute seriously to Wikipedia, but were trolling or attempting a publicity stunt. Lost kettle (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
A valid reference has been removed, which has more substance than other details on the page, such as of Autia, and further it is clear that "Lost Kettle" user has a bias from the comments on his profile user description, and his tweeting of us. He is a stalker, who has even harassed us in person. In fact, we think he is mentally unbalanced. A ban is due: three-revert rule says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Ericmbana (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
We may need to get input from other editors in order to reach a consensus here. I suggest posting a neutrally worded request for comment on some of the related wiki projects. If all else fails you can post an RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
(to Ericmbana) As you correctly point out, the three-revert rule says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page. I have emphasised the relevant part of the wording for you: more than. I made three reverts. Three. Three is not more than three. The rest of your comment is yet more personal attacks on me, and a call to have me banned. You seem to be "triggered", as the online vernacular would put it. I refer you to WP:PA, which prohibits among other things "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." The policy goes on to add "Serious accusations require serious evidence." You make some very serious accusations ("a stalker", "harrassed us in person") but you provide no evidence at all to back up your claims. At least when you claimed Russia recognised your micronation, you offered something tenuously related to your statement. Lost kettle (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no basis for the referenced mention of Kekistan to have been removed, while the unreferenced Autia remains. Hence a comment request has been made to hist/pol. Ericmbana (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

 If this continues I am going to start handing out blocks. Please seek consensus here on the talk page. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a border dispute between two countries, not necessarily about the unrecognized micronations that have formed as a result. Focusing so much on the micronations is in my opinion WP:UNDUE. I propose reverting to the article as it was a few years ago, with the exception of a sentence or two saying that several micronations have been declared as a result of the ambiguity of delineation. Thoughts? 23 editor (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned in my edit summary, I have removed claims about other micronations. The Enclava AFP source mentions the Slovenian border, not the Serbian one, and Verdis' coverage (Buzzara) is not a reliable source (RS). Liberland is obviously not the first nor the last micronation to claim that pocket, but since I'm having trouble finding any RS at all tying the others to the Siga pockets, I've decided to leave it all to conform with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMO. Inviting Thonkingman to make his/her case for the inclusion of less important micronations and their names. Daß Wölf 03:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Buzzara RTL is a reliable source. It's approved for Google Inclusion and is part of the RTL Group which is a major news organization in Europe. It is a reliable source, therefore things shouldn't be reverted on the dispute page. - Thonkingman

Buzzara is part of the tabloid side of the RTL website, so what's written in it probably has basis in facts, but the lack of fact checking and the fact that the site section in question deals with "viral" news ("Virealno") makes it impossible to rely on it to establish facts, notability and especially relevance. Remember that this article isn't about micronations, it's about a border dispute that happened to "involve" a micronation in that said micronation broke into the 24-hour news cycle. The one you want mentioned didn't even do that. Daß Wölf 09:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I support removing reference to this Vardis nonsense. The article was recently deleted and it appears to just be some sort of project that a group of people are trying to push. The fact that it relies on such unconvincing reference further evidences this. Île flottante (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Additionally to clarify: a website is not considered a reliable source simply because it appears on Google or because it's published by a major organisation. For example, Daily Mail, The Sun, Breitbart etc. are all considered unreliable. Tabloids in general aren't considered reliable sources. On WP:RS section WP:NEWSORG, in particular: "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact" ... "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." ... "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Daß Wölf 08:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
This article has been getting spammed by the micronation creator for a couple months now. While I think it's blindingly obvious vandalism at this point I'm right at WP:3RR so I won't revert it again just in case this is viewed as an edit war, and have also requested longer page protection. SportingFlyer T·C 03:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer, Bradv,  and Joy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Ongal (2nd nomination) was closed as Redirect rather than Delete, so I believe that this page ought to mention its name, perhaps simply as "The other pockets west of the Danube have similarly been claimed as micronations named Ongal[2] and Enclava[3]." – Fayenatic London 08:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
In retrospect, this was all pretty much a WP:NOT#NEWS violation and might as well be deleted. It was a one-time weird event that just lost relevance after just a few years. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I would have !voted delete and would err on the side of not including it at all since it's exceptionally trivial. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, would you mind taking Principality of Ongal and Kingdom of Enclava to WP:RFD for deletion? For info, I came across them via Category:Danubian micronations; if two redirects get deleted, the category will become pointless for navigation so I'll nominate it to be merged to parents. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
They're not mentioned in the article so an RFD would be easy, but I don't care all that much. That category fails WP:SMALLCAT regardless even without the redirects. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Verdis. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for Verdis, Enclava and Ongal were kept per consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_25#Princedom_of_Ongal.  – Fayenatic London 17:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the region both on Google Earth and OpenStreetMap,there doesn't seem to be a pocket of disputed territory on the western side of the Danube located just south of Batina, where "pocket 1" is labeled in the Wikipedia map, while there is another pocket on the western side, right across Apatin, which is not shown in the Wikipedia map. 181.23.134.39 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you're right, the maps I could find past that e.g. https://geoportal.dgu.hr/ also don't match Wikipedia's map. I don't know how to edit images very well, so if another editor could perhaps make it more accurate, that'd be nice. Qoppa-kappa (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Principality of Ongal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 31 § Principality of Ongal until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 08:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)