Talk:Croatian War of Independence/Archive 1

message: I changed the intro somewhat and added a "prelude" section, which should explain the background a bit more; I hope you'd agree.
I find the explanation of JNA's role in the article somewhat confusing. My point is: at one point, JNA ceased to exist and was "officially" withdrawn from Croatia. Thus, Serbian forces in Croatia were, theoretically, operating independently, as Milošević did not want to "involve Serbia in war". I don't recall, however, when that happened, but it should be explained in the article. 
Also, I think the Dubrovnik episode is somewhat unconnected with the rest of the war, and few words can be spared on that. By my reckoning, that adventure was semi-independently initiated by JNA headquarters in Montenegro and Montenegrin government. Is there a separate article on that? Duja 15:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JNA role 

message: Hrvatska je htjela samostalnost pa otuda i naziv.Boris Živ
Ovo nije Hrvatska Wikipedija, ako nisi mozda primjetio. Mozemo mi da kazemo da je i rat u Bosni bio rat za Veliku Srbiju i Veliku Hrvatsku, ali to se nikom ne bi svidjelo osim bosancima. Jedan Boris drugome: lijepo je sto ste nazvali ovaj rat Domovinski, bas ste me dirnuli, ali nemojte prevoditi takve stvari na engleski, glupo zvuci, OK? Htjeli ste da se odvojite i tocka, cak se i u samom clanku spominje Secession, it was a war of secession. Hvala. --serbiana - talk 01:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a discussion about how to name this article. And we reached a consensus. If you wish to change the name of this article, please discuss it first. Thanks. --Dijxtra 02:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O nazivu Croatian War of Independence 

message: I am starting a new discussion about the title of the article, since the previous discussion has been from the croatian POV. There are few possibilities on how to name the article
* Croatian War (most google hits)
* Croatian Secession War
* Croatian War of Secession
* Croatian War of Independence
* Croatian "Homeland" War 
* Croatian Separatist War
* Croatian War of Separation 
* Croatian War of Separation from Yugoslavia
* Separatism War against Croatian Serbs
* Croatian Patriotic War of Secession
* Croatian Chauvinistic War of Secession
* Croatian Nationalistic War
* Croatian National War 
* Serbo-Croatian War
* Croatian War against SFRY
* Croatian anti-Serbian War 
* Croatian war of national purification
* Croatian Ethnic-cleansing War
... (other suggestions, please add)
Praviljno 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a life. And info on the legal stuff re Yu dissolution ,  Mir Harven 22:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  for the name Serbo-Croatian War--TheFEARgod 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Since this war had many different aspects, a think that the most neutral name for it is War in Croatia or Croatian war. --Marko M 09:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm unconvinced that this should be a separate article from Yugoslav wars, which I've most often encountered as the Wars of Yugoslav Succession. I think most English readers would have a hard time thinking of this as separate from the neighboring conflict in Bosnia. --Msr657 22:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Straw poll on the title of the article 

message: The information content of this article is good, however I have noticed many small spelling and syntactical errors. I'll fix any of these that I find, but I'm sure I can't get them all. I don't know enough Wikipedia code to post the cleanup banner on the article, and I'm not sure the amount of errors is great enough to merit it anyway, I just thought I'd post this in case anyone else might feel that such an action is neccessary. Schnabeltier Angriff 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Cleanup 

message: The title of the article should be changed to "War in Croatia", which is an objective and NPOV title. Current title is disputed and based on nationalistic view of HDZ political party from Croatia. It is disputed whether this war was "war of independence" or civil war between HDZ government and ethnic Serb citizens of Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement is a bit false. The government which was in power at the moment the war started was not HDZ government, it was coalition govermnet, "Government of National Unity" which had even Zdravko Tomac of SDP as deputy prime minister. Therefore, it was not HDZ government. Just to make things clear. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And here is my basic point why this was not "independence war": if somebody fight for independence, then must be another side in that war that dispute this independence to him. But, there was not such other side in this war. Other side in this war did not disputed Croatian independence, but only Croatian control over territory of Krajina. So, how can somebody to fight for independence if nobody dispute that independence to him? PANONIAN (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, again, false that nobody disputed independence of Croatia. Veljko Kadijević, the most powerful man in JNA, disputed it. It is simply not true that the conflict was a plane and simple civil war. It ended as civil war between brakeaway municipalities which formed Republic of Serb Krajina, but it started as war for independence since JNA aimed to topple down the Zagreb government and secure the status quo. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And by the way, in the Croatian language, this war is called "domovinski rat", which does not mean "war for independence", but "war for homeland". It was not war for independence, but for borders of Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the previous discusion we had about this. It is on the top of this talk page. Thank you. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, the war did had element of independece war in its beginning when Croat troops fougth against Yugoslav army, but since Yugoslav leadership decided to "let Croatia go away", the war became a civil war between Croatian government and Serbs of Krajina, and later even a war for Greater Croatia when regular Croatian army went to Bosnia to fight against Bosnian Serb Army. So, the complexity of this war really cannot be explained by words "independence war". PANONIAN (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice, here we agree that the war started as a war of independence and that it ended as civil war. --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Afrika paprika (I know that it is you here), it is you who deleting word "Serbs" from various articles. Seems that you want to delete entire Serb history to show that Serbs actually yesterday came from another planet and that lands that they inhabit actually "always" belonged to their neighbours (including Croats of course). A clear example of chauvinism. Regarding the question when exactly leadership of Yugoslavia decided to "let Croatia go away", I do not know exact date, but it was in 1991, before Croatia was internationally recognized as independent. Also, SFR Yugoslavia ceased to exist only in spring 1992 when it was transformed into FR Yugoslavia. Do you want to say that Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia were part of Serbia before 1991-1992 and that they fought for independence from Serbia? No, they were part of Yugoslavia, as was Serbia all this time. Regarding indictments of Milošević and others, these indictments exactly claim that they were connected one with another like the people in gang, and only thing that was "proved" in their indictments are their "personal connections", so accusing state of Serbia which even did not had an army before 2006 for these wars is ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Bla, bla, bla (that is the value of your "oppinion" about my "desperate" personality), and now concrete things: Yugoslavia had 6 republics, thus if 2 of them declared independence in 1991, the rest four did not, and the country still existed. Later, two more republics (BIH and Macedonia) declared independence, while Serbia and Montenegro proclaimed creation of new federation, and that is what made end of SFRY. Your claim that "FR Yugoslavia that was founded in 1992 was not the successor state to the SFR Yugoslavia" exactly prove my point that creation of FRY marked an end of SFRY. PANONIAN (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No. The Milosević's aims were to abuse power as long as he can and to gain personal benefit from it. He never cared for any ideological cause (such is "Greater Serbia"). He was nothing but old-fashioned Mafia-boss that became a president. It is simple as that. He simply used Serbs that lived in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo to stay in power. That is the whole story of Milošević, and by the way, Franjo Tuđman was another Mafia-boss and he was very appreciative business partner to Milošević. PANONIAN (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? You are suggesting that Milosevic as president of Serbia and later FRY didn't finance the Krajina and had nothing to do with the plan to connect Krajina, RS and FRY in one entity? --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The exact reason why Milošević and Tuđman started war in Croatia is because they could not start war in Bosnia, so they started war in Croatia and later "exported" it to Bosnia. And NATO bombed Serbia because of the war in Kosovo, not because those in Croatia and Bosnia. Also, Serbia and Montenegro was formed in 2003, not in 2000, thus the country that was internationally recognized in year 2000 had name Yugoslavia. Try to read something before writting your posts here, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You forget to turn off caps... PANONIAN (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, how interesting that this sockpuppet appeared exactly now. What a strange coincidence... PANONIAN (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Pogađaj triput. :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV title

message: Wikipedia has rules which were drown up so that we could all reach an agreement and so we don't spend our time in edit warring and insulting each other. One of this rules is WP:CONSENSUS. We had a discussion about how to name this article. The discussion reached a consensus. We named the article the way we did. Some people are objecting to this name. Let's make a discussion about it. After we make a discussion, we shall proceed as agreed. I the mean time, I will revert the unilateral name change in some articles because I consider that a disruption of Wikipedia. The name change is to be discussed and agreed upon here, not on other articles. Edits like this one are not helping us build a consensus but are inciting an edit war. Therefore I will now revert those.
Now, as for the name of this article, please propose some sane names (I think we all agree that names like "Separatism War against Croatian Serbs" are not helping us make a cool conversation), and then we'll discus... --Dijxtra 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forget to turn off caps... PANONIAN (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, how interesting that this sockpuppet appeared exactly now. What a strange coincidence... PANONIAN (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Pogađaj triput. :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An attempt of coolheaded discusion

message: :If you look at the Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict (emphasis mine):
::commander1/commander2 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include army commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed. Ranks and titles should be omitted. The dagger icon (†) may be used to indicate commanders killed during the conflict.
:I don't think we should go into any detail here, but if we do, we should list important, top-level figures like Zvonimir Červenko and Mile Mrkšić (see Operation Storm), not marginal ones like Ademi, Đanko and Norac. GregorB 11:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was chief commander of Croatian army? "The Commander-in-Chief of all Croatian armed forces in peace and war is the President of the Republic." Therefore, chief commander of Croatian forces was Franjo Tuđman. Chiefs of Staff during the war were Anton Tus and Janko Bobetko. Therefore, I'll put those people in the infobox. --Dijxtra 09:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. GregorB 18:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders 

message: #PANONIAN (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I support name change to '''War in Croatia (1991-1995)'''

message: *Bobblehead
*The Wanderer 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I oppose name change to '''War in Croatia (1991-1995)'''

message: Firstly y do we write the defeat of Krajina forces, when it was a war of independance, and the serbs attacked Croatia first.
: Because Operation Storm was intended to defeat Krajina forces. And it defeated Krajina forces. And, then the war ended. --Dijxtra 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Serbs took part in it. I mean, we wouldn't have that war if there were no Serbs, now would we? There fore, Serbs are a crucial part of that war, just as Croats are. --Dijxtra 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: People who read Wikipedia give a shit. --Dijxtra 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I think this article should be left alone with the name "Croatian war of Independence"
SIMPLE. that's what it was.
There are many topics about Balkans and its people that need to be looked at and re-edited to be unbias.
Guys like Panonian and Ante Perkovic need to sit down and have a long chat to see what they can do to make articles unbias.
Jagoda 1 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forget it 

message: #--Svetislav Jovanović 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I support name change to '''Croat War of Secession'''

message: # Chaldean Warrior 1:51, 2nd September 2006 (UTC)
# Ante Perkovic 06:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I oppose name change to '''Croat War of Secession'''

message: This survey has not been listed at WP:RQM. The format is deffective and without proper calmed and steady discussion is deemed to fail or have no legitimacy whatsoever. Instead continuing with petty ethnic bickering and edit warring for the sake of it, I will invite the main actors to think about this and then listing the requested move for discussion as for wikipedia guidelines, providing a well-thought rationale. I want this to serve as a reminder too for Wikipedia policy against personal attacks and insults. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, it'd be nice if the properly formated RQM waited until saaaay... 15.9., so we're sure everybody's home from the holidays. --Dijxtra 10:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --E  Asterion u talking to me? 10:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: Croatian War of Independence → Croat War of Secession – The name of the war depicts how the Croats called it, but there were two sides to the war. This way, the article addresses the reality of the situation back then. Svetislav Jovanović 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who did the Serbs attack? Themselves? The Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia, the Croats wanted to expell them from their own land, what were the Serbs supposed to do? Just sit around and do nothing. As far as the vote buying is concerned, you can call whoever you want over the e-mail or whatever, but not over Wikipedia. What you did in the past was wrong, but I forgive you. --Serb User Bormalagurskitalk 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Bormalagurski, you said it: "you can call whoever you want over the e-mail or whatever, but not over Wikipedia". Since User:Svetislav Jovanović called people to vote over Wikipedia, this vote will not have credibility and is worthless because of this: , , , , , , , , , , , . Thank you for reminding me to check. --Dijxtra 09:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, he said I can express my opinion. He didn't ask me to vote. --Serb talk 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And voting is not expressing your oppinion? Didn't you express your opinion by supporting this move? --Dijxtra 07:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could've expressed my opinion in this discussion, I didn't have to vote. But, I chose to vote. --Serb talk 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  No, User:Svetislav Jovanović didn't ako people to vote. He just called them to express their opinion and called the change in their talk page "voting". It's a biiiiig difference ;)). --Ante Perkovic 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Croats call the war a War of Independence, why? Because they wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. Therefore, the article should be rightfully called Croat War of Secession. --KOCOBO 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your freedom? You're in Australia! You don't care about Croatia, thats why you don't live there! Where were you in 1991 when Croatia needed you? Heh, please, go outside and get off the computer... --Serb talk 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I can bet that you've never even been to Croatia. --Serb talk 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, so many personal attacks, Andrew. I think we, the users of Wikipedia, are pretty much sick of your stories of "Serb Propaganda", it's accenting how much you're pushing your Croat Propaganda. Go sing Danke Deutschland somewhere else. --Svetislav Jovanović 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: you should check my vote and consider the idea--TheFEARgod 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?
The Committee took note of the aide-mémoires, observations and other materials submitted by the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia, by the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and by the `Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina'.
1. The Committee considers that, whatever the circumstances, the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of independence (uti possidetis juris) except where the states concerned agree otherwise.
----
As you can see in the text above and at the address I provided, Yugoslavia ceased to exist, Croatia was one of the successors and Serbs in Croatia, backed by Serbia, tried to change the croatian borders. --Ante Perkovic 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
====Support====
#Strong Support --Svetislav Jovanović 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Strong Support --Svetislav Jovanović 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Strongly Oppose --Thewanderer 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ::Who did the Serbs attack? Themselves? The Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia, the Croats wanted to expell them from their own land, what were the Serbs supposed to do? Just sit around and do nothing. As far as the vote buying is concerned, you can call whoever you want over the e-mail or whatever, but not over Wikipedia. What you did in the past was wrong, but I forgive you. --Serb User Bormalagurskitalk 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Bormalagurski, you said it: "you can call whoever you want over the e-mail or whatever, but not over Wikipedia". Since User:Svetislav Jovanović called people to vote over Wikipedia, this vote will not have credibility and is worthless because of this: , , , , , , , , , , , . Thank you for reminding me to check. --Dijxtra 09:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, he said I can express my opinion. He didn't ask me to vote. --Serb talk 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And voting is not expressing your oppinion? Didn't you express your opinion by supporting this move? --Dijxtra 07:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could've expressed my opinion in this discussion, I didn't have to vote. But, I chose to vote. --Serb talk 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, User:Svetislav Jovanović didn't ako people to vote. He just called them to express their opinion and called the change in their talk page "voting". It's a biiiiig difference ;)). --Ante Perkovic 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Croats call the war a War of Independence, why? Because they wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. Therefore, the article should be rightfully called Croat War of Secession. --KOCOBO 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your freedom? You're in Australia! You don't care about Croatia, thats why you don't live there! Where were you in 1991 when Croatia needed you? Heh, please, go outside and get off the computer... --Serb talk 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I can bet that you've never even been to Croatia. --Serb talk 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, so many personal attacks, Andrew. I think we, the users of Wikipedia, are pretty much sick of your stories of "Serb Propaganda", it's accenting how much you're pushing your Croat Propaganda. Go sing Danke Deutschland somewhere else. --Svetislav Jovanović 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: you should check my vote and consider the idea--TheFEARgod 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?
The Committee took note of the aide-mémoires, observations and other materials submitted by the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia, by the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and by the `Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina'.
1. The Committee considers that, whatever the circumstances, the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of independence (uti possidetis juris) except where the states concerned agree otherwise.
----
As you can see in the text above and at the address I provided, Yugoslavia ceased to exist, Croatia was one of the successors and Serbs in Croatia, backed by Serbia, tried to change the croatian borders. --Ante Perkovic 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Since this page has descended into edit war and there was not one constructive edit, I'm protecting it for now. --Dijxtra 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting this page 

message: 1 Leave the article as is.
2.
Many Croats left Belgrade and Serbia, many Croats left Boka and Montenegro after 1991...people left from both sides to avoid trouble. Smart people.
As for Serbs hatred in Croatia, HOW STUPID,  Croatian soccer team has 3 Serbs playing for it now - Dado Prso, Milan Rapajic and Bosko Balaban...i don't see any hatred towards them because they are Serb origin. I know of heaps of Serbs that live in Dalmatia today with no problems. 
Why start trouble here on Wiki with all your BAD FAITH EDITS and lies...Some Serbs here think you're the only victims or something.....Serbs did some bad things in WW2 and in the 90s..but so did half the world at one time or another...only the Swiss are innocent of all wrong doing.
Take it easy..
We all go over the top with pride thing on our race (maybe due to our countries finally being called Croatia and Serbia) ...we have to learn to get along as in the eyes of the world the Balkan people look like idiots still bickering.
WAR IS OVER 
2006 now
Reply to me I would love to hear from you.
No point adding fuel to the fire, enough is enough.
Jagoda 1 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Faith Edits  

message: 1. CW of Secession. I think it's out of question, because noone has "seceded" from anyone, but Yugoslavia ceased to exist when any socialist republic proclaimed her independence (see Badinter etc.). Milošević's maneouvres with "continuity" failed, as we all know (the UN Yu seat vacant etc.)
2. CW of Independence. Plus- that's how such wars are called (American, Irish, Algerian,..). Minus-Croatia was independent in 1992. already, and fought 1992.-1995. not to gain independence, but to get her territories back under govt control.
:: The process of independence includes the concept of territorial integrity and it's defence.  Territorial integrity is integral to the notion of independence.   Thus the second stage (1992-1995) is part of the War of Independence also. Any attempt to divorse territorial integrity from independence is artificial. croatian_quoll 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't 3 and 4 be "War in Croatia"? --Dijxtra 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. Mir Harven 22:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros & cons

message: I removed it from the requested moves page. Virtually a dead heat. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the face of this, I drop the proposal of any other option than CWoI. Some redirects are even more "patriotic" (Liberation war, Revolution), and, frankly, I don't see why Croatia should be the exception only to conform to ex-Yugoslav nomenclature which describes different historical situations (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo) that were "resolved" (if they are) in the main by outside pressures & intervention. It was a, let's use the Soviet name, "Great patriotic war", and I don't see why would wiki be steered by Google counts that only reflect prevalent journalistic approach of the English-speaking world-which changes, since Anglo-Irish war is much, much more common term than Irish war for independence. Here it is, for Googlers:"Anglo-Irish war"- 35,000, "Irish war for independence"- 185. IMO, the issue is settled: CWoI is the best possible option. Mir Harven 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: many of these are only redirects, I see. Certainly, english-speakers use the term War in Croatia --TheFEARgod (listening) 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: If the name is changed for the Croatian War of Independence, then in the interests of consistency, it will need to be changed for all the following examples.  The fact that the "War of Independence" is in such common use, exemplifies the fact that it is a NPOV term, and the proposals to rename this stubb, sadly, seems an attempt by Greater Serb nationalists to politicise the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Independence
The term War of Independence is generally used to describe a war occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun.  If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is subsequently known as a war of independence.
Examples include:
* Algerian War of Independence
* American War of Independence
* Angolan War of Independence
* Bangladesh War of Independence
* Chilean War of Independence
* Croatian War of Independence
* Dutch War of Independence
* Estonian War of Independence
* Eritrean War of Independence
* Philippine Revolution
* Philippine-American War
* Spanish War of Independence
* Greek War of Independence
* Irish War of Independence
* Israeli War of Independence
* Mexican War of Independence
* Romanian War of Independence
* Wars of Scottish Independence
* South American Wars of Independence
* Turkish War of Independence
:In the face of this, I drop the proposal of any other option than CWoI. Some redirects are even more "patriotic" (Liberation war, Revolution), and, frankly, I don't see why Croatia should be the exception only to conform to ex-Yugoslav nomenclature which describes different historical situations (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo) that were "resolved" (if they are) in the main by outside pressures & intervention. It was a, let's use the Soviet name, "Great patriotic war", and I don't see why would wiki be steered by Google counts that only reflect prevalent journalistic approach of the English-speaking world-which changes, since Anglo-Irish war is much, much more common term than Irish war for independence. Here it is, for Googlers:"Anglo-Irish war"- 35,000, "Irish war for independence"- 185. IMO, the issue is settled: CWoI is the best possible option. Mir Harven 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: many of these are only redirects, I see. Certainly, english-speakers use the term War in Croatia --TheFEARgod (listening) 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedent for use of "War of Independence" 

message: :please refrain from personal accusations.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  buying votes the fear god 

message: Some serbians are writing comments like: "of course, the Croats wanted to separate from Yugoslavia, not the Serbs.", or "Croats started this war, they wanted to secede from the federation, the new name of the article is good. I support the name change.", or some uneducated write: "I do think the name of the article should be changed as it was not a war of independence, but to the more neutral version suggested previously, War in Croatia (1991-1995) or 1991-1995 war in Croatia as suggested more recently.", not understanding what NPOV is. NPOV isn't when both sides agree, or making compromise. It's when the name of the article is true (in accord with the content and subject)! Most of the rubbish comments were made by serbs (look at the names), and I suggest that checkusers look out for the serbian sockpuppets on the voting (which is meaningless if the serbs are gathering any kind of voters just to get more votes).
Let me tell you something about the Croatian War of Independence. The Serbians (Yugoslavia back then), gaining power and tetitory would of suceeded in conquering the Balkans if there weren't for HOS or the Operation Storm. Some serbs say that "the Croats wanted to separate from Yugoslavia, not the Serbs", and that is absolutley correct. Thank's god we wanted to sepparate, the Yugoslavian government was imposed to us, and before that we were a free country. Surely we wanted to be a free country again and not end up like Bosnia (which is a story for itself). The same situation is now happening in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, while the serbs are manipulating the truth and calling croats "ustaše" or trying to proclaim Operation Storm an ethnical cleansing etc... If this article were American War of Independence, i'm sure the administrators would of stopped this nonsence, but when it's about Balkans...
I hope this discussion will be over soon, and the name will remain the same as it is. Before the administrators make the decision (conclusion), they should at least read something about this war and realise that Croatian War of Independence is even less than a NPOV name. Thank you. --Luka Krstulovic 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also there is the (in)famous Tito's saying how Serbia and the Serbian people are and always will be "the Guardians of any Yugoslav state". For instance, he opened the Srijem frontline against the Axis forces by the end of the war and breached it using strictly and only hundreds of thousands of conscripts from Serbia (mostly boys & girls), the sole exlplaination given how "it is on the Serb People to bring the fight and free Yugoslavia"; the proclaimation of Belgrade as the capital, aside from historical reasons, he explained as "Serbia's key relevance in a Yugoslav state" - so it doesn't even wonder that Serbian-Yugoslav nationalists & centralists decided to save Yugoslavia from dissolving by any means necessary. However, Croatia's seccession from Yugoslavia can hardly (or impossibly) "justified" by how Serbia tried to conduct centralism, since Slovenian & Croatian seccessions and Serbian centralism were simultaneous. --PaxEquilibrium 10:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the Croatian War of Independence 

message: Please see War of Independence.
Algerian War of Independence - ibid
American War of Independence - American Revolutionary War
Angolan War of Independence - ibid
Bangladesh War of Independence - Bangladesh Liberation War
Chilean War of Independence - Chilean Independence
Croatian War of Independence - ibid
Dutch War of Independence - Eighty Years' War
Eritrean War of Independence - ibid
Estonian War of Independence - Estonian Liberation War
Greek War of Independence - ibid
Irish War of Independence - ibid
Israeli War of Independence - 1948 Arab-Israeli War
Mexican War of Independence - ibid
Philippine Revolution 
Philippine-American War
Romanian War of Independence - ibid
Wars of Scottish Independence
South American Wars of Independence
Spanish War of Independence  - Peninsular War
Turkish War of Independence - ibid
Of those rebellions which are listed, four out of five are called Wars of Independence - or direr.  I don't see why we should make an exception for the Croats.  They won their independence, didn't they?  The Israeli war is named the way it is because the question is bandied about now.  It should be called "Israeli War of Independence," too -- if not "Israeli War of Sustenance"...  --VKokielov 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, not again... --Dijxtra 08:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't be silly.  I just didn't get a chance to lay down my argument.  So here it is.  I'm not asking for the name to be changed.  --VKokielov 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All those that you mentioned are a lot different - in each & every single of those wars, an entity  was fighting to secede, martially win independence from a larger political entity; here, an entity was only at first fighting for independence; whereas the majority of it is refering to its own war against a separatist entity of its own. --PaxEquilibrium 10:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trends 

message: Removed this nonsense.  Is is a joke?  // Laughing Man 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonsense 

message: "France 
French diplomatic policy was led by the ageing Francois Mitterrand, too blasé to take interest in the Balkans (and notably, like Belgium, ignoring even larger ethnic cleansing in Rwanda)."
Come on, who wrote this?!  Can we allow stuff like that?Evilbu 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition by the French  : serious bias!!