Talk:Bosnian War/Archive 1

message: ===Why the old map was deceiving and why the new map is better===
The new maps added to the site are better, because they provide a clearer picture of the ethnic distribution per area, ratehr than per Municipality only. For example, in the old map, which I have reverted to the gallery at the bottom of the page, and this map is used by the OHR (and is on their website, which may create an impression of impartiality), even the slightest majority of a certain population made such municipality, which may actually be heavily mixed, as belonging to a specific ethnic group. 
Look at the Municipality of Doboj. It appears from the map that it was a Bosniak municipality before the war. This is the ethnic composition of it in 1991: 41,241 Bosniaks (40.2%), 40,020 Serbs (39%), 13,283 Croats (13%), 5,637 Yugoslavs (5.5%) and 2,338 others (2.3%). So here, both Bosniaks and Serbs are up to 50% (and one should not fail to take into account the Yugoslavs, which can be either). 
Furthermore, this area was actually fairly monolitic ethnically (with the town being heavily mixed, but, roughly, the east of the Municipality being mainly Bosniak and the west Serb), so the new map is wonderful at depicting this. --Ogidog 17:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps of Ethnic Distribution

message: The new maps added to the site are better, because they provide a clearer picture of the ethnic distribution per area, ratehr than per Municipality only. For example, in the old map, which I have reverted to the gallery at the bottom of the page, and this map is used by the OHR (and is on their website, which may create an impression of impartiality), even the slightest majority of a certain population made such municipality, which may actually be heavily mixed, as belonging to a specific ethnic group. 
Look at the Municipality of Doboj. It appears from the map that it was a Bosniak municipality before the war. This is the ethnic composition of it in 1991: 41,241 Bosniaks (40.2%), 40,020 Serbs (39%), 13,283 Croats (13%), 5,637 Yugoslavs (5.5%) and 2,338 others (2.3%). So here, both Bosniaks and Serbs are up to 50% (and one should not fail to take into account the Yugoslavs, which can be either). 
Furthermore, this area was actually fairly monolitic ethnically (with the town being heavily mixed, but, roughly, the east of the Municipality being mainly Bosniak and the west Serb), so the new map is wonderful at depicting this. --Ogidog 17:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the old map was deceiving and why the new map is better

message: There is no need for such a deep elaboration of the evolution of the number. This is an encyclopedia article, not a college essay.
I am not going to push it but I find it especially useful to deconstruct various misconceptions about the number game. I am sure that many are confused why the numbers are so off and I thought that was a good explaination.  I though Wikipedia was intended to educate its users but that may just be my opinion. If anyone else agrees I will return the paragraph--Dado 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of victims

message: Hi, this is my first edit ever, so if I do something wrong feel free to correct it. 
I hereby state that the Casualty Number in this article is customized and different from the original source. In the original source (to which the wikipedia article links - www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291965/posts) the number of Serbian civilian casualties is estimated 16,700 instead of 1,973 in the wikipedia article. This gives a rather different view of the war. I hope someone will edit this, because I'm afraid I mess up the whole article when I try to modify something :P
- Maarten, the Netherlands
There were many plays with numbers and one that is presented in the article is most recent one by Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo.  I don't know where other numbers come from.  --Dado 00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty Number

message: Where is the details of the NATO bombing campaign that ended with occupational forces that are there to this day?  Tbeatty 19:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely ludicrous. You can surely have ways to estimate how many people were raped. --24.2.242.93 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NATO Bombing? 

message: Tit for tat, good continue to ignore the obvious.  To this day war criminals live outstanding, and are considered war heroes. Los Angeles, CA 
1. Who claims 8,000 - 20,000 were raped? Who disputes this? Do any people dispute the 8,000 - 20,000 range? etc
:: Rape Camps--Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  same link can be used for above.  As for the term "breed out" I noticed it is mostly used in debate of ethnic cleansing and genocide tactics in various regions in the world including reference to Bosnia  --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I may get the year wrong but didn't Serbia passed a law in 1990 by which it technically seceded from Yugoslavian Federation?  This is a muddled issue as this law was not so publically available as the doctrine of insighting fear from Non-Serbian nationalism by Serbian politicians was far more prevelant and emphasized--Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Death of Yugoslavia documentary is the source.  It is referenced in the article --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  What is considered a "better" source. Perhaps one that suits your POV? Death of Yugoslavia documentary was made by BBC and we can all agree that it is a relevant source.  The same documentary was cited in the Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ court.  If it is admisible in court it certainly is addmisible here--Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Same response as above--Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Source is again the same.  Perhaps couple of words may need to be rephrased but hardly to justify disputing the article on the basis of lack of facts. --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why than did war not erupt in few years after the death of Tito in 1980.  This is very simplistic view of circumstances --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think most of the things you are talking about need to be covered in segment about "Political situation in Bosnia" prior to war which is not complete yet. I am doing my best to translate the Bosnian version so if you can help let me know --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  What is a problem with that statement? The issue is a bit complex so perhaps this will help --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification of totallydisputed tag 

message: For proper understanding of the (further) conflicts I have added the key events of Albanian unrests.
Could someone do the linking as I do not have much time? Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Activeco (talk • contribs) 
:Sorry, I reverted them. They're really not closely related to the subject of this article, and belong to Yugoslav wars or History of Kosovo or... . (You can always retrieve your text from history.) Duja 14:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The genesis of the crisis was in national establishment in 19th century. The genesis of the crisis was in WWII bloodbath. The genesis of crisis was in communist regime... We have to stop somewhere. I don't see any direct connection of events in Kosovo in late 1980s with the war in Bosnia. I don't object to the factual correctness of your contribution, but solely to relevance – we can't start from Kulin Ban, as we say... Duja 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: True, we don't have to start from Kulin Ban.
During Tito's reign there was no chance of such serious conflicts so you have to give answers why this "sudden" revival of animosities.
Most eyewitnesses (including me) and serious observers concluded beyond doubt that Kosovo events were the KEY ignition of the later broad conflicts.
The simple, among neutral observers, non-disputed chronology should be the basis for further understaning.
- ...-1980 
Although substantial, still very bad distribution of economic help to the poorest part of former Yugoslavia - Kosovo; rise of Albanian protests.
1980-1987
Tito's death;
Albanian nationalism growing to chauvinism and introduction of "ethnic cleansing"; Serbian population fleeing the province; Federal government unable to proper react; Serbia feels betrayed from other republics which ignite the rapidly growing Serbian nationalism
1987-1990
Milosevic changes the policy and solves Kosovo with republic's police, soon joined by JNA; stripping Kosovo of autonomy; hard repressions against Albanians not welcomed by Slovenia and Croatia, who openly stood by Albanians;
the Serbian "victory" and the new hero Milosevic celebrated throughout the country in a provocative way; 
the victorious Serbian nationalism, (ab)used by Serbian intelectuals (see "Memorandum") advocating new Yugoslavia under leaderships of Serbs, following the model of former kingdom; ultra-nationalist reactions in other republics.
HDZ set up in 1989, SDA the same year (note that Izetbegovic was released from prison on initiative from SANU: "Predstavka", including Seselj as underwriter).
And only here is the point where Bosnia "begins". Without the former, one could not understand further happenings in Bosnia.
1990-1991
Fikret Abdic won Bosnian elections, leaving the presidential seat to Izetbegovic, who was more islamic oriented;
HDZ under Tudjman comes to power in Croatia ; growing tensions and open hostilities including armed clashes between Croats and Serbs in Croatia; Slovenia and Croatia "fleeing" from Serbia using the 1974 federal Constitution's 'rights of secession' of `every nation to self-determination', in its recognized borders; 
Serbia using the same argument: 'every nation having the right to self determination', but on the teritory where it lives - 'every Serbian grave is Serbian land'; short war in Slovenia, probably due to non-Serbian population; all out war in Croatia;
1992 and later
Under pressure of Germany, EU recognized both Slovenia and Croatia, which gave them right to ask international support against Yugoslav army presence in the areas and legaly consider it as an act of agression of a foreign country, the same argument used later by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
And so on...
******************************************
So, please do not contribute to the topic, if one's experience and knowledge is based on internet and local media's data only, or if due to your age, your intelectual sense began in 1990's.
Thank you. Activeco 23:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should rely on you? Who are you, anyway? --24.193.157.231 16:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions (please do some proper linking) 

message: What is specifically disputed in this article.  The tag has been on it forever and arguements seamed to have been lost in the fog.--Dado 20:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: Hello everyone,congratulations on a decent article. I have a few observations. 
I followed this war in the western media (I'm from Ireland) while it was ongoing and found this article very interesting, as it contradicts much of the impression given by the media at the time. For instance, it seems that the death toll was overstated by a factor of three at the time (300,000 compared to around 100,000 deaths). Also, it was believed in the 1990s that the vast majority of deaths were civilian, whereas, if this article is accurate (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), they comprised just over half the fatalities. For a modern war, the ratio of military to civilian deaths is probably quite high. 
Do we have any indication of how many civilians were killed by targeted massacres (as in ethnic cleansing), how many killed by the use of heavy weapons in populated areas (as in the siege of Sarajevo) and how many of disease, or other causes? I realise that this is a painful and contentious area and that different sides will give different estimates.
The impression we were given in the west was that very little actual combat took place between combatants and that most of the war was comprised of the intimidation, displacement and killing of civilians. The casualties given here seem to indicate that this was not true. Therefore, the military history of the war becomes more important for out understanding of it - i.e. -What were the military aims of each side? What forces did they have at their disposal to achieve them? What were the important tactical features of the war - in other words, was most fightng between infantry? What was the value of regular as opposed to paramilitary soldiers -was their training and equipment different? Was most fighting in urban or rural areas? What role was played by armour and air power? I think the article would be improved if it addressed these points, if not at length, than at least in one paragraph.
Jdorney 08:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military history of the war 

message: Could this article also include something about the involvement and role of foreign volunteers in the conflict? I'm not primarily thinking about those from Croatia or Serbia but about volunteers from places like Russia, Turkey, Greece and varioius Islamic countries. This could be a separate section.KarlXII 22:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign volunteers 

message: For an article about a war there is conspicuously little information about the armaments used and the relative strenght of the forces involved. Why not include a section on this. Does anyone have good information?KarlXII 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I'm somewhat of a military buff and have a lot of information about the equipment of the various armies of the war. I'll try to start this section after I refresh my memory by reading some of the articles I have about this topic. Edrigu 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armaments 

message: While editing (well trying to) the Naser Oric article I've come accross a rather good account of events in and around Srebrenica and Bratunac by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation called Srebrenica - a 'safe' haven. 
Could this be used to expand either this article or the Srebrenica article?
KarlXII 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War in Eastern Bosnia (Srebrenica & Bratunac)  

message: Estavisti, Hahahihoho, this edit war is a candidate for a WP:LAME. You both breached WP:3RR, but I don't want to use the "magic" button. 
If you want my opinion, the outcome is too complex to simply be put in an infobox. One interpretation is that merely stating "Dayton Accords" suffices to say it was a "draw", which it basically was. Adding "and independence of BiH" calls for addition of "autonomy of Republika Srpska" or "effective split of BiH", which calls for... Having said that, I'm reverting it to the "stable" version, which carries absolutely no POV. Duja 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the difference is that I'm not arguing if it was a draw or not (frankly, I don't care) on the article page. My point is, the outcome was defined by a complex set of Dayton Accords and it's sufficient to say in an infobox. Duja 12:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The outcome of the war