Talk:Battle of Vukovar/Archive 1

message: This article is blatantly written from a Croatian point of view, and glorifies this battle - "most celebrated".  Don't remove the tag, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Morwen - Talk 10:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be fixed now. --Joy [shallot] 21:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (old) POV

message: We need sources and references for the numbers. --Joy [shallot] 00:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (old) Numbers

message: The text of the article could have been taken from Tudjman era Croatian propaganda press. The consequence is that we either have to question its impartiality, or revalue the widely accepted view of Croatian wartime propaganda being nationalistic and biased. Some crucial pieces of information are obviously missing (particularly the plight of the city's inhabitants of Serbian nationality - about half of the total number - in the city subject to Croatian military rule, or the very existence thereof) parts of the text are clearly self-contradictory (the Croatian forces are claimed to be lightly armed, yet they still manage to down 20 warplanes) and full of dubious propaganda cliches (the backbone of JNA was broken at Vukovar). One does not need to be an expert on war in the Balkans to note these shortcomings. Naturally, this does not mean that we should subscribe to the Serbian propaganda of the time - an effort should be taken to compile a realistic picture from ICTY proceedings, from well known western reporters present at or near the scene (Misha Glenny), and from other sources. Actually, merely citing these sources will do a better service to the reader than this. Dervan 21:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: It's not just the number of Serbian military casualties (after all, these were mainly puzzled conscripts sent to the slaughterhouse). It's this sick worldview prevalent in some Serbian circles: Croatian paramilitaries, secession, liberation of Vukovar,...then liberation of Srebrenica, faked Markala, lies about everything and everyone (for those conversant with Croatian, just a slice: http://www.hic.hr/books/jugoistocna-europa/dedijer.htm#kraj%20mita).Mir Harven 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I've seen this later

message: I've decided to reboot this article. Although it was a good start, it had a number of major problems - particularly the near-total lack of sources (which is very unsatisfactory as far as WP:CITE and WP:V are concerned) and the distinctly POV tone of parts of it. From the point of view of a military historian, it was also rather unsatisfactory in explaining the tactics and political issues involved. And of course, it's not helpful that the article had become the subject of an edit war.
I've rewritten the article from scratch, incorporating elements from the previous version. It is much more heavily sourced than before, and it includes a lot more information than before. I'd welcome comments on what people think of it. -- ChrisO 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, it's well sourced and objective, unlike the previous version. However, as you can see, there are those who won't be satisfied until serbian war-crimes are downplayed to smallest possible extent, and Milosevic himself absolved of any guilt whatsoever. --Dr.Gonzo 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reboot 

message: I think it might be worth reminding people of the basic rules of Wikipedia. A lot of the arguments over the previous version of this article were, I think, largely due to these policies not being followed. I've rewritten the article to make it strictly wikipolicy-compliant, and I intend to ensure that those policies are followed on this article:
* Don't add partisan commentary, and ensure that your contributions are written in a neutral tone. We're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a partisan screed. (WP:NPOV).
* Any additions must be sourced, cited and verifiable. (WP:CITE, WP:V).
* Any sources must be reliable. Newspaper reports, government documents, books and reports from well-known international organisations are generally regarded as good sources. Commentary on ersonal websites or the personal views of individual editors are not. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR.
If we follow these policies we should be OK. -- ChrisO 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well that's all fine in theory, but there seems to be no way of sanctioning the offenders. They can just go on butchering the articles until every decent wikipedian just gives up on a lost cause... --Dr.Gonzo 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're forgetting that I'm an administrator. I can enforce the rules if need be... -- ChrisO 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that make you partisan, since you're editing the article yourself? --Dr.Gonzo 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only up to a point. Blocking a user to gain an advantage in an editing dispute is forbidden, obviously, but I'm talking here about strictly enforcing Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I'm not a Croat or a Serb, so I don't mind if someone adds a statement that Franjo Tudjman ate babies or that Milosevic was an alien from Alpha Centauri - but they must provide a reliable verifiable source for that statement. If they do, fine - if they don't, their addition comes out. If they repeatedly ignore the fundamental policies then I'll encourage them to change their behaviour. Think of it as being like toilet training. :-) -- ChrisO 00:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, ok, I'll keep that in mind ;) Anyways just wanted to say I'm glad to have you here, and I hope you can help get this article in shape like you did with Borovo Selo killings, that would be absolutely marvelous. I look forward to working with you ;) Cheers! --Dr.Gonzo 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Rules of engagement

message: TheFEARgod: The fate of the people of Vukovar is well established and documented. I'm sorry that the article doesn't push a rosy Serb POV, but the article gives an accurate description of what happened, without the use of inflammatory language. The tag goes. --Mihovil 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: The exact numbers of casualties at Vukovar is still unknown. According to Croatian general Anton Tus, about 1,100 of Vukovar's defenders were killed, and another 2,600 defenders and civilians were listed as missing. Another 1,000 Croatian soldiers were killed on the approaches to Vinkovci and Osijek. The intensity of the fighting can be judged by the fact that the losses in Eastern Slavonia between September-November 1991 constituted half of all Croatian war casualties during the whole of 1991.[8] The Central Intelligence Agency estimates Croatian casualties at around 4,000-5,000 dead across Eastern Slavonia.[5]
Estimates of JNA losses are complicated by a lack of official figures. The only published losses on the JNA side were some 1,300 dead in the Novi Sad corps alone. Tus cites foreign estimates of 6,000-8,000 JNA and Serb losses in the whole of eastern Slavonia and Croatian estimates of at least 5,000 dead. Around 600 armoured vehicles and heavy weapons and more than 20 aircraft were also destroyed.''''
The Casualties in the box are presented in a very biased way (and the estimates are also ill-sourced): Croatian ones are ONLY FROM THE BESIEGED CITY while JNA casualties are FROM THE WHOLE EASTERN SLAVONIA. The very article contradicts itself.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.121.222 (talk • contribs) 6 August 2006
:I've reverted continuous inclusion of unconfirmed reports.--TheFEARgod 12:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: Figures of "5-8" thousands killed are impossible in a modern war and such disproportion of men and firepower, it would be a success if they killed several hundred. Compare even with civilian casualties (after destruction of the city - 1,000-2,000 dead, including these murdered later). Also most of the time JNA was just firing artillery into the city, then paramilitaries broke through defences and surrendered Croats in a pockets. There was some disastrous initial storming by armor, including the famous destruction of an armored column (which is even included on the article's featured photo), but it's just not enough. For a simple comparision, Russians lost about 2,000 men killed in the New Year's Eve assault on Grozny, and I think this would be hard to beat. Another: Serbs lost 24,000 military dead in whole Bosnian War, 1992-95 - only 3 times more than in one Croatian city, defended by up to 2,000? Another still: Serbs say they lost less than 5,000 in the whole war in Croatia, and this even including civilians. My guess is, maybe, for example, someone in a Croatian propaganda office added one zero to their estimates of a Yugo losses. --HanzoHattori 09:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Croatian propaganda office"? You've seen one too many James Bond movie. The fact is - Serbs never released their official estimates, unlike Croats whose estimates come from the highest military sources. So, until such time that the Serbs deem it neccesary to set the records straight we have to rely on Croatian estimates. --Dr.Gonzo 12:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, do you think propaganda exist only in movies? --HanzoHattori 15:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties (once again) 

message: The ref links refer to the nothingness, so somebody give a book or article or whatever it is based on. --HanzoHattori 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was there until some edit-warring twit deleted it a while back... I've restored it. -- ChrisO 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anton Tunks" figures 

message: Finally, (at this moment) the article looks pretty much OK. I just propose removing the "Klacemo Hrvate" quote, as such slogans were common on both sides at the time so focusing on just one adds a POV, but otherwise it seems all right. 
Veljko Stevanovich 9. Sep. 2006. 16:45 UTC+1
I'm glad everything looks OK, but I have to disagree about the quote. Maybe such slogans were common on both side; I don't know, since I wasn't in Vukovar. -But the quote is relevant, if for no reason other than the fact that is was widely seen by "westerners" on BBC. I also think that it is relevant in that it is symptomatic of the JNA's general attitude about the war; they thought that it would be an easy victory, with few casualties. It is also especially damning in light of what happened at Ovčara. For these reasons, I think it should stay. Mihovil 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here`s an OK from Serbia 

message: Regulars only, or all Serbian forces? --HanzoHattori 22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lazanski's casualty figures 

message: It lacks the number of POWs.
Veljko Stevanovich 29. Dec. 2006. 20:47 UTC+1
This is a good point. Also some of the killed at Ovcara were wounded soldiers. --HanzoHattori 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian casualties in the battlebox 

message: The unofficial Croatian figures are sourced, & attributed by an analysis by Croat chief of staff Antun Tus of the figures for the Battle of Vukovar (not Eastern Slavonia). 
Hanzohattori, disagreement with the figure is not sufficient to remove them b/c they are sourced from a senior military figuire from one of the two sides in the conflict.  If there is disagreement, then mention it in the article (with source) & link back to the battlebox.  Thanks for your understanding. iruka 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HanzoHattori, pls refrain from personal attacks or you will be reported.  In my post, I am telling you that those figures quoted refer to the "Battle of Vukovar" only, not Eastern Slavonia as you claim.  I have also provided a source to that effect. Now stop avoiding the issue with your strawman, and leave the article be unless you can show the source is unreliable (and considering it comes from the Chief of Staff in the Croatian military at the time, that will be as reliable as the unofficial Yugoslav figures). iruka 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just saw your post below - ignore above & see my post below. iruka 05:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serb paramilitary & JNA casualties in the battlebox 

message: If one wants to mention somewhere or anything, there's a French movie about Vukovar (not documentary).  --HanzoHattori 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harrison's Flowers (Les Fleurs d'Harrison)