Talk:Operation Medak Pocket

Recent Edits

Discuss before reverting again, please.99.245.11.41 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What is to be discussed about your mass revert of my edits? Why are you doing it claiming "NPOV", when there's nothing biased about them? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You have made massive, repeated edits to a page, drastically altering the information, without any discussion whatsoever. Discuss before reverting, and desist from involving yourself as an admin on this page if you are going to make edits yourself.99.245.11.41 (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't made any massive edits without discussion - I've explained each of my edits with an edit summary. The alterations weren't really drastic - they fixed the patently broken lead section and apparently bloated background section. You, on the other hand, have made massive reverts, and never explained why you think discussion is necessary. What makes you think that you are allowed to revert and expect more discussion, but others aren't? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Windsor as a source for the background section

After I read this paper, it struck me as a poor choice. Here's why:

This meant for most of the period between 1992-95, the Yugoslav wars were waged by amateurs. Rival militias fired their weapons in the vicinity of the opposing side, more often than not, intent on killing civilians. When the JNA was removed from the equation, they took with them the normal codes of conduct held by professional military officers. The result was to create a pattern of combat where military casualties were few.

The new armies did not know how to kill other soldiers properly. Unprotected civilians were a different matter, however. The Serbs in Bosnia sought to kill all the Muslims and Croats in their area, or at least drive them into refugee camps somewhere else. Likewise, the Croatians were looking to kill or otherwise evict all the ethnic Serbs living in their newly independent nation. The objectives in this war were not to defeat the opponents combat power but to kill their families so the soldiers would have no home to return to.

These kinds of sweeping generalizations are amateurish in their own right. The whole premise, that JNA was somehow a moderating element, is deeply flawed, because the analysis of the Battle of Vukovar (already long past in late 1991) shows how JNA itself decided to get untrained brutes into the fight - using them as their own military asset. The overreaching conclusions about how just about everyone was in it strictly for the ethnic cleansing are baseless in basically all cases.

So I'm going to drop that early reference because it's misleading in that context. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Windsor ([1]) appears to be a WP:NOTRS - there is a reference of several FROG-7, i.e. 9K52 Luna-M, ballistic missiles hitting Zagreb in September 1993, which is quite incorrect - no ballistic missile attack on Zagreb occurred during the war, except in May 1995. Perhaps some other target near Zagreb was hit, or none at all, but Windsor is quite discredited as a source. There was a letter sent by Milan Martić, RSK government minister at the time, and Milan Novaković, a high ranking RSK army officer, to Momčilo Perišić, chief of the general staff of the Yugoslav Army at the time - suggesting such an attack ([2]) but no actual attack on Zagreb itself at the time, nor any at all using the FROG-7 missile.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A further gem in the same source is the following: Earlier that year, in January, Croatian troops launched a limited attack to seize a power damn and reservoir. When UN forces in the area found themselves in the path of the Croatian advance they promptly withdrew, destroying their credibility among the Serbs whom they were tasked with protecting. The Croatians learned the lesson that if they did not want the UN around, a few rounds at a white painted vehicle would send them running.

That can only refer to 28 January 1993 Peruća Dam explosion and subsequent capture of the area by the Croatian Army. Even though there are ample sources that RSK armed forces placed explosive in the dam and set it off in an effort to destroy the dam and flood the Cetina River valley downstream, and that the large-scale killing was averted by a Royal Marines officer by opening a spillway reducing the water level before the explosion and that the Croatian Army captured the dam only after the explosion - Windsor ignores everything and pictures Croatian Army chasing UNPROFOR away and claiming turf. Information to this effect is now in the article, fully referenced to several sources.

Furthermore, UNPROFOR was not tasked with protection of any particular nationality ([3]) but maintaining ceasefire, contrary to what Windsor would have the readers believe.

Finally, Windsor this imaginary sequence of events portrayed in the paper and draws flawed conclusions - that Serb population in the RSK area mistrusted UNPROFOR for retreating from the Peruća just like that? I trust it is by now well established that Windsor is not a reliable source and any claims based in the work should be at least rechecked if not outright removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the breadth of errors from this paper makes it unsuitable for inclusion until we verify that someone somewhere had it undergo an academic peer review. The Conference of Defence Associations Institute doesn't have an article so it doesn't look notable by default. Please bring it up at WP:RSN for a third opinion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ademi/Norac consolidated indictment as a source

This is an obsolete source, because the case was transferred to Croatia in 2005 and it was actually tried there and the first instance verdict was passed in May 2008, and the second instance verdict was passed in November 2009, and the appeals were rejected in March 2010 - tracked by OSCE for ICTY.

The final result was the sentencing of Mirko Norac but acquittal of Rahim Ademi - so it may now even be considered a WP:BLP problem that we keep sullying the latter person's name by listing the disproven indictment as a reliable source for events involving them.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The final March 2010 report also includes the complete text of the Croatian Supreme Court decision in the case, 44 pages of it, which could be mined for the same information, by Croatian speakers. (Oddly enough I can't seem to be able to find the same decision at their official web site http://sudskapraksa.vsrh.hr/supra) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC) A Croatian NGO has a normal PDF of the verdict online, which could be fed into a machine translator at least. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Croatian casulties

Do we really need this false Canadian claim of phantom 27 killed and wounded here? It's obvious now that whole thing never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.157.179 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"It's obvious now that whole thing never happened." Any sources at hand??--Darius (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, during trial on ICTY UN Officer testified that this whole story was extravagance. That only should be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.157.179 (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hardly a majority of sources, as Wikipedia establishes...--Darius (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to have sources that something did't happened. But let's see other side....primary and only source for "Battle claim"...was Testimony to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs", 27 April 1998 ( btw. that link is broken ). Everything is derived from that Testimony.

On the other hand we have testimony of UN officers on court, testimony of high Croatian intelligence officer, and also with National story testimony of even military pathologist who examine all 10 body of Croatian soldiers died on that operation and find no 5,56mm wound.

Anyway it's bullshit that this invented story take as much as half of article, just becouse somebody wanted to have some decourations and pensions back home.90.137.157.179 (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC) 90.137.157.179 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.157.179 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Forces pensions are not changed or granted based on the combat experiences of individual members. Likewise, no decorations beyond the UNPROFOR medal were granted at the time. Canada has no combat action badge, etc., as the U.S. and other militaries do. So citing "decorations" as a reason to lie makes no sense either. Canadians stood to gain nothing extra in the form of badges, decorations, pay, pensions. The Commander-in-Chief citation was awarded only retroactively, many years later.198.161.2.211 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyway ...if we read very carefully we can find out that so call "Canadian source" actually claiming that it's Croatian's admitting 27 dead and wounded in fighting with Canadians only. Put a side, that there is no prove for that claim. On the other side real Croatian source claim 10 dead and around 84 wounded totally which is actually higher than only 27 death and wounded.

So...why then need to put "Canadian sources" of casualties in first place?...even if their claims are true ..and that that phantom battle really happened. Croatian casualties are in those 10 death and 84 wounded!! It's like to put in article about Stalingrad battle casualties of individual clashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.160.246 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Phantom battle? Seriously? I don't think you should be editing any of this article, with that attitude. brill (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Fyi - the Canadian report only claims to have heard the "27" number through sigint (a Croatian radio station), which is well documented. brill (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial style

The section "Canadian denial" is written as an editorial, directing readers to specific conclusions, therefore representing a case of POV. The final two sentences: Many Canadians are unaware of the role their soldiers have in the world to restore, stabilize and change law and order in countries where it does not exist. Canadians easily can get confused with their role in other countries i.e. Afghanistan, and cannot comprehend how soldiers can be equally “warfighters, conflict negotiators and peacekeepers.” are a fine example of what to avoid when editing wiki.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it's exactly what the cited source says (pp. 335-336), I'am for deleting the entire paragraph outright per both WP:TOPIC and WP:BOLD. Horn's (and Morton's) analysis is just a side note that has more to do with the 2006 situation in Afghanistan than with 1993 in the Balkans.--Darius (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the Medak Pocket had an impact on Canadian society or army or whatever, it should be included in a balanced, neutral manner. Otherwise we're left with an expression of an editor's opinion of what may or may not be relevant to Canadians.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The same applies to a part of a paragraph in the "Canadian buffer" section, from "Even though the operation was considered a success..." to the end of the paragraph. Some elements of this paragraph and possibly some elements of the "Canadian denial" might be included in the "Aftermath" - if they are relevant to the topic, such as lessons learned etc. - but not as an editorial, rather as an objective report on whatever insights were gained and applied later on in Somalia, Afghanistan etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but for that we must summarize La Rose and left only those comments based outright on the Medak experience. On the contrary, what we have is an out-of-topic Canadian army handbook about peacekeeping operations.--Darius (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree completely.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

There is a further problem with possible POV pushing in the "Aftermath" section of the article. The current version of the article states that The operation caused serious political difficulties for the Croatian government, which was heavily criticised abroad for its actions at Medak. The well-publicised accusations of war crimes, along with the Muslim-Croat bloodshed in Bosnia, led to Croatia's image being severely tarnished; in many quarters abroad, the country was viewed as having moved from being a victim to an aggressor.

The above is completely supported by sources, except for the final part that the "country was viewed as having moved from being a victim to an aggressor". The issue is further complicated by use of two sources - Bicanic and LeBor. LeBor appears to support the claim, but Bicanic does not. On the contrary it explicitly relates the aggressive policies to the War in Bosnia while discussing the Medak Op a couple of sentences earlier on in the text. Further sources do support the claims of international diplomatic pressure against Croatia as a direct consequence of this action ([4], p.102). To be honest, LeBor discusses both events in Bosnia and in Medak area in the same paragraph, therefore it is hard to distinguish what is caused by which, and it is quite clear that LeBor simplifies matters a bit in the paragraph where he says "The attack on the Medak pocket caused outrage, and Croatia withdrew under UN orders, to allow the return of UN peacekeepers." ([5], p.224) - there were no "UN orders", the relevant UNSC resolution was adopted on 4 October, well after the battle was fought. Keeping in mind this arrangement of information by LeBor, Bicanic and the other sources, as well as the fact that explicit threats of UN sanctions were made in early 1993 ([6], pp.196-197), i.e. in no specific relation to Medak Op, and the fact that the relevant UNSC resolution still makes no such threat - making clear that the purported shift in international view was not as dramatic as the article presents it to be - it is quite clear that the article section fails to present all relevant information on the topic in a neutral fashion.

The above is compounded by a quote presented in the very next paragraph. Although entirely correct and faithful, it provides zero context as it attempts to remove any blame from the UNPROFOR or the UN for failure to disarm persons "as required in the United Nations peace-keeping plan" and place it with Croatia (due to execution of the operation), while providing zero context - i.e. failing to mention that the specific aspect of the peacekeeping plan was supposed to be performed over a year and a half earlier by the very same UNPROFOR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

paragraph about training, morals, civilians

New Croatian and Bosnian armies were very poorly trained and had no morals condemning them to just tactics, therefore, without the knowledge and strategic abilities to target and fight victoriously against respective soldiers, the armies moved their focus and target to civilians.

What this section means?This is nonsense and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.150.7 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Source analysis seems to suggest this, but in a less inflammatory way, and including Bosnian Serb forces (read p.4). Regards.--Darius (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Operation Medak Pocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041026223127/http://seanmmaloney.com:80/i0006.html to http://www.seanmmaloney.com/i0006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051224174041/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk:80/comexpert/ANX/VII.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VII.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

New edit - Lack of evidence

I added large amount of content regarding "the battle". The other side of the story lacked alot of information.Ementaler01 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this:"It should also be noted that all the evidence supporting claims made by Jim Calvin and members of 2PPCLI are solely from interviews and statements. There is no single evidence, report, document or a statement from any credible source (UNPROFOR, UN Security Councile, US State department etc.) to this date that the battle between the Croats and the Canadians ever happened." It may sound biased but it is actually true. Most of the news articles describing this event have used "Tested mettle" and other similar articles as a source. Tested mettle’s sources regarding the battle are interviews with Colonel Jim Calvin and members of 2PPCLI.Ementaler01 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Never happened? Good grief, it's been extensively reported and documented over the years along with the genocide, ethnic cleansing, and rapes by Croatians against Serbs. Given the numerous documents (there are UN documents, a quick search of the word Medak for the UN website, quickly leads to contemporary reports of Croatian ethnic cleansing, both in Medak, and earlier in other parts of the country, murdering thousands of Serbs. If you want to claim that something as well documented as this is "alleged" then you need sources for that! Nfitz (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nfitz. In recent months, with Ementaler01's edits, the article has taken on a certain POV and run with it. The clash between the Croatian Army and the Canadian peacekeepers is extensively documented, as Nfitz has pointed out. The only point of contention is the number of Croatian Army soldiers that were killed, which can be remedied by having (Canadian claim) and (Croatian claim) in the infobox. 23 editor (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Genocide by Croatians of the Serbs???? Are you kidding me? Fine, you ask for sources? Then where is your source about that claim? Are you familiar with court verdicts about all those things that you wrote here? a) Check out Croatia-Serbia genocide case b) The only case which is recognised as genocide in wars which followed break-up of Yugoslavia by some institutions, and disputed by other is Srebrenica massacre. c) You can't call something ethnic cleansing if thesis of an ethnic cleansing wasn't proven on a court. Those commanders who were found guilty of war crimes in Medak Pocket, such as Mirko Norac, were found guilty of "failing to stop their soldiers of making war crimes". Noone was found guilty of ethnic cleansing. There are also other members of Croatian Army who were found guilty, but on individual scale. None of the verdicts mentioned joint criminal enterprise, like for example on First degree verdict on trial of Ante Gotovina, which was also later overturned. Joint criminal enterprise means that there was an ethnic cleansing. Here's an abstract of their verdicts: https://www.documenta.hr/en/crime-in-medak-pocket.html d) The UN document (Medak investigation) that you mentioned is an investigative document, not a document which proclaims someone guilty of something. It can be taken as an evidence on a court for a prosecutor and it was taken. Now, court verdict is the actual document that proclaims someone guilty. The UN Medak investigation document was written in 1994. and it can't take into account same amount of information like something that was made afterwards such as trials that were done in 2008, therefore you can't even call UN document a contemporary source. Court verdicts are only relevant documents in this case for establishing the facts. e) What is the source of your claim that Croatians murdered thousands of Serbs? You're accusing me of not refering to a sources, but in fact, you're the one who's using very unprecise and unsourced language. f) Article has taken POV? What if I said that article had POV before? Just take a look at these sentences: "The Canadians were among the best trained troops at UNPROFOR's disposal, making them a natural choice for this dangerous task", or "Canadians are trained to deal with foreign population and authorities [...] Canadians are also taught how to deal with human rights violations [...] The Canadian troops showed their ability to immediately stand down when Croatian forces ceased-fire and the Canadians reverted to their role as impartial peacekeepers". If this isn't a POV, then I don't know what it is. Before the edits, this article was actualy "a song od praise" for the Canadian soldiers. I mean, do they have some kind of monopole on saying what happened there? g) The Canadian side is the only side that calls that particular event the battle. No other side sees that as a battle and there is a whole paragraph ranging from UNPROFOR to Serbian side who say that it wasn't a battle. Croatian side categoricly denies that there was a battle. How can you ingore all that? There's clearly a dispute and in any case we can't be 100% sure, therefore precise language should be used and it should be called the alleged battle. If it is called alleged that doesn't mean that it didn't happened, that means that it may have happened, but we can't claim 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.211.161 (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous guy that last posted: Excellent argument, a very nice use of ad hominem, straw man, and tu quoque, all wrapped up in an appeal to authority. brill (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Croat Canadians

"Members of other UNPROFOR battalions, told Croatian authorities that "almost all Canadians are have [...] hostile attitude towards Croatia." In the eyes of Canadian soldiers, Serbs were perceived as friendly, while Croats were perceived as cold. In the town of Daruvar, some Croatian group called "The Lakers" looted and assaulted UNPROFOR personnel. Canadians considered Krajina "as a region with special rights, populated exclusively by Serbs", while Croatian president Tuđman was seen as the biggest nationalist. Due to mentioned animosity several cases were recorded in which Croats referred to Canadian soldiers as "chetniks", while Canadians dubbed Croats as "neanderthals and primitive peasants"."

This sounds extremely dubious to say the least. Both the idea that Canadian troops would "considered Krajina "as a region with special rights, populated exclusively by Serbs"" (people outside Yugoslavia in 1993 did not even know, let alone give a shit about, the varying degrees of legitimacy of claims that sides in the Balkan war had to certain territories), and the idea that they would come to differentiate between the (largely indistinguishable to non-Yugoslavs) two populations to such a degree that they would consider the Croats "neanderthals and primitive peasants", appear to be ludicrous. It would be extremely unlikely that even Canadian troops deployed to, say, Afghanistan or Somalia would make evident such attitudes, let alone those deployed to a relatively developed European country (which already had a visible expatriate population in Canada itself). The only explanation that could possibly make sense for such a senario is that Canadian UNPROFOR troops had for whatever reason various extremely negative interactions with Croat forces or the Croat populations which caused them to hold such extreme beliefs, in which case those also need to be mentioned or cited. The only citation is a print book by Ivica Miškulin which I do not have access to. I know nothing about Ivica Miškulin, but considering that here he describes the foundation and maintenance of the modern Croatian state as the result of a "veličanstvena borba protiv barbarske agresije s Istoka" or "a glorious struggle against the barbaric aggression of the East", I think it can be fairly said that he might not be the most balanced source of facts on this matter. If no one replies in 5 days with specific citations of the relevant parts of Miškulin's book AS WELL AS the sources cited by him therein, I will remove this paragraph. Jamieli (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits over the course of this summer have made it so that the entire article has a blatant pro-Croatian, anti-Canadian bias. Unfortunately, this isn't the only highly questionable addition that's been made. 23 editor (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that "the only explanation" as you say is truly the only explanation. Bias can be resolved by quoting relevant sources in a proper way. 141.136.247.79 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A review done here speaks well of this source [7]. I can't see your "a glorious struggle against the barbaric aggression of the East" quote can be contributed to this source, not that this would make it of a less value. 141.136.247.79 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I tried to find the source, but I couldn't. Anyways I don't thins this paragraph is contributing anything that isn't covered in the article. It is written in a confusing way, it mentions something which can't be generalized (someone's personal views). The paragraph is speaking about some Canadian soldier saying something to someone. I mean, who cares about his opinion. There's too much generalization here. Key points what may be important for the article are. 1-"The Lakers" looted and assaulted UNPROFOR personnel - not put in context or further explained. 2 - Canadian soldiers being hostile to Croats which isn't well written. The article should state something like "according to .... Canadian soldiers stationed in... were hostile to Croats" (backed up by a quote from a source). So to conclude, this paragraph can be deleted and the article won't suffer. 141.136.247.79 (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Also note that Canadian culture wouldn't use the term "primitive peasent", since it's not a thing Canadians would even consider an insult, or derogatory. It's simply not part of the culture. That statement sounds like it comes from a culture with an old world view of classes of people. It makes me extremely suspicious of this article. brill (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Medak Pocket. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512201555/http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/scondva/engraph/270498_e.asp to http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/scondva/engraph/270498_e.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305051717/http://www.worldwater.org/conflictchronology.pdf to http://worldwater.org/conflictchronology.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Clear bias in the article

There is a clear Croatian bias in the article. Including a significant number of spelling errors, that suggest the story is being told from one side.

For instance, where most of the article is told as if it's fact, any reference to Canadians include the words "By Canadian claims", (a term not used otherwise) implying that anything claimed by Canadian sources, is unverified, or lies. There is also significant reference to Serb forces causing damage to the saintly Croatian forces.

Seriously folks, I think we need some serious external objectivity applied to this article.

brill (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

brill (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't objective. As a Canadian though, definitely the wrong person for external objectivity.

On a related note, there's also "The UN forces claim" and the article actually debates the reliability of sources within it: "Various Canadian sources (Ottawa Citizen, Tested Mettle, Chances for Peace) talk about 27–30 Croatian soldiers killed in an apparent clash with Canadian peacekeepers. The source of this number is apparently some kind of information published by Croatian Radio Television..." This should be on the talk page.

There is a Canadian bias in parts as well, I couldn't verify the source for (due to language): "The Canadians were among the best trained troops at UNPROFOR's disposal, making them a natural choice for this dangerous task."

174.91.134.33 (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

First hand accounts

We have a lot of first hand accounts by the people who participated in this battle.

They should be included in the article, properly referenced of course. brill (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"History" in making

Man, this subject is changing a lot here. From small incident, it has turned into several days long battle. Well, let me give you first hand source, me. Whole thing was small skirmish, lasting a bit longer then half an hour. It is hard to say who started first. Some say it was Canadian sentry started shooting on our soldiers passing by, some say it was one of our idiots shooting at them first. But whole thing was resolved very fast with size fire on both sides. We had 2 wounded, one bloke from Rijeka was shot in the leg, while another one from Varazdin was more seriously wounded, and barely managed to survive. We didn't count scratches and bruises. There was no dead in that skirmish. Yet, entire article is more about that, "greatest battle", then what was actually happening there. It is really ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.158.162 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Serbo - Croatian, Really? Which country's language is that?

Forcing this outdated political project of a "language" is absolutely obnoxious by this point. I ask the administrators to remove it.

I also don't see any need for a cyrilic letters for this military operation, since it was Croatian, not Serbian in origin and the whole point of this Croatian insert in the English language article is to provide the original, which has nothing to do with Serbian.

I mean with that logic we should then write this Croatian military action in Nepalese too since there was few Nepalese UN soldiers there somwhere. 95.178.191.231 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It was against the Serbians though, wasn't it? Alaexis_¿question? 21:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)