Talk:Operation Storm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject (Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)

Former countries WikiProject (Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

WikiProject Former Yugoslavia (Rated Start-Class)

Operation Storm is part of WikiProject Former Yugoslavia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Former Yugoslavia and its nations, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia. If you would like to participate, you can this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Archives
/Archive 1

[edit] Should we remove these tags on the top of the article

about 75% of the article is sourced properly.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I am still waiting for an answer from you on how to get the UN back into the article (see my last post under "role of the UN" above) and a few other things. You have removed all mention of the UN. Secondly, some sources are still questionable. Some are strange. For example, what, pray tell, does the "census" of former Sector East per the ICTY Milosevic indictment have to do with Op Storm? I am hoping more editors will take an interest here, perhaps after another article has progressed further and sources have been decided upon. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

This is 1 interesting source [1]--Rjecina (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source [2] and another [3] --Rjecina (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am having problem with tag "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed". Can somebody explain me what is needed so that this tag is deleted ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. It's tornado season in the US and I've been without electricity and then also internet service for some days. I am working on correcting the inaccuracies as I have time. They range from some of the problems I have already corrected in the timeline (see below) to the place of surrender (the surrender was outside Glina in the direction of Topusko, not in Vojnic). New problems with accuracy have recently cropped up, as well. Civilaffairs (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

[edit] Removal of POV on operating "forcing" Serbs to leave

This sentence needs revision: "However the operation forced approximately 200,000 to 250,000 [7] Serbs to flee to Serb-held parts of Bosnia and Serbia." Although it is sourced, the source documents the number of displaced people, not the reason why they left. Saying that Operation Storm "forced" those people to leave is the same as calling the entire thing deliberate ethnic cleansing. However, as other parts of wikipedia make clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martic-order1995.jpg), the local populace was evacuated at the behest of the SPK, before Croat forces reached the area. --Pisciotta11 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An additional edit: I assume the inclusion of Carl Bildt's statement here is to showcase international reaction to Operation Storm. I've added some sourced statements from other credible international actors, including the German and U.S. governments. Also included is official Croatian reaction to Bildt's statement. --Pisciotta11 (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to your POV, that sentence is POV. According to those of another POV, the way you have "corrected" the sentence is POV. What we should be striving for here is NPOV. Until there is a decision in the ongoing Hague trial of Gotovina, Čermak and Markač, perhaps the best solution is to simply say the refugees fled and let the two POVs be made known through the conflicting views of the Europeans and some of the US and UK media on one side, and the leaders of Croatia, the USA and Germany on the other side.

Actually the Carl Bildt quote was added by me. The original was "The operation has been called ethnic cleansing." As a new editor, I naively was trying to follow WP:Avoid Weasel Terms and used Bildt as the source. GriffinSB retaliated with a string of quotes from American officials (who assisted Croatia with Op Storm) originally sourced to the defense attourney of the Croatian generals, but now better sourced. Now you have added more quotes from German officials (who also assisted Croatia) plus protestations from Croatian officials. Furthermore, you have not provided urls for your sources. I really don't think a long-winded argument like this should take up the bulk of the intro to an article about a military operation.

Perhaps we can find a way to shorten it here and make a new secton to cover this controversy. The Dutch source given by Rjecina above puts it rather succinctly: the EU called it ethnic cleansing while Croatia and the US denied this. It would be nice if we could agree on a short summary like this for the intro, and expand explanation of this controversy in a separate section if needed. The intro needs more simple and important facts about the actual military operation itself. As it is, it is nearly completely taken up with all these quotes.

You have used the ICTY indictment of Gotovina, Čermak and Markač as a source to reduce the number of refugees but ignored the charges themselves (that the refugees were indeed forced out, according to the indictment). You also ignore the the charges referencing the fake evacuation orders dropped from Croatian aircraft and alarmist messages broadcast by the Croats using RSK civilian radio frequencies.

News accounts generally give 200,000 or 250,000. The correct number is probably around 230,000 (UNHCR figure no longer available online). ICTY uses conservative numbers of course. Perhaps the best thing to do is give either 200,000 (number most often cited in various reports) or else the range of 150,000 to 250,000 in the intro, then explain the wide discrepancy in the figures in the "refugees" section?

The caption on the "Martic order" was quite misleading and I have now corrected it. If you read the text of the order, you will find it did not apply to "the main areas of RSK" as stated in the caption, but rather:

1. To start evacuating population unfit to military service from the municipalities of Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Drniš and Gračac. 2. Evacuation to be carried out according to the plan towards direction of Knin and furthermore via Otrić, and towards Srb and Lapac.

How this order recorded as given at 16:45 on 4 August was supposed to have been made known to the populace is beyond me (Serb comms were jammed compliments of the USA and the Croats were broadcasting their own messages on the RSK civilian radio frequencies). How this order was supposed the effect the flight of close to a quarter million people from an area of over 10,000 square kilometres within the space of hours is also beyond me.

No, all had not left before Croat forces reached the area, not by a long shot. You can learn more by reading Rjecina's Dutch source and the report of the Secretary-General on Croatia to the Security Council of 23 August. You may also want to have a look at our discussion about NPOV sources over on the talk page of Serbs of Croatia, as well as some discussion of Operation Storm there. Included is a rather tiresome discussion of the "Martic order" for good measure.

The sourced HRW report which states there was not a single Croat left in the UNPAs after January 1993 is flat wrong and contradicted by other reports. True, Croats remaining in the UNPAs were treated most horribly and most were expelled. There were very few Croats left in the UNPAs, but there were those very few. At last (by January of 1994, possibly earlier, not sure of date), UNPROFOR (and later UNCRO) co-located UN battalions in areas where there were remaining Croats to protect them and also permanently deployed professional civilian humanitarian teams in the Sectors to assist and monitor the welfare of the remaining minority populations. The US State Department human rights report of January 1994 states "UNPROFOR estimates that fewer than 400 Croats remain in Sector South." This is a pitifully small number, but remain they did. A small number of Croats also remained in Sector North up until the very end, but I have not found an online report of the exact number so far.

If you insist on having the Marcus Tanner quote in the intro, we will have to add how the Croatian Serbs were in fact prevented from returning (burning of houses, harrassment, killings, various laws erected as obstacles to return, etc.)Civilaffairs (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Okay, done. The number of ethnic Croats remaining in Sectors North and South has been added. The HRW report states around 1,100 remained in Sector South and the Pink Zones, while the US State Department report says fewer than 400 remained in Sector South. Assuming that the majority were in the Pink Zones, I used the US report for Sector South and the HRW report for Sector North. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Hello, there's a lot of material to tackle here, I probably will require some time to address it all.

First something easy:

Now you have added more quotes from German officials (who also assisted Croatia) plus protestations from Croatian officials. Furthermore, you have not provided urls for your sources.

Point taken; URL of quote article now in the reference. However, not every credible source necessarily has an URL.

Moving on...

I disagree with the statement that "news accounts generall give 200,000 or 250,000." For example, "Aid agencies said the Serb exodus from Croatia could total 150,000-200,000 people," which comes from an Aug. 7, 1995 Associated Press story "Croatia Announces End to Military Operation," by George Jahn. (No URL, unfortunately.) There's this from an Aug. 5, 1995 New York Times article: "Thus today's action will bolster those who believe, as do some diplomats here, that what really lies behind the offensive is the determination of the Croats simply to expel the 150,000 Serbs in Krajina." (URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEED8133EF936A3575BC0A963958260). BTW, I don't agree with every assertion contained with this article, but for the most part it is credible. This Oct. 16, 1997 article in the San Francisco Chronicle actually pegs the number of refugees at 135,000. (a copy of the article pasted into a forum can be found at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TWATCH-L;ajqZIA;19971022111820-0400) An April 14, 2002 Los Angeles Times article about U.S. companies hired to train foreign armies pegs the number at "more than" 150,000. (Again this article has been copied and pasted at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/training/pmc.htm)

And so on, and so on. I would suggest staying with the ICTY indictment numbers because that simply is the most official number possible. However, keep in mind that usage of the indictment as a source of figures doesn't necessarily equate endorsement of the thinking contained therein.

--Pisciotta11 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections made to timeline

I removed the following sentence from August 5: Serb forces launched artillery attacks on Croatian civilians in Dubrovnik in the far south and Vinkovci in the far east of Croatia, without any specific military purpose. Reason: The cited source did not mention Vinkovci at all. The shelling of the Dubrovnik area by VRS (Bosnian Serb Army) occurred on or about August 17, according to the source and had to do with the assault on Trebinje, not Op Storm. In addition, the shelling apparently had to do with the massing of troops for the assault on Trebinje. I also reinstated the original "captured" rather than "liberated". We really should avoid such POV terms. "Liberated" is not used in articles about civil wars. We don't, for example, say Sherman "liberated" Atlanta (American Civil War).

I also removed the following sentence from August 5 sourced to state-controlled HRT (and in "local language"): Large refugee columns formed in many parts of Croatian Serb territory, so virtually the entire Serb population fled into Bosnia along the evacuation corridors established by the Croatian military on UN demand. The UN demanded no such thing. The UN demanded that HV stop strafing and shooting at the refugee columns. This sentence substantially conflicts with official UN reports, including reports of the Secretary-General. Let us try to stick to NPOV sources in this article.

From Operations in July-August 1995 I removed this sentence: The Croatian Serbs recognised the weakness which has created massive panic in Krajina population. Reason: the cited source did not support this sentence nor even touch upon this subject.

There are a number of other problems with the timeline. I will try to work on them as I have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilaffairs (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. If there is problem with section please put tag in that section of article. I will now again delete tag. Writing tag "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed" is putting under factual accuracy question all article, but factual accuracy of all article is not in question.--Rjecina (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)