Talk:Battle of Vukovar

Notes Reference section

Why are notes refs placed in one column? As a result we have extended page height for more then a hundred and fifty rows (assuming that simple format would placed them into at least three columns).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like many are to the same source, and thus could be merged.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It shows up as two columns on my browser. As you can see in the source, the parameter used is colwidth=18em, and you can read more about this in the documentation of {{reflist}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The "em" parameter depends on dpi settings on one's own device. For example, 18em (as here) shows up as four columns, 20em as three on my browser (and it's not a huge monitor).--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory

This is deprecated in infoboxes per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. FDW777 (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So it says in the source. What will write something that is not? Then it is best to delete the word Pyrrhic victory from the World. You also have a Pyrrhic article so delete it too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory. I see that anyone can edit WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX so I could too. It remains to be seen who wrote it. And he should have gotten a consensus for something like that written, so that would be fine.93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Then a lot of battles need to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Holme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Marshes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Plevna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenkins%27_Ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Defile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Sault ... etc Look at the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Military_history. Then Epirote Victory it does not exist, it must also be written differently here in infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asculum93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

More whataboutery. FDW777 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As MOS says we should not say it, we should not say it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The manual of style is a guideline, while verifiability is a policy, so this is moot. Surely we can avoid this pointless argument by changing the citations to different reliable sources that use different terms to describe the victory? Can someone do that please? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Since verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, this discussion is very much not moot. FDW777 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but the same two sources that we currently reference for this claim are indeed used elsewhere in the article, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly exceptional about using them also for these claims. Indeed, if we were to remove this qualification that stays true to those sources, if we omitted this bit of information intentionally while continuing to reference them, that would be quite a bit of a problem with regard to the letter and spirit of the verifiability policy. Again, please don't hesitate to present equally good or better sources that simply don't use this qualification for the outcome of the battle, and there we go, problem solved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two reliable sources that say it was a pyrrhic victory, other sources use language consistent with that. No-one so far has produced a single reliable source that contradicts that description. In general terms, we should reflect what the consensus of reliable sources say. At present they support a description of "pyrrhic victory", and so do the objective facts of the battle, for that matter. This is hardly a controversial description for anyone other than Serbs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that can't be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but the inclusion of "Pyrrhic" in the infobox is specifically deprecated. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the situation is the same as here [[1]] but they don't respect me because I'm some unimportant IP. I gave an explanation on the talk page [[2]] why you should stay Pyrrhic victory ,but delete that it is disruptive editing. Sources say differently which are in the article, both sources say that it is a Pyrrhic victory not just victory , but there is no answer, it is just deleted without arguments. I would ask someone there to say, should there be a Pyrrhic victory or not. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The situation is that we use what is in the reliable sources, that is how WP works. The reliable sources say it was a pyrrhic victory. Frankly, this "but pyrrhic victory is deprecated" is just nonsense. The MOS has no business deprecating content when the reliable sources clearly support that content. In this case, the sources support it. In many other cases, they do not, and the use of the term in those articles is not appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 I made a dispute resolution request at [3], (just so you know) Noorullah21 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 210#Battle of Vukovar --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussion that is relevant here: Talk:Battle of Vukovar/Archive 4#Pyrrhic victory. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There's clearly not consensus here and that being the case MOS should stand. There's only one source that's RS here anyway, and that alone is not a compelling reason to ignore a very clear and specific MOS, especially on a topic that's got clear Balkans issues.

Unbh (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not true what you say that there is only one source where it is written the Pyrrhic victory. There is also on another source where it says the victory of Pyrrhus, which you tried to delete on page 258 Woodward, Susan L. (1995). Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Read https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&hl=eng&id=G4FpAAAAMAAJ&dq=balkan+tragedy+chaos+and+dissolution+after+the+cold+war&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%09++Pyrrhic Press the search button on that page and you will see that it says pyrrhic victory on page 258 of that book93.136.75.98 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that source. It's a quote in the text from an editorial piece in a newspaper. It's not RS for this statement. See WP:RSEDITORIALUnbh (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a published secondary source that supports this conclusion and cites its sources, I don't understand your argument. How does RSEDITORIAL apply if we're not talking about a news publication? And what about the other source, and the argument laid out above - we take these sources seriously for all the other content in the article, but we're going to ignore their description of this matter because it doesn't match our manual of style?

More generally, the organic consensus has been for decades now that this is an appropriate description, and the article actually went through multiple reviews to become FA, and nobody had a problem with this, but now we're supposed to believe that this is a style issue that overrides all those reviews that all involved checking style? I'm very much unimpressed by this lack of a rationale here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Unbh It's not a newspaper quote because pyrrhic victory is written in parentheses (and long after "Pyrrhic victory" of the fall of Vukovar). It has nothing to do with the newspaper, but the author of the book only says the time when it was, that's why it's written in parentheses this (and long after "Pyrrhic victory" of the fall of Vukovar). Read the sentence a little better and you will understand.93.136.75.98 (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a cherry picked quote within a cherry picked quote. It doesn't state a conclusion. A single other source doesn't justify ignoring the MOS.

The article is a 10 year old+ FA. Standards were not the same then, wiki was barely toddling. there are many FA articles fosillised by [[WP:FAOWN]] that are really just [{WP:OWN]] and this is looking like one on them. Unbh (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite of what you say, the author of the book states the conclusion in which time it happened. So, according to him, it was during the time of the pyrrhic victory of Vukovar or the fall of Vukovar, as he wrote. That is why it is written in parentheses when it tells the reader the time when it was. So the author says that it is a Pyrrhic victory, not some quote from the newspaper that you want to take out of context here and that you are deceiving others that it is a quote from the newspaper.93.136.75.98 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In five minutes, I found 3 more books where Pyrrhic victory is written https://books.google.com/books?id=wy3TBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA327&dq=Pyrrhic+battle+vukovar&hl=eng&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxj7Tn5_b4AhXtlosKHSO2AOEQ6AF6BAgJEAI#v=onepage&q=Pyrrhic%20battle%20vukovar&f=false page 327 , https://books.google.com/books?id=DmaBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&dq=Pyrrhic+battle+vukovar&hl=eng&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxj7Tn5_b4AhXtlosKHSO2AOEQ6AF6BAgDEAI#v=onepage&q=Pyrrhic%20battle%20vukovar&f=false page 62 , https://books.google.com/books?id=kSc9EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA351&dq=Pyrrhic+battle+vukovar&hl=eng&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxj7Tn5_b4AhXtlosKHSO2AOEQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=Pyrrhic%20battle%20vukovar&f=false page 351 93.136.75.98 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

For those that missed it the first time, the MOS is a guideline. This particular change to the guideline was made with a very weak consensus. When the reliable sources clearly support content we include it. Anyone who has read the key non-partisan texts on this battle knows it was a Pyrrhic victory. Edit warring about it is going to get reported. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unbh, if you are going to overtly disregard WP:FAOWN it would be helpful if you could ping in the FAC coordinators and the original reviewers for their opinions. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

JFTR this account Unbh was apparently since blocked for egregious policy violations. I'm noticing this now that an anonymous user started soapboxing about the same phrase. --Joy (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Good grief... so sick of this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no consensus about this above despite what you two seem to be trying to bludgeon through 37.245.173.184 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, if you want to make a change, please make an actual argument based on applicable policies and guidelines, or stop wasting our volunteer time. Edit warring over weird details is pretty much a classic style of abusing Wikipedia. --Joy (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As the previous protection expired, the same ISP seems to have been used again to do the same kind of soapboxing. I noticed that the previous netblock was also blocked for some other abuse. I've protected it again, as this clearly doesn't seem to have been a matter for rational discussion. --Joy (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The absence of rational discussion is from two involved administrators bludgeoning and stonewalling their self-declared consensus contrary to the clearly divided view above and to the clearly established and explicitly stated MoS for infoboxes 37.245.77.159 (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The MOS and template guidance cannot deprecate any article from including an accurate description of the outcome of a battle that is based on the academic consensus of that outcome. Some editors appear to think that a poorly arrived-at infobox guidance is equivalent to a legal requirement. It isn’t. The Battle of Vukovar was pretty much a quintessential pyrrhic victory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This is fairly obvious, but let's point out for the record that you've been edit-warring over something you yourself declared to be more important - manual of style over verifiability, where one is a guideline and the other a policy, which is a non-trivial distinction. A divided discussion is resolved according to the policy on how we arrive at consensus; notice how it explicitly warns against being combative and unwilling to use dispute resolution mechanisms. --Joy (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

there isn't consensus though, there's just you two saying over and over again that there is. Two sources does not make an academic consensus either. THe use is deprecated in infoboxes, not in the article. The infobox is also supposed to be a summary of the article, which in this case doesn't even contain the description 'pyrrhic victory'! 2.49.18.70 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please, do present evidence of a different academic consensus. The phrase seems to summarize what is described within the article quite well. --Joy (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

it isn't a good summary off the content of the article. To ignore the MoS there should be a lot more that two cherry picked sources - the second of which is invalid anyway as it's a primary quote from a newspaper in the source.

Indef protection of this article by an admin actively involved in the discussion is outrageous. You should remove it - I will not restore my edits 2.49.18.70 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The actual discussion was had, in 2011 and in 2022. This is not it. --Joy (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And there's not consensus in either discussion. 2.49.18.70 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure there is, you're just continuing to wiki-lawyer around the facts. Flamewars on the Internet can be amusing, huh? --Joy (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This line should be altered/modified

"As Yugoslavia began to break up, Serbia's President Slobodan Milošević and Croatia's President Franjo Tuđman began pursuing nationalist politics"

It's at the begining of the article and it's the third line (at the time I'm writting this).

It implies that Milošević and Tuđman are two sides of the same coin. It equates the plan of greater serbia by Milošević(as stated and concluded by the UN = "According to a 1994 United Nations report, the Serb side did not aim to restore Yugoslavia, but to create a "Greater Serbia" from parts of Croatia and Bosnia", https://web.archive.org/web/20120504142243/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/IV.htm) with Tuđman simply wanting out of yugolavia.

So I think that line leaves a wrong impression of Tuđman because of the part saying "nationalist politics". Here is part of a wikipedia article on nationalism: "In practice, nationalism can be seen as positive or negative depending on context and individual outlook. Nationalism has been an important driver in independence movements such as the Greek Revolution, the Irish Revolution, the Zionist movement that created modern Israel and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Radical nationalism combined with racial hatred was also a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Nationalism was an important driver of the controversial annexation of Crimea by Russia."

Milošević did ethnic cleansing and was a war criminal, here is a line from his wikipedia page:"After Milošević's death, the ICTY and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals found that he was a part of a joint criminal enterprise to remove Croats and Bosniaks from large parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina"

Tuđman wanted independence from yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was always underpinned with serbian nationalism and serbian centralization. Since Tito died it was a grave time for anyone that wasn't serbian to live in yugoslavia because Milošević had plans to take over the rule of yugoslavia, as evident by his agressive actions as soon as Croatia left Yugoslavia and by the increasing fear the Croatian people felt by staying in yugoslavia since Tito died.

So you can see how that line at the begining is not correct in a sense, it's correct on face value, but not on context. Milošević attacked Croatia, Tuđman didn't attack Serbia, he wanted out of yugoslavia, two very different types of nationalism.

I don't feel like editing that line because I'm new and I already made some mistakes regarding an article that I tried to edit because I'm not yet familiar with editing on wikipedia to the extent were I don't leave a mess and I don't want to leave a bad impression on the admins.

I hope someone with more experience adresses this. My proposal is this. "As Yugoslavia began to break up, Serbia's President Slobodan Milošević began pursuing nationalist politics" or to simply remove it. VEcev (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Something along these lines was in a recent edit I reverted. The issue here is that even the source you provided says:

During 1990, tensions had increased considerably throughout the former Yugoslavia as newly elected governments in the Republics expressed strong nationalist sentiments. In Croatia, for example, after Franjo Tudjman and the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ--Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica) came to power in April of 1990, a law was enacted adopting Croatian as the official language of state administration and the red and white checkered shield, a symbol of the Croatian nation, hanged from many windows. *73 Furthermore, many Serbs were dismissed from their jobs, especially within the police forces, and replaced by Croats. *74 In addition, the new Croatian constitution spoke of the «national state of the Croatian nation». *75 As one scholar put it, the constitution's repeated use of the term «Croatian nation» (Hrvatski narod) «has an ethnic rather then political connotation and excludes those not ethnically Croat». *76

Hence if we want to provide a more nuanced view on the two nationalists, a specific phrasing needs to be discussed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

infobox HOS Šilić matter

There's been repetitive attempts now (from a Latvian IP address) to restore the name of Robert Šilić in the infobox, related to Croatian Defence Forces. I had removed it as it had been added without a rationale, even if nobody noticed that in quite a while (it happened after the FA review). I see we mentioned this briefly in /Archive 3, but that by itself is not meaningful. It's probably some sort of a political talking point to include or exclude them, which likely shouldn't be relevant for the encyclopedia, instead the inclusion criterion is if and how this matter is described in reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)