Talk:Benkovac

Fair use rationale for Image:Benkovac (grb).gif

Image:Benkovac (grb).gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian name

If the locality has significant Serbian population or for historical reasons it is important, Serbian name should be included. --Koppany 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate the fact that you used the talk page Koppany so I can explain. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Croatian or Serbian or Serbo-Croatian language, but they are very similar. Therefore, (with the exception of dialect-influenced terms such as Srijem/Srem) all of the cities or towns or villages in either country are intelligible to each language. Meaning, Benkovac, or any other city in Croatia (even Biograd) will be called the same thing in Serbian. The main difference in the languages, as I am sure most know, is the alphabet. Now, the language of Croatia is officially Croatian; Istra is the only place in which the area is officially bilingual (with Italian).

So what good will it do to just put the same word up again, but in a different alphabet? Serbian is not an official language, Serbs are a minority, and like the Czechs and other minorities, they have certain rights like learning their language in schools, etc, but the Serbian language is not used officially in any government business, legal documents, road signs etc. According to the last census, a vast majority of Serbs say they speak the Croatian language (not surprising, they live in Croatia and their speech is more similar to a Croat in Croatia than a Serb in Beograd). Unlike Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia is not a place in which Cyrillic is used officially.

My question now is, why is it so important that Cyrillic writing be up there? What good does it do on a geographical page about a town in a country that does recognize or use that alphabet and that most Serbs in the country don't even use? You mention historical reasons; the city and area was never a part of Serbia. Serbia had no impact on the area with the exception of the war. Serbs were just barely over 50% of the town. I'm sure most normal Wikipedia contributing Serbs will not bother with a trivial matter like this; it is only the extreme (now banned) users that made it their agenda to insert everything and anything Serbian they can onto the Croatian pages, which was for their own personal satisfaction rather than anything useful. Cheers! --Jesuislafete 17:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I appreciate your explanation, however can not accept it completly. I am not a Serb and unfortunately had a lot of conlifcts with a certain ultranationalist Serbian user of Wikipedia and I also consider unnecessary to add a Serbian Cyrillic name of every locality in Croatia. I can also understand the feeling of Croatians against Cirilica that may be a symbol of Serbian agression against Croatia. Nevertheless, in the case of a town where Serbs formed about 50 % of the inhabitanst, furthermore it was part of Rebuplic of Serbian Krajina (yes, I know it was an unrecognised puppet state, but de facto it was a historical entity) Serbian names should be mentioned. I am also adding the Hungarian name of Croatian towns and villages where they are relevant, and I think it does not disturb any Croatian users, as I also add Croatian or German name of Hungarian towns. I will not add it again, but if someone wants to do so I will support it. Laku noc! --Koppany 20:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Serbian name" of Benkovac never existed. Zenanarh (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to flee?

I can understand the confusion, however Benkovac simply wasn't "ethnically cleansed"- I have found that opinion thrown around too much and don't think most people even understand what it means. In this case, unlike certain villagers where people literally were forced to flee, Benkovac wasn't one of them. The sentence you use as source: "caused by the shelling created an environment in which those present there had no choice but to leave" and "made everyone feel like they had to flee" is saying that in the ICTY's judgment, the Operation's shelling caused fear which was a motivator in leaving, but that does not mean that they were ethnically cleansed in a violent forced removal. Does that make sense? --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that makes sense. But I did not wrote that they were ethnically cleansed. They fled out of fear which came from the created environment. I do not believe that they left their homes voluntary. Regards Seader (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back, and it appears that the first edit did say that, but the second one was changed. It is true that most people did not want to leave their homes, but a mixture of things such as fear, confusion, and orders/collapse of leadership contributed to various degrees in different areas.--Jesuislafete (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"With regard to the alleged forcible transfer and deportation, the Chamber considered that on 4 and 5 August 1995, large numbers of persons left the towns of Benkovac, Gračac, Knin, and Obrovac and went to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. The Trial Chamber considered that although there were Krajina Serb evacuation plans for certain municipalities, the extent to which they were implemented varied. Moreover, the population was already on the move by the time the Serb municipal authorities took action and when Serb Krajina President Martić ordered an evacuation late in the afternoon of 4 August 1995. The Trial Chamber concluded that the evacuation plans and orders of the Krajina Serb authorities had little or no influence on the departure of Krajina Serbs. With respect to Benkovac, Gračac, Knin, and Obrovac, the Chamber concluded that the fear of violence and duress caused by the shelling created an environment in which those present there had no choice but to leave. For instance, one witness testified that the shells, which fell everywhere in Knin, appeared to have been aimed at scaring people and made everyone feel like they had to flee." from page 3 from ICTY judgement summary. But here it is about the town of Benkovac and according to the ICTY judgement summary the people were already on the move at the moment the authorities ordered the evacuation and that they did not left their homes voluntary. It does not say that they were expelled by the croatian forces but, from my understanding (if I'm wrong then I apologize), it says that they fled out of the town, for whatever reason. The current information that they left the town does not reflect the situation correctly, because it leaves the possibility open that this was done voluntarily. Regards Seader (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or am I the only one thinking this here? Regards Seader (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying now, I didn't understand at first. Yes, that does make sense when thinking in terms of motivation factors. Thanks for clarifying for me--Jesuislafete (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You do not have to thank me. We are all working together here on the wikipedia. Regards Seader (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benkovac. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link

The External Link titled Historical Monuments of Benkovac takes one to a Japanese page on scuba diving. However the link address still reads http://www.benkovac-bastina.net/ . It appears as if this address name has been sold to someone else. I do not feel comfortable with deleting it because i'm very unfamiliar with editing the Wiki.Jeff1961 (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]