Talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Santasa99 (talk · contribs) 13:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1 It is reasonably well written.

a (spelling, grammar and copyedit): ; b (prose, MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

After reading over the page for forty minutes I haven't found any major grammatical, spelling, or MOS mistakes. The proper date formats are used.

2 It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): ; b (citations to reliable sources): ; c (OR): ; d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3 It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): ; b (focused):

4 It follows the neutral point of view policy.

a Fair representation without bias:

5 It is stable.

a No edit wars, etc.:

6 It is illustrated.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): ; b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7 Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Response by nominator:

Discussion:
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. I hope Jon really checked the grammar, and I am guessing, English is his mother tongue, which means I don’t have to deal with that aspect of the review, then. He would have done better anyway, so I left his comment.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that article could be promoted to GA, if some issues are resolved. That’s why I decided to put it on hold, so that we can try to address those concerns in the following 7 days, beginning this evening, as I’m mostly available during the late hours CET.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright. What are the issues that need to be resolved?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The longer I looked, the more problematic it seemed, so I’ll begin with a problem that obviously embodies all or most of the other shortcomings of this article, the most obvious to me at least, which if resolved could signal that the remaining issues could also be easily taken care of through this review:

• "Demographic changes" - we have this rather large section, providing readers with data on the demographic situation before and after the war, with a small intro which does not provide any background description and information that would explain curious picture which emerges from the data given in both intro and the tables. (For example, existing half a sentence long failed attempt to explain why the Serbs of Sarajevo left the suburbia, "as Serbs massively left Sarajevo in the ensuing months", can't be sufficient enough - or so I think - but even this half of sentence gives away confusing and ambiguous picture through its linking to another extremely weak article, which is supposedly meant to explain this "exodus" in details.) Even a cursory analysis of these numbers (and I trust they are correct) gives the impression that the Serb population is the one that is most afflicted - in fact, it seem it's Croatian, but due to the relative size of the population, the Serb population suffered the most and the Muslim population the least casualties of the "ethnic cleansing". Such an impression would be in contradiction with the first half of the article, where we try to present the "ethnic cleansing" phenomenon, with a narrative which does not corresponds to given demographic statistics. Without additional description and explanation, especially for readers who are not familiar with the history of the war, the section on the demographic situation framed like this can be exceptionally misleading. Even if we assume that the first part of the article is actually the background, then the article as a whole is even more confusing for the average reader, especially since the first part of the article suffer from its own problems with contradictory claims, in particular The goal of the warring factions was to acquire territory for their own ethnic group by ethnically cleansing the area of people of other ethnicities living there. and The organizers of ethnic cleansing also had the intent of destroying Bosnia's multiethnic society in order to make way for a society based on nationalist supremacy. which contradict claim Bosniaks also engaged in "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law", they did not engage in "systematic ethnic cleansing" to the likes of Bosnian Serb forces. It was stated that "there is no factual basis for arguing that there is a moral equivalence between the warring factions". With these claims, article does not differentiate between the policies and aims leading into the war with those accepted during or toward its end, when all parties had to conform to the idea of ghettoisation ingrained into every single peace plan, including Dayton Peace Agreement.
• "Historical background" - section gives too much importance to irrelevant details related to various negotiations between both relevant and irrelevant participants (first para.) - some basic info on (the reasons for) the outbreak of war, though, should remain or be included; sec. goes into some details about creation of "autonomous entities" by some institution with official capacities but doesn't says anything about (il)legality of both institution or its moves, it mention some of the proclamations and goals contained in them, but it's stays silent on one particularly important for the historic background of the phenomenon itself, namely Karadžić's speech in the (state) assembly with threats and direct references to disappearance of entire people - also, the "background" should explain situation regarding civilian population before the war, how and where they lived in terms of co-existence and distribution in correlation to creation of these entities and proclaimed goals and threats; whether there was any visible reason in the state of the population for what followed and has been described as "ethnic cleansing", of course, only basic info. Just to illustrate: In July 1991, Bosnian Serb and Bosniak representatives signed the Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement, which would leave Bosnia and Herzegovina in a state union with Serbia and Montenegro. Despite initially welcoming the initiative, Izetbegović later dismissed it. - not only that this is completely unnecessary piece of info, it is also totally misleading - Zulfikarpašić can not be described with a phrase "Bosniak representatives"; it also links to another weak and misleading article filled with misleading narrative and misuse of references.

I would like that we focus on "Demographic changes" introductory passage, if you think that you are able and, more importantly, willing to go extra mile in an effort to provide sufficient background explanation for statistical data on demo picture, then we can deal with the rest. Sorry for the wall of text, I choose to provide you with some explanations, instead of just listing my concerns.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 

"Demographic changes" - I am not quite sure what you are aiming at. The background description mentions what the 1991 population census says, which gives a frame of reference for the ethnic composition of the country right before the war. It also gives a summary of the number of ethnic groups displaced in the war (the end of the section), and since the table states that 1,27 million Bosniaks were displaced or refugees, compared to 540,000 Serbs, this cannot give the impression that the Serb population is the one that is most afflicted. Likewise, in the "Campaigns" section, it clearly says that the Serb forces expelled between 700,000 and a million Bosniaks. If you are referring to the second table, "1991–2011 demographic changes, based on the 1995/1996 territorial control, according to Saša Mrduljaš", then yes, it is rather misleading, since it gives a too large time frame, 20 years, which is too late to show immediate results of the war on each of the areas. In these 15 years, from 1996 until 2011, many refugees returned to their homes, others left in the meantime due to bad economic situation, etc. I am thus willing to remove that second table, in order to focus on the first table, which gives a relevant time frame dated 1995, giving a precise state of demographic changes in the immediate aftermath of the war. The exodus of Serbs from Sarajevo could be moved to the "Campaigns" section, under "Bosniak forces", where more data could be added to explain the movement. However, Burg and Shoup mention that it is difficult to categorize the said Sarajevo exodus, since many Serbs left for various reasons, while even their own politicians, most notably Krajišnik, called upon them to leave Sarajevo after the war.
Regarding your line: The goal of the warring factions was to acquire territory for their own ethnic group by ethnically cleansing the area of people of other ethnicities living there. and The organizers of ethnic cleansing also had the intent of destroying Bosnia's multiethnic society in order to make way for a society based on nationalist supremacy. which contradict claim Bosniaks also engaged in "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law", they did not engage in "systematic ethnic cleansing" to the likes of Bosnian Serb forces. It was stated that "there is no factual basis for arguing that there is a moral equivalence between the warring factions"". Where is the contradiction? Yes, there were two confirmed and widely accepted sides that perpetrated ethnic cleansing: the Serb forces, and, to a lesser extent, Croat forces. While Bosniak forces did perpetrate war crimes, these were mostly not categorized as a systematic ethnic cleansing. Plunder, for instance, is a war crime, but it is not necessarily ethnic cleansing. So, you will have to explain more what seems to be the problem here.
"Historical background" - I agree that there are too many irrelevant details, since other users inserted too much info which should be saved for the main article, Bosnian War. I am perfectly willing to remove some of them, like the Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement. Good point about Karadžič's threat in front of the assembly, I could add that.
...also, the "background" should explain situation regarding civilian population before the war, how and where they lived in terms of co-existence and distribution in correlation to creation of these entities and proclaimed goals and threats; whether there was any visible reason in the state of the population for what followed and has been described as "ethnic cleansing", of course, only basic info. I am struggling to understand this sentence. Do you mean that before the war Bosnia was a multiethnic society with numerous mixed marriages? And that the three ethnic groups mingled? As for the "visible reason in the state of the population", do you mean the historical background in Bosnia in the 1940s or the 1990s campaign to create two Serb states from parts of Croatia and Bosnia? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as my "aim" is concerned, we need to create a clear distinction between subject of the article "ethnic cleansing", as described here: Senate hearing; and other crimes of war, breaches in human rights, discrimination during and after the war, refugee motives (fleeing combat area, fear of prosecution, etc.) and demographic dynamics.

I have time just enough to answer your last question and make one additional point - later I will return with more comprehensive take. Yes, we need to explain that people lived and worked together for nearly 50 years (notwithstanding WWII, when they fought together side-by-side against foreign invaders and quislings, created Bosnia from scratch together, and so on), they intermarried - I read somewhere, few days ago, that 50% of Bosnia population had close cousins of another religion and/or ethnicity. And in contrast, were there any real (not mythological, of sort "revenge against dahije", of course) base for hatred which lead to such a grave consequences, were there any skirmishes and ethnic feuds between groups in the last 50 years, based on ethnic or religious persuasion, and so on - in short of course.

Add.point - there is no table for Orthodox buildings under "Destruction of religious buildings", we should have table regardless of discrepancy between quantity and quality of the destruction inflicted on Orthodox vs. Islamic and Catholic. Later we need to write para. or two and give readers some explanations for the section's data, if is to remain in article aspiring to reach GA. Later--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The only accurate data for the demographic changes (which aren't necessarily a result of ethnic cleansing) is a comparison of the 1991 and 2013 census, since there were no censuses prior to 2013, and everything else are only estimates which may or may not be reliable. Regarding Mrduljaš and 1991-2011, I added that because I noticed that Prašo is wrong for the ethnic composition of the territory controlled by the HVO/HV. According to him, in this territory (map before the Dayton agreement: [1]), 259,000 Croats lived in 1991.

On the other hand, Mrduljaš made his research village by village (main paper), based on the post-Dayton controlled areas, which is a smaller territory for the HVO, and he calculated 367,000 Croats in 1991. To check who is more accurate, you can use this map and 1991 census results [2]. Municipalities which were 100% controlled by the HVO sum over 200,000, and this is without the split municipalities of central Bosnia and half of Mostar. Prašo may have counted the entire Central Bosnia as ARBiH-held territory.

As for the background, there may be too much details, but it's hard to give a brief background section other than some basic facts. There is a reason why the main articles about the Bosnian War have such large background sections. Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement is as notable as the Karađorđevo meeting (both are mentioned by Ramet, for example). I wouldn't have added it if that meeting wasn't in the article, especially since the Karađorđevo meeting allegations were presented as a fact. Tezwoo (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind if we have all these data, as long as we clearly and unequivocally state that these are just various estimates, and that some could be more accurate than other, and we clearly and unequivocally make distinction between "ethnic cleansing" and everything else as aforementioned in my previous post. Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement is or could be important for some other article on the war, not for "Ethnic cleansing" article, and these two meetings can't be lumped into the same sentence, as they can't even come close when making analogies vis-a-vis significance - Zulfikarpašić was anonymous who left SDA more then a year before the meeting, and had no influence on Muslim politics what so ever, at that point, or any politics in the country for that matter.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The Serb exodus from Sarajevo shouldn't be part of the "Campaigns" section, under "Bosniak forces", because it happened six months, or so, after the war was over, and there were no more campaigns of any kind, at the time, except that implementation of the Dayton accord was in full swing. However, exodus from Sarajevo which happened after the war, and other movements during the war, that are not result of ethnic cleansing, should be explained with demographic changes in mind, as that section's data and stats background explanation.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Santasa99: I have added several changes, according to your suggestions. I expanded on the history of Bosnia, the relations between the three ethnic groups, found a data that 16% were of mixed ancestry, converted the damaged or destroyed Orthodox religious objects into a table, explained the Serb exodus from Sarajevo in greater detail, included Karadzic's threat in front of the parliament, etc. Check out the article now and report back on what you think about it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Zulfikarpašić may have been anonymous, but Izetbegović initially gave support to the agreement and that makes it very notable. He also met with Milošević, and the negotiations were widely reported in media at the time and condemned by Croat political representatives, including Kljuić (See Burg & Shoup (2015) pp. 71-73). Similarly, Croat and Serb representatives also held various meetings, such as the one in Karađorđevo, which Burg & Shoup described as a failed meeting on p. 82. Burg & Shoup give more space to Zulfikarpašićs negotiations than Karađorđevo. While the Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement may be unnecessary for this article, it's also very dubious to bring the Karađorđevo meeting in connection with ethnic cleansing or say that Herzeg-Bosnia was created in accordance to it, given the ambiguity reported by sources. Tezwoo (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I go back to my comment on the previous GA review regarding court judgements vs secondary sources in labeling something as an "ethnic cleansing". In the case of the Croat-Bosniak War, why was Konjic singled out as an example of ethnic cleansing by Bosniak forces? It's cited with Burg & Shoup (2015), p. 180, but on that page they wrote about ethnic cleansing on a wider area:

"Earlier in this chapter we described the Muslim-Croat war that started in central Bosnia in 1993. Here, we wish only to note that atrocities were carried out by both sides in what Western observers called a war of "village against village." The Muslim offensives in the Lasva valley in spring 1993 were accompanied by ethnic cleansing. The result was the flight of civilians, often in anticipation of a battle, and a reshuffling of the ethnic composition of the region. In March 1993 Muslim authorities in Konjic initiated a campaign to drive out the local Croats, many of whom were then detained in the Muslim detention camp at Celebici."

As far as I know, there are no judgements in the ICTY or the BiH courts that specifically mention ethnic cleansing of Croats by the ARBiH in neither Konjic nor Lašva valley. However, I'm also not aware of judgements (though some trials are still ongoing) for ethnic cleansing of Serbs by either the HVO or the ARBiH, so the criteria is still unclear to me. Tezwoo (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Zulfikarpašić agreement is a stretch for the relevance in the article, whereas the Karađorđevo meeting is possibly more relevant since the two sides that were confirmed to have perpetrated ethnic cleansing in Bosnia - the Serb and Croat side - already had plans to partition Bosnia in 1991. Both could be deleted, but a general plan of a partition of Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia (at least until 1994) is an established consensus and should be mentioned. As for the verdicts, I have already answered that, but I can do it again: vedicts are not the only reliable source. We have historians who sort out events and give conclusions. The epulsions in Konjic may have been too small to cover in a ICTY indictment, compared to other far worse ones in the war, but if reliable source mention it, then can be used in the article. The deportation of the Kalmyks, for instance, was also never covered by a court, but that does not mean it never happened.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, 3E1I5S8B9RF7, you did a fine job expending "Historical background", and we now have a table.
I would recommend, though, one more very interesting missing fact for the Historical background - you pointed on SDS 6-points goal, but you have forgotten earlier SDA six-point Declaration, presented before Parliament by Izetbegović, and based on earlier Izetbegović-Gligorov Platform sometimes Plan (see Vera Katz), which is even more interesting for inclusion. I think it is extremely important and quite compelling, it could give the reader a broader picture.

The LEDE has a one sentence and part of a para which is almost certainly WP: UNDUE for the lead:

• sentence Bosniak forces expelled Serbs and Croats in some isolated cases in Konjic and Goražde, and abused some Serbs in parts of Sarajevo, which goes into details unlike previous two which describe Serb and Croat methods in general terms; the following sentence which says "The UN Security Council "Final Report (1994)" states ...warring factions should suffice and any detailed or specific account should be moved to Bosnian forces, if they are not already there.
  
• Following three lines in the second para: The number of Bosniaks and Croats on the Bosnian territory held by the Army of Republika Srpska fell from 551,000 ... of Bosniaks from 1,235,000 to 1,238,000 goes into overly detailed stats that should be moved to Demographic changes intro para.

I will make further remarks when I check sources in other sections - at this point I am interested in usage of Donia and Burg-Shoup, so I will report on these two first when I finish reading them.
One digression on RS vs. judicial proceedings - unlike WWII, when only the Holocaust was subject of international trials, or war-crimes throughout the history that only scholars and researchers are capable to explain and describe, judicial proceedings on Yugoslav wars were conditioned by the General framework agreement for peace in B-H, Article 9. UN mandated ICTY, and ICJ, to deal with all war-crimes in Yugoslav wars. Maybe the only fortunate outcome of international involvement in this tragedy, is that we have more than 9 million pages of written text available for general public to research. An order of precedence should exist between books, scholarly research and gargantuan judicial documentation. This is not to say that we should simply discard all that is found through researches just because it was not litigated, but we certainly need to approach claims that exist only in books and researches with the greatest caution and tact. And just like in case of Melander paper, where author is not disputed, only that particular paper simply wasn't sufficiently good, and we were able to determine that without going to RS board, by assessing its low quality of apparatus criticus, and with some additional info - in this case 3E1I5S8B9RF7 explained that paper is presentation and was not peer-reviewed; in other instances we will similarly look for reviews and sources any of them uses - this principle should be applied on all sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Donia-Fine, in section Demographic changes, is referred to wrong page, in ref it's designated pp.1 - I have a book in Serbo-Croatian and in that edition it's in "Intro" on page 13. Sentence which is sourced in Donia-Fine is also follow-up of the sentence which state that The goal of the warring factions was to acquire territory for their own ethnic group by ethnically cleansing the area of people of other ethnicities living there.. When these two sentences are put together as in that para, the claims are misleading, because Donia-Fine talk about Serb faction exclusively, not "warring factions". Also, this particular line was "cherry-picked" from Amnesty report, which become obvious if we read rest of the page from which is taken and then the whole document - we will noticed that report is focused on employment discrimination, but it does agrees with Aluminijum leadership's explanation that "ethnic cleansing" is among causes for disbalance in ethnic composition of the employed, and goes to say that document "already noted, one of the central aims of the warring parties was to secure territory and power and to share resources only with members of their own ethnic group, by “cleansing” regions of people of other ethnicities", but when read in its entirety we can conclude that, beside the Aluminijum and Mostar, the document only notes Serb actions against non-Serb population in and around Prijedor, Sanski Most, and "north-western BiH" in general, and in two places mention "areas under control of the Bosnian Croats". Something has got to give here, and I would argue that UN report is much stronger than Amnesty report's cherry-picked line - accordingly ambiguity of above quoted sentence need to be dealt with.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Donia-Fine is actually the correct page, page 1, at least in the google books English edition, and I've linked it now in the article. I've added the Izetbegović-Gligorov Plan, shortened the Lede, removed the 2006 Amnesty report, expanded the Donia-Fine sentence.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You did fine job again. One question, though, those three removed sentences in lede, which I suggested are undue, we have them somewhere in the article, yes? I think it's a fine summary, only bit too detailed for the lede, I hope they are preserved in that form somewhere. Also, that Amnesty report is an excellent source but badly interpreted, or misinterpreted, in that particular instance. It's a shame that we don't have an article on Izetbegović-Gligorov Plan.

Now, i have one more recommendation, vis-a-vis content - I am convinced that the Pofalići battle, as described under Bosnian forces, is terrible choice for illustration of the war-crimes perpetrated by that side in the conflict, by looking at Burg-Shoup account - by the way, pages are 33 and 177 respectively, not 230. Although their book is among most comprehensive and positively reviewed takes on the history of the war, it's not perfect and without some flaws (see Srđan vučetić, or choose any review randomly from Google - I have read first five, and Vučetić's nicely rounded most aspect). This comes into view, incidentally or not, at that particular account, which is extremely subjective and sources interpreted loosely and extremely subjectively - a whole take on Serbs in Sarajevo under siege is extremely subjective and palpably biased (they are inclined to give more credence to those testimonies which support their perspective, while interpreting sources all too loosely). If you don't have a book, as Google gives only few pages, I can e-mail to you my own copy so that you can check their sources and analyse their interpretations, while staying within editors' prerogative to rationally make decisions; or if you wish I can explain my own reservations to you here. Anyhow, I would recommend that you concentrate on war-crimes perpetrated by Mušan Topalović in Sarajevo, and if you are willing to research on Bosnian govt forces possible war-crimes in Battle for Vozuća (only with better sources than in linked article). Also, war-crimes against Serbs in Mrkonjić Grad are significant, although I am not sure how to frame those, because they happened during the last phase of the war when Croats and Muslims were in alliance - who perpetrated war-crimes in Mrkonjić needs to be reliably sourced.

From here, I have to check (only) a reference/citation parameters and integrity and check external links, and to see if someone is willing to copyedit, check for WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM - I am not sure if I did sufficiently good job in that regard--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my recommendation, any examples of war-crimes should be described without confusing them with "ethnic cleansing" policies or leaving any ambiguities in that sense for the reader.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

One additional recommendation - you will find Senate hearing reports/minutes useful for "International reports" section - its conclusions probably became most influential to policies, diplomatic, media and later judicial discourse: 1992 Senate report and 1995 Senate heraing--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the three sentences removed from the lede can be found in the "Demographic changes" section. So you want the "Bosniak forces" section to focus on Mušan Topalović and Battle of Vozuća? Provided, of course, that reliable sources mention them in context with ethnic cleansing.

I can search for Mrkonjic Grad crimes, provided, again, that sources link them with ethnic cleansing. I can also add the Senate hearings in the article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I am just recommending some examples, but you should chose between them. Of course, if you wish to hear my preferred cases I will gladly notify you. Also, I am reasonably certain that situation with Serbs in Sarajevo under siege is least connected to ethnic cleansing, but those crimes committed by Topalović are well known and significant for inclusion, while Mrkonjić and Vozuća probably have at least some elements of ec. However, I am not sure if there are enough info online on Vozuća, or what kind; on Mrkonjić I believe more could be found. The changes you made today, up to this moment, are good.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Please, feel free to post some sources that you know off. If the Topalović case in Sarajevo is not connected with ethnic cleansing, then why bring it up? It should then be removed. Anyway, post some suggestions on how to conclude the "Bosniak forces" section.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question: What is the 2+2+2 principle? Also this sentence When the Bosniak SDA representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced they plan a referendum on independence from Yugoslavia is grammatically incorrect. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That is the problem, right, because if we are really objective observers, we will see that such a policy has never existed on the side of the Bosnian government. Renegade commanders like Topalovic have existed, or issue of mujaheddin fighters, some war crimes incidents with some elements have been recorded, but there is no policy of systemic ethnic cleansing as such, and the methodology is rarely observed - and therein lies the weak point of the article; I'll return to that below. Also, some foreign authors may opt for terminology in their description of various examples, but that is their subjective decision (Burg and Shoup, authors widely used on the subject belong to the mainstream category of historians with positive reviews, but have grappled with "balancing" and "moral equivalence"). So, I think that the best way to deal with "Bosnian forces" is to use examples where non-Muslim civilians were targeted.

However, at this point the only reason I didn't promoted it to GA is because I am waiting for copyediting and Copyvivo to finish (I was told at the guild that it would take a few days for someone to get the job done), so I think the content is fine , and improvements will certainly continue after the promotion - there is a lot of room for that, especially with regard to further promotion (A and FA).

Now the "weak point", I have a suggestion as an editor on this most important thing, which has completely escaped my attention since I noticed it on my first glance on the piece - we have never explained the methodology, what it means to implement "ethnic cleansing" policy in a systemic way, organized and realized by civil and military authorities. We have a small paragraph in the lede, the third/last one, and any other mention is dispersed throughout the text - we need a section titled Methodology/Methods/ Method(ology) and campaigns/... depending on where and how we insert it. My suggestion would be to take the last para out of the lede and include it the new section under chosen title, while the section itself should be positioned above Campaigns section so that it leads the reader into campaigns with some understanding of the phenomenon; or we can rename Campaigns to Methods and campaigns, create new sub-section Methods, and rename the rest of the titles to Campaigns of X forces or X forces campaigns. I am aware that we have section Definition, but in it we explained it from the judiciary and legal perspective only, and juxtaposed it, or explained it with the regard to genocide and genocidal policies, but we didn't described the ways and methods of its implementation. What say you?

I agree with Indy beetle, part of the sentence When the Bosniak SDA representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced they plan a referendum on independence from Yugoslavia, is awkward, and if I am on the right track here, it should stand "When the SDA representatives in the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced their plan for referendum on independence from SFRJ, ..." Additionally, Bosnian Serb Assembly, at this point is still illegal and unrecognized institute of government, so that must be emphasized.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

2+2+2 is the format of the proposed new asymmetric federalization - Serbia-Montenegro as a core in tight federal union + Bosnia and Macedonia in loose federation with the "core" + Slovenia and Croatia in a loose confederation with a loose federation. Interestingly, this was entirely Izetbegović and SDA idea, which was accepted by Tupurkovski and Gligorov. It was rejected by Tuđman, Milošević, and of course Slovenians, who were probably the least interested party.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Two sources mentioned that Bosniak forces expelled some Serbs from Gorazde, and some Croats from Konjic, and thus these are included in the article. I have added the methods used to implement ethnic cleansing in the renamed section called "Campaigns and methods". I also welcome that you corrected the grammar of the sentence When the Bosniak SDA representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced they plan a referendum on independence from Yugoslavia. I did not want to go into detail of the legality and illegality of various established assemblies or political moves, since each of them can be analyzed separately in their own article. The "Historical background" should not go into excessive length and get to the point.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

From where I am standing everything looks fine, mostly; as for language (grammar and style) we need to be a little bit patient and let guys and girls from copyediting guild check the text properly - they will certainly do better job. Meanwhile, we can improve or correct something if it comes up, or someone notice something we didn't (like Indy). I will give my best on grammar, spelling and style, and check rest of the refs for broken links, urls and pages. All in all, I think that we have good article. Stick around if something comes up, or editors from guild stop by to copyedit the article.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion: If you don't mind me jumping in. User 3E1I5S8B9RF7 has done good job so far. I have reviewed the article and it satisfies most of the burning points. I would like to note the background information about this: On 9 January 1992, the Bosnian Serb Assembly proclaimed the "Republic of Serbian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina". At the time assembly was illegal, as the referendum was held on 29th February. Also, the tables below, I can see Yugoslavs as being ethnically cleansed... well, as far as I know it's just a change in a self-identification. Readers outside Balkan might thing they were wiped out. It seems to me rather clumsy to include them in the table in Demographic changes section. Mhare (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Good points. Vis-a-vis Yugoslavs in tables, as Mhare said, for unsuspecting reader it could be very confusing, so let's at least provide a "Note" with explanation that those who identified as Yugoslavs following new reality abandoned that label in favor of ethnic one.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added an explanation about Yugoslavs disappearing and switching to the remaining ethnic groups in the footnote. As for the comment about this Assembly or that political move being legal or illegal, I've already explained that it is of limited relevance for the topic of the article, and that the readers can check more for each individual article in question.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am still waiting for copyedit - as soon as they finish I intend to promote it to GA. However, any editor willing to contribute while we waiting, please discuss intended changes here.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all folks, now it can be promoted to GA status.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)