Talk:Mostar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Census

Hahahihihoho 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)What 2003. census,there was no population census in 2003.!


I'm not familiar with any 2003 census either. Hopefully someone can cite a source. This info is found on the Bosnian wikipedia, but I would not consider that a necessarily impartial source. An article found here: [1] (Serbian) and another on here: [2] (Bosniak) both say that Croats now make up 65% of the city. I assume this number is based on regional election results, or the estimated number of Croats migrated from northern Bosnia. Whatever the case, if no one has a source for these census numbers, I'll take them down within a few days. --Thewanderer 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

New census will be in 2010 I have estimates for Mostar population by ethnic groups Bosniaks controlled both sides of Neretva river,which extended all the way to boulevard,main street some 300 yards from Neretva,so you could correct your mistakes there,when you claimed sides have each part of Neretva,which is just not true.

Dispute about the role of HVO forces: No verifiable evidence was quoted to support claims stated in this paragraph. In particular, destruction of the old bridge is an example where documentation (such as short movie pointed to by already existing external link in the paragraph) exists with valuable information (such as position of water splashes) from which one can make conclusion completely opposite to claims in the article.Also tortures,executions and war camps of the Croatian forces are listed but the same is not listed for the Bosnian army,witch also targeted Croatian civilians and torture,imprisoned and killed Croats.


Hi!!!

I have changed the text cause Mostar is not the fourth largest city in Bosnia, it is the fifth largest city!

1 - Sarajevo 400 000 - 520 00 citizen 2 - Banja Luka 220 000 citizen 3 - Tuzla 180 000 citizen 4 - Zenica 145 000 citizen 5- Mostar 105 000 citizen

There should be no ranking by number of citizens in any of the articles about afore mentioned cities. The number of the citizens is unreliable as it is and it is unclear if it relates to the city itself or the metro area. Also there is the matter of the legal status and what is considered a city and what a municipality in a legal sense. City of Mostar for example is a legal entity with a city statute that clearly procalims it as a city and is guaranteed by the Dayton agreement. Sarajevo, I belive, has a simillar statute.

I am changing the text that Mostar has an croatian majority because it is a divided city between bosniaks and croats. And that is a fact, and that fact makes Mostar an divided city and not an Croatian city. Hahahihihoho 16:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The city's division has no relation to its demographics. No one is saying it's a Croatian city. According to estimates I've read, it has a Croatian majority. If you can prove otherwise, go ahead. But you can't delete info because you don't like it. --Thewanderer 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thewanderer:

You cant either write what you want to write without having any source or information. You have no source where you had read that, so derfor I am taking away that you write.

Croatian nationalistic pages does not count as a veriable source. Hahahihihoho 17:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Mostar is a Croatian city because it has more Croatian than Bosniak citizens,and that's a fact. --BorgDrone 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the government of Mostar is equally divided between Croats and Bosniaks as I edited before on the article. This mean that the city is neither bosniak nor croat.

And that, is a fact. Thunderman 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this at the bosnian wikipedia about prijedor:

Prema najnovijim podacima u općini je trenutno nastanjeno 194.096 stanovnika, od čega je 48% gradsko, a 52% seosko stanovništvo.Poslije Banja Luke Prijedor je drugi po velicini grad u RS.

It looks like that Prijedor has gorwn faster and has a larger population than Mostar by this present date...

[edit] You need to get your terms straight!

You effendi,are a magarac (donkey)

I'm finding some of this writing on the city of Mostar quite disturbing and at some points silly. I'm born in Mostar and I've lived there until the civil war broke out in 1992, however I´ve visited it every year since 1999 and I must say that it is extremely difficult to call Mostar for the city of either Croats or any other nationality - hereby I can't even understand how can a city belong to a different national group as the one of Croatia when it is situated in Bosnia and Hercegovina??! - What I'm trying to say is that even though the majority of historical facts in this article are true, there is one major issue of our time that needs to be investigated more before anyone can call Mostar for anything else than what it always has been - namely the only city in ex-Yugoslavia, which was a meltingpot of all religions! The fact that Croatia wanted the city to become theirs during the Muslim - Croat war in 1993 (with all their military powers, including destroying the symbol "Stari Most" (The Old Bridge))doesn't mean that it has become theirs today. Indeed, the true Mostar of the past and its natives have become a minority only due to the war, which forced over 50% of the inhabitants to leave the country due to the mixed marriages of catholics-muslims, muslims-ortodoks, etc...Therefore, the number of inhabitants has failed 'cause noone wants to live in a city that once was a pearl of Hercegovina and now is inhabited by people who for the first time in their life have left the villages in order to live in a "city"...furthermore these settlers are Catholics, whivh probably leads your source to conclude that the majority of Mostar are Croats...still they're not Croats unless they're citizens of the state of Croatia!!!! - Mostar has become a sad story of the civil war, but still it cannot be a Croat-city or any other than a city of Bosnia and Hercegovina. You need to distinguish nationality from religion, and by the way the government of Mostar isn't equally distributed in practice as it should be in theory...you need to live there in order to say anything on this issue...Sincerely Mostarka!!80.62.174.178 13:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You, Sir, Are an Idiot !!!

Mostar half croat, half Bosniak. Hey! the whole bunch of you are swinging on a star and dont know what your talking about. There is only one Mostar, and only one, same as there is only one football team in Mostar and that is Velez. Should a person refer to himself as a Mostarac, this person is truly a Mostarian at heart so back off with your dividing line and religious splits. When you come to the bottom line youv'e killed each other brutally. For a finale have the jerks remove that cross from Hum hill, how stupid can you get, it spoils the landscape, put it in some church yard where it belongs. Mostar was doing fine until the Croats came in and basterized the city The SOBs even took Velez's soccer field away from them, Velez's home stadium was Bijeli Brijeg the Croats took this over and sent poor Velez to play on some foreign terain called Vrapcici.


What can you do... People will insist on hating each other, it would seem. Your comment is very optimistic, I'm afraid. DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National majority of Mostar controversy

First of all lets get one thing straight: I am no f...ing nationalist fanatic so I don't want to hear any of those kind of accusations. These are the simple facts: 1) There are sources confirming Croats form a narrow, I repeat, a narrow majority. 2) It is impossible for a city to be divided perfectly evenly between nationalities. 3) There are so far no sources confirming anyone else forms the majority. 4) If you want to include anything AT ALL, do so after finding reliable, I repeat, reliable sources (no radical propaganda stuff, but censi, i.e. cenzuse, molim).
Let's hope it won't be necessary to involve the Admins, but if anyone persists in adding unsourced (or badly sourced) info despite all warnings, I won't hesitate to report. DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


As a source you got croatian newspapers, even worse dalmatian newspapers that doesnt even know where the border went between east and west mostar and you have sources that thinks that mostar is split up by the river neretva and not the bulevar street as it is in reality.
This and the fact that those sources point out the importance of croatian majority in Mostar clearly shows that thoose sources are NOT reliable at all!
Also, Mostar is territorial divided in 50-50 between bosniaks and croats, while croats have western part of the municipality and southern/southwestern part the bosniaks have southeaster, eastern, northern and northwest part of munucipality all the way from mostar to Jablanica.
And since there hasnt been any cencus is impossible to tell who is majority in the city.
Any attemp to show croats as majority nation of Mostar is clear nationalism especially since all major suburbs of mostar is ethnically clean bosniak areas like blagaj, gnojnice, vrapcici, potoci, gornja/donja dreznica and so on. Visca el barca 07:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


This is ok, I suppose... Even though the Croatian majority sources are not Croatian (only one is), and can hardly be called "propaganda", it is best not to speculate on demographics here. Does anyone have official state censi confirming any side of the argument? DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Visca el barca talks about croats being nationalists when himself has been in trouble for spreading nationalist propaganda. If you don't know Visca el barca is Hahahihihoho. Here is something interesting from a user:
There has also been a lot of POv pushing and vandalism from IPs starting with 84.217.xxx.xxx. These IPs are 100% certain to be Alkalada (talk · contribs) - a fanatical sockpuppet of banned user, Hahahihihoho (talk · contribs). Most edits from these IPs have been reverted by other good anonymous users. I would like to take this opportunity to say that if I see any bad faith/vandalism/POV pushing edit from an 85.158 IP and an 84.217 IP, I will revert it on sight. No questions. No apologies. [3]


The only thing I care about is proper sources. The guy can be Adolf Hitler himself, if a reliable source (for example, Britannica) says he is right, I won't touch his edits (nor should anyone else). If he pushes POV without sources, he will be reported. That's just how it goes. Before reverting see about references. I ask once more: does anyone have actual censi (cenzuse) concerning demographics? DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), which seeks a fully unified city that recognizes the demographic majority of ethnic Croats in postwar Mostar, and the Bosniak-led Party of Democratic Action (SDA), which feels that the only way to prevent Croat domination of the city is by preserving the structure of six municipalities—essentially ethnic enclaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.243.239 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Croats are majority in Mostar. It's a well known fact. Only one person is disputing this (he has a number of sockpupet accounts). There are many site thats say croats are majority. Is that hard to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.243.239 (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Let me repeat myself, the guy can be Adolf Hitler and have an entire army of users against him, nothing can be included without proper sources. Get reliable censi (cenzus). DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Looks like this latest info settles the matter. This is verifiable official information. Croats 53%, Bosniaks 44% DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


HAHA!
No, No and No!
First of all we dont know how many people live in Mostar. Second there hasnt been any cencus made since 1991. Third, how can somebody know this if there hasnt been cencus, if you even dont know how many people that live in Mostar.
This is clear Croatian propaganda like allways, they couldnt take Mostar military after 2 years of hard aggression and now they claim the city politically? Haha, pathetic! Visca el barca 07:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


You're right, lets leave it without any majority estimations. DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croat-Bosniak conflict

This subsection needs discussing, bad. There are 2 problems.

A. The first problem is that we basically have two views on the start of the conflict:

1) "the Croats started it!"
2) "the Bosniaks started it!"

B. The second problem is emotional and unencyclopedic words and sentences. Such as: "The heavily armed Croatia-funded HVO turned its guns on the Bosniak defenders", and others. O B J E C T I V I T Y people, please! We need a non-biased article!

This is what I propose: Let's put together a version that 1) contains both views on the start of the conflict, 2) has no emotional statements whatsoever, and 3) is as less offensive as possible (sans accusations). DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Nice job on this edit. I have two problems though. First, I added cite tags; it's not enough to say there are two different views - we really need to see sources talking about each of the views. Secondly, I'm not an expert on the conflict, but I understood the Croats were responsible for the destruction of the Stari Most. If that is correct, I think it needs to be stated explicitly in the text. Otherwise, great job presenting both sides neutrally. Dchall1 15:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Thnx. Well, I'm fine with your first objection, now for the Bridge. You see, the bridge was indeed destroyed by the HVO, but it was not destroyed for no good reason, it was destroyed because the Bosniaks drew it into the conflict by using it as a staging area for attacks and raids into the western side of the city, so its pretty pointless to argue who's fault it was.
The Bosniaks had to use it to fight the war properly and the Croats had to blow it up in order to fight to the best of their abilities just as well. I think the present version is as corrext as we can get in this matter... DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


I still say it's important to discuss who actually destroyed the bridge, simply because that act became the symbol of the war as a whole. I'm fine though with using your wording - Croats destroyed it so the Bosniaks couldn't use it (as long as it's sourced). Dchall1 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Like most matters down here, its not at all easy to discuss this. The Bosniaks turned it into a military target, and the Croats pulled the trigger to blow it up, so you tell me who actually destroyed it? DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


So say that. I have no problem with that formulation. I simply object to saying "the bridge was destroyed" - leaving the reader with the impression that it collapsed of its own weight. Dchall1 16:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


We don't have to discuss who started the war, because we have the facts and evidence varified during the trials in ICTY. I sourced and improved the article, to stop speculation. The Dragon of Bosnia 19:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Umm, Mr. Dragon, that entire HUGE document you posted as a source unfortunately does not say wich side started the war. It only states that certain criminals proceded to bind together into a joint criminal enterprise for the purpose of removing Bosniaks from certain areas in southern Bosnia.
This does not disprove the Croatian side's statement about the causes of the conflict. Please kindly write down the passages you believe(d) prove that the HVO attacked the Bosnians first.
Out of courtesy I will not revert your edit, but please bear in mind that this matter needs to be looked at from both sides' perspective. Are you here on an ideological crusade (or jihad, if you like)? DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


  • It does say who started the war (the second source):
Blaskic verdict - III. FACTS:
...the Trial Chamber explained that the armed conflict in question was an international conflict. In that connection , it pointed out that the objectives of the Croatian nationalists in Croatia were clearly shared by many members of the HVO and the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna (HZHB): Mate Boban, president of that community, but also Anto Valenta (leader of the HDZ in Vitez and later President of the HDZ for the HZHB), whose nationalistic writings were revealing; Ignac Kostroman (Secretary-General of the HZHB) and Dario Kordic whose speeches inflamed the Bosnian Croats. The example given by the Trial Chamber is from the minutes of a meeting held on 12 November 1991, signed by Mate Boban and Dario Kordic: "the Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina must finally embrace a determined and active policy which will realise our eternal dream – a common Croatian state".
342. Those nationalists could not accept that the Muslims could want to have their own defence. On 10 April 1992, Mate Boban decreed that the Bosnian Territorial Defence (TO), which had been created the day before, was illegal on HZHB territory. The Croatian General Roso confirmed the proscription by an Order of 8 May 578 . On 11 May, Tihomir Blaskic implemented that Order declaring the TO illegal on the territory of the Kiseljak municipality. Tensions continued to increased between May 1992 and January 1993. The Trial Chamber will now set out a brief summary of the important events of the period since they were at the root of the torching of the Lasva Valley in April 1993.
You can read the rest of the document about the first attacks on civilian population by Croat forces, but I can quote the most important parts if you want. The Dragon of Bosnia 16:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Yes, it would be nice if you posted the exact statement. But concerning this particular statement, without any offence intended, I must say that it still does not say the HVO started the war. It could very easily be interpreted/misinterpreted that the Bosniak leadership provoked the conflict by ordering the mobilization of the Bosnian TO. DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


I don't think so. It says that the proclamation of Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia started the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks (btw, Bosnian TO was legal defence formation in Bosnia, Herzeg-Bosnia was self-proclaimed and illegal on the other hand, and created earlier, pay attention to dates):

Tensions increased in November 1991 with the formation of the HZHB. The creation of that institution marked the beginning of the breakdown in inter-ethnic relations in Vitez 581 . Several political and social events, the most important of which are briefly summarised here, demonstrate the HDZ's desire to take progressive political and social control of the town and to initiate a policy of discrimination towards the town's Muslims, whereas an independent Muslim political organisation was being set up in tandem.

but to make this shorter, let's go to the conclusion:

Kordic-Cerkez - The facts

The Trial Chamber finds that the overwhelming evidence points to a well-organised and planned HVO attack upon Ahmici with the aim of killing or driving out the Muslim population, resulting in a massacre. The assertion that this attack was justified strategically, defensively, or in any other way, is wholly without foundation: such defenders as were available were taken completely by surprise and any defence put up thereafter was rudimentary, as the results of the day show. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber draws the inference from this evidence (and the evidence of other HVO attacks in April 1993) that there was by this time a common design or plan conceived and executed by the Bosnian Croat leadership to ethnically cleanse the Lasva Valley of Muslims. Dario Kordic, as the local political leader, was part of this design or plan, his principal role being that of planner and instigator of it.

So if we summarize this it is quite clear who started the war (conclusion about HVO attacks) and why (there is more, I can give you more pricese information if you want, because there is also a part about Croatia involvment):

  • The example given by the Trial Chamber is from the minutes of a meeting held on 12 November 1991, signed by Mate Boban and Dario Kordic: "the Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina must finally embrace a determined and active policy which will realise our eternal dream – a common Croatian state"
  • Tensions increased in November 1991 with the formation of the HZHB. The creation of that institution marked the beginning of the breakdown in inter-ethnic relations in Vitez.
  • The Trial Chamber draws the inference from this evidence (and the evidence of other HVO attacks in April 1993) that there was by this time a common design or plan conceived and executed by the Bosnian Croat leadership to ethnically cleanse the Lasva Valley of Muslims.

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


All right, I think you've proven conclusively that the hercegovci killed A LOT of innocent Bosniaks and that they were very agressive in their speeches and approach (no surprise to me ;). We also have affirmed that they attacked the village of Ahmići as part of a criminal undertaking, but the question remains: who started (i.e. provoked) the war. I hope you won't take me for a stubborn guy, but war crimes investigations bring evidence on war crimes, starting a war is not a war crime in itself. Let me further explain my point with a few examples:

WW2:
Great Britain declared war on Germany (Poland was not in a military alliance with the UK), not vice versa, but it cannot be said that the UK started WW2.

More recent events:
The Croatian security forces (two APCs with special police) attacked the Croatian Serbs in the Krajina first, but can it really be said the Croats started the civil war in Croatia?

I'm just trying to point out that it is not at all easy (especially down here) to determine who exactly started regional conflicts. Fact remains that Bosniak refugees were sent to the HZHB and that Ante Boban and his ilk were afraid of being overrun, just as the Serbs in Croatia were afraid of getting expelled or killed, and rebelled.
I am really of the oppinion that both sides' views ought to be included, with more facts (the ones you brought forth). These are sensitive matters and this appears to be the "fairest" way to settle them.DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The facts (ICTY findings are quite clear):

naletilić Martinović verdict

Your question, who provoked the war is answered in Naletilić verdict:

  • Following the declaration of independence, the BH Serbs attacked different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The state administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina effectively ceased to function having lost control over the entire territory. The BH Serbs were not the only ones with ambitions for territorial expansion; the BH Croats and their leader Franjo Tu|man also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian. Secret discussions between Franjo Tu|man and Slobodan Milosevic on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina were held as early as March 1991. The policies of the Republic of Croatia and its leader Franjo Tu|man towards Bosnia and Herzegovina were never totally transparent and always included Franjo Tu|man’s ultimate aim of expanding Croatia’s borders.

The first attack was in Sovici village (Mostar region), on April 17, 1992:

  • The HVO started shelling the village of Sovici early in the morning on 17 April 1993. The shelling came from the direction of Risovac, which is south of Sovici.
  • The attack on Sovici and Doljani was part of a larger HVO offensive aimed at taking Jablanica,57 the main BH Muslim dominated town in the area. The HVO commanders had calculated that they needed two days to take Jablanica. The location of Sovici was of strategic significance for the HVO as it was on the way to Jablanica. For the ABiH it was a gateway to the plateau of Risovac, which could create conditions for further progression towards the Adriatic coast.59 The larger HVO offensive on Jablanica had already started on 15 April 1993.

Regarding Mostar, it is very very clear:

  • Both the HVO and ABiH had military formations positioned in the town. Mostar was divided into a Western part, which was dominated by the HVO and an Eastern part where the ABiH was largely concentrated. However, the ABiH had its headquarters in West Mostar in the basement of a building complex referred to as Vranica.93 In the early hours of 9 May 1993, the HVO attacked Mostar using artillery, mortars, heavy weapons and small arms.94 The HVO controlled all roads leading into Mostar and international organisations were denied access.95 Radio Mostar announced that all BH Muslims should hang out a white flag from their windows.96 The HVO attack had been well prepared and planned.97

So we have here, clear attacks by Croat forces, concluded by ICTY in many verdicts, and Croatian political aim of expanding Croatia’s borders. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And please, don't import speculation into Wikipedia, as you tried regarding the bridge destruction. The bridge was hit by hundreds of grenades on November 8 by HVO, it was not destroyed just by one hit as you suggested on November 9, 1993, nor it was destroyed to prevent (?!) Bosnian Army raids (?!). The Dragon of Bosnia 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The arguments you are trying to present here are acts of relativisation (and denial), the same one as the Serbs are trying to push regarding Vukovar siege (about the raids etc.) The Dragon of Bosnia 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've proven your point as far as I'm concerned, the Croats really did start the conflict. I have a few unrelated problems with your edits though:

1) The destruction of the Bridge.
The bridge was destroyed by HVO forces, but only after Bosniak forces turned it into a military target, by using it as a jump-off point for raids. This must be noted in the text.
DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to prove it, first? According to which court conclusion? The Dragon of Bosnia 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I will find sources, but does this not sound like common sense? Why would anyone destroy a historical monument for no reason, these people were quite possibly from Mostar as well.DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Relaible source per WP:RS (verdicts). Why would anyone destroy a thousand mosques in Bosnia? Questions like yours are not the matter of this article, we use verified facts by international courts in order to avoide such a speculation. We are not here to discover the cause of people behaviour and to enter into their mind. We are here to contribute to Wikipedia with relaible sources. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

2) The removal of my images.
Umm, why?
DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not related to Mostar. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But they do help the reader understand the situation, do they not?DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, because this article is about Mostar. If anyone wants to read smth else, it wouldn't be too hard to find it.The Dragon of Bosnia 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

3) The text is generally written in an unencyclopedic way.
This text really is written in a horribly emotional way. Bosniaks killed Croats as well as the other way around, you know. The whole text requires a makeover, as was noted by many other editors besides myself (see the rest of the talkpage). Here are just a few examples:
DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We are not dealing here with the individual murders, but facts verified by the court about general findings regarding the war. "The Serbs were killed by Croats in Vukovar, Osijek etc. as well", one could say, but that would be the revisionism, don't you agree? The Dragon of Bosnia 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


"The Croats took over the west side of the city and expelled the Bosniak population into into the east side of the city."
This is true but it also happened the other way around.DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You have to prove it, first? According to which court conclusion? The Dragon of Bosnia 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, this was standard practice in the Yugoslav wars.DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong answer. ICTY verdicts contain the findings about the war and every case is specific. "Standard practice" is the term with general meaning related to all sides, which is not supported by ICTY findings. Every side in the war had their own pattern of behaviour. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"HVO campaign resulted in thousands of injured and killed."
Once again, true, but the war was fought by both sides, remember? A better version would be "The conflict resulted in thousands of injured and killed.".DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the same thing one could say about Vukovar. Serbs were killed too. But, according to the court findings, Bosniak civilans were the main target by Croat forces (this is the verified fact), and Mostar was under the siege. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
True, the same could be said about Vukovar and I would make the same changes, People kill each other in a war. Also, the Vukovar/Mostar comparison does not stand for many reasons.DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Mostar is totally destroyed by Croat artillery, hundreds of people were killed and it was surrounded by Croat forces, just like Vukovar by the Serbs. What I want to say is we have to follow Wikipedia guidelines, in order to avoide speculation (for instance I could change the Vukovar massacre article in a minute with different kind of sources and speculation to make it totally opposite of the original article, to show you that your way is not the right way to contribute to Wikipedia. So, it is better for all of us to follow the rules, don't you agree?) The Dragon of Bosnia 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"After the Serb forces were driven out from Mostar, the heavily armed, Croatia funded Croatian Defence Council (HVO) turned their guns on the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in hope of capturing the whole city for themselves."
This is perhaps the best example of emotional, unprofessional writing. Phrases like "heavily armed" or "trained their guns" are not bare objective information. Even more so because the HVO really weren't "heavily armed", even by the standards of the area.

DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The same terms are used by the court (that is the evidence, you cannot change the evidence) - read the quote from Naletilic verdict:

  • In the early hours of 9 May 1993, the HVO attacked Mostar using artillery, mortars, heavy weapons and small arms.94 The HVO controlled all roads leading into Mostar and international organisations were denied access.95 Radio Mostar announced that all BH Muslims should hang out a white flag from their windows.96 The HVO attack had been well prepared and planned.

I changed "turned their guns" into "attacked", according to the court findings.The Dragon of Bosnia 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The same words were not used by the court. The court coldly lists the weapons of the HVO, are you implying the ARBiH did not have cannons and mortars? DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read this sentece again:

  • The HVO attacked Mostar using artillery, mortars, heavy weapons and small arms.

It clearly says that HVO attacked Mostar using artillery, mortars, heavy weapons and small arms. SO it didn't just listed the weapons, it listed the weapons HVO used to attack Mostar.

Regarding you question, first it is irrelevant because it is not related to HVO attack, second I am not implying anything, I just quote the verdict. If you have some other verdict about Mostar with different findings be my guest. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education and Culture

Not that the counting of both the dead and the living and who started what when discussion isn't fascinating and of great importance for the article but the Education and Culture entry in the article is terrible to say the least. It looks like it was taken out of a bad tour guide. I'll probably try to make a better entry in the future but if there is someone out there better qualified that would be great. I lack proper resources. Also suggest removing the references to shopping malls from Tourism entry. Shopping malls are not tourist attractions. --SkepticEdit 11:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] old Bridge Photots

There is more to mostar than just the old bridge. There are too many photos of it in the article. Can't we find some other photosBigz 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

An anon with no other edits placed a POV tag on the Croat-Bosniak war section. Unless some justification is posted soon, I will remove the tag. Dchall1 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a POV dispute of sorts, read the above discussion. DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Actually I removed it, because I checked the anon's contribution, and found nothing else...The Dragon of Bosnia 06:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)