Talk:Operation Autumn '94

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hercegovacki Korpus.1992.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Background section and revert rationale

@Polsko-Gruzinski:

Hi Polsko-Gruzinski,

I noticed you reverted my edit as vandalism. This was not vandalism - it was a good-faith content edit with an edit summary explaining the changes.

The main points were: correcting the background section for historical/geographic accuracy, using the official military designation ARBiH instead of ethnic labels, and removing sources or wording that I believe raise WP:RS and WP:NPOV concerns.

Could you clarify which specific part of the edit you object to? Is the issue the sourcing, the wording, the removal of “Mitrovdan Offensive 2”, or something else?

I will not re-add the same version while this is being discussed, but I would like to work toward a neutral and properly sourced version.

Thanks. GoranLinden (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ahmed.Mhdv:

Hi Ahmed.Mhdv,

since you also edited this article recently, I would appreciate your input as well. My goal is not to push a partisan version, but to reach neutral wording that is historically accurate, properly sourced, and acceptable under Wikipedia standards.

Thanks! GoranLinden (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the current revision is much more accurate. I would posibly suggest we follow MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and remove all flags and symbols to keep the tone neutral and professional. Your points about the issues in the other edition are accurate. It is a major mistake to include (for example the Patriotic League) since it ceased to exist by that time, and adding symbols for specific units like Garda Panteri just adds unnecessary clutter. Ahmed.Mhdv (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. I would keep the flags in the "Belligerents" field, and that may be enough.

There is also another issue. The remaining figures in the infobox, such as:

Strength:

About 4,000 men

2,600 men

Casualties and losses:

22 killed

217 wounded

3 captured

200+ killed

Hundreds wounded

113 captured

appear to be based on sources that do not seem reliable enough for these claims:

1.) jadovno.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20230714005607/https://jadovno.com/arhiva/novosti-pregled/items/sjecanje-na-mitrovdanske-bitke-1992-i-1994-godine-na-nevesinjskom-ratistu.html

2.) slobodnahercegovina.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20240223025428/https://slobodnahercegovina.com/zoran-janjic-u-susret-mitrovdanu-3-druga-mitrovdanska-ofanziva-bitka-koja-je-odredila-ishod-rata/

The first source is no longer online except through the Wayback Machine, and appears to be a self-published or blog-style commemorative text. It gives casualty claims such as:

"In this battle, in which 3,500 soldiers of the Nevesinje Brigade participated, 42 soldiers were killed, 750 were wounded, while the enemy's losses, according to their own admission, amounted to 800 killed."

And later:

"In the second battle, which lasted five days, 22 soldiers of the Nevesinje Brigade were killed, 217 were lightly and seriously wounded, while the enemy's losses, according to their own admissions, amounted to several hundred killed."

However, the article does not provide a clear independent source for these figures, and I have not been able to find the alleged "own admissions" supporting those numbers.

The second source is a local Bosnian Serb outlet, and the article is explicitly commemorative and partisan in tone. Its title can be translated as:

"Zoran Janjić - Towards Mitrovdan (3): The Second Mitrovdan Offensive - the battle that determined the outcome of the war"

This seems like a subjective interpretation rather than a neutral secondary source suitable for exact strength and casualty figures.

For that reason, I think the numbers for strength and casualties on both sides should be removed from the infobox unless better sources can be provided. For now, they should probably be marked as unknown or left blank. GoranLinden (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)