|This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
For example: Kravica attack was tiny compared to numerous other sieges, battles and fronts (and itself part of Srebrenica campaign, and so the killings part of Srebrenica massacre). I think it's FUBAR and should be deleted, but maybe someone would also try to make it right (like maybe, only important thing with their own articles for now). --HanzoHattori 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Viktor Bubanj, Tarčin
I added these two camps whicha are missing in the list. These were camps controled bz Bosinaks where Serbs were being hels, tortured and killed.
according to this ICTY verdict it was the meeting- not any "agreement"!
According to ICTY, Doljani massacre was a massacre on Bosnian Muslims, not Croats. This is official ICTY verdict which means conclusion of the events, not transcripts or other testimonies, but conclusion -  If you continue to include false information, I am going to report you. Second, the number of 63 Croats is produced by Croatian propaganda, which is reflected on Croatian Wikipedia, the number is not related to Doljani at all, but to Croatian casualties in Jablanica from 1992 to 1995, military and civilians, and it should also be verified, because it is not yet. Ivica Mlivoncic who generated that propaganda testified in ICTY, but his testimony was marked as unreliable and irrelevant. He included false information, false explanations, and without relaible sources. So, please try not to use Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. So, if you want to include somthing in the template related to Yugoslav war, you have to follow the rules. And the rule is, to user WP:RS sources, which means ICTY verdicts. Journalist 007 (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
HRW says that it was the massacre of Croats by Muslims: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1994/WR94/Helsinki-04.htm But, OK, you might be right if ICTY says different.
And I repeat :stop inserting "Karađorđevo agreement" !!! It was not an agreement!
Hello, as per a request on WP:3O I am offering a neutral opinion on this matter. I assume the dispute is about whether "Karađorđevo" belongs on this box. Was the disagreement entirely about whether it is "an agreement" or not? If so, I find PRODUCER's attempted compromise retitling the section "Event" to be a good one. Although, I would suggest "important events" or "diplomatic actions" or similar to help avoid ambiguity.
Obviously, if "Karađorđevo" is mentioned in the navbox, the template should appear in Meeting in Karađorđevo.
according to the ICTY verdict it was NOT any "agreement". The verdict does not mention any agreement-especially not written!
So it does not belong here!