Talk:Battle of Vrbanja Bridge

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Vrbanja Bridge. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304062033/http://video.bilgibende.com/1398106/2 to http://video.bilgibende.com/1398106/2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

A quote has been (partly) removed from the article that shows the French perspective on this battle. No-one is stopping any editor from adding the Bosnian Serb point of view on the battle (assuming it is reliably sourced), but the French perspective is valid and should be included. Also, the French soldiers were hostages, as the French were not at war with the Bosnian Serb Army. There were a lot of UN hostages taken by the VRS at this time during the Bosnian War, none of them were part of a faction in the war, they were from a third party (the UN). A basic understanding of the laws of war shows this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote was "(partly) removed" to be less inflaming, less POV and more neutral. Not to mention the source itself is suspicious considering attitude Western media had at that time about the Serbs. Lack of Bosnian Serb side of the story does not mean such biased wording should be used. UN forces were involved in a conflict, they were armed, they had clashes with all three sides. And they were prisoners, they cannot be hostages if they were on the front line armed and briefed about what might happen, which they were. What I see here is unconstructive editing in a form of "I don't like it". Adoniosis (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the quotation, just because it is critical of Serb forces does not make it POV or biased to use it. I am very suspicious of a "new" editor who starts editing multiple articles to remove material critical of Serbian actions in the former Yugoslavia. DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am also very suspicious of your clear anti-Serb bias. Adoniosis (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's simple. You accuse me of something and I return the favor. Adoniosis (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Adoniosis I have warned you about edit-warring. I suggest you start a neutrally-worded RfC (or another form of dispute resolution) if you would like to get a community view on whether the quote should be included in the article. That is the appropriate course of action where a dispute has occurred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It is you who have started this edit war not me. And we are going to settle neutrality of words in this article here, on talk page, just as we were told when you asked for this article to be protected instead of discussing it like a civilized person. Adoniosis (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I asked for this article to be protected because you were edit-warring. If you want to discuss it, let's do that. Alternatively, if you want to get a wider community view, given we appear to differ on this matter, then an RfC or other dispute resolution process might be appropriate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent details added

About recent changes on the page :

Dear Peacemaker67,

Thank you for all the work you do on wikipedia and specialy military history pages. I am a new contributor, I will do my best for expanding the wikipedia global knowledge, and I am focus on reliability and facts, and I am very aware that edit-warring could be a plague of wikipedia.

I have done some modifications on the page, and I would like to kindly discuss it with you,

- correcting the military responsability of the officer who was in charge of the direct assault : I modified his resp. (company instead of platoon) and you undid the modif. In most of the armies, a captain is in charge of a company, the French army doesn't do exception, and it was its role at the time. Beside, it is cited in many sources of official (French MoD), historical, and press sources (https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/articles/27-mai-1995-les-marsouins-reprennent-le-pont-de-vrbanja#.T7-RB6HxMbY.twitter, https://www.cairn.info/revue-cites-2007-4-page-93.htm, etc...). The sentence of the French MoD says : "27 mai 1995, en Bosnie-Herzégovine : le capitaine François Lecointre, commandant la 1re compagnie du 3e régiment d’infanterie de marine (3e RIMa)" or in english : "on 27th of my, 1995, In Bosnia-Herzegovina, Captain Francois Lecointre, commanding the 1st company of the 3rd RIMa, ...") Do you agree with that ?

I'm happy with that, the rank/position seemed incongruous. I reverted because of other things you did with the same edit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

- doing modification on the chain of command : how was President Chirac involved in the decision ? In my understanding, Chirac made clear before the event that the mindset of France have changed, as he had upset by "UN hostage crisis". But I didn't found any precised sources of Chirac having done a direct order of retaking the UN Post. On the opposite, there is 3 testimony of all the direct military officer involved saying that it was process done very quickly in the morning of the events, and between Lecointre (Compagny CO involved), Sandahl (his battalion CO) and Gobillard (General commanding the UN sector). None of theses testimonies included a decision at a French government level. The sources are : https://www.cairn.info/revue-cites-2007-4-page-93.htm (interview Gen Gobillard) https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/articles/27-mai-1995-les-marsouins-reprennent-le-pont-de-vrbanja#.T7-RB6HxMbY.twitter (abstract of the event on the French Ministry of Defense website) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAPox1A3F6U (subtitles in French, testimonies of Gobillard and Lecointre, consistent with other informations given)

Rathbun says Chirac was involved, he clearly is a reliable source and is very clear, including about the fallout within the government. A lack of corroborating information in lower-level participants' accounts isn't the same as a source denying that Chirac made the decision. We could add that an account from Gobillard (who is the only one that might know of Chirac's involvement) doesn't mention Chirac's involvement, but that is as far as we could go. That doesn't mean much frankly, as Chirac wouldn't necessarily have spoken to Gobillard himself, he may have only spoken to the then-CDS Lanxade, who apparently wasn't happy about it. In my experience, senior officers adopt the orders they are given and don't excuse them by saying that they come from someone else further up the chain, so Lanxade may well have not have told Gobillard that the orders came from Chirac. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have done some research today and found a special report on the Srebenica events from a special investigation commission of the French Senate (report : http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/11/pdf/rap-info/i3413-02.pdf), with many major officials interviewed, including Lanxade and Gobilliard. This is an official report with audition on the French Parliement.

- Lanxade said (page 13) that Gobilliard appreciated the situation on his own, and then turn to Lanxade, who approuved. Lanxade said also than neither the governement and the President of Republic had be submitted to decide, as Lanxade was aware than Chirac would have approuved immediately.

- Gobilliard said that he hadn't any contact with Paris officials (admiral Lanxade or General Germanos, Germanos was "sous-chef OPS" at the Joint Army Head of Staff)

my personal conclusion is that most of the people involved want to show as the "father" of the decision... :-)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BihacVet ([[User talk:BihacVet (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)BihacVet#top|talk]] • contribs) 15:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

None of that means that the information about Chirac is wrong, all it means is that the sources differ on Chirac's involvement. If I understand your post, Lanxade says that Chirac's approval was not needed, it doesn't say that he didn't speak to him. As I said, we could add that Gobilliard stated that the operation was approved by Lanxade, and even that Lanxade says that higher approval was not needed, but none of the above says that Chirac wasn't asked about it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

- regarding the reliability of the Col. Sandahl book, the wikipedia Manual_of_Style/Military_history#Sourcing_and_citation page says : "With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research." I totally agree that Sandahl's book is not research or scientific source, and is a primary source. But, I do think it is a high-quality source because it is facts-centrics, focus on schedule of events and units involved, and contains very rare personal judgment (NB : Sandhal is a son of a journalist...). Other thing : I didn't found another source, secondary and from historian, having suchs details. By the way, the details given do not modify the way the article is written (I mean changing "70 soldiers" into "platoon 1 was here and did this, and platoon 2 was here and did that" is adding details without changing the core of it).

What do you think ?

Best Regards

13:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)~BihacVet

Just for completeness, I think Sandahl is too close to the subject given he was a participant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Adjustement on casualties reported

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified the casualties listed for the French Army, adjusting from 3 to 2. There is only report citing a third decease after the fight (LA Times article), but it's lack of sources. No other report of the story cites 3 deaths. The french casulaties are : Jacky Humblot, 18, and Marcel Amaru, 24, both soldiers from the 3th RIMA. Humblot died as he climbed on the top of the first house seized (sniper), and Amaru as he was providing fire support with an 0,50 machine gun on his VAB. All UNPROFOR, specialy french, casualties can be named (name, unit, detailed circonstances of death). As there is no such thing for the "third french dead soldier", it has to be removed. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by BihacVet (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

list of french loss in Bosnia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pertes_militaires_fran%C3%A7aises_en_ex-Yougoslavie#:~:text=La%20France%20a%20perdu%2055,d'op%C3%A9ration%20%C3%A0%20cette%20date.

official database of the french army for casualties : https://www.memoiredeshommes.sga.defense.gouv.fr/en/arkotheque/client/mdh/opex_1963_2013/detail_fiche.php?ref=1650930&debut=0 https://www.memoiredeshommes.sga.defense.gouv.fr/en/arkotheque/client/mdh/opex_1963_2013/detail_fiche.php?ref=1649483&debut=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BihacVet (talk • contribs) 09:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, that may be right, but you need to compare and contrast reliable sources that differ, not delete and change the article without citing reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Peacemaker I understand your point, but I am disturbed by the method : its harder to prove that an affirmation is negative than positive. In this case, there is no reliable source - apart an error in a LA times article, unsourced and non -detailed - to affirm that there was 3 casualties. In the opposite site, there is strong support for the "2 casualties only" : the french official gvt cite 2 deceased (see the database for the french defense ministry), and again from the french gvt, the official story is 2 deceased (source : https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actu-terre/se-souvenir-des-marsouins-sur-le-pont-de-vrbanja). The third french deceased can be hardly named because its doesn't exist, and all the casualties can be named for this operation. Regards Emmanuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by BihacVet (talk • contribs) 10:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

review on web sources cited at the end (I have done the work you suggested) : - NYT article : 2 casualties - Le point article : 2 - the independant : 2 - human watch report : non mention of the casualties - Indiana gazette : I don't have access to the webpage - France 24 : non mention in the text, but the youtube documentary mentions 2 casualties - NATO/factsheet on denyflight op : no mention of the fight - LA time : the only source citing 3 casualties (dated 28th may 1995). all the posterior sources, including french gov official and 2nd The Independant article (7th june 1995) cites 2 deceased. It is very unlikely that the 3rd death would have been forgotten after a reasonable delay, it is very likely that the LA Times had worked too fast and had un-checked source for its affirmation — Preceding unsigned comment added by BihacVet (talk • contribs) 11:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with BihacVet. I added two bibliographical sources plus a The New York Times article stating that French fatilities numbered only two. Passing mention by Los Angeles Time of a third peacekeeper killed removed as per WP:UNDUE.----Darius (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the weight of sources now in the article overwhelmingly supports only two French peacekeepers being killed. Thanks to BihacVet and DagosNavy for your research and edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Translation of "TDM" as "Marines"

The article consistently refers to the 3e RIMA as a "marines" unit supported by "70 infantrymen". This is not, in my view, an accurate translation, as the 3e RIMA, as well as the un-named infantry unit "supporting" it, the RICM (see the French version of this page for details) are both in fact troupes de marine (TDM) units.

Unlike the British and American Marines, however, the TDM are no longer part of the navy (nor have they been for some time) and the distinction between "marines" and "infantry" is in any case a mistranslation since the RICM is also a TDM unit.

I'm wondering what others think about this, or if it would be easier to understand for the Anglophone reader to keep it as is? Peter Kelford (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)