Talk:Foča massacres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foča massacres article.
Article policies

[edit] Arbitrary section header

This article is not neutral. The topic is introduced with the even being called a crime. It does not say who considers it a crime. A standard introductory sentence à la "The Foca massacres were a series of killings...". None of the English-language sources call the event a massacre so even the title is probably POV.--Carabinieri 12:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ICTY considers it a crime. There are several cases befor International Courte called Foča cases: Gagovic et al. (IT-96-23)"Foca", Krnojelac (IT-97-25) "Foca", Todovic and Rasevic (IT-97-25/1) "Foca" and Zelenovic (IT-96-23/2). In Bosnian it is called Zločini u Foči. Please read the sources. All sentences are sourced with ICTY decisions. Which part is POV? The Dragon of Bosnia 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, calling something a crime in the introductory sentence is inherently POV. Not even the article about The Holocaust does this. "Crime" is generally a POV term. "XXX considers this a crime" is ok, but "XXX is a crime" is taking a stance, which Wikipedia shouldn't do. Besides the ICTY isn't inherently neutral. It represents certain interests just like every other political and legal institution. And please don't remove the tag before this discussion is completed.--Carabinieri 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
ICTY isn't inherently neutral?! Then nothing is neutral. We should change all introductions in all articles in Wikipedia. If UN courte is not neutral, then I don't see what is neutral. But that is your judgement, your POV. Second, what interests does ICTY represent? Can you explain me that? It is the courte established by UN. UN is a huge organization. It is not homogeneous institution, it doens't have unified "political" interest. I just don't see what political interest ICTY allegedly represents. It is established in order to prosecute war crime suspects by the international law. But I will change the first sentence per your advice. Anything else? The Dragon of Bosnia 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you review for instance this article: Sijekovac massacre which is based on just one local newspaper article without any courte validation. This article is clear example of war propaganda because newspaper which published the article in this case represents "Serb side" in the conflict trying to balanse or justify crimes committed by Serb army. There is not even an investigation about alleged massacre, not to mention verdict. And those who allegedly commited massacre are not identified. It says they are Croatian army and Bosnian paramilitary groups. What Bosnian groups? What Croatian units? I can write hundreds of articles based on newspaper writings, but I will not do that. I want to use just reliable sources. That is why I sourced every sentece in the article. The Dragon of Bosnia 00:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There are another examples based just on the same local newspaper from Republika Srpska whose Army was found guilty by ICJ of genocide committed in Eastern Bosnia: Attack on the JNA, Sarajevo, Attack on the JNA, Tuzla. Those alleged attacks were never verified by anyone. Their purpose is just to justify for instance Foča massacres, Srebrenica genocide, Siege of Sarajevo etc, committed by many Serb soldiers which were already convicted not by Bosnian courte but UN courte. The Dragon of Bosnia 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My purpose is to write good articles in order to give valuable information which is not mine but courte's. I don't want to fabricate information about alleged war crimes like the examples I showed you above. I even asked another user which is interested in war related articles to review my article. The Dragon of Bosnia 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The ICTY represents the interests of the countries represented in the UN Security Council. Introducing something as a crime is never NPOV. The POV being assumed is that of the ICTY, which isn't an uncontroversial institution. General procedure when something like the NPOV tag is added to an article is that the question is discussed on the talk page until both sides are satisfied and then the tag is removed, so please stop removing it until this question is settled. Those article's POV doesn't make this one NPOV.--Carabinieri 07:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So I changed the introduction sentence. What else would you like to discuss? The Dragon of Bosnia 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I added: "according to numerous International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia verdicts." The Dragon of Bosnia 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Carabinieri, I've tried to remove most of the POV wording out of the article. Is it Ok now? If not, could you specify which parts remain POV and help us to neutralize the wording? Live Forever 00:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your edits. I will try to follow your example in other articles in order to make articles neutral as much as possible. The Dragon of Bosnia 01:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So...is this discussion over? I have seen that Carabinieri invited Serbian users to discuss the matter. I think it is ok and shows the real intention of Carabinieri. At least you should invite Bosnian users as well. On the other hand I would like to invite all users, because this is very interesting topic, and one of the most horrific events in the Balkan wars. We should all be informed about war crimes committed in Foča, not just Serbian users. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have taken off the NPOV tag; user Carabinieri has been active on Wikipedia for several days now, but has still made no comment about the response to his concerns. In either case, I have done my utmost to adress the problems he pointed out and I believe the changes made have "neutralized" the wording of the article - no assertions are made, and the article merely reports all facts. I have also reinserted the term "rape camps" into the article; although I will take Mr. Smolenski's word that the court documents do not specifically mention the term as such, it is commonly used to describe the facilities in question (in media, by human rights organizations, at academic events, in numerous books, by feminists, etc). Live Forever 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the source about camps with the rape purpose.The Society for Threatened Peoples (GfbV): Documentation - Tilman Zülch. The Dragon of Bosnia 00:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Quote in Bosnian: "U strategiju "etničkog čišćenja" spadalo je i sistematsko silovanje, prije svega Bošnjakinja. Prema procjenama Ekspertne komisije Ujedinjenih naroda, kojom je rukovodio prof. Cherif Bassiouni, silovano je najmanje 20.000 žena. U dijelovima Bosne, zaposjednutim od strane Srba, postojali su logori u kojima su vršena silovanja, čak i mjesecima.". The Dragon of Bosnia 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
English translation: "Systematic rapes of mostly Bosniak women were part of strategy of ethnic cleansing. According to Expert Commission of UN, managed by prof Cherif Bassiouni, 20.000 women were raped. In the parts of Bosnia, occupied by Srbs, there were camps in which rapes were conducted, even for months.". The Dragon of Bosnia 00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There are so many documents about rapes. Even Grbavica (film) movie, the winner of Berlin, was based on those terrible events which were part of strategy of Serb army. The other well known rape camp was "Sonja" in Vogošća. The Dragon of Bosnia 00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)