Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-22 Republika Srpska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: FreedonNadd 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Republika Srpska page, "Population" section
Who's involved?
Myself and user User:Emir Arven
What's going on?
Changes in the ethnic composition of Republika Srpska, addressed in the ‘Population’ section of the article, are focusing exclusively on the decline in numbers of non-Serbs due to events of the Bosnian war (1991-1995). While this fact is not disputed, this is not the only reason for the change in the ethnic composition of this Bosnian entity. Another important reason is the influx of Serb refuges from other parts of Bosnia as well as Croatia during the war. However, all references about Serb refugees are being removed my Emir without proper explanation or justification.
What would you like to change about that?
I would like the information about the influx of Bosnian/Croatian Serb refugees, which is very apparent from the statistical information which I posted on the talk page, to be included. Without it, the segment is very one sided and biased, completely ignoring the fact that there were more than half a million Serb refugees registered in Republika Srpska by UNHCR in 1996. Although I laboriously posted all relevant information on the talk page for everybody to see in order to make my point, user Emir is simply removing all references concerning Serb refugees in the article. I would like a neutral mediator, who is not affiliated with the Balkans/Bosnia and has no interest in Christian-Muslim conflict, to go over the article and talk page and provide a resolution.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
Public is quite all right.

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Comment by Dado

This is my initial comment to follow what I have already said on the discussion page when this information was first presented here and than clarified my comments here. Let me also note that comment that FreedonNadd about more than half a million Serbs being registered in RS is not entirely correct based on information that he provided. There was a total population loss in FBiH of 650291 including all ethnic groups. About 450 000 of these were Serbs and not all refugees resettled in RS but also elsewhere in the world. Again I don't think that the entire sentance that FreedonNadd added is disputed but only a reference that these people were "expelled" as implying that the governemnt in charge in FBiH was responsible for resetlement. This shows the lack of understanding of differences between the politics of RS and FBiH former of which had a verifiable and documented agenda of ethnic cleansing which they publicly expressed and executed while latter had not. I can explain this later further if necessary. --Dado 14:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Emir Arven

I removed the second sentence of the following section, because it was never verified by anyone: The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991, while the number of Serbs increased dramatically. This was caused by the influx of Bosnian Serb refugees expelled from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian war and Croatian Serb refugees expelled from Croatia, as well as the ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population.

The second sentence is completely POV. Expecially this part: "This was caused by the influx of Bosnian Serb refugees expelled from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian war".

The author of the sentence tried to minimize the ethnic cleansing and genocide of non-Serb population adding never-proven "expelled" part.

According to ICTY, ethnic cleansing was just proven in the case of non-Serb population as well as genocide. Let me be more specific. According to Radoslav Brđanin judgemet Radoslav Brđanin judgement about ethnic cleansing:

The ICTY Trial Chamber is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt both that the expulsions and forcible removals were systematic throughout the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK), in which and from where tens of thousands of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats were permanently displaced, and that this mass forcible displacement was intended to ensure the ethnic cleansing of the region. These people were left with no option but to escape. Those who were not expelled and did not manage to escape were subjected to intolerable living conditions imposed by the Serb authorities, which made it impossible for them to continue living there and forced them to seek permission to leave. Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats were subjected to movement restrictions, as well as to perilous living conditions; they were required to pledge their loyalty to the Serb authorities and in at least one case, to wear white armbands. They were dismissed from their jobs and stripped of their health insurance. Campaigns of intimidation specifically targeting Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats were undertaken.

This process of ethnic cleansing was sometimes camouflaged as a process of resettlement of populations. In Banja Luka, the Agency for Population Movement and the Exchange of Material Wealth for the ARK ("Agency"), which was established on 12 June 1992 pursuant to a decision of the ARK Crisis Staff, aided in the implementation of both the exchange of flats and the resettlement of populations. The Agency was popularly known variously as "Perka’s Agency" or as "Brđanin’s Agency". The ICTY Trial Chamber is of the view that although this Agency was set up for the exchange of flats and the resettlement of populations, this was nothing else but an integral part of the ethnic cleansing plan.

There is also judgemenet in Radoslav Krstić case for genocide commited in Srebrenica region: "By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. […] The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide." (ICTY 2004, para. 37)

Third, Momčilo Krajišnik, Serb leader also accused for genocide, invited Serb population after Deyton agreement to move from Federation to Republika Srpska, due to the fact that he wanted clean Serb ethnic teritory (all Serbs in one country). Because of that and other things he is now awaiting trial for genocide in ICTY.

And finnaly, if this sentence tried to justify the above facts: "This was caused by the influx of Bosnian Serb refugees expelled from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian war" then it is really pathetic. --Emir Arven 15:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by FreedonNadd

This is more of a "comment on a comment" than anything else.

Emir said: The author of the sentence tried to minimize the ethnic cleansing and Srebrenica massacre of non-Serb population adding never-proven "expelled" part.

Emir is literally stranger to truth, and I never witnessed anything like this on Wikipedia (by the way, I like the way how he sneaked ‘Srebrenica massacre’ article under “genocide” link in his original post here...).

Let me point out (once again) that my proposed edit is not about removing the ethnic cleansing comment, and that the events of Srebrenica (?!?) were never mentioned at all in our discussions.

My edits are about adding more information to what is already there – information completely relevant as a major cause for the present-day ethnic composition of Republika Srpska. Adding this information cannot “minimize” (?) in any shape or form what is already there – it can only complete the picture. Without this, only half of the story is told. Nevertheless this is exactly what Emir wants; his reverts are not about having a balanced view – they are about agitprop, about painting the picture in black and white only, and about monopolizing victimization and guilt. ¡No pasarán! my friend...--FreedonNadd 04:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply comment by Emir Arven

I provided very relevant sources and FreedonNadd didn't. I am not sure if this user is actually PANONIAN, but I have seen the same logic here. It should be checked, because earlier PANONIAN made "Unitary Islamic Bosnian" article up according to his statement (this entry was deleted) just because of his unreasonable goals.

You said: Emir is literally stranger to truth, and I never witnessed anything like this on Wikipedia (by the way, I like the way how he sneaked ‘Srebrenica massacre’ article under “genocide” link in his original post here...).

As I can notice your first edit was on January 19th [1] and it seems that you are very experienced Wikipedian. So can you tell what was your earlier nick name?

I put information about genocide in Srebrenica, because there is good explination about methods used to conduct genocide by Serb authorities as well as ethnic cleansing. On the other hand the "expelled" part that you put in the sentece is not having a balanced view, because the reality is not balanced. Your part was never proven. International courte is trying to decide what was reality and what was not during the wars in Yugoslavia. Now it is the most relevant source that we have, because it is international, not Serb/Bosniak/Croat. --Emir Arven 10:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by HolyRomanEmperor

Hello! I do not know a lot about the ethnic cleasning that happenned in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but I do know about what happenned in Croatia. I noticed (I point out here: I do not deny it, but I am just pointing out that I noticed) that the 200,000-250,000 Croats (some sources go as high as 550,000, although its pure exaggerating)were expelled from RSK; and that 500,000 (some sources go as high as 700,000, although this is also exaggerated) Serbs (of whome 300,000 left Croatia up to 1993 and up to 250,000 left shortly before/during/after Operation Storm) were compelled to leave/evacuated/fled from Croatia. I find this a bit one-sided on wikipedia.

I would also like to make a notion that four fiths of the Army of Republika Srpska Krajina were comprised out of ethnic Serbs (both native and volunteers from elsewhere) and that one fifth was comprised out of Bosniaks during the heat of battle in 1995 (see: Operation storm for more info)

History of Croatia (the modern part article) does not distance itself from the fact that the Operation Storm was solely responsible for the fleeing of 200,000 Serbs from Croatia to Bosnia and Serbia.

One must understand that the war campaign during Operation Storm (see the aftermath section as a source for this) was continued even after Krajina was taken by the Croatian Army. The article clearly states that from August to November in 1995 ...serious violations of human rights were reported to have taken place against the remaining Serb inhabitants of the Krajina.' Please note the remaining. This means that if the population had not left, a major massacre would've happenned. Note that the article also states that the UNPROFOR assembled a figure of more than 200 killed Serb civilians in this "post-war War". In addition to that, General Ante Gotovina (see the article) who was the commander of Operation Storm was acused ...for the murder of over 150 ethnic Serb civilians... by the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. It must be also mentioned that the government of Serbia and Montenegro had ammassed an exact figure of the people that strangly disappeared during Operation Storm - it is 3,046 (note, this figure includes all civilians, soldiers and other; but also note that it is known that 560 Serbian soldiers were killed during the actual Military Operation, meaning that the remaining two and a half thousand were mysteriously misplaced). Note that many structres were burned during the post-war period like the Serb Orthodox Cathedral Church of St. Nicholas in Karlovac (see the article) and the beautiful 700-year old Monastery at Krka. Military targets (even when the actual war is over)?

Croatia (and thousands of its citizens) are celebrating Operation Storm every year in Knin and other major parts of Croatia (see Croatia marks Storm anniversary and even Matt Prodger of BBC argued in Belgrade that claiming that Operation Storm was liberational would be controversal. Vojislav Koštunica had acused that the Operation was the greatest crime committed after World War II, but the Croatian authorities argue that because what the Serb side did in Srebrenica, this could pass.

Another source of BBC: Evicted Serbs remember Storm shows the tragics of Sava Stijelja are presented (where the Croatian authorities are running for the Serbian refugees and plainly killing them (note: civilians!)). Croatia has also proven reluctant to return the Serbs to Croatia and for them there is arguably but essentially - impossible. Claiming property in Croatia (by the Serbs) is not possible inany way (that bit I have seen myself) The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe has acused Croatia of its poor acts in returning the refugees. Note that the BBC refers that the forces of the Operation Storm had purged the Serb population from Krajina.

All in all, I was referring only to the last stages of the war; since more henious crimes (some even state 7,000 ethnic Croatian Serbs missing in Croatia; although possible exaggeration) that happenned before. Although, while the ethnic clensing of Croats is evident, it is arguable in the Serbs' case.

My point: Calling that Serbs that have fled to Bosnia (Republika Srpska in presice) were not ethnicly cleansed from Croatia would be ahistorical, incorrect, POV and essentially, insultive. I hope that this helped a little resolve the conflict. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply comment by FreedonNadd

COMPROMISE ATTEMPT

Since I don't wish to waste anyone's time (especially mine) too much, here is an attempt at early compromise on my part - I think that it is more than reasonable rewrite of the disputed segment. This way we can all congratulate ourselves and go do something else.

It seems that "expelled" is the main bone here. Let's remove any value judgement as to why people abandoned their homes (although it is very clear to me), and leave that part for the reader to contemplate over.

Thus instead of:

The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991, while the number of Serbs increased dramatically. This was caused by the influx of Bosnian Serb refugees expelled from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian war and Croatian Serb refugees expelled from Croatia, as well as the ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population.

I propose compromise like this:

The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991, while the number of Serbs increased dramatically. This was caused by the influx of Bosnian Serb refugees from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to Bosnian war (1992-1995) and Croatian Serb refugees from Croatia due to Croatian war (1991-1995), as well as the ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population.

This is my act of good will, and I hope it will work.

[edit] Reply comment by Dado

Amazingly enough I was just saving this exact proposal when there was a conflict in saving this article. I would just complete the second sentance with "on the teritory of Republika Srpska" . I am OK with the proposal --Dado 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually after reading the sentence again I think it may need just a minor correction or clarification. Since the data that was provided covered population migration up to 1996 the migration has also happened beyond the scope of Bosnian War that ended in 1995. Hence I would add this sentence at the end:

Some resettlement also took place after the war following the Dayton Peace Agreement after political boundaries (IEBL) were set.

I hope everyone is also OK with this --Dado 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply comment by FreedonNadd

Fine by me, although "on the territory of Republika Srpska" is not adding anything really - it is evident where this occurred, since the whole article (and this segment) is about the territory of Republika Srpska.

[edit] Reply comment by HolyRomanEmperor

That version is OK and excellent as it is. There is no inacurracy in it or anything similiar. But like I said, I think that it is at least slightly nationalist, since it does not define what happenned to the Serbian refugees, but does so in the non-Serb case. But, as I said, it seems fine to me.

[edit] Reply comment by FreedonNadd

I have no problem with the version 3 either. I would like to invite both Dado and HolyRomanEmperor to vote on the article talk page.

[edit] Mediator response

Response given, we've thrashed out a compromise version, both sides seem to be happy :) Another case closed! - FrancisTyers 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)