Talk:Republika Srpska/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Name
sh: Republika Srpska (RS) = de: Republik Serbland = en: The Republic of Serbland
one-word name: sh: Srpska = de, en: Serbland
(Srpski jezički priručnik, Beograd 2004)
more info here: http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/bbrboric-jezik/bbrboric-jezik5.html
Ah, I see Nikola is back... OK, let's try to settle things down.
- Re figures of the referendum: what was the constitutional requirement? a) 66% of all registered voters, b) 66% of all who voted or c) 50% provided that the turnout was at least 66%? If a), then Nikola is right, if b) or c), Dado is right.
- See below. Nikola
- Nikola, please don't just revert the paragraph; "your" version suffers from incomprehensibility. If you want to stress that not only Bosnian Serbs deemeed it unconstitional, please ammend who else did.
- I don't know who else did, but I also don't know who else didn't. Nikola
- I'm affraid the "two lost paragraphs" about war crimes, regardless how cruel, are pretty much correct (despite PoV bias) and ought to stay. I'll try to reword them, but that info should stay in one form or another. Duja 12:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- When you rewrite them, or write your own, insert them into the article. But they are so POV that I can't let them stay, and I don't think that they are useful basis for writing new ones, so that's not a reason for them to stay either.
- I did review them, but I didn't find any basic flaw. So far, I didn't see your serious complaints about facts presented in those paragraphs, only the remarks that they are biased because they place serious accusations on the leadership of RS. The problem is, to paraphrase (ChrisO?) from somewhere above, that we cannot e.g. remove Hitler from history of Germany because "that part is unpleasant" – those accusations have been proven (and properly sourced) for the most part. As I don't endorse the attempts of Bosniak nationalists to claim entire Bosnian history and heritage as theirs, I don't endorse your attempts to minimize, remove or deny Serb (not Serbs in general but real persons with name and surname) crimes and guilts. Duja 12:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
- Well, if you haven't found any basic flaw, I'm not sure that you will even when I point it to you. The accusations are not biased because they place serious accusations on the leadership of RS. They are biased because because they place serious accusations on the leadership of RS, while not pointing out serious accusations of other leaderships which deserve it, and also present these accusation as something proven while they aren't. I don't attempt to minimize Serb crimes, you are completely wrong about that. Nikola 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I did review them, but I didn't find any basic flaw. So far, I didn't see your serious complaints about facts presented in those paragraphs, only the remarks that they are biased because they place serious accusations on the leadership of RS. The problem is, to paraphrase (ChrisO?) from somewhere above, that we cannot e.g. remove Hitler from history of Germany because "that part is unpleasant" – those accusations have been proven (and properly sourced) for the most part. As I don't endorse the attempts of Bosniak nationalists to claim entire Bosnian history and heritage as theirs, I don't endorse your attempts to minimize, remove or deny Serb (not Serbs in general but real persons with name and surname) crimes and guilts. Duja 12:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
- When you rewrite them, or write your own, insert them into the article. But they are so POV that I can't let them stay, and I don't think that they are useful basis for writing new ones, so that's not a reason for them to stay either.
If I remember correctly 50% of the voting body had to turnout to vote. Of that number at least 66.66% had to vote for independence. Results were: between 64-67% turned out and 98% of those voted for independence.
- If I remember correctly, 66.67% of the entire population had to vote yes. See [1], the paragraph before the last paragraph. Nikola
- There, Ekmecic discusses the same thing with Malcolm we're discussing here – he also refutes that 66.66% of the population did not vote for (the thing we could agree on), but does not refer to any relevant paragraph from the Constitution (which may have been ambiguous, but we'll never find out until someone really digs out the relevant paragraph). I think we could agree that at least the spirit of the constitution was not followed.
- In any case, we're kind of discussing strawman here. The jurisdictional legality of both referendums mattered precious little at the time when the sheer force took over. Referendums were legal or not, their results came valid today in one form or another – BiH one by universal recognition of independence, and RS one kind of confirmed in Dayton Agreement. Duja 12:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that. Today this may have little practical importance, but if we are writing an article which speaks about some event, and legality of that event is obviously important, it is important for the article, if not for us.
- By the way, if FRY is successor of SFRY, was that recognition of independence constitutional after all? Nikola 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to find this reference somewhere on the internet but I could not find it. A good reference in Montenegro who has a same law and is recently preparing for a referendum.
Also Yugoslavian government may have declared the referendum "contrary" to the BiH constitution as well but they later recognized BiH independence.
- One might say that they later had to recognise it. It has nothing to do with whether the referendum was legal. Nikola
It should be noted that all republics in former Yugoslavia were "sovereign to independence".
- Are you sure? On what basis then did the Yugoslav constitutional court claimed that their declarations of independence was unconstitutional? Nikola
- But when and whether did that happen? (This is a real question, not a rhetoric one). I urge you to provide a reference and place it in the article.Duja 12:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a reference for Bosnia, but I did find one relating to Slovenia. Maybe without Slovenian and Croatian members the constitutional court couldn't convene at all? Nikola 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- But when and whether did that happen? (This is a real question, not a rhetoric one). I urge you to provide a reference and place it in the article.Duja 12:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
What Yugoslavian government and "Serb government" was refering to is an understanding that was mentioned in the preambule of the BiH constitution that important decisions need to be reached with consensus between constituent people of BiH. However it was not specifically called out in the constitution (codified as a law) to have consesus about independence.
- Independence is an important decision. Nikola
One could argue in the case of BiH that the letter of the constitution was followed but the spirit may had not. Hence we may have a debate about it but it is not to claim that the referendum was unconstitutional and any such declaration is merely a political rethoric.--Dado 16:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- No. Neither the letter nor the spirit of the constitution were followed, and there is no one who claims otherwise. The referendum was unconstitutional, period. Nikola 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Again, my PoV is that we cannot really phrase neither view as "referendum X was unconstitutional" at the time and place when laws meant little and politics took over from whatever remained of the jurisdicial system. The best (and IMO most neutral) we can say is that "referendum X was declared unconstitutional by Y". In my personal opinion, all ex-Yu referendums in 1990s
suckedwere flawed, but we're here to say what happened at that time and which positions were taken by relevant sides, not to give judgements. Duja 12:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)- Why couldn't I, if it was? If we say only that "referendum was declared", we imply that referendum was in fact constitutional, but was only wrongly declared not to be so. Consider that most readers of this article are heavily influenced by propaganda aimed against Serbia and Yugoslavia and will come to that conclusion. Nikola 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The best we could say to the question "was the referendum constitutional?" is MU. Are we to make the judgements? Apparently, many other countries and eventually UN did not have problem with that by accepting BiH proclaimed independence. I am not saying they were right; I am saying that "constitutionality" is in the eye of beholder (the more so the bigger stick he holds). I don't see that we're implying anything pro or con; if you do, reword the sentence but please avoid that "is" definition. Duja 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't feel like dwelling further into other points today, on the Christmas Eve. Srećan Božić, Hristos Vaskrse – may we all find some peace and love for each other. Duja 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that mukanje (a joke, I read the article) is a valid answer. We are people with brains and so we can make judgements. Of course, our judgements are not important for Wikipedia, but our judgements about important judgements of other people are. You are wrong when you say that "many other countries and eventually UN did not have problem with that": they knew better than you and me, but have accepted independence because it was in their political interest, despite the fact that it was illegal, illegitimate, unconstitutional, and whatnot, which was very known to them.
- We can make judgments about that, but then what are the constitutional courts for if everything is so clearcut? However, at that time, both the BiH and the Federal constitutional court suffered from obvious lack of legitimacy and were mere tools in politicians' hands. I can sort of agree that they accepted the independence because of their political interest...Duja 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, not everything is so clearcut. Though I believe that this thing is. Nikola 08:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- We can make judgments about that, but then what are the constitutional courts for if everything is so clearcut? However, at that time, both the BiH and the Federal constitutional court suffered from obvious lack of legitimacy and were mere tools in politicians' hands. I can sort of agree that they accepted the independence because of their political interest...Duja 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Constitutionality is not in the eye of the beholder. Some things are either constitutional or not. There may be different opinions about it, of course, but that is irrelevant: some are true and some are false. Argumentum ad baculum is proudly listed on Wikipedia as a logical fallacy. Nikola 16:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- ...but Argumentum ad baculum, unfortunately, is (one of) driving forces in politics, we liked it or not. That's how things work. Duja 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I hope that here we don't do politics, but write an encyclopedia. Nikola 08:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- ...but Argumentum ad baculum, unfortunately, is (one of) driving forces in politics, we liked it or not. That's how things work. Duja 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that mukanje (a joke, I read the article) is a valid answer. We are people with brains and so we can make judgements. Of course, our judgements are not important for Wikipedia, but our judgements about important judgements of other people are. You are wrong when you say that "many other countries and eventually UN did not have problem with that": they knew better than you and me, but have accepted independence because it was in their political interest, despite the fact that it was illegal, illegitimate, unconstitutional, and whatnot, which was very known to them.
- Why couldn't I, if it was? If we say only that "referendum was declared", we imply that referendum was in fact constitutional, but was only wrongly declared not to be so. Consider that most readers of this article are heavily influenced by propaganda aimed against Serbia and Yugoslavia and will come to that conclusion. Nikola 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Again, my PoV is that we cannot really phrase neither view as "referendum X was unconstitutional" at the time and place when laws meant little and politics took over from whatever remained of the jurisdicial system. The best (and IMO most neutral) we can say is that "referendum X was declared unconstitutional by Y". In my personal opinion, all ex-Yu referendums in 1990s
"Sovereign to independence" was stated in constitutions of Yugoslavia and BiH.
- Wrong. [2] states that "Izhajajoč iz pravice vsakega naroda do samoodločbe, ki vključuje tudi pravico do odcepitve..." [emphasis mine]. Nikola 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yugoslavia was held together by sheer will of republics to stay in. There was no law obligating them to remain in, so no law could have been broken. The constitution by stating "sovereign to independence" have given republics (and republics being the guiding word here, not nations) the right to secede from Yugoslavia. Because only republics could secede what Bosnian Serb government did was illegal. What Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina did (seeked independece) is excercised its constitutional right. BiH was the only republic that had such preambule that I noted above. Stating that independence is an "important decision" is subjective and matter of politics and not the letter of the law. The way BiH reached its independence is a matter of debate of which one interpretation could be that it was against the spirit of the noted preambule and hence it was declared "contrary" to the constitution and not "unconstitutional" by Federal Yugosalvian government. I think that's it --Dado 01:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Without going into consitutionality and legality of referenda, I'll just toss in that a correct translation for pravo na samoopredeljenje do otcepljenja would be the "right to self-determination up to secession". Zocky 15:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- However, the interpretation of that constitutional right was one of legalese reasons to start the war (and is still disputed). I don't think we will ever agree over what that actually meant, and it was likely left intentionally ambiguous in the constitution. I don't think we should argue about what that meant (as we won't agree), but just mention it as a point of dispute. Not in this article though – Yugoslav wars maybe. Duja 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think, both here and there. Nikola 08:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- However, the interpretation of that constitutional right was one of legalese reasons to start the war (and is still disputed). I don't think we will ever agree over what that actually meant, and it was likely left intentionally ambiguous in the constitution. I don't think we should argue about what that meant (as we won't agree), but just mention it as a point of dispute. Not in this article though – Yugoslav wars maybe. Duja 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The end of ENTITY called "Republika Srpska" final in 2006
The New Bosnian Constitution 2006 has great changes. After 13 years world finally recognizes that Entity that was created by ethnic cleansing and genocide mainly populated by Serbs is coming to the end. Let Srebrenica be a constant reminder of genocide, hatred and ethnic cleansing of innocent Bosnian men, women and children by Serbs who are never tired of killing for the sake of their own ideologies. If nations are allowed to commit genocide with impunity, to hide their guilt in a camouflage of lies and denials, there is a real danger that other brutal regimes will be encouraged to attempt genocides. Government recognizes genocide in Bosnia as historical fact, we can leave this century of unprecedented genocides by Serbs with this blot on their consciences. == --209.86.97.172 21:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Source: UNHCR, Returns summary to Bosnia and Herzegovina from 01/01/96 to 31/01/02: [www.unhcr.ba] "For Republika Srpska, the Court ordered the removal from the preamble of all references to sovereignty, self-determination, independence and the determination of the Bosnian Serb people "to link their State with other States of the Serb people". It insisted that the entity must not describe itself as the "State of the Serb people", and ruled against a number of other specific provisions, including certain references to "social property" which it deemed incompatible with the constitutional protection of the free market. These specific orders of the Court have all been accepted by the Constitutional Commissions and the main political parties."
Two lost paragraphs
OK, here they are. What is disputed except alleged PoV? Duja 12:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since the beginning of the war, the VRS and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide (see: the Srebrenica massacre), the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population [3], creation and running of concentration/detention camps [4], the long military siege of Sarajevo, and the destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian cultural and historical heritage [5], [6].
- By 1994, the United Nations estimated that a million non-Serbs had been driven out from the territory controlled by Republika Srpska and by the spring of 1996, a United Nations census indicated that Serbs constituted 96.8% of the population of the republic. However, the republic's actions produced worldwide condemnation, the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 1993 and the eventual indictment of the Republika Srpska military and civilian leadership for war crimes.
- Since the beginning of the war, the VRS and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused of war crimes - by other participants in the war. This isn't much info.
- Lie. They were accused by the ICTY.
- ICTY is formed some time after the beginning of the war. Nikola
- Lie. They were accused by the ICTY.
- genocide (see: the Srebrenica massacre) - Srebrenica massacre is presented as genocide. This is disputed to say the least.
- Genocide was proven at ICTY and the term is generally used in the world
- the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population [7] - a HRW report is presented as a definitive source. I'd rather unlink it.
- HRW is one of hundred's of sources. HRW is a reputable institution. If this is not a valid example of a source I don't know what is.
- It is a valid example of a source. Nikola
- HRW is one of hundred's of sources. HRW is a reputable institution. If this is not a valid example of a source I don't know what is.
- creation and running of concentration/detention camps [8] - ICTY is presented as a definitive source. Again, I'd unlink it. It is suggested that creation of a detention camp is a war crime. I'd remove the phrase, mentioning only concentration camps.
- Killing, torturing and raping in detention camps is a war crime. ICTY source is widely acceptable.
- been accused of [...] the long military siege of Sarajevo - implies that this is a crime. There have been numerous crimes committed during the siege but it was not a crime in itself.
- If it implies (and I don't think it does) 12,000 civilians killed is a crime (to begin with). Several generals responsible for the siege were indicted and convicted.
- the destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian cultural and historical heritage [9], [10] - again, I'd delink the sources.
- By 1994, the United Nations - appeal to the authority of the UN. Which agency, under whose guidance, estimated this exactly?
- There was an official report by the United Nations regarding the situation in BiH. Who needed guidance?
- I don't know who needed it, but the UN has it. Nikola
- There was an official report by the United Nations regarding the situation in BiH. Who needed guidance?
- estimated that a million non-Serbs had been driven out from the territory controlled by Republika Srpska - as stated above, this figure appears to be impossibly high.
- Fact.
- Uncertain. Nikola
- We can add [citation needed] until source is found--Dado 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that there is a source for this, the problem is that it seems invalid. This is tightly related to the following. Nikola
- We can add [citation needed] until source is found--Dado 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Uncertain. Nikola
- Fact.
- by the spring of 1996, a United Nations census indicated that Serbs constituted 96.8% of the population - if percentage of Serbs at the beginning of the war is not given, this is pure FUD.
- the republic's actions produced worldwide condemnation - see above, it was not the republic's actions which produced worldwide condemnation.
- Pure lie. It produced worldwide condemnation unless one lived under a rock and not followed news.
- the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia - which at least formally has jurisdiction not only over RS. It was not created because of RS's actions.
- It was created because of serious violations of human rights and war crimes as reported by various human rights groups to investigate the same.
- Various human rights groups report serious violations of human rights and war crimes daily, yet courts are not popping around. Nikola
- It was created because of serious violations of human rights and war crimes as reported by various human rights groups to investigate the same.
- eventual indictment of the Republika Srpska military and civilian leadership for war crimes - again, this was not because of the actions.
So much about what is disputed in what is said. And now, what isn't said: that Muslim government has been accused of war crimes, that war crimes have been commited over Serbs, including ethnic cleansing, massacres, forcing them into concentration camps, and destruction of Serbian cultural and historical heritage. That their leadership is mostly not indicted for that crimes by the ICTY. That ICTY is considered illegal and illegitimate. Nikola 17:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Few officials from the government were indicted and none were convicted. Few low level officials were indicted and convicted.
- That is terrible and should be pointed out. Nikola 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This can be pointed out on the article Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina but noting in this article is a pure appologist tactic to deny that above crimes were commited by RS officials.
- No it wouldn't. If we say "RS officials commited crimes" and "Bosniak officials commited crimes", how does that deny crimes commited by RS officials? Nikola 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Again that is exactly what you and many others who are pushing this POV agenda are trying to do ie. to portray that all sides are equally guilty in the war. It is a fact that about 88% of civilian casulties in this war were Bosniaks and most of them as a result of actions and politics of Republika Srpska officials and millitary. --Dado 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, that is wrong. I am trying to point out that all sides are guilty in the war. That does not imply that they are equally guilty. By the way, from [11]:
- Again that is exactly what you and many others who are pushing this POV agenda are trying to do ie. to portray that all sides are equally guilty in the war. It is a fact that about 88% of civilian casulties in this war were Bosniaks and most of them as a result of actions and politics of Republika Srpska officials and millitary. --Dado 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Statistics of atrocities and war casualties in Bosnia, and later in Kosovo, remain difficult to substantiate. However, figures reported by Bosnia's State Health Protection Office (under the Muslim-controlled government) were almost identical to those published by the Belgrade-controlled media and showed that the Muslim and Serb populations suffered, proportionately, equally heavily: 7.4% of the pre-war population of Muslims and 7.1% of the Serbs in Bosnia were killed or went missing during the period 1992 to 1995 (the comparable Croat percentage was 3.5). Muslim sources put the total casualties at 278,000 killed or missing, including 140,800 Muslims, 97,300 Serbs, and 28,400 Croats--reflecting the larger size of the Muslim population in Bosnia.
- Nikola 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
They are all old, obsolete and all estimates. See Bosnian War for data provided by Reasearch and Documentation Center in Sarajevo in December 2005 --Dado 18:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Other claims are nothing more than local mithology fabricated to level out the guilt among waring parties in BiH. Regarding the Serbian cultural and historical heritage, just an example: 16 mosques were distroyed in Banja Luka, Serbian orthodox church still stands, undamaged in Sarajevo. Nikola's claim is pure fabrication and a lie.
- This text, by the Serbian Orthodox Church itself, states that of five episcopal residencies in Bosnia, three were destroyed or damaged (that of Mostar, Sarajevo and Tuzla). It also specifically mentions that Mostar church was destroyed. Nikola 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- As you said 3 orthodox churches were damaged or distroyed; in zones of high intensity conflict. Have you been to Sarajevo or Mostar lately. Vukovak looks like Disneyland compared to the amount of damage that these cities sustained. In Banja Luka that saw no military conflict, all of the mosques were demolished and leveled.
Even if what you stated is correct especially in Sarajevo it is more probable that the church was damaged by heavy artillery from VRS positions than it was a concerted effort by local population or government who lacked ammunition, explosives and other "luxury items" need to even consider wasting it on damaging orthodox churches (which are by the way also national herritage of Bosnia and Herzegovina)--Dado 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- No. Only three are mentioned in this article. A lot more have been damaged or destroyed. Nikola 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have spent last 6 months collecting the sources for this article which Nikola is now trying to remove so that he can set the ground for further baseless revisions on this article. I am not expecting that my posts will change his mind so I appeal to reasonable users to consider the facts. --Dado 20:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you spent six months to find four links, well, I don't know what to say, but that is very slow. Nikola 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No I have not spent last 6 months just looking for these links but I have wasted 6 months in discussing these and other issues with you and looking for relevant sources to prove you these issues which, it seams now, an impossibility. You have obvioiuslly decided to indiscriminatelly bully your agenda on all users including myself and on any issue pertaining to Bosnia and Herzegovina regardless of the amount of facts being thrown at you. I would have better used last 6 months contributing to other Wikipedia articles in my profession than dealing with you. --Dado 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- No you didn't. You spent the last six months POVing the Wikipedia, oftenly breaking Wikipedia policies in the process. Now you complain when someone is restoring NPOV. I agree that you, me and the Wikipedia would benefit a lot if you spend that time in a better way. Nikola 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I have presented the case to return these two paragraphs in the article and there is nothing more I can do. I have tried to be approachable in this discussion but it seams to me that Nikola is only prolonging this conversation with personal thoughts, POV's and unsubstantiated halfbaked claims. It seams more to me that this is turning into a philibustering debate on his part designed to buy time and alienate my participation here. He has even implied that my contributions are not Welcomed on Wikipedia and that I am breaking Wikipedia policy. There is little justifiable dispute on these two articles and nothing that can't be repaired once they are placed back so I am putting them back in the article. --Dado 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- As you usually do, you stalled the discussion, discussed only undisputed things to give some appearance of involvement, and not seriously discussing things you dispute. As the discussion is obviously over, I will suggest a rewrite, as me and Chris did above. Nikola 10:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- "our judgements are not important for Wikipedia, but our judgements about important judgements of other people are." This was quoted from previous discussion, and Wikipedia:Verifiability says something similar. So if there is significant disagreement on what happened, I think the Wikipedian way to tell the story is like this: These international news organizations told the story this way. (As I remember, we Americans were told there were atrocities by all sides but the Serbs were the worst, although they seldom directly said it that way.) These United Nations committees told the story this way. These Croats tell it this way, these Muslims tell it that way, and these Serbs tell it this way. The United Nations isn't perfect (see Srebrenica massacre) but it would be more Wikipedian to present arguments on both sides of the question of whether the United Nations story is more believable than the Serb story (whatever that is), rather than trying to censor reports that favor the other side. Art LaPella 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's no more and no less than I would like to see in this article (and other articles). I also believe that involvement in the war by some sides which pretend to be neutral should also be pointed out. Nikola 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Suggested rewrite:
Since the beginning of the war, all three warring sides have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, killing, torturing and raping at concentration and detention camps, and the destruction of cultural and historical heritage. However, condemnation of these acts was directed mostly against the Republika Srpska. In 1993 the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was established and Republika Srpska military and civilian leadership were largely indicted for war crimes, while other leaderships were mostly not.
Nikola 10:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, then let’s fill in some blank spots in my version above, especially my words ‘’’these Serbs’’’. If Mr. Smolenski’s paragraph above is the Serb position, then that paragraph and more should be in this article, which should be mainly about Serbs. (The paragraph needs a disclaimer like “according to Serbs”, and some form of the other version should be there too.) But if the paragraph above is “Your POV and POV of a minority fringe”, then it should perhaps be limited to a sentence beginning “Serb extremists claim …” or eliminated completely. This Serb position/minority fringe debate has been limited to “yes it is, no it isn’t, yes it is, no it isn’t”, so let’s try breaking it down into sub-questions. Can we find quotes of well-known people saying anything like the Serb/minority fringe paragraph? Mr. Milosevic probably talks that way, but how about current Serb leaders? Or Serb media? Serb opinion polls? Russians? Other non-Serbs? Have Serbs made their own investigation to determine what really happened, and if so, does anyone (except war criminals) support its findings? There is some question about whether the paragraph is even Mr. Smolenski’s position, because he earlier said “I am trying to point out that all sides are guilty in the war. That does not imply that they are equally guilty.” That was an important concession missing from the paragraph he writes now. Also, when he once again removed all mention of ethnic cleansing from the article, he didn’t substitute his own preferred paragraph. But if most Serbs really do believe something like the paragraph, it should be in the article, although in Wikipedia that won’t stop the other side from trying to make the paragraph look silly.
- Another “yes it is, no it isn’t, yes it is” debate reflected in the paragraph is that the ICTY was biased against Serbs. Once again, how many people can we quote as believing that? The United Nations bias is political correctness, ignoring aggression, denouncing retaliation, and loudly proclaiming un-enforced warnings. So a real war crime has to be very bad before the UN will even talk about it – see Darfur conflict, Rwandan Genocide, etc. Another alleged bias is “involvement in the war by some sides which pretend to be neutral”. So I wonder what it means for there to be so much bias, against a faraway place that not one American in a thousand can find on an unmarked map without guessing? Does it simply mean that we don’t like ethnic cleansing? Or does it mean that what we hear about some issues biases us on other issues? It’s true that during the war, Serbs had a public relations problem because they didn’t understand Western culture very well. In particular, never tell an American news reporter that you’re avenging a Middle Ages battle – over here, killing people for the sins of their distant ancestors sounds like a sword and sorcery fantasy.
- Although this issue isn’t in the paragraph, another “yes it is, no it isn’t” debate is whether the government commanded or helped Serbs perform ethnic cleansing (which implies Human Rights Watch must also be biased somehow). So let’s break that down into sub-questions also. Are there any government documents ordering a slaughter? Are there any government documents forbidding a slaughter? Did the government arrest any Serbs for crimes related to ethnic cleansing? If so, do we have their names? Did the Serb police battle the Serb ethnic cleansers, and if so where are the sites of the battles? What are the names of policemen and ethnic cleansers who were hurt or killed in such confrontations? And if there were no such confrontations, then why doesn’t that make the sovereign government responsible? Did the government’s public announcements encourage or discourage ethnic cleansing?
- Perhaps I’ve asked too many questions about too few fine points, but it should give a better indication of who is believable. Art LaPella 00:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- LaPella, first, thank you for engaging in debate and helping with this article. You ask the right questions, and I will try to give my best answers. Nikola
- If Mr. Smolenski’s paragraph above is the Serb position, then that paragraph and more should be in this article, which should be mainly about Serbs. (The paragraph needs a disclaimer like “according to Serbs”, and some form of the other version should be there too.) But if the paragraph above is “Your POV and POV of a minority fringe”, then it should perhaps be limited to a sentence beginning “Serb extremists claim …” or eliminated completely.
- The paragraph may be close to Serb position, but I did try to write it neutrally. Serbian extremist position would probably be the opposite of the previous version of the paragraphs - Serbs committed no crimes or very few crimes, Muslims are the only guilty etc. Nikola
- The "two paragraphs" were written using international sources. If we are to state positions of two sides they would be as Nikola pointed out opposingly different. The paragraph that Nikola has written is not much different from the opinion of about maybe 40-50% of population in Serbia (about 4-5 million which is roughly how many people live in my neighborhood). If we consider Wikipedia in its global context this is a minority opinion. --Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- No. You wrote them using sources which pretend to be international but are in fact used by a group of countries hostile to Serbs and Republika Srpska. Sheer number of people holding one view is not a measure of its importance, or otherwise we could just write Wikipedia from Chinese point of view. As LaPella mentioned, 99% of your neighbors couldn't find Bosnia on a blank map, while most Serbs have travelled there, listened to news about it every other day for most of their lives, and at least know someone from there if not have relatives in Bosnia. That is why their knowledge is more important than that of your neighborhood. Nikola
- The "two paragraphs" were written using international sources. If we are to state positions of two sides they would be as Nikola pointed out opposingly different. The paragraph that Nikola has written is not much different from the opinion of about maybe 40-50% of population in Serbia (about 4-5 million which is roughly how many people live in my neighborhood). If we consider Wikipedia in its global context this is a minority opinion. --Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The paragraph may be close to Serb position, but I did try to write it neutrally. Serbian extremist position would probably be the opposite of the previous version of the paragraphs - Serbs committed no crimes or very few crimes, Muslims are the only guilty etc. Nikola
- Can we find quotes of well-known people saying anything like the Serb/minority fringe paragraph?
- Probably, but can't think of anything definitive at the moment.
- What I can think of is confirming it overall. See Talk:History of Republika Srpska#reference? where I found what I believe to be a valid reference which shows that ethnic cleansing of Serbs did happen during the war (Dado pointed out some problems but I believe it still stands overall). Ethnic cleansing is a war crime and a crime against humanity, so that is covered. If there exists The Association of Camp Inmates of Republic of Srpska and they have a web site and on that web site they have a list of concentration camps, I dare say that that shows that there were some concentration camps for Serbs. I provided a link above which states that some Serbian heritage was damaged. Nikola
- The same association has never presented any evidence that they were treated as anything more than POW's They have never proven any violations of laws and customs of the war nor was there anyone indicted for any crimes aginst these alleged concentration camp victims. Serbian national heritage (monuments) did not exist in BiH just like Bosniak national heritage (monuments) did not exist. All national heritage (monuments) were considered part of BiH and therefore protected by the republic's laws. That said some orthodox churches were damaged or destroyed but as I have pointed out most of them in the high intensity conflict zones such as Sarajevo or Mostar and most of them by Serbian heavy artilliery. There may had been few instances where orthodox monuments were intentionally destroyed or damaged but nowhere close to be even comperatively equal to the concerted campaign of Republika Srpska to eradicate anything that had conotations of Islam, Catholicism or for that matter Bosnia and Herzegovina secular monuments(such as the case of Sarajevo Library which was burnt with phosphorus bombs in order to distroy valuable historical documents of BiH).--Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The same association has presented numerous evidence to abuse of their members in the camps. That no one was indicted because of it is a failure of the courts, not of the association. What you write about national heritage is ridiculous - Bosnia is full of Serbian national heritage. National heritage of Bosnia can be national heritage of Serbs, too. You pretend to have "pointed out" something, but you in fact didn't - we don't have a list of all damaged and destroyed Serbian churches, we don't know their numbers, we can't compare number of churches with number of mosques destroyed, we especially can't know which of them were rightly or accidentally destroyed, nor how many could have been destroyed but weren't, and that Serbian churches in Mostar or Sarajevo were destroyed by Serbian artillery is unverified and unverifiable - a figment of your imagination. Nikola
- The same association has never presented any evidence that they were treated as anything more than POW's They have never proven any violations of laws and customs of the war nor was there anyone indicted for any crimes aginst these alleged concentration camp victims. Serbian national heritage (monuments) did not exist in BiH just like Bosniak national heritage (monuments) did not exist. All national heritage (monuments) were considered part of BiH and therefore protected by the republic's laws. That said some orthodox churches were damaged or destroyed but as I have pointed out most of them in the high intensity conflict zones such as Sarajevo or Mostar and most of them by Serbian heavy artilliery. There may had been few instances where orthodox monuments were intentionally destroyed or damaged but nowhere close to be even comperatively equal to the concerted campaign of Republika Srpska to eradicate anything that had conotations of Islam, Catholicism or for that matter Bosnia and Herzegovina secular monuments(such as the case of Sarajevo Library which was burnt with phosphorus bombs in order to distroy valuable historical documents of BiH).--Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- What I can think of is confirming it overall. See Talk:History of Republika Srpska#reference? where I found what I believe to be a valid reference which shows that ethnic cleansing of Serbs did happen during the war (Dado pointed out some problems but I believe it still stands overall). Ethnic cleansing is a war crime and a crime against humanity, so that is covered. If there exists The Association of Camp Inmates of Republic of Srpska and they have a web site and on that web site they have a list of concentration camps, I dare say that that shows that there were some concentration camps for Serbs. I provided a link above which states that some Serbian heritage was damaged. Nikola
- Mr. Milosevic probably talks that way, but how about current Serb leaders? Or Serb media? Serb opinion polls? Russians? Other non-Serbs?
- As an example, see several references I found at Talk:Kosovo#Demographics (they don't relate only to Kosovo). Certainly, more could be found, if needed. Nikola
- Have Serbs made their own investigation to determine what really happened, and if so, does anyone (except war criminals) support its findings?
- Yes and no. For example, a well-known case of such a research was a committee of the RS government which basically confirmed the story of Srebrenica massacre. The problems, however: the government was pressured to form the committee, there was a previous committee which didn't reach the same conslusion, some committee members have resigned because they said they were pressured etc. At the anniversary of the event, two tribines were held in Belgrade: "Srebrenica: beyond reasonable doubt" and "Liberation of Srebrenica". And so on. Nikola
- There is some question about whether the paragraph is even Mr. Smolenski’s position, because he earlier said “I am trying to point out that all sides are guilty in the war. That does not imply that they are equally guilty.” That was an important concession missing from the paragraph he writes now.
- Well, that doesn't imply that they are not equally guilty as well, does it? I left out the question because this is only the first draft of the paragraph. Above, two studies were suggested, one which claims that numbers of victims are similar and one which claims that they aren't. I haven't had the time to read them in detail. Nikola
- Also, when he once again removed all mention of ethnic cleansing from the article, he didn’t substitute his own preferred paragraph. But if most Serbs really do believe something like the paragraph, it should be in the article, although in Wikipedia that won’t stop the other side from trying to make the paragraph look silly.
- I tried to draft a compromise paragraph here before inserting it into the article, which I think is a better approach. I believe that it would be reverted if I inserted it anyway. Nikola
- Another “yes it is, no it isn’t, yes it is” debate reflected in the paragraph is that the ICTY was biased against Serbs. Once again, how many people can we quote as believing that?
- ICTY has its fair share of ICTY#Criticisms of the Court. We surely can dig something out. Nikola
- Probably every criticism noted on that article deserves a rebuttal which is missing. The very first one is practically self defeating.--Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, each of these criticisms has a rebuttal already. The very first one is perhaps the most important one and its rebuttal is very weak. Nikola
- Probably every criticism noted on that article deserves a rebuttal which is missing. The very first one is practically self defeating.--Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- ICTY has its fair share of ICTY#Criticisms of the Court. We surely can dig something out. Nikola
- The United Nations bias is political correctness, ignoring aggression, denouncing retaliation, and loudly proclaiming un-enforced warnings.
- Actually, that is your bias about the UN bias :) Nikola
- Another alleged bias is “involvement in the war by some sides which pretend to be neutral”.
- Yes. In Serbian eyes, it's like this: NATO countries help breakup of Yugoslavia, stir war there, their media create huge outrage against Serbs, they bomb Serbs on several occasions, turn back on ethnic cleansing of Serbs, found and fund organisations (ICTY, HRW) which investigate primarily crimes of Serbs and don't investigate crimes committed to Serbs. Then all the time they talk about how they are neutral and how they helped in the conflict. Nikola
- So I wonder what it means for there to be so much bias, against a faraway place that not one American in a thousand can find on an unmarked map without guessing? Does it simply mean that we don’t like ethnic cleansing?
- If reason for American involvement in the war was dislike of ethnic cleansing by the American population, America would surely be involved in prevention of ethnic cleansing of Serbs during Operation Storm or would do something about some 250,000 Serbs who are ethnically cleansed from Kosovo for seven years now. Dislike of ethnic cleansing by American population was not reason for American involvement. Nikola
- Or does it mean that what we hear about some issues biases us on other issues?
- I don't understand this. Nikola
- It’s true that during the war, Serbs had a public relations problem because they didn’t understand Western culture very well. In particular, never tell an American news reporter that you’re avenging a Middle Ages battle – over here, killing people for the sins of their distant ancestors sounds like a sword and sorcery fantasy.
- To me, it is what you wrote that is pure fantasy. No one was killing people because their ancestors were in some medieval battle. Nikola
- At least on several occasions I have personally witnesed and few times been subjected to the same rethoric as far as trying to make historical relations of Bosniaks with Turkish (Ottoman) invadors, using derogative words that have historical conotations such as "Balija". If you walk the streets of Banja Luka today you can still find grafiti with phrases "Islam, mars u Aziju" (Islam, go back to Asia). Mladic has appeared in front of the TV camera just after the fall of Srebrenica with statement (in line with): "We have liberated Serbian Srebrenica and we can finally take a revenge on dahija's here ...." (dahija being an archaich turkish word which I don't even know the meaning of). These are just few examples.--Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's not what LaPella wrote. For one, your ancestors fought on Serbian side in the Battle of Kosovo and everyone knows that. Dahija was a Turkish title and dahijas are not remembered by good. In USA, equivalent to what Mladic said could be "We will finally take revenge on drug barons". Nikola
- At least on several occasions I have personally witnesed and few times been subjected to the same rethoric as far as trying to make historical relations of Bosniaks with Turkish (Ottoman) invadors, using derogative words that have historical conotations such as "Balija". If you walk the streets of Banja Luka today you can still find grafiti with phrases "Islam, mars u Aziju" (Islam, go back to Asia). Mladic has appeared in front of the TV camera just after the fall of Srebrenica with statement (in line with): "We have liberated Serbian Srebrenica and we can finally take a revenge on dahija's here ...." (dahija being an archaich turkish word which I don't even know the meaning of). These are just few examples.--Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- To me, it is what you wrote that is pure fantasy. No one was killing people because their ancestors were in some medieval battle. Nikola
- Although this issue isn’t in the paragraph, another “yes it is, no it isn’t” debate is whether the government commanded or helped Serbs perform ethnic cleansing (which implies Human Rights Watch must also be biased somehow).
- At least in Serbia, HRW is viewed as biased. On an unrelated note, I have on a couple of occasions tried to add a link with (non-Serbian) HRW criticism on its article, and it was always promptly removed. Nikola
- Are there any government documents ordering a slaughter?
- To my knowledge, no. Nikola
- There are few official government documents ordering takeover of Srebrenica (see Srebrenica massacre). However these are not explicit to use the word "slaughter". Some probably exist but it would be nearly imposible to get them on the internet. --Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, even ICTY didn't produce any documents and they always rely on witnesses. Their personell got full access to military archives in Serbia, so likely in RS too, and they turned up with nothing. Nikola
- There are few official government documents ordering takeover of Srebrenica (see Srebrenica massacre). However these are not explicit to use the word "slaughter". Some probably exist but it would be nearly imposible to get them on the internet. --Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, no. Nikola
- Are there any government documents forbidding a slaughter?
- To my knowledge, no, except laws which prohibit slaughtering people anyway. Nikola
- Did the government arrest any Serbs for crimes related to ethnic cleansing? If so, do we have their names?
- At least in Kosovo, I know that some soldiers were arrested for various crimes, even while the war was still ongoing. I'm not sure about Bosnia.
- Most probably no one was ever arrested for ethnic cleansing, it's not in the law, but if someone is arrested it would be for killing/looting/etc. committed as a part of ethnic cleansing. Nikola
- Did the Serb police battle the Serb ethnic cleansers, and if so where are the sites of the battles? What are the names of policemen and ethnic cleansers who were hurt or killed in such confrontations? And if there were no such confrontations, then why doesn’t that make the sovereign government responsible?
- To my knowledge, no. Of course, the question is if something like that was possible in the first place. Nikola
- Did the government’s public announcements encourage or discourage ethnic cleansing?
- Not sure. There are probably at least some government officials which encouraged it in some way, while there are also those who didn't. Nikola 11:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- In case of Banja Luka alone the government passed several discriminatory laws that disallowed non-serbs to: work, walk the streets without particular permissions or have any involvement in the city functions. This of course translated on the street as common beatings, occasional rape and murder of same disallowed citizans. They also set up an effective bureacracy to expedite the process of taking the property away from these individuals and expedite their deportation. I and my family have lived through this personally while 70,000 total were ethnically cleansed. There is a ton of documents to substantiate this. I can offer you few personal once if you care. --Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any reference to such laws. And, as ugly as it might sound, some of such actions might have been necessary. Finally, are you sure that there were no equivalent laws directed against Serbs outside of RS? What you have described are actions on part of the population, and not authorities. To my knowledge, most property in Banja Luka was in fact exchanged for Serbian property elsewhere, so that is not ethnic cleansing, but population transfer. I recall there's been much fuss about some property in Banja Luka returned to Muslims but not returned to Serbs who now lived there and have exchanged their property. Nikola
- I will not run around again looking for links to prove it you, while you have not presented a single source or fact to support your POV. Most of your responses were utter bullshit and this last one takes the cake. It is an example of logical fallacy of your knowledge to claim that in Banja Luka there was a population transfer. Utter lie. Most of Banja Luka citizens fled to Sweden, USA and some to Germany. There was no population transfer whatsoever nor any property exchanges. The property was given over "voluntarily" to the state with some contracts and receipts issued. I recall hundreds of testimonies where armed offices or RS police entered the houses and told the owner that they have a day to vacate the premises. In fact the RS court under preasure of the OHR itself has after the war found these contracts invalid and much of the property (most real estate while other property was looted) had to be returned to non-Serbs of Banja Luka. --Dado 16:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Today I searched ICTY archives, and haven't found any reference to such laws, while I have managed to find that they have issued a regulation which limits quantity of money which Croatian refugees from RSK could carry. I didn't say that property exchange was always voluntary. Nikola 10:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I will not run around again looking for links to prove it you, while you have not presented a single source or fact to support your POV. Most of your responses were utter bullshit and this last one takes the cake. It is an example of logical fallacy of your knowledge to claim that in Banja Luka there was a population transfer. Utter lie. Most of Banja Luka citizens fled to Sweden, USA and some to Germany. There was no population transfer whatsoever nor any property exchanges. The property was given over "voluntarily" to the state with some contracts and receipts issued. I recall hundreds of testimonies where armed offices or RS police entered the houses and told the owner that they have a day to vacate the premises. In fact the RS court under preasure of the OHR itself has after the war found these contracts invalid and much of the property (most real estate while other property was looted) had to be returned to non-Serbs of Banja Luka. --Dado 16:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any reference to such laws. And, as ugly as it might sound, some of such actions might have been necessary. Finally, are you sure that there were no equivalent laws directed against Serbs outside of RS? What you have described are actions on part of the population, and not authorities. To my knowledge, most property in Banja Luka was in fact exchanged for Serbian property elsewhere, so that is not ethnic cleansing, but population transfer. I recall there's been much fuss about some property in Banja Luka returned to Muslims but not returned to Serbs who now lived there and have exchanged their property. Nikola
- In case of Banja Luka alone the government passed several discriminatory laws that disallowed non-serbs to: work, walk the streets without particular permissions or have any involvement in the city functions. This of course translated on the street as common beatings, occasional rape and murder of same disallowed citizans. They also set up an effective bureacracy to expedite the process of taking the property away from these individuals and expedite their deportation. I and my family have lived through this personally while 70,000 total were ethnically cleansed. There is a ton of documents to substantiate this. I can offer you few personal once if you care. --Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure. There are probably at least some government officials which encouraged it in some way, while there are also those who didn't. Nikola 11:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
For now I'm waiting to see if the other side comments, but I did want to explain the medieval battle I heard a Serb fighter refer to. Here is an anti-Serb article explaining something like what he said, and here is a pro-Serb article on that subject.
While I understand that there are many people in Serbia who don't want to hear what the RS entity has done to it's non-Serb population I simply don't see much relevance in that opinon in a world context. On the other hand it is insulting that moral equivalencies are being pushed without much credible proof.--Dado 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think that half of the Serbs is a significant Point Of View that should be mentioned, but I don’t see how that POV can be correct at all. So I think the article should explain how some Serbs disagree with the court’s decision, but I think we should then reemphasize the court’s international authority. Details:
- I compare this to my only other major Wikipedia debate at Big Bang and related articles. I helped to determine that the ratio of an alternative POV called plasma cosmology to standard science, is about 1 to 46 among scientists. It’s probably around 1 to 10 among amateurs, but we used the scientist ratio because both sides used scientists as their authority. Also, a Big Bang POV should be emphasized on the Big Bang article because of its title. Similarly, a Serb POV should get more attention here than a Chinese POV, and the name of the article is Republika Srpska.
- I won’t debate any details included in ICTY#Criticisms of the Court, which you have studied more than I have. It contains some amazingly well-thought out analysis, when compared to the simplicity of the point being overlooked, which is this: I can believe that a group like ICTY is capable of various biases and errors of fact and procedure, but one bias that I can’t imagine is a bias that prefers one Balkan ethnic group to another. This is especially true since Human Rights Watch (and apparently anyone else who’s looked) would have to share that same mysterious bias. It can’t mean bias based on opinions about ethnic cleansing and the war, because that’s the same issue they were investigating. It has to mean they all had a pre-1990 bias against Serbs. And that coincidence only makes sense if all Westerners had a pre-1990 bias against Serbs. And that’s like saying Serbs would be biased against my home state of Washington (not the capital Washington D.C.) if it went to war against Oregon. Serbs have opinions about Americans, but no reason to prefer one state to another. Americans had pre-1990 opinions about Communists (especially if they forgot Yugoslavia wasn’t in the Warsaw Pact), but they had no pre-1990 reason to prefer one Balkan nationality to another. Did I, for instance, have a pre-1990 bias against Serbs? I knew that a Serb shot the Archduke Ferdinand (but I forget why), and I knew how Serbia appears in the historical Diplomacy (game), and I remember pre-World War I reminiscences of an old man from Czechoslovakia who called it “Servia” (but I forget what he said about it.) That’s all. 99% of Americans don’t know that much. Our only opinions about Serbs are based on the 1990’s.
- Similarly, I can imagine how “In Serbian eyes, it's like this: NATO countries help breakup of Yugoslavia…”, which sounds like the more justifiable German resentment of the Treaty of Versailles that got misplaced onto other groups and helped lead them back into another disastrous war. But I can only imagine it in Serbian eyes that have never tried to look through American eyes. Although I wasn’t happy when I first heard the US was encouraging the breakup of Yugoslavia, I remember it was discussed in the same terms as the breakup of the Soviet Union, which worked well in Estonia for instance. It certainly wasn’t a discussion of how we could hurt Serbs. “…their media create huge outrage against Serbs…” means that yet another group independently came to the same anti-Serb conclusion about the Balkan situation. American media, of course, are privately owned and would soon be out of business if people didn’t trust them to be fair. And once again, how would it make them any money to prefer one distant ethnic group to another?
- As for government involvement in ethnic cleansing by Serbs, it seems to be undisputed that Serb soldiers killed prisoners from Srebrenica, which is evidence of government support at least in that instance. Ethnic cleansing would ordinarily be considered a crime in any culture, which one would expect the government to stop, or at least try to stop. So I don’t think it’s enough to say we can’t find a specific command to kill. I think it should be OK to describe ethnic cleansing as “commanded or at least permitted” by the authorities. Art LaPella 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's certainly more than half (where did you get "half"?) and it's not just Serbs. It would be unacceptable for me if this article would say "the international court judged that Serbs committed genocide, yet half Serbs disbelieve".
- I see as your mistake that you are comparing science and politics. If you determined that 46 to 1 politicians support plasma cosmology, you could only conclude that probability for a politician to be corrupt is 46 to 1, and it wouldn't tell you anything about plasma cosmology.
- You see ICTY as a group, but it isn't in your sense of the word. 99% of ICTY's staff, from janitors to court translators doesn't make any decision about ICTY's functioning. Of the remaining 1%, even judges can't prosecute people, and don't investigate on their own, so at the end it all boils down to the office of the chief prosecutor. It is very possible for the chief prosecutor to prefer one ethnic group to another, and setting a chief prosecutor is a political decision.
- However, I don't want to say that it is the case (she probably is, but I don't think that's significant). It is not the case that HRW or Americans had pre-1990 bias against Serbs. Rather, in 1990, USA politics has certain goals (which Serbs view as unjustified), and Serbian politics had opposite goals (which Serbs view as justified). Since Serbian politics was a bother, American politicians engineered anti-Serb bias, using every means they viewed as necessary. Here it is often said that the bias was created in a huge PR campaign funded by Croatian/Muslim/Albanian diaspora, but I don't believe that, I think that they couldn't do anything had there be no political support.
- You assume that media, human rights groups and politics act completely separately of each other, well, the least I could say is that I don't. As in case of ICTY, 99% of, say, American media, are small and only re-report what large media say, especially about international issues which they can't investigate. It is quite possible to control a small group of large media. American media, of course, are privately owned and would soon be out of business if people didn’t trust them to be fair - I don't know anyone who thinks that a single Serbian media is fair, yet mysteriously they stay in the business.
- At this point, I think it would be helpful if you would suggest your rewrite of the paragraph(s). Nikola 10:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
As this discussion is now taking a sharp turn to define some “secret conspiracy theory” against Serbs here is a proposal for a section following original two paragraphs:
Since the beginning of the war the Serbian side and the Serbian media have been making accusations that Muslims and Croats were responsible for same attrocities that Republika Srpska was accuesed of and that Republika Srpska has acted as a response to those acts.
Since around 2000 Serb side has began to accept that certain attrocities and war crimes were commited in their name following convictions of much of the wartime military and civilian leadership of Republika Srpska by ICTY and other War Crime Courts. However, many of them still hold the conviction that the “other side” is equally guilty. --Dado 17:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
And also here is some evidence that you were looking for: [12]
- Segment "IX. CHARGES AND FINDINGS"
- Section "C. Deportation (count 8) and Inhumane Acts (forcible transfer) (count 9)"
- Subsection "2. The facts and findings"
- Points 551. and 552.
--Dado 00:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- My 1/2 figure came from Dado's "40-50%", which was revised from his previous "minority fringe" estimate. Mr. Smolenski hasn't presented a numerically defined estimate.
- I should have said that Americans also debate media bias in the United States. That would be a good point if we were discussing Israel, for instance.
- I seldom write my own prose, and when I do it usually gets drastically rewritten. But if everyone else left Wikipedia, I wouldn't change anything Dado has written (which is what Mr. Smolenski has labeled unacceptable) except changes related to the English language and Wikipedia technology, like this:
- Since the beginning of the war, the Serbian side and the Serbian media have been making accusations that Muslims and Croats were responsible for atrocities similar to those of which the Republika Srpska was accused, and that Republika Srpska has acted only in response to those acts.
- However, since about 2000, the Serb side has begun to accept that certain atrocities and war crimes were committed in their name, following convictions of much of the wartime military and civilian leadership of Republika Srpska by the ICTY and other War Crime Courts. However, many of them still hold the conviction that the “other side” is equally guilty. Art LaPella 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, sorry, your versions are completely unacceptable. Serbian crimes are presented as definite, crimes committed over Serbs are presented only as accusations, and accusations made only by Serbs. Then even then accusations are watered down by saying that Serbs began to accept that they committed crimes, which is not true any way you look at it (neither have Serbs not believed that there are any crimes committed by Serbs, nor they start to fully believe ICTY now).
- Here is another attempt of mine: Nikola 04:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the beginning of the war, numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed, including ethnic cleansing, killing, torturing and raping at concentration and detention camps, and the destruction of cultural and historical heritage. Exact extent of these acts and number of people affected by them on each warring side remains disputed [insert the studies about number of victims and RS population here].
Condemnation of these acts, however, was directed mostly against the Republika Srpska. In 1993 the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was established and Republika Srpska military and civilian leadership were largely indicted for war crimes, while other leaderships were mostly not. This is seen as proof that Serbs committed more crimes, among Bosniaks and Croats, and as proof that ICTY is conducting anti-Serbian politics, among Serbs.
What Mr Smolenski has presented here is an internal process and opinions among some Serbs regarding issues at hand that serves only to cloud and ambiguate the issue that is as clear as day.
On one hand we have an ICTY who is accepted (despite some of its flaws) by most of the world being established by the UN and on the other we have a belief of a Wikipedia user Nikola Smolenski, who is yet to present a shred of legal proof for his claims, that ICTY is wrong.
In his version ICTY is presented as if only Bosniaks and Croats believe in it, a claim that Nikola needs to make believable to make of this a polarized political issue. In reality it is completely false and opposite from the truth
Now regarding the claim that Mr Smolenski is implying that entire Serbia and all Serbs believe his version of the story is a hopeless fairy tale and to confirm this lets just mention Natasa Kandic, Boris Tadic and Women in Black foundation all Serbian, all based in Serbia and all very much against the belief that Mr Smolenski is pushing here. This is not even to mention numerous population of Serbia that dares not to speak out because of rethoric that Mr. Smolenski is pushing. His belief is even polarized in Serbia between leading and opposition parties. This is only in Serbia. If one looks for support for these statements in BiH the picture is even more grimmer (for Mr. Smolenski) especially when considering Serbs who stayed in Sarajevo for most of the siege and suffered also from VRS firepower. (I personally know several who would be highly offended by statements by Mr Smolenski)
Crimes by officials of RS and VRS are presented as definite because they are definite according to ICTY. In legal system this is considered as legal truth or legal history. Acusations are only acusations because comperatively not a single court system has yet accepted claims that Mr Smolenski is refering to.
For reasons of this being such a controversial topic and because much of the propaganda is being pushed (on both sides) ICTY still remains (desipe some of its flaws) most impartial source. However if Mr. Smolenski wants to pursue this propaganda war I am sure that much of it can be found on the other end of the spectrum for balance and NPOV.--Dado 05:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know how many Serbs believe what. But I think we've established by now that the ICTY conclusions are accepted by more than Bosniaks and Croats. They have UN authority, and they are supported either by various independent investigations, or by Mr. Smolenski's unexplained conspiracy (I could go on about fictions driven by American politics, but this definitely doesn't sound like one of them.) We have also established that the ICTY has more disbelievers than "Wikipedia user Nikola Smolenski", but our version is nevertheless clearly consistent with my paragraph here, and his version isn't. Art LaPella 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dado is again arguing about the undisputed and apparently succeeding in that. Just as a reminder, the two disputed paragraphs are:
Since the beginning of the war, the VRS and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide (see: the Srebrenica massacre), the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population [1], of killing, torturing and raping at concentration/detention camps [2], the long military siege of Sarajevo, and the destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian cultural and historical heritage [3], [4].
By 1994, the United Nations estimated that a million non-Serbs had been driven out from the territory controlled by Republika Srpska and by the spring of 1996, a United Nations census indicated that Serbs constituted 96.8% of the population of the republic. However, the republic's actions produced worldwide condemnation, the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 1993 and the eventual indictment of the Republika Srpska military and civilian leadership for war crimes.
- What Dado "suggested" as a rewrite is this:
Since the beginning of the war the Serbian side and the Serbian media have been making accusations that Muslims and Croats were responsible for same attrocities that Republika Srpska was accuesed of and that Republika Srpska has acted as a response to those acts.
Since around 2000 Serb side has began to accept that certain attrocities and war crimes were commited in their name following convictions of much of the wartime military and civilian leadership of Republika Srpska by ICTY and other War Crime Courts. However, many of them still hold the conviction that the “other side” is equally guilty.
- Apparently, this is not a rewrite, but something which should be appended to the two disputed paragraphs. Thus dado is moving the discussion in another direction. Even if this would be crafted into something acceptable, the two disputed paragraphs would still remain disputed. He also tries to create an impression that Serb side has began to accept that certain attrocities and war crimes were committed in their name - as if no one believed that there were any attrocities committed.
- In his latest comment he makes many accusations, all of them unfound. What Mr Smolenski has presented here is an internal process - he oftenly uses the phrase "internal process", but never explained what does it mean. opinions among some Serbs regarding issues at hand that serves only to cloud and ambiguate the issue that is as clear as day. - the issue is clear as mud. Each important event of the war is surrounded by a deep cloud of controversy. On one hand we have an ICTY who is accepted by most of the world being established by the UN - ICTY is not established by the UN, but by the UNSC. There are valid doubts about whether UNSC is authorised to create an international tribunal in the first place. ICTY is not accepted by most of the world, first of all most of the world has nothing to do with the ICTY and couldn't care less about it. Furthermore, there are serious and valid disputes about various aspects of ICTY work. My point being, ICTY is not something which has absolute authority, and ICTY's claims are not absolute truth, and should not be presented in the article as such. and on the other we have a belief of a Wikipedia user Nikola Smolenski - which is false, as LaPella noticed, who is yet to present a shred of legal proof for his claims, that ICTY is wrong - tries to create impression that I should create some legal proof for my claims. I shouldn't. In his version ICTY is presented as if only Bosniaks and Croats believe in it - which is not true. In my version, only opinions of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs were represented, as I believe that, as the three warring sides, their opinions are the most important. This does not in any way mean that there are no other opinions. If Dado, however, still thinks that it does, he is welcome to suggest his version, but not by presenting additional paragraphs and pretending that the dispute is about them. Now regarding the claim that Mr Smolenski is implying that entire Serbia and all Serbs believe his version of the story - which I never said, is a hopeless fairy tale and to confirm this lets just mention Natasa Kandic, Boris Tadic and Women in Black foundation - which totals to some 50 people, and I'm not so certain that Tadic would disagree with what I said, This is not even to mention numerous population of Serbia that dares not to speak out because of rethoric that Mr. Smolenski is pushing. - I knew people are afraid of me but not that entire Serbia is. His belief is even polarized in Serbia between leading and opposition parties. - wrong, I shown how this is held by the governing DSS, and of course it is by government-supporting SPS and opposition SRS which amounts to 155 parliament seats, or 64%, at the very least. This is only in Serbia. If one looks for support for these statements in BiH the picture is even more grimmer (for Mr. Smolenski) especially when considering Serbs who stayed in Sarajevo for most of the siege and suffered also from VRS firepower. - completely fake and unsourced.
- However, at least one part of his comment is true: Crimes by officials of RS and VRS are presented as definite because they are definite according to ICTY. - and this is crux of the matter. Crimes should not be presented as definite because they are definite according to ICTY. Full stop. In legal system this is considered as legal truth or legal history. - wikipedia is not a legal system. I am considering writing a new WP:NOT. Acusations are only acusations because comperatively not a single court system has yet accepted claims that Mr Smolenski is refering to. - it should have. This doesn't mean anything.
- Finally, However if Mr. Smolenski wants to pursue this propaganda war I am sure that much of it can be found on the other end of the spectrum for balance and NPOV. - what I wrote is not propaganda. However, Dado claims that it is and that he intends to insert propaganda from "the other end of the spectrum". He is willing to push propaganda in this article only to counter valid points of view presented by me for which he claims that they are propaganda. This only shows that he has no true intention of making the article neutral.
- LaPella, you wrote that one bias [of the ICTY] that I can’t imagine is a bias that prefers one Balkan ethnic group to another - well I can imagine it. But our imagination doesn't matter. There are valid criticisms of the ICTY, regarding this bias and another issues. They should be taken into account in writing this article. I never mentioned any conspiracy - it's Dado's words he tried to put in my mouth. ICTY doesn't have UN authority, because it is founded in breach of UN charter (I agree, you don't have to, but it is a valid and relevant POV). Investigations supporting them aren't always independent, nor do they always support them fully.
- And all that being said, I don't oppose to attributing ICTY's decision to ICTY (which I did in my proposition of rewrite), and even presenting them as the most important (with which I personally disagree). But I do oppose strongly to not mentioning something because ICTY did not took it into account, and to not mentioning any views opposing to ICTY's, which very much exist. Nikola 07:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
And we are back to "yes it is - no it isn't"
Somehow almost everything that I have said Nikola has either implied that it is a lie or he used it out of context against me. Speaking of contributing to an article or better yet of his conduct towrads my thoughts. In addition to that while this discussion is taking place he has yet again attacked the issue of language on the article (potential vandalism that was reverted promptly [13])
I have presented the reasearch that justifies two paragraphs desipite the rethoric and debate surrounding it as it can be considered merely as political opinion. There may be something appended to it as I have proposed but I am not pushing that particular narrative as it is merely a statement to cover some of the grief that Nikola is presenting here which is still not founded on facts or reasearch.
Other than that I have no idea how else to work with this user and not be insulted everytime he posts his opionon about me. --Dado 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- No Dado, stating that an official language of Republika Srpska is the one indicated in the Constitution of Republika Srpska is not vandalism. Asim's reversion is, and so is your revert warring, most egregious at repeated removal of tags about neutrality or accuracy while there are massive concerns presented on talk pages (while on the other hand you are keen to insert them even where the talk page doesn't exist).
- You have presented some research, but that research doesn't justifies the paragraphs and is in fact itself a political opinion. I have also presented valid sources which you completely dismiss. Nikola 10:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't have a really good way to make everyone face reality, but there are some questions I would like to go through before I give up on you guys (and anyway this is fun - it makes me feel like an international diplomat or something.) I think what Mr. Smolenski said is occasionally better than yes it is, no it isn't.
- I thought the two new paragraphs were there to please me more than anyone else, because I wanted the Serb POV represented, although after listening to that POV, I concluded there wasn't much point presenting it more sympathetically. I think Dado would have preferred to omit any mention of what Serbs think about the ICTY decisions - and there is something to be said for discouraging criticism of a due process of law, which can lead to anarchy.
- "Serb side has began to accept that certain attrocities and war crimes were committed in their name - as if no one believed that there were any attrocities committed." Well no, it says that there was a time when no significant number of Serbs believed that there were any atrocities committed by Serbs. I can't vouch for the truth of that statement, but that's what it says. I'm pretty sure there was a time when no Serb could accuse his government of atrocities without risking punishment.
- The ICTY isn't properly authorized by the UN. Well, some Americans say they don't have to pay taxes because the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution wasn't properly approved, even though the US has had a century to change the tax law if we don't want it. Similarly, the ICTY represents the UN in the sense that the UN hasn't repudiated an action taken in its name. Do any non-Serbs claim otherwise? The world doesn't pay much attention to ICTY judgments, but that could be said of routine decisions of any court.
- "as the three warring sides, their opinions are the most important. This does not in any way mean that there are no other opinions." "in any way" is much too strong a statement - the paragraph doesn't even mention that the ICTY has any relationship to the UN!
- 64%. Statistics warm my heart and they're harder to lie about, and this argument, supported by names of individuals and political parties, is much better than a yes it is, no it isn't argument. "completely fake and unsourced" (for BiH) is more like a yes it is, no it isn't. It is unsourced, but it's easily believable that Serbs who live among Bosnians would often get along with them better, or am I missing something?
- "He is willing to push propaganda in this article only to counter valid points of view presented by me for which he claims that they are propaganda. This only shows that he has no true intention of making the article neutral." Well, sort of. That would be a much better point if I could offer Dado an alternative.
- "valid criticisms of the ICTY, regarding this bias and another issues. They should be taken into account in writing this article." The sentence "However, many of them still hold the conviction that the “other side” is equally guilty" takes criticisms into account.
- "I never mentioned any conspiracy", but you did say "Since Serbian politics was a bother, American politicians engineered anti-Serb bias, using every means they viewed as necessary." This engineering must have controlled the investigators and journalists while remaining secret, so conspiracy is a good word for it. American presidents would love to know the secret of how to keep so many reporters and investigators following the party line as if they were Soviets - we wouldn't have to read about presidential scandals any more. Maybe they should borrow enough money from a Croatian/Muslim/Albanian diaspora to bribe everybody, and billionaire Bill Gates changed his name from Geçi to keep the secret.
- "Investigations supporting them aren't always independent, nor do they always support them fully." That would be an important fact if there is any evidence for it.
- "But I do oppose strongly to not mentioning something because ICTY did not took it into account, and to not mentioning any views opposing to ICTY's, which very much exist." It's OK to debate "However, many of them still hold the conviction that the “other side” is equally guilty", but ignoring it is something else. Art LaPella 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- LaPella, I am more and more having the feeling that we are not talking about the same thing.
- Wikipedia doesn't have a really good way to make everyone face reality - is this referring to me, perhaps? Because I am getting the feeling that you simply dismiss POV I presented outright.
- I thought the two new paragraphs were there to please me more than anyone else, because I wanted the Serb POV represented, although after listening to that POV, I concluded there wasn't much point presenting it more sympathetically. - I am sorry to hear that. I can't see why have you reached such a conclusion.
- and there is something to be said for discouraging criticism of a due process of law, which can lead to anarchy. - have you said this in positive or negative sense? If ICTY is illegal, and it likely is, then what it does is not a due process of law.
- Well no, it says that there was a time when no significant number of Serbs believed that there were any atrocities committed by Serbs. - and it is wrong. If one idiot kills two civilians, that's two atrocities for you, and no one could sanely argue that during several years of war not a single such thing happened with a Serb idiot. What is disputed is exact prevalence of atrocities.
- Similarly, the ICTY represents the UN in the sense that the UN hasn't repudiated an action taken in its name. - the UN undertook the illegal action in the first place, of course it won't repudiate it. In many countries, there are laws which are unconstitutional, which are used for years before the constitutional court acknowledge their unconstitutionality. The UN has no equivalent of a constitutional court, and so such a thing can't be done.
- "in any way" is much too strong a statement - the paragraph doesn't even mention that the ICTY has any relationship to the UN! - I propose a rewrite: In 1993 the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was established by the United Nations Security Council
- 64%. Statistics warm my heart and they're harder to lie about, and this argument, supported by names of individuals and political parties, is much better than a yes it is, no it isn't argument. - I'm confused, the first part of the sentence reads like irony, while the second obviously isn't. For another example of stance of Serbian politicians, you may also see [16].
- it's easily believable that Serbs who live among Bosnians would often get along with them better, or am I missing something? - it seems that you are missing something. Bosnian Serbs are Bosnians, for one - try reading articles on Bosnians, Bosniaks, Bošnjani, Muslims by nationality etc.
- That would be a much better point if I could offer Dado an alternative. - I don't understand this.
- "valid criticisms of the ICTY, regarding this bias and another issues. They should be taken into account in writing this article." The sentence "However, many of them still hold the conviction that the “other side” is equally guilty" takes criticisms into account. - Yes, it does. But that sentence is not proposed as a rewrite of paragraphs, it is in Dado's new paragraphs which would only make the article worse and even less neutral.
- "I never mentioned any conspiracy", but you did say "Since Serbian politics was a bother, American politicians engineered anti-Serb bias, using every means they viewed as necessary." This engineering must have controlled the investigators and journalists while remaining secret, so conspiracy is a good word for it. - but that is not conspiracy, that is normal politics! Be it rape camps or WMDs, you don't go to war without first creating a positive atmosphere for it. And it doesn't require anything more secret than press conferences.
- At the end, if you believe that your media are correct, you will believe that media in Serbia were under Milosevic's control, because your media have oftenly reported that. If they were under Milosevic's control, that means that someone must have controlled Serbian investigators and journalists while remaining secret (if not remaining secret people would know that the media were under control). But if that's possible in Serbia, it certainly is possible in USA too.
- Frankly, absolute belief in (your) authorities, political, judicial or any other, I see you (and many Americans) have, I see as hopelessly naive and dangerous (for you). Don't think that Serbs disbelieve only ICTY - Constitutional Court of Serbia is even bigger joke, though at least not illegal.
- American presidents would love to know the secret of how to keep so many reporters and investigators following the party line as if they were Soviets - we wouldn't have to read about presidential scandals any more. - Of course, politicians sometimes have their internal struggles which is how it is possible for a president to come under media fire - you have two parties, remember?
- "Investigations supporting them aren't always independent, nor do they always support them fully." That would be an important fact if there is any evidence for it. - are you saying that all investigations are always independent? See f.e. Talk:Kosovo#POV claims about expulsions where I showed how an investigation by a NGO was inserted in the article, and supposedly independent NGO was actually financed by NATO countries.
- It's OK to debate "However, many of them still hold the conviction that the “other side” is equally guilty", but ignoring it is something else. - I don't understand this. Nikola 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to write as if Mr. Milosevic were still watching you, but I'm still trying to understand the politics of why a person would do that. Although Bill Gates was irony or satire, the 64% comment was genuine encouragement for providing some new facts. Art LaPella 06:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you seem to write as if you have no idea who Milosevic is and why is he important. What's wrong with facts which I already provided? Anyway, [17], a newspaper article which reports how many people have been accused for war crimes in Bosnia. It's unclear how many people actually from each side (see Talk:History of Republika Srpska#reference.3F) but even if we are cautious there are at least 3,000 against people from the Federation, which is quite a lot. Nikola 09:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- You are correct to minimize my knowledge about Milosevic. I had to Google the words "Milosevic", "press" and "freedom" before quickly coming to the conclusion you predicted. You must have experienced his press restrictions personally, so I had to ask myself why you would describe them as something our media have reported, when it would have been simpler to describe the restrictions as a well-known fact. I had to conclude that many Serbs will encourage you for saying that, but I couldn't figure out why. And if I don't understand that, then you are right that I don't know enough about Milosevic to know how to interpret everything else. I think I should go back to correcting Wikipedia's latitudes and longitudes, because that is an international problem I know how to solve. Art LaPella 18:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do people keep removing all refrences to warcrimes commited bij the RS.
I am appalled by the fact that certain individuals keep removing any references to war crimes admitted by the RS. Wikipedia should be an objective source of information to all people. People who come to search information about Republica Srpska do get the idea that it is a (sovereign) republic that is completely legitimate and undisputed. Nothing is mentioned about committed war crimes or ethnic cleansing. These are not random allegations but proven facts at the ICTY. This could be compared with telling people about history of the 3rd Reich and not telling about the holocaust. People please stop using wikipedia for propaganda activities.
Explanations about the composition of the RS population one-sided and biased
I would like to point out that the explanation about the composition of the RS population, as it stood before my edit, was completely one-sided and thus biased. Before my edit changes in the ethnic composition of the RS population between 1991 and today only mentioned decline in non-Serb component (due to ethnic cleansing), but failed to mention a few very important facts about the numerical increase of the RS Serb population and its causes:
- UNHCR 1996 census showed that there were 550,000 more Serbs in RS territory than in 1991, despite the fact that the total of 350,000 Bosnian Serbs left Bosnia-Herzegovina entirely.
- There were two main sources of this extra Serb population in RS territory: a) 250,000 Bosnian-Herzegovinian Serb refugees which originated from territories that ended up being Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other entity) at the end of the war; b) 200,000 Croatian Serb refugees that opted to stay in RS after Croatian 1995 offensive. Almost all Croatian Serb refugees were granted full Bosnian citizenship in the meantime by OHR, because it is very clear that their eventual return to Croatia is not a realistic option.
- This is not true. Can you show us any decision about citizenship? --Emir Arven 09:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- You mean, something like a courte judegement by an international courte? Nikola 09:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
These 550,000 extra Serbs in RS at the end of the war are very important reason why Serbs are about 90% of the RS population today. The fact that Bosniaks were expelled from RS cannot be the only reason for today’s ethnic composition – in 1991 Bosniak population in what will become RS territory represented 28.8% of the total population (not even one third of the total!).
- Can you provide us a source for this? In 1991. Non-Serb population represented 49% of the total population. I mean, this is the fact that was proven by ICTY including ethnic cleansing. We can use Radislav Brđanin jugdement or Stakić judgement. --Emir Arven 09:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Putting these facts into the main article makes it not only more balanced - but also more truthful.
- But these are not the facts. --Emir Arven 09:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok – let use very simple mathematics first, and than we will talk UNHCR data (I have the whole set of numbers and I will post it if needed; the whole census was posted online by IMG-BH for about 7 years): the total number of Serbs in RS today is 1,247,900. If non-Serbs represented 49% of the RS population (what a nice, convenient number, by the way) in 1991, that would imply that about 1,200,000 non-Serbs were expelled from RS territory during the war (Hello?!?). Since the total population of Bosnia-Herzegovina was 4,354,911 in 1991, that would imply that everybody lived in RS territory while 51% of Bosnia-Herzegovina (the rest of the country – including the largest town, Sarajevo) had no population whatsoever! Would you care to elaborate to me how is this exactly supposed to work?
- It is not the matter of Serb statistics. For instance, Momčilo Krajišnik (accused for genocide), was Serb leader that called Serbs to move from Federation to RS. He wanted that all Serbs lived with each other, not with Bosniaks and Croats. Just, all Serbs together. Even Serbs that moved to RS after his invitation now complaine because they live in very bad condition. DIS (Demokratska Inicijativa Srba), a Serb organization from Sarajevo says the same thing. There is a video record of his invitaion. Just watch ICTY. So "losses" in Federation and in RS doesnt have the sam cause. Ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks and Croats is proven by International Courte. --Emir Arven 08:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Are you claming that census information posted here is 'Serb statistics'(?!?). --FreedonNadd 18:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, I am claiming that your interpretation as well as interpretation of some other users is based on propaganda. On the other side, I can verify my contribution with ICTY judgements. --Emir Arven 16:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Are you claming that census information posted here is 'Serb statistics'(?!?). --FreedonNadd 18:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you also claiming that all Bosnian Serb refugees are 'invitees' of Mimcilo Krajisnik, meaning that Serbs cannot be refugees (?!?). --FreedonNadd 18:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- As I can notice you talked about Serbs expelled from Federation. You naver mentioned Momčilo Krajišnik, or for instance Radovan Karadžić, who also had similar statements.--Emir Arven 16:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to be honest - I have never withnessed such bias and malice ever. I have been very patient so far - either explain what is incorrect about what I wrote, or we will freeze the page and ask one of the neutral Wikipedia arbitrators to go over the Population paragraph.--FreedonNadd 18:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Be my guest. --Emir Arven 16:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- First off I would ask for you to calm down and not to jump to conclusions. I don't think the numbers are disputed and I can believe that many Serbs who left FBiH were refugees just like all other population that was escaping the high intensity conflict zone. However, it is statistically unclear how many actually left during the war and how many left as a result of the Dayton agreement and invitations that Emir has pointed out above.
The disputed paragraph in the article that talks about this points out that they were "expelled" while no proof is provided if that was the case or under what circumstances did they become refugees (was it because they were escaping the conflict as Asim pointed out bellow because of "indiscriminate Serb shelling of the neighborhood" as in the case of Sarajevo, or did the government actually had a specific plan to "expell" this particular ethnic group).
As I have pointed out before, statistics are helpfull but inconclusive. --Dado 19:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Aha. In other words, the Serbs are madmen who abandon their homes on somebody's invitation (?) while Bosniaks are genuine refugees?--FreedonNadd 23:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Or in others words you have not understood a single thing I said and you are still listening to a little voice in your head. Both Serbs and Bosniaks (or anyone else for that matter) can be genuine refugees. That is not the issue. The issue is why did they leave their homes, when and under what circumstances. The data that you presented here does not explain any of that and hence is inconclusive. On the other hand we do have documents (ICTY judgements and other and not the data that you presented) that explain the nature of Bosniaks fleeing Republika Srpska. --Dado 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Data which shows that the number of Serbs who lived in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina fell from 485,933 in 1991 to 56,618 in 1996 can be "inconclusive" only to those who do not wish to draw any conclusions out of it (such as yourself, apparantly). For everybody else, it is preatty clear what had happened...--FreedonNadd 02:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I will admit, as you are implying, that I am a sceptic but I find it to be a good thing. I think I have said this probably 3 times now. Demographic data, one that strictly deals with numbers is a usefull part of the puzzle but not the most definite one. Let's try to do this by an example. If data shows that about 490000 Bosniaks left RS the conclusion is not that they were ethnicly cleansed. However, it is a basis of a theory that Bosniaks may had been ethnic cleansing or a theory that they simply emigrated from this region. Now if you add to this additional information about the nature of this population shift such as an ICTY judgement about ethnic cleansing and numerous reports by the various agencies that report on human rights than the former theory becomes more plausable. The numbers don't do anything other than to confirm already established theory.
Everyone else who is drawing conclusion solely from numbers are influenced by either political agenda or some information that is only known to them. Don't analyse data if you don't know how to analyse it. --Dado 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Bosnian authorities in Federation were not just Bosniak. Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina was composed from two Bosniaks (Alija Izetbegović and Nijaz Duraković), two Serbs (Tatjana Ljujić Mijatović and Mirko Pejanović) and two Croats (Stjepan Kljujić and Ivo Komšić). The presidency was multiethnic. The problem was that the most wanted man in Europe, Radovan Karadžić, didnt like that fact. He wanted clean Serb country. Actually he called those Serbs in presidency and in Bosnian institutions, traitors of Serb cause. Also, Jovan Divjak (Serb) was a second man in Bosnian Army. What is clear or what is not, is not the matter of your interpretation. There is International courte established by UN which more relevant...--Emir Arven 16:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
UNHCR 1996 census info (from IMG-BH pages)
Here is the complete set of numbers from UNHCR 1996 Bosnia-Herzegovina population census. They were posted for years on IMG-BH (International Management Group: Bosnia-Herzegovina) web site for public use.
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
REPUBLIKA SRPSKA
Based on this statistics population losses in FBiH were 650291 and in RS 691618.
It is not a matter of if the population losses happened but under what circumstances did it occur. I think that History_of_Republika_Srpska#Controversy section explains this quite well.
Just to reiterate while in FBiH we had at least 4 major cities within an intensive conflict zone including Sarajevo, Mostar, Bihac and Tuzla in RS we had no major cities in intensive conflict zone. In other words it is natural that many people would leave high intensity conflict zones. On the other hand in Banja Luka and Prijedor where perhaps only a single shot was fired more than 100000 non-Serbs are missing. Not to mention Podrinje and other regions that had Bosniak majority that was on the path of VRS offensive.
However statistics stops short of putting the numbers in the time context so they are inconclusive. It is quite possible that much of relocations took place after the war once the conflict was over and political boudaries were established which explains relative increase of Bosniak population in FBiH following the return of refugees after the war. --Dado 17:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- No matter how numbers are interpreted, it is evident that Bosniaks comprised only 28.8% of the population in RS territory before the war (1991) - not even one full third of the total! Thus, let's put things like '49%' once and for all to rest...
Explanation
The sentence:
- The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991. This was caused by the influx of 250,000 Bosnian Serb refugees expelled from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian war and additional 200,000 Croatian Serb refugees expelled from Croatia...
seems to be either illogical or an attempt at whitewashing the extent of forcible population displacement done by Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The paragraph needs more NPOV-ization, but this is not the way to do it. Also, Bosnian language has different names in Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian, but in English "Bosnian" seems to be the only accepted form. This may not be fair towards the other two peoples living in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but it is so. --Elephantus 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Illogical? What is 'illogical' about it, and would you care to elaborate and explain this in the light of the UNHCR 1996 numbers posted above?
How interesting numbers we have here and that is what about I talk all the time (and Bosniak nationalists accused me to be a Serb nationalist because I talk about this). Now it is not me, but numbers who talk here: according to these numbers, exactly 429,319 ethnic Serbs were expelled from what is now Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Bosniak and Croat governments. PANONIAN (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I had a Serb family in my apartment building. They left the city and country the same time we did because they could no longer put up with the indiscriminate Serb shelling of the neighborhood. So to say that "exactly 429,319 ethnic Serbs were expelled from what is now Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Bosniak and Croat governments" is a blatant lie. At the most, this number is 429,316 :).
- My point is that the statistics show us how many less people by ethnic group there were in the two entities, but not for what reason they left. As Dado pointed out, the territory of the Federation of BiH was engulfed in constant conflict and the site of numerous battlegrounds, whereas the territory of the RS, for the most part, was not. Asim Led 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Are you implying that being a refugee depends on person's ethnicity - are you saying that Bosniaks who flee their homes are refugees, but Serbs who flee their homes are not (well what are they then?)? That suggestion is so wrong that I can't even start to explain...
- Q: Are you implying that being a refuge depends on person's ethnicity?
- A: No.
- Asim Led 05:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Population section
I've read FreedonNadd's comments, and I do believe that the population section is indeed biased and one-sided without comments on the influx of Serb refugees. I took the liberty to report bias; moderation process will begin within five days.
- Anonimous user is not FreedonNadd. However, I personally opened a ticket with Mediation Cabal.--FreedonNadd 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, please. You haven't "read" FreedonNadd's comments, you are FreedonNadd and you wrote them. One look at your contributions and writing style makes it all perfectly clear. Also, you haven't reported anyone to any moderators or initiated any process, so stop trying to scare other users out of an arguement. Asim Led 00:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
- Ok, this report is covering many of the above points - mediator should read it: (by Bosnia's Council of Ministers)
--FreedonNadd 18:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look, btw, the report is 59 pages long, if you could give me the point number (page numbers). e.g. 1. (13 - 14). That would make my life much easier :) Thanks. - FrancisTyers 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think that statistical data on pages 7, 8 of the report clearly demonstrates that the changes in the ethnic composition of Republika Srpska come from the influx of Serbs from other areas as well as the disappearance of non-Serb population. By 1996 (end of the war) the Serbs were as much gone from Muslim-Croat entity as the Bosniaks/Croats were from Republika Srpska.--FreedonNadd 19:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- How does this fit in with the point system below? - FrancisTyers 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- The report definitely confirms points 1 and 2. It partially supports claims 3 and 4 (without being judgmental on the mechanics as to why people left). The report is not concerned with Croatia.--FreedonNadd 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I don't think we can really use the report as a source for 3 and 4. I know there was a lot of brutality and war crimes on all sides, one example: [18]. I'm fairly sure that Serbs didn't have an option but to leave, but I don't think we can use the word "expelled" as it suggests that this was some kind of policy by the FBiH which we don't have sources for. Furthermore, you'd have to find a source saying that displaced people from the FBiH took refuge in the RS. If this is the case, I'm certain that it shouldn't be too difficult to find sources for. Happy hunting. - FrancisTyers 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have seen the report. There is nothing about that. On the other hand I recommend BBC documentary "The death of Yugoslavia" (Chapter: Cleansing). There is translation in Serbian [19]. I couldnt find the English version, but I found this review [20] and this link [21] --Emir Arven 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I actually have that documentary on my computer. The version I have is in three parts, if you could give me a time index I could look it up. Is the documentary generally held to be reliable? I seem to remeber hearing arguments on both sides - it would be preferable to have the original source and not just rely on the word of the BBC, but this isn't always possible. Btw, you might like to check out (and expand) the The Death of Yugoslavia entry. - FrancisTyers 20:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- You can check summer 1992. Btw, there are five parts. The documentary was accepted by ICTY as a relevant source because of the statements of political leaders in former Yugoslavia. --Emir Arven 20:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you expand the article with the other parts? I could find them when I searched. I guess one of the parts is about Slovenia/Macedonia, but which is the other one I'm missing? - FrancisTyers 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I will try.--Emir Arven 09:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Francis, I have checked the contest of the documentary transcript. It starts with 1987. and finishes in december 1995. It starts with the awaking of Serb nationalism (the first part), Situation in Croatia (the second part), Slovenian war and JNA in Croatia (the third part), Bosnia (the forth part) and Srebrenica massacre and Pax Americana - Deyton agreement (fifth part). The transcript is in Serbian language. --Emir Arven 11:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Another Wikipedia article - History_of_modern_Croatia - is talking about Croatian Serbs feeing to Bosnia (Republika Srpska clearly) during the war. Read part around: Serbs fled, mostly to Serbia and Bosnia according to ICTY in the middle of the article--FreedonNadd 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is the quote:
They are Serbs from Croatia, and were part of a huge column of 200,000 refugees who fled into Bosnia and Serbia ahead of the advancing Croat military in August 1995. Operation Storm marked the end of the self-proclaimed Serb Republic of Krajina, where Serb rebels had staked out territory amounting to about a quarter of Croatia at the beginning of the break-up of Yugoslavia.
Serbs came to Bosnia and Serbia (We dont know how many of them came to Bosnia and in what parts of Bosnia, this is just a media report, not official document). There are no claima that they were expelled from Croatia. They left their homes. --Emir Arven 09:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fled is likely to be a much more accurate term than expelled. FrancisTyers 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hm…one can flee with or without being physically expelled.--FreedonNadd 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, "expelled" [22] is like guys with guns come to your house and tell you to get out or they'll shoot you and burn your house. "fled" [23] is like guys with guns kill your neighbour and you decide to get out (flee) before they kill you. - FrancisTyers 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree.--FreedonNadd 01:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you provide the original sources in the links section? - FrancisTyers 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- BBC news report quoted in the Croatia article above[24]--FreedonNadd 22:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like mediator’s opinion on whether or not IMG statistical data (which is already posted on this page) is admissible as a relevant source; I am asking this because mediator is demanding live online links for all sources. As far as I can tell, none of the participants challenged the content of the IMG statistical data so far, and this does not appear to be a point of contention. However if this data is not admissible, then we have a much bigger problem. IMG data works both ways because it shows both the decline in non-Serb numbers as well as the increase in Serb numbers in Republika Srpska for the 1991-1996 period. However, if the data is not a source, then we might end up scrapping the whole population segment of the article in the end. Your thoughts? Thanks.--FreedonNadd 02:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Another media report (CNN), showing that in 2001 there were still 300,000+ Bosnian Serb refugees living in Muslim/Croat property (obviously in Republika Srpska). From the article: about 635,000 people in Bosnia who are living in someone else's house and waiting to return to their own rightful homes. About half are Serbs, the United Nations says. This is in support of points number 3 and 4. The article also mentions Croatian Serb refugees in Bosnia (obviously in Republika Srpska) - point number 6. See:[25]--FreedonNadd 08:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be online. Feraget, the U.N. refugees spokeswoman, said that if, for instance, the 24,000 Croatian Serbs in the republic would go back to Croatia, their homes could be reclaimed by the Muslims and Croats who own them.. Seems to mention Croatian Serb refugees in the RS. We probably have a number mismatch, but thats a start. - FrancisTyers 09:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This doesnt supprot neither 3 nor 4. Here is a quote about Bosnian refugees: U.N. figures show that of the 1.8 million who were uprooted in the war, about 785,000 have returned to their pre-war homes. About 380,000 are abroad, leaving about 635,000 people in Bosnia who are living in someone else's house and waiting to return to their own rightful homes. About half are Serbs, the United Nations says.
Half are Serbs that live in someone else's house. They took Bosniak houses and they dont want to return it. Some Serbs left their homes, they were not expelled (there is nothing here about expelling, not to mention an official document or ICTY judgement), now they dont want to go home and to return someone else's property, that they took. Dušan Šehovac, president of Serb organization - DIS from Sarajevo (Demokratska Inicijativa Srba, Democratic Iniciative of Serbs) said that Serbs left their homes after Momčilo Krajišnik invitation (Krajišnik is accused for genocide by ICTY) and other invitations made by Serb politicians that didnt want Serbs to live together with Bosniaks. Here is a Serb source, which says that DIS was established because there were Serbs who considered that it was not good to leave their homes and go to Serb territories. DIS also established a Radio to inform Serb population, because Serbs were filled with propaganda and mythology by their medias and politicians. If you want to find what kind of mythology, watch the first part of "The Death of Yugolsavia". I will put here a quote about DIS in Bosnian and Serbian language, and if it is necesarry I will translate it in English:
"Radi boljeg informisanja povratnika u kanton Sarajevo, ali i onih koji nisu napustili svoje domove za vrijeme rata Demokratska inicijativa sarajevskih Srba osnovala je radio stanicu DIS.Demokratsku inicijativu sarajevskih Srba formirali su Srbi koji su smatrali da ne treba da napuste domove i pored ratnih okolnosti u Bosni i Hercegovini. (...)Ideja za Radio DIS nastala je formiranjem Udruženja 1996. godine, ali je realizovana '97, kada je počelo i emitovanje prvih emisija. Radio je nastao kao potreba Demokratske inicijative sarajevskih Srba da u sklopu borbe za istinu, toleranciju i pomirenje i u skladu s programskim ciljevima stvaranja uslova za zajednički život svih građana, posebno na teritoriji Sarajeva, postoji medij koji bi razbio predrasude, laži i mitove, čija je zloupotreba u posljednjih dvadesetak godina dovela do tragičnih sukoba u Bosni i Hercegovini", kaže Šehovac." [26]--Emir Arven 09:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I got a translation from a non-partisan source:
- For the sake of better informing both those coming back to Sarajevo canton and those who didn't leave their homes during the way, Democratic Initiative of Sarajevo Serbs founded a radio station DIS. Democratic initiative of Sarajevo Serbs was created by Serbs who thought they should not leave their homes despite war circumstances in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Idea about Radio DIS started by uniting the (some sort of) Unions in 1996, and was put into effect in 1997, when first programme was broadcasted. Radio was formed as a need of Democratic initiative of Sarajevo Serbs to, along with fight for truth, tolerance and peace ..... to destroy prejudices which led to tragic fights in Bosnia and Herzegovina" - says Sehovac
- This does seem to be a source that says that there was an organisation created to encourage Serbs not to leave their homes. It supports that there is a radio for Serbs who didn't leave and Serbs who returned, and it does exist to fight for "truth, tolerance, and peace", but no mention of Serbian own propaganda and mythology. There are also sources, although so far in the form of personal accounts, that say that Serbs fled their homes in response to Bosniak aggression. Perhaps the various reasons for Serbs leaving Bosnia could be included in some kind of final compromise version. I will think about this, I don't really want to start on a compromise until we've got our sources cited though. - FrancisTyers 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above translation is not complete. There is a missing sentence, that was not translated. Here it is: Radio je nastao kao potreba Demokratske inicijative sarajevskih Srba da u sklopu borbe za istinu, toleranciju i pomirenje i u skladu s programskim ciljevima stvaranja uslova za zajednički život svih građana, posebno na teritoriji Sarajeva, postoji medij koji bi razbio predrasude, laži i mitove, čija je zloupotreba u posljednjih dvadesetak godina dovela do tragičnih sukoba u Bosni i Hercegovini It says that: Radio was formed as a need of Democratic initiative of Sarajevo Serbs to, along with fight for truth, tolerance and peace according to program goals of making conditions for mutual life of all citizens, especially on Sarajevo territory, destroy prejudices, lies and myths that were misused in last 20 years which led to tragic fights in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- As you can see translator omitted very importan part. --Emir Arven 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I see, thank you for that translation, I will ask him to look again. Thank you again for providing a source for the other one, I will confirm it. - FrancisTyers 19:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Our stranger to truth Emir is using his selective reading glasses once again. The article states clearly: (There) are about 635,000 people in Bosnia who are living in someone else's house and waiting to return to their own rightful homes. About half are Serbs, the United Nations says. It is more than evident that, in case of the Serbs and the context of the article, their own rightful homes are in the Muslim-Croat Federation! Also, about the nature of why people left: The Kragulj family came back from 20 miles away to find that their house in Dzevar, 110 miles northwest of Sarajevo, had been shelled during the 1992-95 war, then blown up by vengeful Muslims…They looked sick all the time for six years when they were refugees, said the couple's 25-year-old son, Nenad (article was written in 2001, so it means they left in 1995, clearly during war; Dzevar is clearly in Muslim-Croat entity). I still claim that this piece can support points I named, and I leave it in mediator's hands to decide and post.--FreedonNadd 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, please try and remain civil when discussing on the talk page and please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, calling Emir a stranger to the truth may not be explicitly a personal attack but it does not contribute to a harmonious editing environment. I'm afraid that I don't agree that the source supports the contention that Serbs were expelled from Bosnia. One or two personal accounts is insufficient I'm afraid. If Serbs were expelled from Bosnia it should be fairly easy to find a source that describes this. - FrancisTyers 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- What I wrote about Emir is very civil. I also suggested a compromise rewrite on the Cabal page.--FreedonNadd 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is the source for Momčilo Krajišnik (In Bosnian language).[27] Here is the quote in Bosnian (please ask someone else to translate you this and not to omit some parts as it was done in other quote that I provided): "Ljubo Berjan sa Ilidze, bar priznaje da ih je iz Sarajeva otjerao Momcilo Krajisnik, da je srpska vlast odnijela masine iz tvornica i narod natjerala da iza sebe pali stanove i kuce. Berjan zali sto su Srbi otisli iz Sarajeva, ali se ni on ne misli vratiti kuci, jer "tamo vise nema ni masina u tvornicama, ni namjestaja u kucama, ni srpske vlasti, ni srpske policije". It says that Ljubo Berjan (a Serb from Ilidza) admits that Momčilo Krajišnik dispeled Serbs from Sarajevo, he admits that Serb authorities took with them machines from factories and forced their people to burn their homes and flats. Berjan is sorry because Serbs left Sarajevo...etc" So this must be included in the final version.--Emir Arven 19:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Translation from non-partisan source: "Ljubo Berjan from Ilidza, at least admits that Momčilo Krajišnik expelled them from Sarajevo, that Serbian government took away big machines from factories and persuaded people to burn flats and houses behind them. Berjan is sorry that Serbs left Sarajevo, but he doesn't mean to go back home either because "there are no machines in factories there, nor furniture in houses, nor Serbian government, nor Serbian police". This is one personal account, similar to the personal accounts that FreedonNadd gave regarding the vengeful Muslims. It doesn't even describe an "invitation". Do you have a better source that supports this claim? - FrancisTyers 20:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- This sentence is very important, and it explains why Serbs left: "Krajišnik expelled them from Sarajevo, that Serbian government took away big machines from factories and persuaded people to burn flats and houses behind them." When he said that Krajišnik expelled them, he meant that they were asked to leave, they were promised that they will have heaven in Serb territory. This invitation is recorded on TV. Dušan Šehić admitted this fact recently in Hayat TV from Sarajevo. That is why DISS organized radio to inform Serbs against propaganda and myths. And DISS represents many Serbs, so it is not personal account. Here is the next source that will support the fact that Serb authorities are very responsible. [28] Serb authorities offered to Serbs from Sarajevo that they will build new city called Serb Sarajevo (Srpsko Sarajevo in Republika Srpska). Jovo Janjic, founder of the Democratic Initiative of Sarajevo Serbs said:
15-20 days later we were invited to come to the hotel "Bistrica" on the Jahorina Mountain. To our great surprise they showed us a model that was supposed to represent the city of Srpsko Sarajevo, which, they claimed, they were going to build in Srpska. An academician from Belgrade, I think Antic was his name, with some experts of his, put those models in front of us on the table saying that a new city would be constructed, that it would lean on the old Sarajevo, but would be ours. We were explained what sorts of roads would be constructed, what sort of infrastructure, from theaters to the university, that the center would be in Pale, while the city would spread from there to Sokolac and Rogatica. Our delegation included highly educated people from different walks of life and they asked questions, to which they received strange answers. For example, in response to a simple question regarding how such a large city was going to be supplied by water, we were told that if there was not enough water, they would bring more from the Drina river!? Then they told us that they would construct a tunnel under Lapisnica, 16-kilometers long, and even I know that the longest tunnel constructed in the former Yugoslavia was the one under the Ucka mountain and that it was about 5.5 kilometers long, while its construction took 20 years. Most of us in the council agreed that these plans were unrealistic and they remain to be unrealistic to this day. We were especially disappointed when all the mayors of the municipalities of the Srpsko Sarajevo, half way through the meeting, left the room, mocking the whole plan. There is also a quote which will verify the fact that 90% of Serbs left from Sarajevo: However, then the international community made a key mistake. Almost a month earlier than initially planned, they allowed the Federation BH police to enter our territory, municipality by municipality. They stated with Vogosca. The fact that deadlines were moved forward scared the people and they started to panic. The panic spread from Vogozca, to Ilijas, whose turn was coming in 5-6 days, then to Ilidza and so on. Even those who had previously firmly decided to stay, now decided to leave. That destroyed our efforts to create a strategic plan with representatives of the international community and to plan our survival under new circumstances. It was a catastrophe. During those days and weeks, almost 90 percent of population left. That was also a defeat of the purported plans of the international community.--Emir Arven 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Eeef, thats a long quote. Ok, first of all expelled and asked to leave are very different things. Who invited them to go to this Hotel? All this quote tells us is that 90% of the remaining Serbs left from Sarajevo after the FBiH police were allowed into their areas by the international community. Did they leave in fear of the FBiH police, because they were frightened of reprisals? This is interesting in itself and probably worthy of inclusion, but it still doesn't support the blanket accusation that Serbs left their homes [in the FBiH] after invitations made by Serb politicians that didnt want Serbs to live together with Bosniaks.. Perhaps you could provide in answer a better wording? - FrancisTyers 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- From all above sources here are the facts:
- Serbs left Bosnian-government controlled area by their own will (we dont now the exact number, there are just assumptions).
- Serb authorities supported them (I changed earlier term ask to leave into support) in leaving and gave them some promises if they come to Republika Srpska (for instance building new town called Serb Sarajevo, and they started to build it, there are still some building never finished in so called Serb Sarajevo).
- Serb propaganda used to spread incorrect information and lies according to DISS so they found radio which will inform them about real situation.
- From all above sources here are the facts:
Let me answer your question: Who invited them to go to this Hotel? Here is a quote which will answer it: The biggest blow was that at first no one from the Srpska authorities addressed the population to inform them about the outcome of the negotiations (Deyton peace agreement). Instead, that was done by Slobodan Milosevic, who probably had no idea what he was talking about. The then Srpska authorities did not do anything to approach those citizens, or at least to console them, and explain the implications of the Dayton Agreement. The first initiative to obtain more information came from the citizens. I participated in it. We invited the then mayor of Ilidza Nedeljko Prstojevic to the first meeting, held in the settlement of Luzani. At that meeting he could not offer anything definite and tell us whether we should stay or leave. Time was running out and people were slowly drifting into hopelessness, as they had no idea what to do. Then we picked out people among ourselves to represent us and independently obtained a translation of the Dayton Agreement from the Federation BH. So that was the first meeting with Serb politician from Ilidza. Here is what happened next: Through various channels we sent requests for a meeting in Pale and after a short while we were invited to a meeting. In the December of 1995, 30-40 people went to Pale and were received by Radovan Karadžić and Momčilo Krajišnik, with several people from their cabinets. The meeting lasted five to six hours and mostly consisted of our questions for them and their mutual expressions of surprise. My impression was that they were not prepared to tell us whether to stay or prepare to leave. For example, regarding some parts of the Dayton Agreement, Karadzic asked Krajisnik: "Momcilo, can this really be..?" etc. In the end they only told us that they would soon call us again and will then give us definite instructions. So they were invited by Radovan Karadžić and Momčilo Krajišnik to come 15 days later in the Hotel where they gave them definite instructions which were obvious. As I said befor, invitation of Momčilo Krajišnik was recored. I cannot send you video material because I dont have it here, but it is well known fact, and as I can remeber it was accepted by ICTY. Momčilo Krajišnik trial is going on, so probably after a few moths we will have the judgement and more precise information.--Emir Arven 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I think that it is very evident now that Emir is simply obstructive. I provided a compromised version that makes no judgment one way or another about why Serb refugees left - it is ambiguous as to whether they were expelled, or fled, or abandoned their homes upon invitation (?), or whatever. What is clear to me is that Emir would like a version that has no word about Serb refugees in any shape or form, which is simply unacceptable. I would like the mediator to talk to Emir at this point (Dado should do so too) - if we cannot reach a compromise I think there is nothing else to do but request official arbitration from Wikipedia itself (inviting an administrator to impose a solution). --FreedonNadd 22:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think we are getting there. He hasn't disputed the sources for the Croatian Serb refugees which is a good start, we only have two points left on the list (3, 4) to source. I've been gradually putting together my compromise version (see below) and I hope we can include all the relevant facts. I definately don't think it will be necessary to call for an administrator to impose a solution here. - FrancisTyers 22:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, let's keep going to see what happens. The third version is a "heavy" one, like a mouthful of wasps. But before I say whether I agree to it or not, I need a few explanations – why is it Muslim instead of Bosniak (?). I know that news reports talked about "Muslims" in 1990's instead of Bosniaks, but it is very evident that they are one and the same - why confusion? Also, why is this version talking about Muslims (Bosniaks) only instead of Bosniaks and Croats? What happened in Croatia is not very different to what happened in Croat-held Bosnia. See News number 37: [29]. From the news article: A joint offensive by Bosnian Muslim and Croat troops is forcing thousands of Serb refugees to flee to the northern town of Banja Luka. --FreedonNadd 23:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your source just supported my statements: here Quote: Kris Janowski, spokesman for the U.N. high commissioner for refugees, told CNN that Bosnian Serb leaders are promoting the exodus on television and radio, telling people to leave within three days. Janowski called these messages "nonsense.(...)Secretary of State Warren Christopher said it was expected that some Serbs would flee, but he emphasized that other Serbs should "not succumb to suggestions or pressures that they leave." Karadžić, on the other hand, blamed the international community for the exodus. He has said since the war began that Serbs cannot live side-by-side with other ethnic groups in Sarajevo. On Tuesday, he ordered 50,000 Bosnian Serbs to leave Sarajevo suburbs" So, now we have a source for "invitation".--Emir Arven 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Emir, you read there only what you like. The same source also said The Serbs are trying to leave town before Friday, when the city and its suburbs begin reunification under the Muslim-led government...Many of the Serbs fear that once the city is reunited, the Bosnian government will retaliate against them.. Also, this is post-Dayton migration, which I already agreed to include.--FreedonNadd 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Muslim instead of Bosniak - this is how it was described in the ICTY document. Feel free to offer adjustments to any of the versions. - FrancisTyers 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I don't want to add confusion by introducing way too many versions (that will also lead us nowhere), but I would be fine with this: The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991 as a result of ethnic cleansing. The number of Serbs in the Republic has increased dramatically as a result of an influx of Croatian Serb refugees expelled from Croatia during the Croatian war (1991-1995) and Bosnian Serb refugees leaving other areas of Bosnia during the Bosnian War (1992-1995). Supported by the government and attracted by promises of development, some Serbs left areas of the Federation of their own volition to migrate to the Republika Srpska. Serbs in other areas fled to the Republika Srpska as a result of war crimes, violence and intimidation on the part of armed Muslim and Croat units. (bold text is the only change). Also, it would be nice for others to actually vote in support of something, too...--FreedonNadd 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I've made this minor change. I also suggest removing 1. As 1. is just 2. without Dado's suggestion. - FrancisTyers 23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I dont agree. Now, we have source for Karadžić invitation and it was your source. It changes everything. I have offered a compromise but you didnt except it. --Emir Arven 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I also dont agree with the last sentence. There must be validation (official judgemenets, as I provided for ethnic cleansing) of war crimes and places (we dont now what are the other areas). Also "Muslim units" is not correct term. Some medias used to call Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, "Muslim units". On the other hand, they never mentioned, that the Army of BH was multhietnic with 20% of non-Bosniaks. The second man in Bosnian army was general Jovan Divjak, a Serb. Also there were other generals that were not Bosniaks, as Stjepan Šiber (Croat), Željko Knez (I dont now his ethnicity, but I know that he was not Bosniak), Blaž Kraljević (Croat) etc. The same thing was with presidency of Bosnia.--Emir Arven 23:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- How do you think the Karadžić invitation should be included in each of the compromises. You can reply below this post. - FrancisTyers 23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Emir, I'm not sure if it is your English or a deliberate obfuscation, but I notice you omitted a determiner from the first point. Serbs left Bosnian-government controlled area by their own will (we dont now the exact number, there are just assumptions. This would not be a grammatical sentence in English, you would need to say left the ... or left a .... Needless to say the meaning is quite different. I'd like to get a clarification, do you mean they left the Bosnian-government controlled area (meaning all of Bosnian-government controlled Bosnia) or do you mean they left a Bosnian-government controlled area (meaning Sarajevo - as I previously mentioned). I don't mean to question your capacity for English (which is good), I would just like to make it clear. - FrancisTyers 22:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bosnian governmet was the only governmet recognized by UN, but didnt control all areas of Bosnia.
- I meant some area that were controled by the government, not the whole Bosnia. Here is my compromise version:
The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991, while the number of Serbs increased dramatically. This was caused by the ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population, the influx of Bosnian Serb refugees from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to Bosnian war and Serb policy (1992-1995) and Croatian Serb refugees from Croatia due to Croatian war (1991-1995). Some resettlement also took place after the war following the Dayton Peace Agreement after political boundaries (IEBL) were set.
I think we can all agree on this. Because I didnt put the invitation part (as I said I cant send video material, I am not ICTY), although I have provided other relevant sources. --Emir Arven 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, here is a new version. The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991, while the number of Serbs increased dramatically. This was caused by the ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population, 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). Bosnian Serb resettlement policy also played a part, and some resettlement took place after the war following the Dayton Peace Agreement, subsequent to setting political boundaries (IEBL). Can you live with this - anything wrong with it? --FreedonNadd 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. --Emir Arven 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
Hi, I'm your friendly cabal mediator :) FreedonNadd has requested cabal mediation regarding the dispute over the population section of the article. You can make comments here. I will look over the article and history and see if we can't find some common ground from which to build consensus. I would appreciate it if each side of the dispute could provide me with links as to their preferred version of the population section. Thanks - FrancisTyers 12:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Right, I've heard both sides, now I'm going to see if I can characterise the dispute. After that, I will be looking for sources for the assertions per WP:CITE. I will move discussion or refactor discussion below as I see fit. I would prefer to keep any discussion of sources above the mediation section. My apologies if you've already given sources somewhere else, but I would really appreciate it if you reiterated them here. :) - FrancisTyers 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Dispute
So, it seems that this sentence is the one that is in dispute: 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.
Breaking that down, we get:
- The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991
- The population of Serbs has increased dramatically since 1991
- Bosnian Serbs were expelled from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian war
- These expelled Bosnian Serbs became refugees in the RS
- Croatian Serb refugees were expelled from Croatia
- These expelled Croatian Serbs became refugees in the RS
- 1 was caused by ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population.
The thing that immediately strikes me is that there are no citations or sources for any of this. Also, in the case of number 3, we have a passive sentence structure which defines what, but not who. That is, who expelled the Bosnian Serbs? If you could add sources which support or oppose each of these points below I would be very grateful. Just put the url and then [s] or [o].
- I've added [p] for partial support. E.g. if a source supports some parts, but not others, like a number mismatch or something. - FrancisTyers 12:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sources
- Report submitted by Bosnia and Herzegovina [s]
- Report submitted by Bosnia and Herzegovina [s]
- ?
- ?
- Evicted Serbs remember Storm [s]
- Bosnian refugees returning home [p]
- Radoslav Brđanin judgement about ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population I put quotes from the judgement about ethnic cleansing in mediation page [s]
Additional
Ok, here are additional claims that should probably be included in any final compromise version if they can be verified. Please provide sources below. If you are providing a long source then please provide a line number, paragraph number or some indication of the part that supports the claim.
- Serbs left Bosnian-government controlled area by their own will (we dont now the exact number, there are just assumptions).
- Serb authorities supported them (I changed earlier term ask to leave into support) in leaving and gave them some promises if they come to Republika Srpska (for instance building new town called Serb Sarajevo, and they started to build it, there are still some building never finished in so called Serb Sarajevo).
- Serb propaganda used to spread incorrect information and lies according to DISS so they found radio which will inform them about real situation.
Sources
Compromise
- 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. Some resettlement also took place after the war following the Dayton Peace Agreement after political boundaries (IEBL) were set.
- The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991 as a result of ethnic cleansing [30]. The number of Serbs in the Republic has increased dramatically [31] as a result of an influx of Croatian Serb refugees expelled from Croatia during the Croatian war (1991-1995) [32] and Bosnian Serb refugees leaving the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War (1992-1995). Supported, in some cases ordered [33] by the Serb government, and attracted by promises of development, some Serbs left areas of the Federation of their own volition to migrate to the Republika Srpska. Serbs in other areas fled to the Republika Srpska as a result of war crimes [34], violence and intimidation on the part of armed Muslim and Croat units. Some resettlement also took place after the war following the Dayton Peace Agreement after political boundaries (IEBL) were set.
- The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991, while the number of Serbs increased dramatically. This was caused by the ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population, the influx of Bosnian Serb refugees from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to Bosnian war and Serb policy (1992-1995) and Croatian Serb refugees from Croatia due to Croatian war (1991-1995). Some resettlement also took place after the war following the Dayton Peace Agreement after political boundaries (IEBL) were set.
- The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991, while the number of Serbs increased dramatically. This was caused by the ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population, 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). Bosnian Serb resettlement policy also played a part, and some resettlement took place after the war following the Dayton Peace Agreement, subsequent to setting political boundaries (IEBL).
Consensus
Please place your sig on the line, no need for the date, followed by a comma. E.g.
Support
Oppose
- ?
- Emir Arven, Asim Led,
- ?
- ?