Talk:Čelebići camp

Sources

Dfener91 (talk · contribs) added false information not presented in the source. For example, he changed the sentece:

• According to witnesses heard by the ICTY, the Serb-populated village of Bradina was shelled in the late afternoon and evening of 25 May and then soldiers in both camouflage and black uniforms appeared, firing their weapons and setting fire to buildings.

Adding this part:

• According to witnesses heard by the ICTY, the Serb-populated village of Bradina was shelled in the late afternoon and evening of 25 May and then soldiers in both camouflage and black uniforms appeared, firing their weapons and setting fire to buildings, killing some civilians in their houses.

He also added wrong categories, as well as the names of ethnic groups in Bosnia.

Kruško Mortale (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you're doing WAY more than just removing that phrase. Why couldn't you have just removed that one phrase, as I did?

As for the intro, I think it could use some work, but Dfener's formulation is IMO better than yours, no offence. I think to an English-speaking reader with no particular knowledge of ex-Yugoslavia (which is who we ought to be writing for), the fact that the camp was run by Bosnian-Muslim and Bosnian-Croat forces is more important than which specific grouping it was run by. And there's certainly no reason to delete the references to the ill-treatment of prisoners, as Wikipedia guidelines state that an intro should summarise the content of the article.

In any event, it would be a lot more helpful (not to mention in line with Wikipedia rules) if you could just make the specific changes you feel are justified, rather than 'piggy-backing' a large revert (including a bunch of deletions) on to a couple of small criticisms. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I may have been a bit hasty there, Krusko. I see you have a number of issues with Dfener's contributions, which I didn't pay close enough attention to. Humble apologies. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I don't understand. If he has an issue with some of my sentences, then he can remove them. Tell you what, I will remove sentences: killing some civilians in their houses. (even though it is true but because it is unsourced), until I find a source. Tell me what else you have an issue with? The category, Prison War Massacres. I feel it is just because according to sources there were more than 30 people killed in that 1 prison. Is that not a massacre? Why does the ICTY have to speak out and say it's a massacre before that category can be inserted?

Note that it's not a regular massacre but a PRISON CAMP massacre, which indeed fits into the article. Now What I don't understand is why you deleted the intro, which goes specifically with the camp as it tells us what happened to the prisoners in the camp and why the camp was established. I did not delete the previous intro, just ADDED to it. The source? United Nations. And again you keep deleting the section on the treatment of prisoners! All sourced properly! I feel that you are actually vandalizing the page. It seems to me that you keep deleting this because it tells of the inhumane acts that the prisoners went through under the Bosnian Muslim and Croat guards. I understand that you are a Bosnian Muslim and probably do not like to read this but it nonetheless must be told because it is a true account of what happened and it's not even the whole story. And the ICTY btw, is not the only source available for use. There are others...I've used a NY Times article, the Peace Women organization, United Nations document and Human Rights Watch. No Serbian sources. I don't go and deleted parts of the article on Srebrenica or Siege of Sarajevo or whatever it may be.

Many relatives of mine have been at this camp and I have heard many stories. All I want is to write an extensive article on the subject. Truth and accuracy are important. I'm sorry if you feel that way but I would ask of you in the future to stop deleting EVERYTHING and if you have an issue with something, we can talk about it here? sound good? Have a good day. Cheers. Dfener91

I think you are a sockpuppet of Jonathanmills which I am going to prove, and now you are pretending to be a victim. The only reason I check the sources is I've seen so many examples of propaganda by the Serbs in Wikipedia. Every time I check the source I find totally different story. As you remember I've also noticed that you included false information saying that four Bosniak soldiers were convicted of mass rape, and none of them four is convicted of that type of crime. Actually the highest ranking man of them four is Croat, he is not even a Bosniak, one of them is found not guilty, and one of them is convicted of murder. So I think you are not very credible user to talk about fairness. Cheers. Kruško Mortale (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"I think you are a sockpuppet of Jonathanmills which I am going to prove"

-Good Luck. Because I do not know how you made that conclusion. By the way, just for fun, I checked Jonathanmills's page and it says he's jewish and an american citizen and I am neither. That made me chuckle.

Yeah, and I am from Mars. It's not the way to make a conclusion. Admins have a tool to check your IPs. Kruško Mortale (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"The only reason I check the sources is I've seen so many examples of propaganda by the Serbs in Wikipedia. Every time I check the source I find totally different story."

-Oh. So you've checked the sources? Then you must have seen that the things I've written are accurate and supoorted by those sources. So why then are you reverting my edits when they are fair and accurate edits? You still haven't told me why. Serb propaganda? Take a look at this article and see the kind of propaganda you are spreading. You've deleted all the parts of the article that talk about the mistreatment of serb prisoners. And why? one can only assume because it is about the wrongdoings of Bosnian Muslim against Serbs. Because it is all sourced material and there is no reason to delete it. I really can't understand how you have not been blocked for reverting edits for no reason.

I just gave you an example of your propaganda, when you wrote that four Bosnian Muslims were convicted of mass rape. Isn't it enough? Kruško Mortale (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"As you remember I've also noticed that you included false information saying that four Bosniak soldiers were convicted of mass rape, and none of them four is convicted of that type of crime. Actually the highest ranking man of them four is Croat, he is not even a Bosniak, one of them is found not guilty, and one of them is convicted of murder."

Yes. You are right. But that's on another article. We are talking about this article here, Čelebići prison camp and not Mass rape in the Bosnian War. And I've admitted that I was wrong and misread the sources. See? I can admit when I'm wrong. However, this article is an entirely different issue.

On this article I've also found false info, when you wrote: "killing some civilians in their houses.". Enough?

I proposed to discuss anything you might have an issue with here on this talk page. I've deleted my unsourced sentences and compromised with you. I've deleted the categories you insisted did not go along with the article. Yet you are not willing to listen to anything I have to say. You have no reason to delete and revert anything now as I have provided all the neccesary sources and citations. If you keep ignoring that and keep rambling on and on then I will just start ignoring your requests as well. You are not willing to discuss things rationally. There's not much I can do, my friend. Dfener91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

All right guys, if I could just ask what your top five objections to the article are, and maybe we can try and resolve them..?

Sorry Krusko if you think I'm a sockpuppet, honestly I'm not mate, but go ahead and check if you want to.

I'm not an administrator here, you are under no objection to reply, but I'm just wondering if I can offer some (wholly non-binding) opinion.

Dovidjena guys (PS that is not my native language, I promise, it's my one word ;-)

Yes, I am going to check it. Don't worry. It's easy to prove it. I am going to send a request to a certain admin to compare your IPs, because you emerged suddenly on this article and you were aware of every detail here which is unlikely to happen, it seems that you are interested just in Srebrenica massacre, but I am going to search through your contribution because I think that's not the case. Dfener91 is a "new user", yeah sure...Cheers. Kruško Mortale (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

1) The intro of the article mentions nothing about the camp. It just says that it was a prison camp run by Bosniak Croat and Muslim forces...then it talks about the village of Celebici and the status of Konjic pre-war. All I did was add to the intro. I did not erase anything. I simply added why the camp was made and when, which is useful information since the article is about the camp and not the Celebici village.

2) 90% of the article talks about the "Background". Sure this is important, but after talking about it and mentoning when and how it was formed...I feel it is neccesary to include a section about the camp itself, including the conditions and treatment in the camp. And then concluding by the sentences of the men who were in charge of this camp.

Now what's wrong with it? All sourced. Yet Kruško Mortale keeps deleting it..for no reason. And when I ask for an explanation well...he makes irrelevant posts such as the one above me. When I ask to discuss any issues he might have with he article, he goes on a rant and doesn't even respond. He reverts the article again and again.....

Note that I have listened to his concerns and deleted the sentence he had an issue with because it was unsourced. I also deleted 2 of the categories he had an issue with. But he won't discuss it here, he just reverts it. I'm through playing hide and seek games and I have proven that what I've written is correct. I'm done here. Dfener91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Why do you spread propaganda again? You wrote: "Altogether, Serbian soldiers and civilians, men, women and many elderly people were taken from these villages and sent to the Čelebići prison camp."

According to ICTY there were just a few women:

The few women who were confined in the camp were housed separately from the other prisoners, firstly in the administration building (Building B) and then in the small reception building at the entrance to the camp (Building A). Ms. Milojka Antic and Ms. Grozdana Cecez told the Trial Chamber how they were kept in a small room in Building A with a bed and a mattress and a stove, and for a period other women from Bradina were also kept there. There was a barred window in the building from which they could see the entrance gate to the camp and there was a sink and a toilet in the building which they were permitted to use.

and:

The majority of the prisoners who were detained between April and December 1992 were men, captured during and after the military operations at Bradina and Donje Selo and their surrounding areas. At the end of May, several groups were transferred to the Celebici prison-camp from various locations. For example, a group of around 15-20 men from Cerici were captured on 23 May 1992 and taken to Celebici that day. Another group was taken near Bjelovcina around 22 May and spent one night at the sports hall at Musala before being transported to the Celebici prison-camp. Military police also arrested many members of the male population of Brdani at the end of May and these people were taken in a truck to the Celebici prison-camp.

Altogether, there were max 100 men arrested during and after the battle, and 2-4 women. But, according to you all Serbs from those villages were sent to camp?! Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I should have specified it was not all women but only some women that were taken to the camp.Most of the Serbian women and children were confined in a local school. So it should be specified.

Max 100 men? 2-4 women?? are you kidding me??

According to Historian Carl Savich: "Approximately 400 men and some women were taken to the former JNA (Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija, Yugoslav National Army) military base in the town of Celebici, where the Muslim and Croat forces set up the Celebici camp."

Carl Savich is not a relaible source. He claimed that people in Srebrenica committed suicide. My information is from ICTY verdict. Kruško Mortale (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the University of the West of England, General contents of the commision of experts' final analysis, section on prison camp (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/) :

The detainees were brought to Celebici from all corners of Konjic. On 22 May 1992, Croatian and Muslim forces allegedly attacked the Serb villages of Bjelovcina, Cerici, and Donje Selo. Reportedly all surviving members of the Serb population in these villages were taken to camp Celebici. In another report, members of the «TO B-H» invaded the village of Brdjani on 15 June 1992 and ordered all the men to surrender. Forty-eight Serbian prisoners were put on trucks and taken to Celebici. Some 200 individuals from Bradina were already in residence when they arrived.

Give us proper link. According to your link I found nothing. Kruško Mortale (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A Global Agenda, By John Tessitore, Susan Woolfson, United Nations Association of the United States of America, p. 274:

"The Celebici camp was run by Muslim and Croat forces in Konjic...the roughly 200 men held in the camp were local serbs who had been rounded up and disarmed. Many were elderly and infirm."

It is impossible that were only 2-4 women and 100 men detained at the camp. Bosnian Muslim forces took control of the all the surrounding Serbian villages in Konjic and transported the survivors to the camp. Dfener91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I just read the verdict. And that is WP:RS. Kruško Mortale (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It would be easier to settle this if you deleted or better yet, corrected sentences you had an issue with, instead of deleting the entire article. Dfener91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

P.S. Now, I have a proof, that you are a sockpuppet of Jonathanmills. I found he edited Konjic, a long long time ago. That wouldn't be so strange if he didn't edit guess what. CPC and rape related to CPC [1], which was your primary agenda when you registered. So, we shall continue to work on this article, but first admins should investigate my claim. Cheers. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to give you a heads-up that you're wasting your time. But hey, It's not like you're going to want to listen or discuss this in a civil manner, so what's the point?

I've proposed to discuss any issues you may have here. But you keep deleting the article. It would be easier to settle this if you corrected sentences you believe were unsourced, instead of deleting the entire article. At this point there's no reason to delete or revert anything as everything is correct. Dfener91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I belive it's better that you propose here a sentece you want to include and provide WP:RS for it, because you did include false information. Kruško Mortale (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No false information. The United Nations, New York Times, Peace Women Organization and Human Rights Watch are all WP:RS. Prove here which sentences are false. Dfener91 (talk) --Dfener91 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. Did you read the above discussion at all? Kruško Mortale (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have. It's quite obvious you haven't. Still waiting for your proof. Dfener91 (talk) --Dfener91 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proof that you lied or some other proof? Be specific. Kruško Mortale (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry I haven't had time to get back to this dispute, but I do intend to. Krusko, go ahead and check my ISP address if you want if you think I am a sockpuppet; I assure you I am not. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are starting to get lost in your own charades. We're talking about the current state of the article. Is the information in the current version accurate? It is and there is no reason to delete it, like you keep doing. Dfener91 (talk) --Dfener91 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is your false statement: "Altogether, Serbian soldiers and civilians, mostly men, some women and elderly people were taken from these villages and sent to the Čelebići prison camp"

Blog/personal web site [2] is not a reliable source, read WP:RS. The message written on that page is signed by Biljana Plavsic, convicted of horrible war crimes. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all people from those villages "were sent to prison camp". According to ICTY there are exact numbers and descriptions of those groups arrested during military operation. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that appears to be a fair point, Krusko, but can you just delete the portions you're objecting to rather than making such a wide-ranging revert? Jonathanmills (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed above Dfener91 (whoever he is or you) made very bad edits when we talk about the truth. Just as you insist on WP:RS in Srebrenica massacre, I insist on that here. So he is the one who should include new information step-by-step into original version based on WP:RS, it's not me who should delete his false statements. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that either in Srebrenica massacre or here, RS's must be used, which is why I'm in agreement with a number of your points, Krusko.

One thing I do slightly disagree with, though, is the issue of 'Bosnia' versus 'Herzegovina'. Most English-language speakers (and sources) shorten 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' to 'Bosnia', and it would be confusing to English speakers to distinguish them (unless it was in an article specifically on the topic). Jonathanmills (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to the 'Herzegovina' issue, and just so I don't sound like an ignoramus or a geographical imperialist or anything, I believe it would be understandable and perfectly acceptable to write something like "in the region of northern Herzegovina in Bosnia and Herzegovina" (hyperlinked)... but IMO that would be unnecessary info and confuse the point of the sentence.

Hope you don't mind my last two reverts. Just not sure a) what the problem with the section on the outcome of the ICTY trial was, and b) it's far from unacceptable to include statements from witnesses in articles on war crimes (either Srebrenica massacre or here); I've always thought it important to identify them as such, though (ie 'Witnesses say... etc'). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kruško Mortale, I did not take that statement from a blog. I know very well that using a blog as a source isn't credible. You're right however, not all men and soldiers were taken to that camp. However, most of the men in those villages, who survived were taken to the camp. It's pretty clear by reading the judgement by the ICTY that not all the residents were. But the Muslim troops took most of the surviving men and took them to the camp. That does include even old people and soldiers. The only groups of people that were left alone were most women (some were imprisoned) and young children. This is why I think you should have corrected the sentence instead of deleting the entire article.

And I wasn't clear on your specific objections. By deleting everything I added and saying it was all lies, it implies that ALL of it was made up, when it was not. If you had brought it up earlier, it could have been taken care of earlier.

Now I think the current version edited by JonathanMills is well-written, what do you think? Dfener91 (talk) --Dfener91 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Krusko, I don't want to break balls here, as I've mentioned it to you before, but it would be REALLY helpful if you changed the specific things you (usually legitimately) have an issue with rather than make large-scale reverts based on specific smaller issues.

One way to do this is just to remove (ie cut) the sections of text you object to from the page and move them here to the talk page, where they can be discussed and dissected.

As for the ICTY-judgement-related issue you're talking about, Dfener, I think the easiest thing (it's common on most ex-Yugo-conflict-related pages) is to just quote directly from the ICTY judgements... Although I don't think it's the best method in terms of encyclopaedia style, if it's done sparingly and without bias (ie not using misleading snippets) it can avoid edit conflict, as well as provide valuable factual information. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, of course, the judgement information can be summarised (which is much better stylistically), HOWEVER the summary needs to VERY carefully reflect the original wording in such delicate matters (this is one reason the use of direct quotations is so common, I think). Jonathanmills (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My initial impressions

OK, guys, have had a quick look at the article and the changes which appear to be under dispute at the moment.

Unfortunately, it appears Krusko is convinced I am a sockpuppet, so I am not sure if he will be at all open to my opinion, but here goes:

1. First issue is whether a) to call it 'Bosniak and Croat'-run or 'Croat and Bosniak'-run, and b) whether to use the term 'Bosniak' or 'Bosnian Muslim'.

Regarding (a), the answer should be based on which group (either Bosniaks or Croats) was the predominant force vis-a-vis the running of the camp. If the answer is neither -- ie, they were exactly equal (which seems rather unlikely to me) -- then we'll just have to resolve it randomly, in which case it might be better to phrase the sentence 'CPC was a prison camp run by (**** and ****) forces during the Bosnian War'; IMO this gives less emphasis to whichever is the first group mentioned.

Regarding (b), I've heard Bosniaks argue that the term 'Bosnian Muslim' is offensive; however, this is an English-language encyclopaedia, and many (probably the majority) English-language RS's refer to Bosniaks as 'Bosnian Muslims'. For this reason, it's my opinion that first-time references to Bosniaks in any article should include the phrase also known as Bosnian Muslims, because most English speakers will recognise the latter if they don't recognise the former.

2. We have the following intro dispute:

The camp was used to detain Serbian civilians and soldiers captured in Serbian villages around the municipality of Konjic in May 1992. Detainees at the camp were subjected to killings, torture, sexual assaults, beatings and otherwise cruel and inhuman treatment. (Dfener)

OR

The JNA Celebici compound was chosen for prison camp as the appropriate facilities for the detention of prisoners of war arrested during military operations. (Krusko)

Now, one thing about intros (called 'leads' in Wiki-jargon) is that they are supposed to summarise the article which follows:

The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD)

Now, I have to say that Dfener's lead (as long as it is referenced correctly) is much more appropriate than Krusko's in this dispute, as the article does indeed talk about mistreatment of prisoners, and this is an important issue in any page on the CPC. The other issue is that saying it was chosen 'for the detention of POWs arrested during military operations' appears to be at odds with claims that civilians were kept there.

3. Because I'm running out of steam here, I'll go on to the last main dispute: Krusko's severe shortening of the final paragraphs regarding mistreatment of prisoners to:

In its judgement in the Mucić et al case, the ICTY found that Serbian prisoners had been beaten, tortured and some murdered by the camp guards. The prison camp was closed in December 1992 and remaining prisoners released.

The previous (ie Dfener's) version read:

The prisoners, according to human rights investigators, were rarely fed bread and water. They rarely bathed and slept on the concrete floors without blankets. Many were forced to defecate on the floor. Serbian survivors said Muslim soldiers entered the base at night and beat prisoners with clubs, rifle butts, wooden planks, shovels and pieces of cable. The ICTY found that many prisoners were tortured or beaten to death in various ways. Investigators say that in May and August about 30 prisoners died from "bestial" beatings. A few others, they said, were shot or stabbed to death by the Muslim troops. Several victims were elderly, these investigators said.

The decision in the case to convict Hazim Delić, was the first one convicting a Bosnian Muslim war criminal specifically for crimes of sexual violence, in addition to other war crimes. The ICTY characterized the rape of Bosnian Serb women prisoners at the Celebici prison camp as acts of torture. The prison camp was closed in December 1992 and most prisoners released or exchanged. The rest were transfered to other prison camps.

..followed by a brief list of the convictions.

Now, I'm all for conciseness, but Krusko's edit seems a bit like 'glossing over' an important issue to me. This is made more so by the fact that so much of the article is simply 'background', and thus the issue of 'undue weight' arises (An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Undue_weight).

I'm sorry to apparently come down on Dfener's 'side' so much, and like I say my conclusions are totally dependent on the verifiability of Dfener's claims, AND I agree with Krusko that certain phrases should have been removed (and have been)... but, Krusko, I'd be interested if you could give your opinions on anything I've said.

Cheers guys Jonathanmills (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathanmills, thank you for your help. I think the article is fine now. It's well organized and seperated into sections. I have no problem with it. Much appreciated. Dfener91 --Dfener91 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nema problema, moj drug! ;-)

Actually I think the article could use a little work -- I don't think the 'background' section needs to be so long and detailed, for instance -- but I'm glad if the edit-war is resolved. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we can work on the article. That includes Krusko as well. I want the edit-war to stop, I want it resolved. I'm not here to spread some Serb-propaganda and I hope he is not here to spread Bosniak propaganda. I just want articles to be as truthful as possible. I read so many articles here about massacres and prison camps conducted by Serbs which tell of everything that went on. Yet on an article like this, it's written like it was a detention facility that was "neccesary" and that "some" prisoners were beaten in the process. I mean some of the most inhumane acts went on in this camp, just like in most of the 600+ concentration camps in Bosnia during the war. And the way it was written it served no justice to the victims of the camp, nor did it tell the whole story. I'm not here to start edit-wars and cause trouble.

Cool, man, I agree with you that articles should be as truthful as possible, and similar (in my view, similarly neutral) in tone regarding both sides in conflicts.

When I say 'similarly neutral', I don't mean glossing over atrocities at all, but rather just stating them in plain language (facts speak for themselves, after all, as Wikipedia guidelines point out; eg we don't need to be told that rapes and tortures were 'horrific' as they are horrific by definition), and relatively concisely (we don't need to have blow-by-blow witness accounts from every victim of a given atrocity; summarise the facts, as is appropriate to an encyclopaedia).

Well, I'll try and keep dropping in to offer advice on the article; I have some other (non-Wikipedia) stuff to be getting on with at present, though, so this may be a bit infrequent. Cheers guys, and play nicely..and remember, Serbs and Bosniaks are just cousins really ;-) Jonathanmills (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, where did you find the sources for the inmates section, the last few sentences? I've been looking all over for the exchanges, transfers of prisoners and the Red Cross' visit to the camp. It is significant because I believe after the two visits from the red cross, they toned the beatings down. Dfener91 (talk) --Dfener91 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Assume you're talking to Krusko here? I didn't insert that info. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

comparison to Srebrenica massacre article

Hi all,

This is mainly directed at Krusko:

Krusko, you seem to be bringing up the SM page quite frequently as if to highlight some sort of double standard regarding this page and that (or some hypocrisy in my personal position).

But the point I made was that, *when not quoting directly*, neutral language should be used (so witnesses either describe [someone] being "slaughtered" OR [someone] being killed; NOT [someone] being slaughtered -- given that 'slaughtered' is needlessly emotive language.

However, you deleted a reference to "bestial" beatings (ie WITH quote marks), and also changed shot and stabbed to death by Muslim troops to killed by Muslim troops.

Now, I can't see how either of those changes puts this page in line with the SM page. To the contrary, the SM article is filled with lurid quotes, such as the following:

I was not even able to touch the floor, the concrete floor of the building (...) After the shooting, I felt a strange kind of heat, warmth, which was actually coming from the blood that covered the concrete floor, and I was stepping on the dead people who were lying around. But there were even people who were still alive, who were only wounded, and as soon as I would step on one, I would hear him cry, moan, because I was trying to move as fast as I could. I could tell that people had been completely disembodied, and I could feel bones of the people that had been hit by those bursts of gunfire or shells, I could feel their ribs crushing. And then I would get up again and continue.

SO, my point is, I think you're being (no offence) somewhat disingenuous in bringing up the SM page as an example where something like shot and stabbed to death by would be changed to killed by.

Not that this article should match the SM page necessarily; if the SM page violates neutrality guidelines, for example, this would not be a reason to tolerate their violation here. However, I can't really see an objective problem with adding a quoted adjective (ie, "bestial") and a description of the manner of killing. I think on the whole, the description of the treatment of prisoners is pretty restrained and encyclopaedic.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Krusko, thanks for providing the reference for that material on the inmates. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You changed this sentence in SG article: One witness also testified about the slaughtering of a baby. into and reportedly also a baby were killed. So, slaughtering isn't the same as reportedly killing, but you changed it. It's not ok to propagate demagogy when you don't like the subject. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If this article used the word 'slaughtered' outside of quote marks, I would definitely support its change to 'killed'. I don't see the problem, however, with briefly describing the *manner* in which killings were committed, or using a single intensifying adjective - in quote marks - regarding the beatings prisoners received.

Really, you are on extraordinarily thin ice trying to argue that the Srebrenica massacre article offers some sort of argument for your side of this debate. Look through that article, my friend, and you will find all kinds of vivid, lurid descriptions of atrocities (one of which I quoted above). Yet you claim this article's use of shot and stabbed to death by rather than killed by and single description of "bestial" beatings is illegitimate? Jonathanmills (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, Krusko, you talk about the description of the baby being killed in the intro to the SM article. However, further down the page (ie in the actual body of the article), where it mentions this incident, we read the following:

One survivor described the murder of a baby and the rape of women occurring in the close vicinity of Dutch U.N. peacekeepers who did nothing to prevent it. According to the survivor, a Serb told a mother to make her child stop crying, and when it continued to cry he took it and slit its throat, after which he laughed.

I say again, your complaint that this article is somehow unfairly graphic in comparison with the SM article is (to put it mildly) utterly without basis. Jonathanmills (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a comparison between the SM article and this one? One is about a massacre, the other one is about a prison/concentration camp. Why is this even a discussion? Look Jonathanmills, it's obvious what's going on here. Kruško Mortale will stop at nothing to try to erase anything legitimate we write about the mistreatment/killings of serbs during the Bosnian War. Just ignore him. I propose we seek a moderator or help against his activities. Dfener91 (talk) --Dfener91 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, this is not political forum. If you want to write about smth you should do that by the rules, one of that rule is WP:RS. Please read it before continuing. Yugoslav-wars related topics according to consensus by the users should use just relaible sources. -> Talk:Yugoslav_wars#Consensus_about_sources Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

See below:

Consensus about sources

Because of never ending edit warring in articles about Yugoslav Wars we have created consensus about sources for related articles. Sources in this list are not only sources because we are free to use any NPOV source but this one will be very hard to defeat with other sources.

vote:

Source	Mike Babic	Rjecina	Civilaffairs	DIREKTOR	HarisM	B.Fever	Berkowitz	Ijanderson977
Amnesty International	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK [1]	OK
Human Rights Watch	OK	OK	OK*	OK	OK	OK	OK [1]	OK
United Nations Security Council resolutions	OK	OK	OK-fact	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
United Nations General Assembly resolutions	OK	OK	OK-fact	OK	OK	OK	Depends [2]	OK
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
Helsinki Watch	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
ICTY court decisions	OK	OK	OK-fact	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
ICTY Self-incrimination	OK	OK	OK**	OK	OK	OK	Depends	OK
Report of Secretary-General to the Security Council:	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
BBC	Depends	OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK [3]	OK
CNN	Depends	OK	OK***	OK		OK	Depends [3]	Depends
New York Times	Depends	OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK	Depends
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
United Nations Commission on Human Rights	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
Reuters		OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK	OK
Agence France-Presse		OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK	OK
International Herald Tribune		OK	OK***	OK		OK	OK	OK
The Guardian		OK	OK***			OK	OK	OK
Sydney Morning Herald		No	OK***					OK

Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

latest edit conflicts

Hi Krusko (and anyone else who may be out there)

Don't have time to go through them all now, and some I'm definitely prepared for compromise over, but just thought I'd lay out the current differences between Krusko's and my versions (Krusko's first throughout).

KM: The camp was used to detain Serb prisoners of war arrested during military operations around Konjic in May 1992. Detainees at the camp were subjected to killings, torture, sexual assaults, beatings and otherwise cruel and inhuman treatment.[ref]

JM: The camp was used to detain Serb prisoners of war rounded up by Bosniak and Bosnian Croat forces around Konjic in May 1992. Prisoners at the camp were subjected to killings, torture, sexual assaults, beatings and otherwise cruel and inhuman treatment. These were the subject of a 1998 war crimes trial by the ICTY.[ref]

KM: During the conflict in Yugoslavia, Konjic municipality was of strategic importance as it contained important communication links from Sarajevo to southern Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the Siege of Sarajevo the route through Konjic was of vital imortance to the Bosnian government forces. Furthermore, several important military facilities were contained in Konjic...

JM: During the conflict in Yugoslavia, Konjic municipality was of strategic importance to all sides since the main road between the Bosnian capital Sarajevo and the southern town of Mostar passed through it; during the Siege of Sarajevo the road was of vital ipmortance to the Bosnian government forces. Also, several important military facilities were contained in Konjic...

KM: Although the Konjic municipality did not have a majority Serb population and did not form part of the declared "Serb autonomous regions", in March 1992, the self-styled "Serb Konjic Municipality" adopted a decision on the Serbian territories. The SDS, in co-operation with the JNA, had also been active in arming the Serb population of the municipality and in training paramilitary units and militias.

JM: Before the war the municipality had a population of around 45,000 inhabitants, of whom 55% were Bosniaks, 26% Croats and 15% Serbs. Although the Konjic municipality did not have a majority Serb population and did not form part of the declared "Serb autonomous regions", in March 1992, the self-styled "Serb Konjic Municipality" adopted a decision on the Serbian territories. The SDS, in co-operation with the JNA, had also been active in arming the Serb population of the municipality and in training militias.

KM: Following the international recognition of the independent Bosnian state and the walk-out of SDS representatives from the Municipal Assembly a War Assembly was formed to take charge of the defence of the municipality.

JM: Following the Bosniak and Bosnian Croat supported declaration of an independent Bosnian state and the subsequent walk-out of Bosnian Serb representatives from the Municipal Assembly the remaining Bosniak and Bosnian Croat politicians formed a special "War Assembly" to organize militas

KM:

==The inmates==

These military operations resulted in the arrest of many members of the Serb population and it was thus necessary to create a facility where they could be imprisoned and questioned about their role in war crimes during the siege of Konjic. The former JNA Celebici compound was chosen out of necessity as the appropriate facilities for the detention of prisoners in Konjic. The majority of the prisoners who were detained between April and December 1992 were men, captured during and after the military operations at Bradina and Donje Selo and their surrounding areas. These Bradina detainees, who numbered about 70-80, were taken directly to Hangar 6 and appear to have been the first group to be placed in that building. At the end of May, several groups were transferred to the Čelebići prison-camp from various locations. For example, a group of around 15-20 men from Cerici were captured on 23 May 1992 and taken to Celebici that day. Another group was taken near Bjelovcina around 22 May and spent one night at the sports hall at Musala before being transported to the Celebici prison-camp. A Military Investigating Commission was constituted after the arrest of persons during the military operations, whose purpose was to establish the responsibility of these persons for any crimes. The Commission comprised representatives of both the police and the Croat Defence Council (HVO), as well as the Territorial Defence (TO), who were each appointed by their own commanders. The Commission interviewed many of the Celebici inmates and took their statements, as well as analysing other documents which had been collected to determine their role in the combat against the Konjic authorities and their possession of weapons. As a result, prisoners were placed in various categories and the Commission compiled a report recommending that certain persons be released. Some of the individuals who had been placed in the lower categories were subsequently transferred to the sports hall at Musala. From May until December 1992, individuals and groups were released from the Celebici prison-camp at various times, some to continued detention at Musala, some for exchange, others under the auspices of the International Red Cross, which visited the camp on two occasions in the first half of August.[ref] According to the New York Times, "The roughly 200 men held in the camp...were local Serbs who had been rounded up and disarmed," of whom "[m]any were elderly or infirm".[ref]

JM (continuing from previous section):

These military operations resulted in the arrest of many members of the Serb population and it was thus necessary to create a facility where they could be imprisoned and questioned about their role in war crimes during the siege of Konjic. The former JNA Celebici compound was chosen out of necessity as the appropriate facilities for the detention of prisoners in Konjic.

==The inmates==

According to the New York Times, "The roughly 200 men held in the camp...were local Serbs who had been rounded up and disarmed," of whom "[m]any were elderly or infirm".[ref] (continues rest of paragraph)

KM:

==Conditions and treatment in the camp==

According to human rights investigators, the prisoners were fed rarely, on bread and water. They rarely bathed, slept on concrete floors without blankets, and many were forced to defecate on the floor. Serbian survivors said Muslim soldiers entered the base at night and beat prisoners with clubs, rifle butts, wooden planks, shovels and pieces of cable.[ref] Investigators say that in May and August, about 30 prisoners died from beatings and a few others were killed by the soldiers. Several of these victims were elderly, they said.[ref]

JM:

==Conditions and treatment in the camp==

According to human rights investigators, the prisoners were fed rarely, on bread and water. They rarely bathed, slept on concrete floors without blankets, and many were forced to defecate on the floor. Serbian survivors said Muslim soldiers entered the base at night and beat prisoners with clubs, rifle butts, wooden planks, shovels and pieces of cable.[ref] Investigators say that in May and August, about 30 prisoners died from "bestial" beatings and a few others were shot or stabbed to death by Muslim troops. Several of these victims were elderly, they said.[ref]

Well, I was going to add at least a few brief comments, but that took me so damn long to format that I am out of time now! >:-/

It's easier to come back to now anyway. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Krusko, perhaps you can go first, and say which of the above conflicts you feel strongly about and why..? Jonathanmills (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This sneaky vandalism is repeated over and over.

Examples:

This sentence is supported by the source: During the conflict in Yugoslavia, Konjic municipality was of strategic importance as it contained important communication links from Sarajevo to southern Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the Siege of Sarajevo the route through Konjic was of vital imortance to the Bosnian government forces.

But it's been changed into:

During the conflict in Yugoslavia, Konjic municipality was of strategic importance to all sides since the main road between the Bosnian capital Sarajevo and the southern town of Mostar passed through it; during the Siege of Sarajevo the road was of vital ipmortance to the Bosnian government forces.

Er...how on earth can that be 'sneaky vandalism'? If Konjic was solely of strategic importance to the Bosniak forces, the first formulation is incorrect as well.

We have another example:

Following the international recognition of the independent Bosnian state and the walk-out of SDS representatives from the Municipal Assembly a War Assembly was formed to take charge of the defence of the municipality.

The sentence is changed into (not supported by the source):

Following the Bosniak and Bosnian Croat supported declaration of an independent Bosnian state and the subsequent walk-out of Bosnian Serb representatives from the Municipal Assembly the remaining Bosniak and Bosnian Croat politicians formed a special "War Assembly" to organize militas.

But the bits you've highlighted don't contradict anything in the first sentence, as far as I can tell. As for the wording, the latter is actually more descriptive and informative, although it doesn't read like Bosnian-government propaganda, which I assume is your objection to it.

And there is also sensational language such as "bestial". As I can remember you removed the word "slaughter of a baby" from Srebrenica massacre article, but here you are ok with the sensational language. I can leave it here, but if you let me include the baby slaughter in SM article.

Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go through this, Krusko? The word 'bestial' is *a direct quote*, whereas you wanted to say a baby was 'slaughtered' as the encyclopaedia's own description. Furthermore, the relevant sentence in the body of the SM article reads "According to the survivor, a Serb told a mother to make her child stop crying, and when it continued to cry he took it and slit its throat, after which he laughed" -- a far more 'sensational' use of language than saying "about 30 prisoners died from "bestial" beatings". Jonathanmills (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What about other issues I raised? Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if they're not that visible, but I did add a couple of (indented) comments to yours -- be interested to hear your replies. Furthermore, if we can at least knock these conflicts off one by one, it would be handy: do you really have any reasonable objection to the final point ('sensational' language)? If not, can we at least leave this one out of the edit-warring? Jonathanmills (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)