Talk:Bijeljina massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Question

"Over the course of 1990 a group of Serb JNA officers and experts from the JNA's Psychological Operations Department had developed the RAM Plan with the intent of organizing expatriate Serbs..." I fail to understand what is meant by "expatriate Serbs". Serb gastarbeiters in Germany? Serbs in the U.S.? 23 editor (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Judah meant Serbs from outside of Serbia not Serbs from Serbia living abroad. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My two changes

Target: Bosniaks, other ethnicities, moderate Serbs.

This I felt better to say, "mostly Bosniaks", and others including Serb. But "moderate" is 100% POV and impossible to prove, even in a reliable source. It is more likely to find information that one's own nationals when subject to a killing stating that they may have worked for the opposition, in which case they'd be branded traitors and such status cannot deem them moderate! Often the term "moderate" is used in contrast to "radical", and the idea that any belligerent would shoot dead its own people for not being "ultra-nationalist" is absurd. Whatever the reason was, it is not backed up in any source so we'll leave it as just "killed Serbs". The opening line already uses 'genocidal'.

Motive: Greater Serbia

This is utter nonsense and not backed up either. The closest external sources come to this claim is when the ICTY report a "joint criminal enterprise" who worked to create a type of "Greater Serb" state - not the same thing as an avowed intention. Here are the facts.

- At the time of the event, the region was already part of a breakaway Serb republic within Bosnia and Herzegovina.

- At the time of the event, Serbia was still part of a Yugoslav federation with Montenegro.

- "Greater Serbia" would have required not only the Bosnian Serb republic to join Serbia, but Serbia itself to take over all of Montenegro thus abolishing it - otherwise it would just be an expansion to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's borders, regardless of which entity it went into.

- According to Greater Serbian ideology, it was always realised that the region would contain a non-Serb population, so the existence of "Bosniaks and moderate Serbs" did not stand in the way of its creation, thereby there would have been no need to kill or remove them on those grounds.

With this, I don't think it requires a "motive" because the event - coupled with its place within the Bosnian war - speaks for itself. At most, the motive could only have been the establishment of an ethnically clean city. It was the work of the perpetrators whose acting authority had neither declared a Greater Serbia before, nor after the event. We cannot say it was for the creation of the Bosnian Serb republic either because it was already declared. Maybe bringing it under their control makes more sense. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a "utter nonsense" simply because you say so. If anything, I think your little POV rant here is a bunch of nonsense. We are frankly not interested in hearing your personal take on how the conflict should be understood, and let alone your original research as to what Greater Serbia was and is (which you amusingly present as "facts"). If one as a Serb kills another Serb because he or she does not support the same nationalist ideology and/or protects non-Serbs against such intentions, that makes you radical Serb, and the other a moderate one. Period. The proclamation of the "Republika Srpska" with the intention of securing and forming ethnically homogeneous Serb territory that would unite Serbs into a "Greater Serbia" is well-established. Why the heck do you think ethnic cleansing operations were undertaken on such a large scale to rid non-Serb civilians if "the existence of "Bosniaks and moderate Serbs" did not stand in the way of its creation, thereby there would have been no need to kill or remove them on those grounds". As to whether you prefer to call it "Greater Serbia" or "ethnically homogeneous Serb territory" in the article is equally fine to me. But should you wish to make any further remarks about this article, please bring reliable sources next time. Original research and personal POV doesn't quite cut it, I'm sorry. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Apology forgiven. As I clearly explained and as is stated throughout the sources of the Greater Serbia article, it is understood and accepted that the largest possible state which would serve as a nation state to the Serbian nation would be one which included non-Serbs, much like Serbia today manages to exist despite a presence of other Yugoslavs, Hungarians, Romanians and Albanians forming majorities in specific areas (eg. Bosniaks in Novi Pazar). This article is about a massacre. As such, it is unwise to the attack the straw man by claiming that an act of genocide is necessary to create a state that never was declared. Don't get me wrong, mine is not a rant, and I do not hold a candle for the perpetrators of the awful atrocities. As this article is all about the killings, no motive is required. The only type of article which invites the need for a motive is one based on a battle itself, not its aftermath or side effects. So any operation in which Bosnian Serbs overran the ARBiH such as Srebrenica in 1995 can be said to have taken place for the purpose of an avowed motive. I put it to you that this motive was the establishment of the Republic of Srpska. Srpska in turn was independent of both the Serbian Krajina of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - so there is no argument that a massacre or a mass expulsion can be done to create "Greater Serbia". The idea that it would have one day rejoined Serbia is conjecture, and based largely on the funding itself coming from Belgrade. In any case, so long as Montenegro existed, "Greater Serbia" could never have seen the light because the concept is not based on unity with republics existing on what should be its own territory (eg. it can unite with Slovenia, or a reduced Croatia, but not with Bosnia or Macedonia as these lands are included within a Serb-only nationalist state). As regards Serb civilians killed, there is no source that can confirm these were "moderate". The terms moderate and extreme are subjective in the first place, and are bestowed on individuals along their personal lines of nationalism. An example of a moderate Serb nationalist is Vojislav Koštunica, by his own admission and recognised as such by others. It is preposterous to assume that someone like he would have been killed had he lived in Bijeljina in 1991, a moderate still supports the nationalist cause - but won't go to the same extreme as the radical. But if a Serb did not support the wider Serbian goal - which I re-emphasise was the establishment of Republika Srpska - then he doesn't qualify as a moderate. To give you a similar example, it is equally ridiculous to call Fikret Abdić "moderate" simply because he didn't agree with the ultra-hardline principles of Alija Izetbegović and the PDA, yet he did try to reach deals with Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. The only thing I can really suggest is the removal of all the political information on the article so that it focuses more on the atrocity itself. We already have Bosnian war for the political aspects, I hope you will agree. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know Maximum, once more you are simply presenting your own personal beliefs and opinions about the conflict. If there is to be any point in having a discussion its basis will have to be reliable sources. Currently, we have reliable sources invoked in the article which support the long-standing content you wish to omit based only on your POV. This POV among other includes the belief that the creation of the "Republika Srpska" inherently was not a case of nationalism or extremism, which - when looking at its history - it was. Most of its war-time leadership is indicted or has been sentenced for war crimes, including genocide. Even today, a vast majority of Bosnian Serb politicians opt the independence and eventual unification of the Republika Srpska with Serbia. Your POV is serving to whitewash the origins of these massacres which were instrumental in the formation of the Republika Srpska. The arguments offered for the separation of these aspects from the "atrocities" themselves are POV, as is the attempt to portray those Serbs which killed other moderate Serbs as perfectly non-extremist and non-nationalist. My suggestion to you is to make a request for a comment from someone neutral and uninvolved. But take my word for it, deleting long-standing sourced assertions based only on POV never looks good. My offer, as some form of middle ground, is to replace "Greater Serbia" with "ethnically homogeneous Serb territory" as motive. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have updated this for not having read your statement properly. Yes, "ethnically homogenous Serb territory" is acceptable.

Just for the moment, I cannot find anything on moderate Serbs ([1] see this). That is why I left the remainder in my revised form. Just show me a citation not copied from this website and I will see about making amendments in that direction. As you'll appreciate, the sources on the article are locked as being plain unlinked citations (if you want, you can paste a section quoted in those sources where the term 'moderate Serbs' is used). Thanks. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since you are the one calling for modifications to delete long-standing and apparently sourced assertions the burden to verify these sources lies on you! As it currently stands the text references at least three sources (Lukic, Rénéo and Lynch, Allen (1996); Bugajski, Janusz (1995), and HRW) for its claim on "Greater Serbia". I believe the first two can be found on Google Books, while HRW clearly corroborates "Greater Serbia" as a Serb war objective, on pages 2, 16 and 33. However, this is of a smaller importance since we've already agreed on an alternative terminology. It would appear to be more difficult to verify the use of "moderate" since no source was directly assigned to this description in the lead or infobox, however it might stem from the sources used for the casualties. Once more, it is your responsibility to verify this, as opposed to mine. In either case, the current phrasing "other ethnicities including Serbs themselves" sounds awkward. According to you, what did set apart these Serbs from those who killed them, if they were not "moderate" compared to their killers? Being friendly with your Bosniak neighbors as a Serb and "attempting to stop the massacre" (as it is explained in the article) doesn't qualify you as a "traitor" (well, yes, in the eyes of extremists and radicals). Describing them as just "Serbs" doesn't do it for me. What about "dissenting Serbs"? I am still worried that your edits intend to downplay the extremist and nationalist character of the actions carried out by the orchestrators of this massacre. What else but nationalists and extremists were they? Moderates, or liberals? Only those who sympathize with their aims and goals would insist for their actions to be portrayed as regular and ordinary. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

New source

I believe the view in this source suld be included in the article:http://www.justice-report.com/en/articles/news-muslim-extremists-to-be-blamed-for-conflictCitadel48 (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In what respect? This is only testimony. Final court judgments are generally acceptable, but testimony has not yet been weighed by the judiciary. They may well consider the witness reliable, and accept what they said is true, but they may also conclude that they are lying or distorting the facts to serve their own interests. Can you state here exactly what text you want to add from this source? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least too include another perspective.Citadel48 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

But how is the testimony of any witness a reliable source? For starters, it is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and should only be used with caution (at best). And the court will ultimately determine the reliability of each witness, and if they point to this testimony as reliable (in their judgement), of course it would be sensible to include it at that point. But at present, I just don't see how it would improve the article, in balance or any other way. Remember, there is WP:NODEADLINE, so no reason not to wait until the judgement is handed down. But if you type the text you think should be added to the article in this thread, we could at least discuss the specifics. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Opposition/support of a infoxbox

What opposition/support is there for the inclusion of a infobox too mark the initial capture of the town?Citadel48 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is about the massacre, not the capture of the town. It may be appropriate to create a separate article about the capture of the town if that event is notable in and of itself. If not, then the capture would just remain a necessary part of the background section of this article. Either way, the infobox for this article should relate to the subject of the article (ie the massacre), not the capture of the town. I believe it should remain as it is. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

What reliable sources we have that could support there was fighting going on? FkpCascais (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A CNN documentary mentioning the number of police; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B97va9VRNjk

A BBC documentary mentioning fighting; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfSLxK417AI

A balancing article mentioning the names of the Bosnian commanders; http://www.justice-report.com/en/articles/news-muslim-extremists-to-be-blamed-for-conflict

The section itself also already mentions the others commanders & units. Citadel48 (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to address my point about this article being about the massacre, not the capture of the town? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting dragged in to this, but I do have a question to Peacemaker67 – the infobox in question is {{Infobox civilian attack}}: what is it about this Infobox that makes it inappropriate to use for a "massacre" instead of a "battle"?... I'm just curious. ----IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

G'day IJBall, Citadel48 wants to add an {{Infobox military operation}} to this article, which already has an {{Infobox civilian attack}}. The former is inappropriate for a massacre, the latter is fit for purpose. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't get that before. That clears things up... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, that point is irrelevant as the infobox provides balancing and sourced information. The fighting was the first in the entire war. Adding an infobox will not tarnish it's quality. Citadel48 (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

While I'm concerned that poorly sourced additions might detract from the quality of the article, if proposed inclusions will add to its quality I would support their inclusion. But this is an issue of scope. As I said above, the scope of this article is clearly the massacre, not the capture of the town. If the capture is notable, which you appear to think it is, then create an article about it and put your military operation infobox in it. Otherwise, it remains part of the background to this article, and thus doesn't warrant an infobox. If it is well-sourced, then add text to the Background section that reflects what happened during the capture of the town. I'm quite happy to RfC this to get a community view. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not include both? The sources are reliable. If a new article was too be made, what new information would be placed in it? Citadel48 (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Because we decide on article scope by consensus, and the capture is not in the current scope, except as background. The current scope of this article is the massacre. If an article about the capture of the town was created, I don't know what would be in it, because I haven't looked at the sources regarding the capture of the town. What I do know is that this article currently has a certain scope, and I oppose expanding it to include the capture (except as background). The massacre itself is sufficient scope for a single article of this size. I do not believe that it is appropriate to insert an infobox for a background section of an article, so I also oppose the insertion of an infobox about the capture. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Both events took place at almost the same time, though. Whether or not in the scope, the main issue is whether it clutters; which is No, as it does not provide too much information. Citadel48 (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Right now, 23 editor and I disagree with its inclusion, so you don't have consensus to add it. That's how we roll on WP. However, I'm happy to discuss adding text to the background section to reflect what reliable sources say about the capture of the town, but not another infobox. If you wish, I am happy to RfC the addition of a second infobox to get a wider community view, but I don't like your chances, given the MOS guidance at WP:INFOBOXUSE. I have authored one article which has two military conflict infoboxes (Operation Southeast Croatia), but that is because the article scope includes two closely related military operations. It doesn't include two infoboxes of different types, which is what you are wanting to do here with a military conflict infobox and a civilian attack infobox. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Summing up both events as they were in the same time-span makes it easier too navigate. One standalone article for the capture would likely be a stub, with most information from the massacre page. Also, without it, the page is very one-sided. Citadel48 (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As I have said, I disagree, but have suggested a way forward which doesn't involve a military conflict infobox. Given 23 editors reversion, it is reasonable to believe he also disagrees with its inclusion. At the risk of repeating myself, you don't have consensus. I don't see the point of discussing it further unless you want to talk about adding text to the Background section. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with User:Peacemaker67. This article is about the massacre so the infobox should relate to that. The other events are most likely relevant background but don't warrant the addition of a second infobox in my opinion. If req'd these events could be covered in this article in more detail but only in summary so that the article remains on topic (see WP:UNDUE). However, assuming that there is sufficient coverage of these events in reliable sources per WP:GNG there may be some value in creating a separate article on the capture of the town itself to cover it in more detail (and such an article would of cse warrant the type of infobox as proposed by User:Citadel48). Anotherclown (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, will get working on article. Thank you. Citadel48 (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Page started, may need some help copy-editing. Citadel48 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Capture of Bijeljina. Citadel48 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha, copy editing! Good one. The article is merely a WP:CONTENTFORK of Bijeljina massacre, and its only purpose is to satisfy your obsession with having an infobox. 23 editor (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, looking at the amount of duplicated content, the fact that some new content is sourced using copyvio links to youtube (which Citadel48 has already been warned about), and the use of testimony rather than a court decision (see above), the content should just be folded into the Background section of this article. I am nominating it to be merged back into this article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop, first you stated it does need it's own article, and know you are saying the contrary, why are you so opposed too it? Citadel48 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no. I said if it was notable on its own. I don't see any evidence of that in the new article. I will explain my concerns in detail below. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I stated earlier that the article would likely not have a large amount of new information in it, also, with the capture page it balances the information. WP:UNDUE. Citadel48 (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply in a new thread. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge of Capture of Bijeljina into this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

---

The newly created Capture of Bijeljina] article has been created by Citadel48 as an outcome of a discussion above. Looking at the article, it is clear that there are several serious problems with it. Firstly, it appears to be a mere vehicle for the use of a {{Infobox military conflict}} to cover the events already covered in this article which uses {{Infobox civilian attack}}, which Citadel48 says gives "balance". Secondly, it is a blatant WP:POVFORK by presenting the military engagement as central to the events, rather than what was really central to it, a massacre of civilians, as there was virtually no actual resistance. Thirdly, the small amount of reliably sourced content in the new article which relates to the prelude to the takeover of the town prior to the massacre could easily be integrated into the Background section of this article, which Citadel48 was clearly not interested in exploring, the crux of the issue being a strong interest in using {{Infobox military conflict}} to cover this event rather than {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Finally, several of the sources are cited by copyvio links, which must be removed immediately (I have done so), and the justicereport source is unreliable as it contains untested testimony, not the findings of a court regarding the reliability (or not) of that testimony. I have created a sub thread for involved editors to state their views on this merge @Anotherclown, 23 editor, and Citadel48: Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge

• Support merge per above. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge per PM67. 23 editor (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge - the new article really does just seem to duplicate this one with only a few changes, a little additional material, and a different infobox (hence the nominator's point re WP:POVFORK no doubt). What I said above re creating a separate article was that this could occur if there was "sufficient coverage in reliable sources". I've no idea if there is or there isn't (and You Tube videos really seem like low quality sources to me), but in its current form the new article doesn't add anything that cannot be covered more appropriately by merging the little original content into the original article. User:Citadel48 as you still appear to be learning the ropes perhaps a way forward might be for you to draft any proposed changes on the talk page so that experienced editors can comment and a consensus can be reached, rather than you making bold edits which may or may not be up to standard and may end up needing to be undone? Anotherclown (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The singular massacre article makes the event seem as an unprovoked, calculated massacre, when clearly, there numerous other facts & points of view that must be included. As I said before, there is undue weight, I also have at least two sources showing that there was indeed considerable resistance during the three days. Citadel48 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Could I then remove and/or alter the copied content? Citadel48 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the "capture" information alone isn't sufficient for a stand-alone article, and should be discussed here for insertion in the background section of this article. Which is why I suggested it be merged back here. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The facts of the capture are significant. Citadel48 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So, why don't you put a draft of the content to be added to this article here, then we can discuss it? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Capture text from Capture article

Here is the only text about the capture that is provided in the new "Capture" article:

Exactly what happened during the takeover is disputed, but according to the March 2013 ICTY testimony of a Bijeljina police inspector (Dusan Spasojevic) and the deputy commander of the Bijeljina Territorial Defence (Zivan Filipovic) the conflict started after numerous provocations from Muslim extremists, and that beforehand the Patriotic League, backed by the Islamic religious and national Party of Democratic Action set up road blocks and & positioned snipers on rooftops.

Spasojevic himself stated that the police did their best to prevent the conflicts, particularly by arresting suspected provocateurs.

According to American photo journalist Ron Haviv, who had been invited by Serb Volunteer Guard leader Željko "Arkan" Ražnatović to take photographs (and took the famous picture of a Serb Volunteer Guard militiaman kicking a dying Bosniak woman), it was the Serbs that struck first, with several busloads of soldiers arriving in the city, seizing the radio station (where Arkan and his his men allegedly beat the radio presenter for three hours until he agreed to broadcast on behalf of the Serbs), and forcing local Serbs to reveal the identities of the cities non-Serb residents.

The exact number killed in the takeover is unknown. Some sources put the figure in the hundreds or at a thousand. According to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), at least 48 civilians were killed of which 45 were non-Serbs. The civilians were described as "political leaders, businessmen, and other prominent Bosniaks", and also included women and children. A number of Serbs who had attempted to stop the massacre were also killed. An investigation by the ICTY later stated that the victims had been shot "in the chest, mouth, temple, or back of the head, some at close range" and that none had been wearing military uniforms.

Spasojevic stated that half of the victims were killed at roadblocks while "putting up resistance," but when asked to explain why the police reports failed to state the circumstances under which the civilians were killed, Spasojevic stated that he did not know.

It is clear from this that the only source being used for "fighting" or even "defence" is the testimony of Spasojevic and Filipovic as reported. The ICTY has not yet drawn any conclusions about the evidence of these two defence witnesses for Karadzic. It is utterly inappropriate to use their reported statements as reliable sources of anything at this stage. I therefore suggest that the "so-called" resistance or fighting is not reliably sourced. There is nothing about fighting or resistance in the "Capture" article that is reliably sourced, and therefore the whole basis for the article's existence is brought into question, as the "capture" is supposed to be the raison d'etre for this article. I have therefore changed my view. The "Capture" article should be deleted as the worst sort of POVFORK, a clumsy attempt to justify the massacre of at least 48 people on the basis of so-called "balance". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You simply desire for only one version of events to be represented, you care about a rating, not the facts. You even stated yourself so. Citadel48 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I will also add that you actually removed the sources I placed in the article. Citadel48 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact, a better version of that section would be;

Exactly what happened during the takeover is disputed, but according to the March 2013 ICTY testimony of a Bijeljina police inspector (Dusan Spasojevic) and the deputy commander of the Bijeljina Territorial Defence (Zivan Filipovic) the conflict started after numerous provocations from Muslim extremists, and that beforehand the Patriotic League, backed by the Islamic religious and national Party of Democratic Action set up road blocks and & positioned snipers on rooftops.

Spasojevic himself stated that the police did their best to prevent the conflicts, particularly by arresting suspected provocateurs.

According to American photo journalist Ron Haviv, who had been invited by Serb Volunteer Guard leader Željko "Arkan" Ražnatović to take photographs (and took the famous picture of a Serb Volunteer Guard militiaman kicking a dying Bosniak woman), it was the Serbs that struck first, with several busloads of soldiers arriving in the city, seizing the radio station (where Arkan and his his men allegedly beat the radio presenter for three hours until he agreed to broadcast on behalf of the Serbs), and forcing local Serbs to reveal the identities of the cities non-Serb residents.

Heated fighting took place for three days before the entire city was overrun.

The exact number killed in the takeover is unknown. Some sources put the figure in the hundreds or at a thousand. According to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), at least 48 civilians were killed of which 45 were non-Serbs. The civilians were described as "political leaders, businessmen, and other prominent Bosniaks", and also included women and children. A number of Serbs who had attempted to stop the massacre were also killed. An investigation by the ICTY later stated that the victims had been shot "in the chest, mouth, temple, or back of the head, some at close range" and that none had been wearing military uniforms.

Spasojevic stated that half of the victims were killed at roadblocks while "putting up resistance," but when asked to explain why the police reports failed to state the circumstances under which the civilians were killed, Spasojevic stated that he did not know.

Citadel48 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merging material from Capture article

I have attempted to incorporate the "new" material relevant to the capture of Bijeljina from the "Capture" article (from a CNN doco and a History Channel doco), and it has been reverted by Citadel48. I have no idea why that would be done. It is clear that the consensus is to merge the "new" content from the "Capture" article to this one, and I am attempting to do so, without the copyvio links that Citadel48 has used. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This material includes the observations of Haviv, mentioned above, which Citadel48 himself has suggested should be incorporated in this article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Now it seems you also have a copy and pasting problem. Citadel48 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm merging, in accordance with the obvious consensus. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should this article include the testimony of witnesses in a war crimes trial at the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as "statements of fact", or should such testimony be attributed in-line as the testimony of witnesses? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67

Hello, may I have more information? Please do the following:

1. Insert the proposed text into the article
2. Link to that proposal here

The question is too ambiguous - without seeing the proposal I cannot comment on it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like more information. Generally, I would think it best to attribute the witness testimony as such, but if the source is using the testimony to illustrate something which it establishes as fact, then my view might be different. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, @Cordless Larry and Bluerasberry: the "proposed text" has already been inserted, and I don't want to continue an edit war. However, I can provide the diffs here, and ask you to look at both if you don't mind? The source for both versions is the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network report here, which is reporting on testimony given at the (still ongoing) ICTY trial of Radovan Karadžić, which is expected to hand down a verdict in October this year. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Edit A and
2. Edit B\

Exactly, the trial is ongoing, therefore we should include the newest developments. Now that the event has been disputed between two version of events, we should represent both. Citadel48 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The witness stated there was a defense militia in town, something sources beforehand agreed upon. Citadel48 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Appears that WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. Are there secondary accounts, not court records from the International Tribunal, regarding the content that is sought to be verified?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: the case is ongoing, and media reporting is limited. See above for more detail on a couple of alternatives. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How so? The content has been verified. Citadel48 (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate source for that kind of statement. The publisher does not identify as a creator of journalism. The comment is offhand in this source. Whether the statement is correct or not is irrelevant. This is an offhand statement which is given very little weight in that poor source and the claim should not be in Wikipedia at all if that is the only source cited.

Wikipedia is a reflection of what the sources say. The sources are not talking about this statement. That statement should not be included based on the information presented here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

BIRN is a creator of journalism, and I would say that it is a good source for news from the Balkans. Edit A is clearly problematic. Edit B attributes the claim, but I'm not sure whether this belongs in the article, or if we should wait until the trial is over. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your latter point was my original idea (see talk thread a couple up from here), but I have been trying to accommodate a different viewpoint, which is why I posted this RfC. Thanks for your input! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking into the source in more detail, I see that the two witnesses are defence witnesses for Radovan Karadžić. My initial response is, "well they would say that, wouldn't they?". The source is clearly reliable in terms of reporting the witnesses' POV, but the question for me is whether it is WP:UNDUE to report this POV in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, the trial is ongoing, therefore we should include the newest developments. Now that the event has been disputed between two version of events, we should represent both. Citadel48 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Witness testimony about the massacre is certainly worth including, if independent sources have covered it (otherwise, pulling text from primary sources like court documents, we almost certainly run into problems of due weight). However, it should be clearly attributed as witness testimony. We shouldn't treat it as a statement of fact in wikipedia's voice, because court cases involve competing claims which can't all be right. bobrayner (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that even previous sources agreed too the presence of Bosnian militias, irrelevant of the new sources. Citadel48 (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested Copy-edit

First round completed here: Feedback and concerns are welcome. I will make changes in a second round. The request was filed by Peacemaker67 at the Guild of Copy-Editors. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for taking on the copy-edit, and good work so far. There is one important aspect of the c/e which needs revision. There is an important distinction between Serb/Serbs (those people from the ethnic group, which exists in many countries, including B-H) and Serbian (pertaining to Serbia). Changing Serb(s) to Serbian blurs that important distinction. For example, the JNA included Serbs from all over Yugoslavia, but some paramilitaries were Serbian (ie raised in Serbia). The distinction should be retained, IMO. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, someone left me a message about that (can't remember who ATM, sorry) and I would like to ask if either of you could fix that as I don't think I would quite fix it all. I'll do a partial self-revert on the Serb(/s)/Serbian changes later when I am on a PC, rather than on a phone. Are there any other concerns or c/e = complete? Sorry about the mistake; Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than that, I'm happy. So if you could do a partial self-revert on those, that'd be great. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• So, just a few comments hidden within the article body that I am "pulling out" to draw attention to:

1. Karadžić and the Bosnian Serb leadership used Izetbegović's mobilization order as a pretext to independence and mobilized their Municipal Crisis Headquarters, reserve police units, and TO<!-- please spell out in prose, not sure what this acronym is for. DrCrazy102 --> forces.
2. The judgement in the case of Karadžić is expected in October 2015. <!-- Well, where is the judgement now? We are now in November, a month later, and no judgement? Needs updating. DrCrazy102 -->

I would also like to ask if perhaps a <ref>[Note]</ref> note could be inserted onto the article page about the distinction between Serb and Serbian to make this clarification clear to readers?

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Onya Doc! Thanks for the c/e and raising those points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Not genocidal

How exactly is this massacre genocidal? The term "genocidal massacre" has been used for the Srebrenica massacre. The term (coined by Leo Kuper) is not used for this kind of killings, but far more serious ones, see Paul Robert Bartrop (2012). A Biographical Encyclopedia of Contemporary Genocide: Portraits of Evil and Good. ABC-CLIO. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-313-38678-7.. Note that Weitz, p. 215 says "genocidal actions" when discussing Arkan's Tigers, never calling Bijeljina a "genocidal massacre/mass killing". Thus, this is OR.--Zoupan 07:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being serious. Bijeljina is the context in which the genocidal actions are being discussed. Weitz doesn't mention Srebrenica in the paragraph. You also have "Genocidal Crimes" written by Alex Alvarez and published by Routeledge which includes the paramilitary and the incident in his book. [2] --Potočnik (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem lies in the definition. The sources used do still not explicitly state that this was a genocidal massacre, only Weitz uses "genocidal actions" being made by Arkan's Tigers overall, which is obviously not the same. Alvarez, again, uses explicitly the term "ethnic cleansing", and not "genocidal massacre".--Zoupan 09:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

First the article does not say "genocidal massacre" but rather "genocidal mass killing". Also what definition? Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Are you saying killing is not the genocidal action? Also a book about Genocidal Crimes covering Arkan's Tigers and Bijejlina in a chapter about perpetrators committing genocide somehow does not fit the bill? Come on... you're really grasping here. --Potočnik (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And clearly you do not have consensus for its removal at this point, and you (Zoupan) should have waited for discussion, not just posted here then edit-warred. Be more careful in future. I thought you'd retired, Potočnik. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It keeps pulling me back in. What can I say? ;) --Potočnik (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If we were to follow your view, then all killings of civilians during the Yugoslav wars were genocidal, and we can safely insert "genocidal" for killings/massacres which have not explicitly been called so, nor fit the criteria (?). The Bijeljina massacre was not a genocide (you're really grasping here). Be realistic, stop circling around ["genocidal actions" of Arkan's Tigers] when the problem lies in the OR-definition inserted before "mass killing" in the introduction. Weitz doesn't use the term for this event, so remove it.--Zoupan 09:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not "my view" and I'm not circling around anything. It's called context. Simple as that. --Potočnik (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think what is meant is that it meets the actus reus of genocide, though no international court has proven the perpetrators had the specific intent to commit such an act (guilty mind, or mens rea, in legal lingo), as is the case with Srebrenica. Yes, all deliberate executions of civilians meet the actus reus, but that does not mean they were in fact acts of genocide. 23 editor (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That's overly legalistic. In this case, it is about what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then what are those sources saying by calling it "genocidal"? That it was genocide, full stop? Note that I am basing my assessment of the term genocidal massacre's implications on a reliable source. This one that Zoupan provided: Paul Robert Bartrop (2012). A Biographical Encyclopedia of Contemporary Genocide: Portraits of Evil and Good. ABC-CLIO. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-313-38678-7. It pretty much echoes my above assessment: "[A genocidal massacre] contains some elements of genocide, though the events themselves do not by themselves constitute genocide." By "some elements", the author is presumably referring to actus reus. As for references, as Zoupan rightly pointed out, the source that stands in the article now isn't referring to Bijeljina at all but Arkan's actions in general. Potočnik then suggests the massacre was genocidal because it is briefly mentioned in a book titled "Genocidal Crimes". Alright, the section also discusses brawls between Serb and Croat soccer/football fans. Were those genocidal as well? I mean the book's titled "Genocidal Crimes", right?. And Zoupan is grasping at straws here?

Look, if you want to say the massacre met the actus reus of genocide, that's fine. But unless the ICTY and/or ICJ have explicitly described it as genocide (which they most certainly haven't) it is WP:OR to call it that. Saying it had elements of genocide is another story altogether. 23 editor (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same source? It's sandwiched between two sentences talking about Bijeljina and Weitz says "political murders took place alongside the genocidal actions" in Bijeljina. Also why were Arkan's Tigers included as perpetrators of "genocidal crimes" and given their own section? Surely you're not seriously trying to suggest it's because of the football match and not the ethnic cleansing in Bijeljina and Zvornik, the only specific crimes discussed in the section? Your argument is absurd and ludicrous.--Potočnik (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hell you've even got the SDG's "State Commission for the Free transfer of the Civilian Population" mentioned in Paul R. Bartrop's and Samuel Totten's Dictionary of Genocide. [3] But of course it's not there because it's about genocide... --Potočnik (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If, and I hope you aren't, you are trying to suggest that the gross human rights abuses that occurred in Bijeljina were on the same level as in Srebrenica, that both were genocide (and Srebrenica certainly was), then you're argument has completely fallen apart. For one, a charge of genocide committed in Bijeljina isn't on the ICTY's indictment of either Karadžić or Mladić. To address your source directly, it also provides biographies of individuals like Plavšić, Goran Jelisić, Momčilo Krajišnik, etc. despite the fact they were never convicted of genocide. Just because it's mentioned in a book with the word "genocide" in the title doesn't mean it was a genocide. 23 editor (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going by the sources. Are you saying it's just a numbers game? They don't have to be legally convicted for academics to consider their actions genocidal. The topic of all those books is genocide, they weren't included for their charisma. Seriously this is just silly. --Potočnik (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources...I see. I have sources that describe the United States' actions in Vietnam, Cambodia and Iraq and Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide, but it doesn't mean they are. The overwhelming legal and academic consensus is that genocide was committed in Srebrenica in 1995 and not in other municipalities, though the actions in those municipalities had the actus reus of genocide (as did, for example, the Vukovar massacre). All summary executions of civilians meet the actus reus of genocide. It's like the difference between first degree and second degree murder. Instead of asking if the act was premeditated, one asks did the perpetrator want to permanently physically exterminate a certain group? In the case of towns like Bijeljina, the world's foremost legal bodies have said no. Again, if you want to say they contained elements of genocide, go right ahead. But saying they were genocide is a completely different ball game. And you have sources? Seriously? Please, no Bosnian tabloids. To make my point even more clear regarding Totten, he prints a biography of Adem Jashari. Was he a genocidaire? I think not. And I'm the one being silly? 23 editor (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're bringing legalese into it, are moving the goalpost, and complicating the discussion with irrelevant examples. I don't need tabloids, I have the books of Weitz, Alvarez, Bartrop, and Totten. You just brush them off.

Totten does no such thing. You're conflating two of Bartrop's works. You are referring to "A Biographical Encyclopedia of Contemporary Genocide: Portraits of Evil and Good" which was brought up by Zoupon and "approaches genocide by providing biographical sketches of key players in contemporary genocide—including people who attempted to stop genocide." I brought up "Dictionary of Genocide" which mentions the SDG Commission in Bijeljina and is a "reference work that accurately, clearly, and concisely delineated genocide-related terminology".--Potočnik (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So what is your stance? That the events in Bijeljina were genocide, despite international court rulings to the contrary? Just to clarify here. To go source by source, Weitz does make an unclear reference to "genocidal" massacre (which as discussed above, does not mean an act of genocide), Alvarez makes no reference to genocide at all other than making a brief mention of the event in a book that bears the word genocide in its title (not a good argument on your part, and WP:OR). As for Bartrop and Totten, their argument is that every incident over the past 2,000 years in which many civilians were killed was genocide. I'm not kidding. Carthage 2,200 years ago (p. 61)? Genocide. Canada's treatment of Aboriginals (p. 60)? Genocide. Europeans giving blankets to Aboriginals (p. 427)? Genocide. As scholarly analysis goes, theirs is completely ahistorical and anachronistic (as in the case of Carthage, etc) and collides with legal consensus (claiming genocide was committed in Kosovo and Croatia, for example). Is this really the kind of source you want to use to make a value judgment about whether or not an event can be considered a genocide? But even if you were to use it, what would be your claim? That because it's included in a book with genocide in the title, that means scholars consider events in Bijeljina to have been genocide? The good folks over at the ICTY have spent thousands of hours poring over claims and counter-claims of genocide and one name pops up constantly: Srebrenica. Among other towns that are brought up as possible sites where genocide occurred, Bijeljina isn't even mentioned. If you're so crazy about using reliable sources, why not go with the ICTY and ICJ? 23 editor (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That's just not true, many indictments included charges of genocide regarding the "seven municipalities", of which Bijeljina was one. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The seven municipalities (other than Srebrenica) in the Karadžić indictment are Bratunac, Foča, Ključ, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica and Zvornik . 23 editor (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Other muncipalities in the Mladić indictment are Banja Luka, Bosanska Krupa, Bratunac, Ključ, Kotor Varoš, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Vlasenica and Zvornik . 23 editor (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Genocide indictments that mention these killings in Bijeljina under charges of genocide include Milošević (which lists Bijeljina; Bosanski Novi; Brcko; Kljuc; Kotor Varos; Prijedor; Sanski Most, as well as Srebrenica), and Krajišnik/Plavšić. That's plenty. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I obviously missed that. 23 editor (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Weitz

There are a lot of different threads in this discussion, so I'm going back to the beginning and starting with Weitz. Weitz is clearly reliable in this context per WP:RS. Weitz says that the killing of Muslim civilians in Bijeljina was a "genocidal action", he then says that there were also "political murders" of Serbs who opposed the killing of Muslims. So, a reasonable construction of that in the lead might be:

The Bijeljina massacre involved the the killing of between 48 and 78 civilians by Serb paramilitary groups in the town of Bijeljina on 1–2 April 1992 during the Bosnian War. The majority of those killed were Muslims, and these actions have been described as genocidal. The killing of local Serbs was politically motivated.

Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad solution, but I must point out that information not present in the article should not appear in the intro. Nowhere in the article body does it discuss that one or two consider the massacre "genocidal". Also, "these actions have been described..." would prompt a tag. 23 editor (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, so far mentioning it in the body, of course, that goes without saying given this is already a GA/MH A-class article. I was trying to get the lead sorted, the information in the body would obviously expand on what Weitz says, and if appropriate, compare and contrast that with other reliable sources. The issue is currently with the bit in the lead (which is currently cited to Weitz), I have tried to improve the wording to better reflect what Weitz says. The wording just says these actions have been described as genocidal, nothing about "several scholars". Perhaps then:

The Bijeljina massacre involved the the killing of between 48 and 78 civilians by Serb paramilitary groups in the town of Bijeljina on 1–2 April 1992 during the Bosnian War. The majority of those killed were Muslims, and these actions have been described as genocidal by the historian Professor Eric D. Weitz. The killing of local Serbs was politically motivated.

Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I agree with attributing it to Weitz (and only Weitz, unless other scholars explicitly call it a genocidal massacre themselves). Also, perhaps a note giving Bartrop's definition of what a genocidal massacre is. If we can get that sorted out, then we're in full agreement. 23 editor (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Interested in Zoupan's take on it, too. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I am glad someone took an interest in this issue. I am however puzzled over the use of Weitz's note in the intro; I am leaning towards not using it in the intro, as per Undue, but if you guys insist, it should come after little resistance; murders, rapes, house searches, and pillaging followed..--Zoupan 08:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it needs to be in the lead, but I'm happy with splitting it. I'll implement and you can tweak. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Now work in eliticide somehow. --Potočnik (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You know what I think about doing other's work for them. ;-) Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If I do it I'll get two guys yelling down my neck calling me a baboon and brushing off books on genocide. Make peace Peacemaker. :^) --Potočnik (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)