Jump to content

Talk:Report about Case Srebrenica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleReport about Case Srebrenica has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2012Good article nomineeListed


Bravo

[edit]

Well done, ChrisO. I think this was a perfect way to separate the negativity of this report from the negativity of its author such that both subjects can be treated NPOV within Wikipedia without undue weight issues. —  X  S  G  17:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's better to focus on the report than to focus on a Srebrenica genocide denier Darko Trifunovic. By the way, he never denied that he is genocide denier, but I would rather focus on this report than on him. Well done Chris. Bosniak (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

[edit]

Editors should be aware that the anonymous IP and the new user account Arthur999 (talk · contribs) that have been vandalising this article are both almost certainly sockpuppets of the banned Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs). Banned users are not allowed to edit or contribute, even on talk pages, so please do not engage with this individual - just report it to an admin. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism

[edit]

The article has recently been repeatedly vandalised by an IP editor to alter the spelling of "Darko Trifunović". This is, needless to say, Trifunović sockpuppeting again - apparently he is seeking to vandalise the spelling of his own name so that the article does not appear if you Google for his name. Please revert on sight. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Report about Case Srebrenica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wustenfuchs (talk · contribs) 17:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • "Successive governments of Republika Srpska (and, for a while, Serbia) sought to deny the massacre and other war crimes committed by the VRS during the war." - This sentence is badly sourced because its citation is inaccesible. One needs to be registered and then log in, it's very complicated.
  • "It was against this background that, as the former United Nations trial attorney Mark B. Harmon commented, "the campaign of misinformation and deceit reached its apotheosis seven years after the crimes were committed with the publication of the Report About Case Srebrenica (the first part)." - It would be desirable if you would cite the page there.
Contents of the report
  • "The report was promoted as an effort "to present the whole truth about crimes committed in Srebrenica region regardless nationality of perpetrators of crimes and time when they were committed [sic]." - Same thing, cite the page.
  • "It asserted that no more than 2,000 Bosnian Muslims had died at Srebrenica - all armed soldiers, not civilians - and that 1,600 of them had died in combat or while trying to escape the enclave. It consistently referred to the "alleged massacre", attributed the deaths of about 100 Muslims to "exhaustion" and concluded: "the number of Muslim soldiers who were executed by Bosnian Serb forces for personal revenge or for simple ignorance of international law […] would probably stand less than 100." - Again, cite the page. Another problem, who referres this as the "alleged massacre", and who concluded that "the number of Muslim soldiers who were executed by Bosnian Serb forces for personal revenge or for simple ignorance of international law [...] would probably stand less then 100."? It is important to note that source is Prosecutor versus Miroslav Deronjić, that is, it's just an accusation, respectively unreliable source.
    • Attributed "It asserted that no more than 2,000 Bosnian Muslims had died at Srebrenica - all armed soldiers, not civilians - and that 1,600 of them had died in combat or while trying to escape the enclave." to the Times source. The "Prosecutor v. Miroslav Deronjić - Sentencing Judgement" source is the judgement of the trial not the indictment, it's perfectly valid. The Report about Case Srebrenica (the First Part) refers to the Srebrenica massacre as an "alleged massacre" and concluded "the number of Muslim soldiers who were executed by Bosnian Serb forces for personal revenge or for simple ignorance of international law [...] would probably stand less then 100." (pg. 69) -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It asserted that "this combat might have looked like a mass killing in the eyes of frightened Muslim soldiers, although they carried weapons and shot at Bosnian Serb soldiers randomly." - Is it possible to get link of the citation?
  • "The report also asserted that the findings of the International Committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian organisations had been "manipulated" and "fabricated." - As stated earlier, link is inaccesible if you are not registered and loged in. This needs to be replaced by another source.
  • "The instigator of the massacre, General Ratko Mladić, was mentioned only in the context of demanding the surrender of the town and evacuating civilians; the report asserted that he had tried "discouraging Serbs to take their wild revenge." - As stated earlier, is it possible for you to find the link?
  • "According to Dejan Miletić, the head of the Government Bureau for Relations with the ICTY, the report "had based its conclusions on publications found on the Internet, reports from the United Nations and other sources." It was intended to be sent to lawyers defending Bosnian Serbs on trial for war crimes." - Link...
Verdict (ICTY)
Reactions
  • "The ICTY prosecutors subsequently used the report as evidence in the trial in 2004 of Miroslav Deronjić; in their verdict, the judges called it "one of the worst examples of revisionism in relation to [the massacre]". - Page number
  • "Ashdown's spokesman, Julian Braithwaite, noted the report's publication just before elections in the Republika Srpska: "The question for the RS government is why are they publishing this report now, at the time when it could be easily interpreted as irresponsible electioneering. If they are playing down the fact that civilians were massacred and that children are being exhumed from mass graves with their hands tied behind their backs, then that it is outrageous." - The link if possible...
  • "The United States embassy in Bosnia urged the Republika Srpska government to withdraw the report, calling it "an attempt to manipulate and divide the public in this country." - I think that you ment embassy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I think that this embassy serves equaly to Bosnians as same as to Herzegovinians. "Bosnia" itslef isn't an internationally recognized state.
  • "Nikola Špirić, the speaker of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska, called it "the worst election campaigning I have ever seen." - Link if possible.
  • "The Republika Srpska government subsequently disowned the report with Prime Minister Ivanić saying that it was an "unfinished version..." - Replace the source.

All in all

[edit]
Well-written
✓ Pass
  • the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; ✓ Pass
  • it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. ✓ Pass
Factually accurate and verifiable
 On hold ✓ Pass
  • it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;  On hold ✓ Pass
  • it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;  On hold ✓ Pass
  • it contains no original research. ✓ Pass
Broad in its coverage
  • it addresses the main aspects of the topic; ✓ Pass
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. ✓ Pass
Neutral
✓ Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by images
✓ Pass
  • images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; ✓ Pass
  • images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. ✓ Pass

Comments about citations

[edit]

You should add the pages in few citations mentioned above, find links for every citation from the news (mentioned above). Also name the authors wherever possible and add date of retrieving.

--Wustenfuchs 18:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5 July

[edit]

Ok, everything is fine now. I'm going to promote this article. --Wustenfuchs 20:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Report about Case Srebrenica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Report_about_Case_Srebrenica&oldid=1202589661"