Talk:25 May 1995 Tuzla massacre

	Bosnia and Herzegovina portal 25 May 1995 Tuzla massacre is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article completely ignores event also known as "Tuzla Massacre", that happened on May 15th, 1992. Around 200 Yugoslav soldiers were killed during their negotiated retreat, most of them in regular army service (18 year old) and majority without their rifles, as testimony of soldier-survivor, Radovan Krstic, proves:

"When we started leaving our military base in Tuzla, it was complete silence in entire city. Almost unbelievable. Then suddenly, one shot was fired in the distance, probably sign for attack, and the hell was unleashed. Truck driver and I got wounded, but he managed somehow to drive us to Slavinovici district, when he lost control over the truck and we fell out. While I was lying down, some of Bosnian Muslim soldiers appeared. One of them sit on my chest and asked me where is my rifle. When I told him I don't have it, he said: "So you don't have it, huh?", pulled his gun, placed it in my mouth and pulled the trigger. I lost my consiousness and woke up in Tuzla hospital".

Complete ignorance and continuous deletion of this part of article by other users just makes this page trivial.

Wikipedia should not be censored to show only partial facts, or undermine some, but show them all equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.34.160.77 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV and lack of references

This article does not meet Wikipedia standards. It is clearly written with a POV and there's a lack of reliable references. Please rewrite and give proper references to prove every claim mentioned here.--80.219.119.16 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the Serb soldiers told his captors What's the price of meat in Tuzla these days." Do you have any evidence of this?

Do interethnic verbal attacks (i.e. racist slogans) have any significance that would justify any mention on a Wikipedia article? As we all know, there were plenty of them on all sides and there's really no need to dig them up.--80.219.119.16 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is at least a realistic reference and tells a totally different story. Wikipedia page clearly needs amending as it inaccurate.

"Bodies of 17 JNA members identified 28 April 2007 | 18:48 | Source: Tanjug BANJA LUKA -- The Republic of Srpska (RS) Office for missing and detained persons identified the bodies of 17 Yugoslav Army (JNA) members.

The bodies were recovered from the Memorial Crypt in Bijeljina, which is said to contain 80-odd bodies of Yugoslav Army (JNA) soldiers killed in the “Tuzla incident”, all buried as unidentified persons.

The incident occurred 15 years ago when an extremist Muslim organization known as the Patriotic League, supposedly in co-operation with local authorities in Tuzla, attacked the column of JNA vehicles as they were leaving Tuzla in an attempt to reach Serbia via Bijeljina. The armed attack had been broadcasted live on a local television station, where it could be clearly seen that the shots came even from the hospital building in Tuzla. As many as 200 JNA soldiers and officers were killed, and 140 were detained and subsequently abused. Bijeljina-based Association of missing persons’ families chairman Žarko radić said it was almost impossible to precisely assess the number of persons buried in the Crypt since the coffins often contained remains of several persons. The Bosnian Prosecution says the investigation into the involvement of then Tuzla municipal authorities was underway. Nonetheless, no one has yet answered for the onslaught.

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anbyody watching

Newly registered user has only edited this article and added contentious language, namely calling the massacre as alleged and inserting lot of other issues like quoting non-reliable sources like RTRS and such. Mhare (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should have contacted me if you don't like my edits. I removed your biased words, added more reliable sources and presented other side of massacre. Inicijativa (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "my" biased words, I did not participate in the creation of it. You are calling something alleged, but the perpetrator was convicted. I am not sure why I am even responding... Mhare (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who reverted article back to version which uses words "historical revisionism" and "revisionist novel". I assume you agree with that version, that is why I am attributing those words to you too. You also reverted other views on the massacre and the expert team which debunks claim made by expert from other side. You are not sure why are you responding because you have no interest in discussion with me about sources or our contributions but cry out for someone to help you out. Inicijativa (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure buddy. Mhare (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point. Inicijativa (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inicijativa, according to WP:ONUS: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. So, you must gain consensus here, on the article talk page, for your changes. To determine if the new sources you have added are reliable, please query the Reliable sources noticeboard. Note that using "alleged" about convictions is highly unusual. Note also that you cannot use existing sources for any new additions — you must use your own sources for that and these must be confirmed as being reliable as well as representing due weight in the mainstream and the scholarship (i.e. material deemed to be fringe is unlikely to be included). Thank you. El_C 16:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, my sources are reliable. I did not ask for consensus here because entire parts of this article which are disputed were added on 25 May this year without any consensus. You did not address non-neutral and unobjective words such as "historical revisionism". I cannot expect objectivity from you if you call my sources and edits fringe. Inicijativa (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion whether the material you added is fringe, I am only noting that if it were fringe, then it is unlikely to be retained. Also, the edits were uncontested for 2 weeks, at which point WP:SILENCE comes into effect. You are free to make use of any dispute resolution request you see fit if you feel you have reached an impasse, here, on the article talk page (I recommend maybe starting with 3rd opinion). El_C 17:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:SILENCE that you mentioned here, @El C: that is the main cause of conflicts in controversial Balkan topics. Important policies are not clear and well-defined. It is sad in what condition they are. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, first of all, the way the changes were introduced was not okay. Dubious sources, negationism, revisionism, same old. The Incjativa texts are (mostly) translated from serbian wiki, where we have RTRS as a main source, a source that has history of spreading fake news. Also, holding some article from tabloid/newspaper over indictment of one country is sickening. Mhare (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the edit in detail, but Inicijativa wants to make changes, hence they should seek consensus here on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once this restriction is lifted I will add back the expert team part and tests that were conducted in Nikinci section. This is my source and it's reliable one [1]. I will find more sources. I will also remove "historical revisionism" and similar words and add massacre that happened in Tuzla 1992, to clear it up that those are different events. If anyone has any constructive objections, please tell. Inicijativa (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't nearly reliable as you might think, let alone to dub the whole massacre as alleged. It's just an article where the indicted man is involved! Mhare (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly being dishonest. Yes, it is reliable. Article from newspapers describes entire experiment, people and experts involved and mentions that delegation from Tuzla was present. It is reliable and I will add it. Inicijativa (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, add it, but you can not use adjective alleged or change the whole narrative of the article. That's not being dishonest, but something much worse. Yes, the experiment was done, but by whom and for what purpose was it done? Surely not to defend the indicted? The city was bombarded for almost three days in a row, for god sake. Mhare (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says in news article and in my previous edits who are the experts who conducted experiment and we are talking about one day here and one shell, not three days of bombing. Inicijativa (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence The killing paragraph Between 25 May and 28 May 1995 a number of artillery projectiles were fired at Tuzla from Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) positions near the village of Panjik on Mount Ozren some 25 km west of Tuzla. Mhare (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And infobox mentions one day and time of that day (20:55 PM) and this article claims that one shell killed all those people. Inicijativa (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holly molly look at all this muslim propaganda!!! disgusting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.114.24 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]