Talk:Siege of Sarajevo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using a prosecutor's speech (not neutral, by definition) so prominently ?[edit]

I'm a little surprised that a statement by a prosecutor appears so prominently, in a "Quotation" block, indented, with a grey background and a line around it. By definition, the prosecutor is not neutral. Indeed, the text introduces it as "the prosecution alleged..." which is correct. But then, if it's just allegation, should it really be so prominent, making it really "pop up" from the page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farialima (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Siege of Sarajevo[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Siege of Sarajevo's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "guardian":

  • From Pamela Geller: McGreal, Chris (August 20, 2010). "The US blogger on a mission to halt 'Islamic takeover'". The Guardian. London. Retrieved August 21, 2010.
  • From Joe Sacco: Duncan Campbell (October 23, 2003). 'I do comics, not graphic novels'. The Guardian. URL accessed April 26, 2006.
  • From Dobrinja mortar attack: Kurt Schork (2 June 1993). "Blood and tears end a soccer game which no one could win". London: The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 3 February 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

destruction of Sarajevo Zoo[edit]

There should be some mention of the destruction of the Zoo in sarajevo.

It was atrocious that the animals were used as targets by snipers.

http://articles.philly.com/1992-07-06/news/26027383_1_zoo-volunteers-sarajevo-lion

the keepers and animals were neutral parties, it was barbarous to be targeting them.--Patbahn (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus of Serbs[edit]

Would someone care to edit the pitiful piece of Serbian propaganda about 'more than 70,000 Sarajevan Serbs leaving the Muslim-controlled districts'? It makes it look like Serbs left after the Bosnian (not Muslim) government took control of these areas, where in fact civilian Serbs left along with the Bosnian Serb forces. The numbers are also exagarated, all articles dealing with the subject mention between 50,000-60,000 Serbs. The article also fails to mention thefts, arsons and other criminal activities conducted by the Serbian leadership and various Serbian gangs days before takeover.

Account of the murder of Hakija Turajlić[edit]

Re. this edit and the user's edsum: Not '"per source". The original text is closer to what the source says. Either intentionally or not, the rephrasing serves to portray the "Turkish Mujahedeen" as a valid suspiscion on behalf of the Serb soldiers when in fact a baseless accusation.

It is indeed correct, according to the source, that the Serbs made the accusation. It is a misrepresentation of the source to suggest that the accusation was baseless. While it was, in fact, mistaken, the basis for it is included in the source:

"From the account given by the French officers, and from others at the scene, a fuller picture of what occurred emerged today. The incident appeared to have started when a Serbian military liaison officer at the airport, seeing a Turkish Air Force C-130 landing and discharging a delegation of 24 Turkish officers and officials, radioed the Serbian military headquarters at Lukavica, two miles away, and reported that Turkish fighters had arrived to join the Bosnian forces." (Emphasis added.)

Therefore I suggest rewording the relevant content as follows:

...Bosnian Serb soldiers, acting on information from a Serbian military liaison officer at the airport that Turkish fighters were on their way to reinforce the Bosnian defenders, blockaded the road and accused the three French soldiers manning the armored vehicle of transporting "Turkish mujahedeen".

This accurately represents what's in the source, and I intend to make the edit. Writegeist (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are "24 Turkish officers and officials" all of a sudden "Turkish fighters" or yet worse "Mujahedeens"? Should we embrace the belief that all Turks and Muslims are nasty "Mujahedeens", as per Serb nationalist logic? There was perhaps a valid reason to believe that Turks were in the APC, or even maybe "Turkish fighters" on account of their military background, but not "Mujahedeens". As little as all Serbs are Chetniks. So yes, the "Mujaheeden" claim was baseless and an example of chauvinistic war-time rhetoric. POV, POV all the way. However, I am largely content with the suggested rewording provided you also enter Turkish fighters in quotation marks, so give it a shot.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the relevance of those comments. Wikipedia is not saying 24 Turkish officers and officials are Turkish fighters or Mujahedeen. It is not embracing any Serbian nationalist rhetoric; it is merely reporting it. The reported accusation was indeed based on information (false as it happens) that "Turkish fighters" were on their way into town, and the word "Mujahedeen" used in the accusation, while obviously and erroneously conflating Turkish fighters with Mujahedeen, is the actual word reported in the source, which is why it's in the article's account. We cover our article subjects, per Wikipedia policy, in a scrupulously NPOV way, even when the views we have to cover are themselves extremely POV. It is correct to put "Turkish fighters" in quotes. Thank you for picking that up and fixing it. Writegeist (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, there is a misunderstanding but quite irrelevant since we managed to sort out the matter somehow anyways. My remark, however, was that by using a neutral word such as "believe" in conjunction with the chauvinistic nationalist verbiage that "Turkish Mujahedeen" is you are giving the false impression that the Serb soldiers truly believed that actual holy warriors ("Mujahedeens") were on their way in the APC. As if they had a reason to worry about actual Mujahedeens wandering the area; thus you were indirectly confirming the presence of such controversial elements. In fact, the Serb soldiers used the term "Mujahedeen" in a derogatory incriminating manner, without believing that any actual Mujahedeens were present. That is why a "negative" word such as "accuse" fits better. Compare with writing "the Serb soldiers believed "Ustashe" were in the APC." In reality, far from all Croats are Ustashe, and the movement is even defunct, but the word is used in a derogatory manner. So what the Serb soldiers actually believed is that Croats were in the truck, whom they refer to as "Ustashe" in the heat of the moment. Hence, they are malevolently accusing the driver of harboring "Ustashe". There is a sensiblity here that you might have missed. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My use of the word "believing" was ill-advised, just as your saying the Serbs used "Mujahedeen" without believing any were present is ill-advised. We don't know what the Serbs did or did not believe. (We can only speculate.) And we can only document what they said and did. Rest assured I am well aware (and more so than you may assume) of the sensibilities. It's the wording that concerned me.. Thank you for a diverting discussion. I'm glad the text got fixed. Writegeist (talk)
Of course there is no way to be absolutely sure, I was merely trying to make a point as to what wording is the most suitable. But yupp, most definitely a digression. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Sarajevo. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 21:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs more references[edit]

There are a lot of paragraphs throughout the article that don't have a single citation in it. —howcheng {chat} 07:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Siege of Sarajevo. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Siege of Sarajevo. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Atrocities] Sarajevo Safari = organized "hunting safaris" of people during the siege[edit]

Something that is somewhat known in the region but not much talked about, until recently. During the siege there was an organization in Italy that organized "Sarajevo Safari" tours in which wealthy foreigners, mostly from [in alphabetical order] Canada, Italy, Russia and the United States, were paying sums of money in order to travel to the hills overlooking Sarajevo and shot/kill people with sniper rifles. Al Jazeera Balkans [1], Siol [2], Dnevnik [3] etc. 213.161.29.75 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UNPROFOR[edit]

Not sure if the way it's put in the infobox is correct, as if they were politically on the Bosnian side? Their goal was to protect civilians, as far as I am aware. Keep in mind that Serbs, or should I say Serb nationalists, jump on any opportunity to claim the entire world conspires against them. Synotia (moan) 16:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the third image there?[edit]

I am wondering the story behind the third image on the reel near the beginning, where the man has a pistol to the kid’s head. What happened there? 2600:1006:B140:E58F:9D9F:104A:6FF1:120C (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Sarajevo&oldid=1211854388"