Jump to content

Talk:Bosnian War: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 121: Line 121:
::"''In an exclusive report to the United Nations, a special commission of experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. Most significant, the Bosnian Serbs were the only party that systematically attempted to eliminate all traces of other ethnic groups from their territory.''"
::"''In an exclusive report to the United Nations, a special commission of experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. Most significant, the Bosnian Serbs were the only party that systematically attempted to eliminate all traces of other ethnic groups from their territory.''"


::That's it, nothing more. The last part also being laughable, for different reasons. But that's not the issue here. My issue is: how can we treat something as a straight fact by putting our trust on a single reference to a report? So unless we have another article that can oppose this view, that should be treated as a fact rather than a claim? How's that logic? Nobody's talking about fringe theories, but quality of information. Serbs have been antagonized for the whole duration of the war by Western media, even up to the NATO bombing in 1999, so it doesn't take a genius that claims by the CIA are going to be biased. And I have nothing against biased claims that become facts, but people should see ''why'' those are facts. --[[User:JimmyBroole|JimmyBroole]] ([[User talk:JimmyBroole|talk]]) 02:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
::That's it, nothing more. The last part also being laughable, for different reasons. But that's not the issue here. My issue is: how can we treat something as a straight fact by putting our trust on a single reference to a report? So unless we have another article that can oppose this view, that should be treated as a fact rather than a claim? How's that logic? Nobody's talking about fringe theories, but quality of information. Serbs have been antagonized for the whole duration of the war by Western media, even up to the NATO bombing in 1999, so it doesn't take a genius to realize that claims by the CIA are going to be biased. And I have nothing against biased claims that become facts, but people should see ''why'' those are facts. --[[User:JimmyBroole|JimmyBroole]] ([[User talk:JimmyBroole|talk]]) 02:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:09, 3 August 2014

CIA claim on war crimes committed by Serbs

I have reverted the removal of the CIA per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Please stop removing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view :
"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources :
Biased or opinionated sources:
"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs."


Of course, was your source a direct link to the CIA report, with actual proofs and data, it would be just fair to leave it as it is, but this isn't the case. Not to add that your sentence is incorrect, as you wrote "90% of war crimes", whereas the article talks about "acts of "ethnic cleansing"".
I'm not deleting the entire statement, but altering it for the sake of fairness and neutrality of the article. -- JimmyBroole (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two things, the first being this is not my source, the second is that the linked article says "C.I.A. Report on Bosnia Blames Serbs for 90% of the War Crimes", and ethnic cleansing is a war crime. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JimmyBroole´s concerns. First, we need to be aware that CIA and United States at time of the report, 1995, were beligerants in the Bosnian War using air strikes against Bosnian Serbs. Second, war crimes is a much broader term than ethnic cleansing, the two are not the same and cannot be replaced one with another in such way. The way the text is now, citing that CIA claims, the way JimmyBroole fixed it, seems much more appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? I know for a fact that there are academic sources which state as fact that the Serbian forces carried out 90% of war crimes, will you also argue with those? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Cultural Formations of Postcommunism: Emancipation, Transition, Nation, and War p252 "According to a leaked CIA report, the Serbian leaders and armies are responsible for 90% of the atrocities committed in this war and 100% of the systematic killing" Darkness Shines (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, you either link a direct source of the CIA report (or the other academic sources you know) with actual data and research for people to see, or the statement remains expressed as a claim, since that's what it currently is. And as FkpCascais asserted, "war crime" includes a vast spectrum of military violations, with "ethnic cleansing" being one of them. It's a specification, not a synonym. Thus, following the various motives that have been listed above (especially concerning the article neutrality), I invite you to leave the text as it is. --JimmyBroole (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, what with the best sources according to our policies saying I do not have to. I fully intend to revert your changes, and add the source mentioned previously by myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're acting by your own, blatantly ignoring everything that I have written, carefully explaining to you why some principles exist and should be respected by the community of Wikipedia. Besides being a generally disrespectful behavior, this goes against what Wikipedia IS or should be, just to elevate and give visibility to one own's belief or opinion. I didn't even delete the statement, for respect, and since I think that every point of view SHOULD be visible, but AS IT IS, because it's extremely important to differentiate FACTS from CLAIMS, since the first one has way more weight than the latter, and thus should absolutely be handled with great care and attention. --JimmyBroole (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am acting according to policy, unless you know of one which says we ignore academic sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not ignoring the sources, but just adjusting the statement based on the overall value, type, accuracy, and origin of said sources, thus being able to say when something is a fact ("CIA found out that..") or a claim ("CIA claimed that.."). Simple as that. As you can see I changed a simple verb and "war crime" to "ethnic cleansing", I don't see what is bothering you. --JimmyBroole (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBroole is absolutelly right. Even your second source says "According to a leaked CIA report...". Regarding ethnic cleansing/war crimes, ethnic cleansing is much more specific and it is cited, changing it to a broader term in this case is controversial... and unecessary. FkpCascais (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys have reading issues? Are the quote I gave not clear enough? Obviously not, so a revert is due. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I readapted the text to a more proper wording. I see your intention. First of all, I have doubts if a 1995 CIA report has even a place next to YCT indicments, but OK, lets leave it there (I´m refering to the second place where it is cited), however it wouldn´t be bad to add that at time there was American and CIA involvement in the conflict, thus, there would obviously be a conflict of interess in their reports. Saying that CIA claimed that in a report is correct, your text how they found pushes things clearly to one side (you obviously defend the version that what they claimed in that report is a prooven fact, and they just "found the trouth", however, we must stay neutral and simply say what sources claim. Another case where you again clearly push things to one side is your partisan desire to want to replace atrocities with ethnic cleansing or war crimes.
So, what we have here? One CIA report from 1995 (period when US and CIA where directtly involved in the conflict) claiming Serbs (the side they were engaged in conflict with) commited 90% of the atrocities by that time in the war, plus a secundary source citing that report. Then we have you wanting to use those two sources in order to push a greater step beyond what is really possible by using those sources: found vs claimed where you want to adress the issue as if CIA found a prooven fact, and then you replace the word atrocities conveniently to either ethnic cleansing or war crimes. Sorry, cannot agree with your edit at all. Two words that mean much, and you know it, that is why you insist on them. FkpCascais (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think FkpCascais has said everything that has to be said, there's nothing more to add really. Darkness Shines, as I said before, find me the actual CIA report with all the data and numbers, and I'll add it myself. But in the meantime, just try not to ignore what people have to say, be reasonable and try to express yourself through argumentation instead of just reverting things. Otherwise you're just making people lose time and damaging your own reputation.
In addition, the only statements in which the number appears (excluding the title) are:
"the Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that 90 percent of the acts of "ethnic cleansing" were carried out by Serbs and that leading Serbian politicians almost certainly played a role in the crimes."
"One official, reading from notes he took from the report, quoted it as saying, "Serbs carried out at least 90 percent of the ethnic cleansings in Bosnia." Ethnic cleansing generally describes the practice, common in the Bosnian war, of killing, forcibly evicting and persecuting ethnic groups other than one's own."
Therefore, as it is the only thing we can lay our eyes on (the other source being just another citation to the report), and "ethnic cleansing" being mentioned twice (and it IS a specific war crime), I'm going to restore the article to my last edit. I hope we can finally conclude with the case. --JimmyBroole (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source I added says atrocities, not ethnic cleansing. Please do not misrepresent sources again. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

The source says "According to a leaked CIA report, the Serbian leaders and armies are responsible for 90% of the atrocities committed in this war and 100% of the systematic killing" Cultural Formations of Postcommunism: Emancipation, Transition, Nation, and War p252 This is continually being changed to ethnic cleansing, which is not what the source says. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one is the reference from the book, but you've posted 2 sources. In the other one, the article states:
"One official, reading from notes he took from the report, quoted it as saying, "Serbs carried out at least 90 percent of the ethnic cleansings in Bosnia."
Since this one is from one who allegedly read the actual report, it's clearly more accurate (as accurate as a mere reference to a report can be).
Plus, as I said in the edit, you don't use "atrocities" in a Wikipedia article, just like you don't use "monstrosity", "horrors", "abomination". --JimmyBroole (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that an academic source is better than a newspaper one. And who says we cannot use atrocities in an article? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"While it has been documented that crimes of war were committed by all sides to the conflict, the most exhaustive United Nations (U.N.) report, as well as an assessment by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), estimates the following proportions: 90% of the crimes committed were by Serb fighters, 6% by Croat fighters, and 4% by Muslim forces."[1] "In an exhaustive report to the United Nations, a special Commission of Experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that globally 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. These conform roughly to an assessment drafted by the American CIA."[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there seems to be still some misunderstandings, so I'm gonna rewrite what I've written days ago about the source/reference issue since I do have time (although limited) in my hands, but plaese give a feedback, like if you understood what I'm trying to say, or why you think something's wrong or right about it.
When a war starts off between 2 or more parties, there's a lot of things that happen, from every point of view: political, social, military, and so on. When we're talking about these subjects, understanding the difference between facts and claims is essential. While people on each sides die, and innocent people suffer the consequences of war, political entities more than often cross this fine line that exists (between facts and claims) for their own objective, much like typical propaganda does. And that's what you should have to avoid on a Wikipedia article.
In addiction to CIA being involved indirectly in the conflict, and therefore not being a desirable source for a neutral article, they have NOT provided a public viewing of their report, that if containing legit proofs, real life witnesses, photos, war data on military vehicles and manpower, burial sites, identification and numbering of bodies, and so on, it could be proven to be a fact, but still in that state debatable. I read "leaked CIA report", but still don't see any. All that you have posted are references not reports, do you understand this?
As for why you don't use "atrocities" or the word I listed above, it's simply because they're terms charged with emotive features, just like "beautiful" or "gorgeous", and thus not neutral. I'm not saying they should never be used, but used in the right way and only when necessary, and why would you use it here instead of more specific terms, other than wanting to give a more negative connotation to a faction more than the other? --JimmyBroole (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two things, we use reliable secondary sources here, the CIA report would be a primary source which we avoid. The second, atrocities is not an emotive word, it is a descriptive word used to describe the atrocities which happened. Simple fact of the matter is we use what the sources do, and I have given enough sources now. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you understand the differences between report and reference to a report? --JimmyBroole (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the difference between WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY, I recommend you read WP:V and WP:RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works well with a primary source that's open to public, like a book, where it's more desirable to base the article on a secondary source. But we're talking about a primary source we don't have our hands on, thus not even verifiable. The NYT has more coverage and fame than any other, say, Serbian or Bosnian secondary sources, but that doesn't make it a better one. Plus
"The second, atrocities is not an emotive word, it is a descriptive word used to describe the atrocities which happened"
The other article has specified "ethnic cleansings", so why are you stuck on "atrocities" which is more vague? --JimmyBroole (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need the primary source for verification, that is why we use secondary sources. Serbian forces were responsible for more than ethnic cleansing, they were also responsible for the majority of mass rapes and 100% of systematic killing, hence the use of atrocities. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We do not need the primary source for verification, that is why we use secondary sources." But that's incorrect, you use secondary sources because you don't read a book and make a synthesis on Wikipedia, you use an already published and analyzed source, because it holds validation by numbers and gives a common ground to all users. Again, "atrocity" in addition to being subjective (what's atrocity for who?) in comparison to "war crime" or "ethnic cleansing" (there are specific, objective, exact characteristics that describe them), it's vague, since it could include rape, killing of civilians, destruction of homes, torture, etc. And you keep ignoring the other source you've given us and I don't kno why. We can add "and all of the systematic killings" in the article if you want, that is written. --JimmyBroole (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have given three sources, all of which say atrocities. Which source are you saying I am ignoring? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source #1: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/bosnia/ -> "90 percent of the crimes"
Source #2: http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=125 -> "90% of the crimes committed were by Serb fighters"
Source #3: Cultural Formations of Postcommunism: Emancipation, Transition, Nation, and War p252 -> "According to a leaked CIA report, the Serbian leaders and armies are responsible for 90% of the atrocities committed"
Source #4: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/09/world/cia-report-on-bosnia-blames-serbs-for-90-of-the-war-crimes.html -> "the Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that 90 percent of the acts of "ethnic cleansing"
They all come from that one CIA claim. The fourth one being the most specific, and the third one being the most vague (already explained why). So of the 4, why do you like "atrocities" so much? --JimmyBroole (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I have to keep repeating myself here? Serbian forces were responsible for more than ethnic cleansing, they were also responsible for the majority of mass rapes and 100% of systematic killing, hence the use of atrocities. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna be honest, I don't know what else to say, really. And I'm kinda tired too, it's not like I've written 3-4 words to be clear enough. Sincerely I don't see any other prospect than either making a report or incessant edit-warring. --JimmyBroole (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we accept biased secondary sources, based on primary sources we don't have access to? --JimmyBroole (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a debate about the use of allegedly biased and inaccurate sources and of war-related terms. The user claims that, since one of Wiki's policies states that primary sources should not be used, that it is ok to use secondary sources that are based on the former, although this one being virtually non-existent. There are some heavy claims in the articles regarding the role of involved factions, that are absolutely defining and can't be ignored or treated lightly.

These sources are not only menacing the neutrality of the article by being released by biased parties, but also can't possibly cover appropriately the subjected reports, thus merely making a reference to them. There are inconsistencies throughout all the sources, some referring to "ethnic cleansing", another to "atrocities", and they're all based on 2 different reports; allegedly one made by the CIA, and the other one by the UN, and none can be found.

In addition, the user states that terms like "atrocities" are preferred to "war crimes" or "ethnic cleansing", although ignoring that atrocity as a term doesn't hold neutrality and can mean different things based on the reader and his interpretation (could be destruction of homes as it could be genocide), whereas technical terms like "war crimes" have specific, exact characteristics that describe them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBroole (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've just paid attention to that edit, I wouldn't have deleted it if I didn't know the situation of the edits in the last 2 days. The original statement that we talked about was another, the one you're talking about is new, but very similar. Difference being that the old one had very similar (if not identical) results but from articles referring to an article made by the CIA. Thing is, as I said above, every single one of the article makes just references to a supposed report Returning to the statement, here's the actual quote:
"In an exclusive report to the United Nations, a special commission of experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. Most significant, the Bosnian Serbs were the only party that systematically attempted to eliminate all traces of other ethnic groups from their territory."
That's it, nothing more. The last part also being laughable, for different reasons. But that's not the issue here. My issue is: how can we treat something as a straight fact by putting our trust on a single reference to a report? So unless we have another article that can oppose this view, that should be treated as a fact rather than a claim? How's that logic? Nobody's talking about fringe theories, but quality of information. Serbs have been antagonized for the whole duration of the war by Western media, even up to the NATO bombing in 1999, so it doesn't take a genius to realize that claims by the CIA are going to be biased. And I have nothing against biased claims that become facts, but people should see why those are facts. --JimmyBroole (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_War&oldid=619620660"