Talk:Rape during the Bosnian War

My removals

I am happy to discuss what I have removed if anyone is interested. So I will fully explain the first part for now: It read

• Prior to 1980, it is widely believed that the lack of ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia was due to nationalism being effectively repressed by Marshal Tito.

Firstly, encyclopaedias are not what is "widely believed" on such a definitive claim. Either something is or is not. Just to be able to assume such a thing implies that Yugoslavia's ethnicities inherently hate one another but found themselves unable to think naturally because of a dictator who somehow suppressed conscience. A total fantasy. In reality, the country was created for a reason; its roots are in Pan-Slavism. Historically Serbs did not have a reason to hate Slavic Muslims and despite the circular rumours of "Turkish origin" which floated about in the early 1990s, more credible and unquestionable sources show that Serbs have traditionally viewed Bosniaks as "Serbs who converted faith in Ottoman times" - a reason for disagreement with Croats who say the Bosniaks are actually Croats who converted. I am happy to edit the piece I removed but I still believe that just its very exploration is suggestive of dislike among nations being hardwired in people's brains and this is the propaganda that is used by the western media establishment when fishing for reasons to justify Yugoslavia's breakup so that nobody might impugn the west over its role. --OJ (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought that it was pretty much accepted that nationalism was suppressed under Tito, so the wording might need tweaking, but not removing. I don't think that the wording carries the implication you suggest, though 'suppress' might be better than 'repress'. Pincrete (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It was suppressed, and I can give plenty of sources to back that. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue. The very fact that SFRY was constructed on a non-nationalist platform surmises that nationalism per se would be suppressed. Such a sentiment would have been treacherous to the system. If I stray off-topic slightly, no nation can be 100% without nationalism. There did exist Yugoslav nationalism and the country had irredentist claims to Bulgaria (as they too are South Slavs) in broadest terms, more narrowly to have included parts of all seven countries to border Yugoslavia+Bulgaria (including all of Albania), and at the very narrowest, all of Romania and Greece too for what would have been the Balkan Federation. Either way, the incorporation of Istria, Zadar, the islands, and the attempted takeover of Trieste all from Italy was to appease Croatian and Slovene nationalism, because as I said, there had to be elements of nationalism within the governing system. Likewise the hopeful takeover of Greek Macedonia during the Greek Civil War was with the hope of incorporating it into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. But what needs to be realised is that it was not only nationalism that was suppressed but so too was any conscience that was deemed treason by the state: Serbian monarchism never sought to end South Slavic unity nor to intentionally cause nations to hate one another, but it was suppressed. Likewise even communists were persecuted in cases where they disagreed with Tito over the split with Stalin; these people had hoped Yugoslavia would be a Coninform state, such as Panko Brashnarov and Pavel Shatev. If it is felt that my amendment has somehow sent a wrong message then we need to propose how best to tidy that section. My two qualms were with "widely believed" (let's say what something is, not what a majority believes as that is just speculation), and the very loaded "lack of ethnic conflict". One associates "lack" with a concept whereby expectation is depleted ("Come on, there should be more than this!"). I'd say the same for any synonym including "shortage". I welcome ideas on phrasing. --OJ (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Legal proceedings

It says:

"In 1997, Radovan Karadžić was sued by Bosniak and Croat women in an American court for genocidal rape. He was tried and convicted in absentia."

I don't have access to the cited sources; but if it is true that he was sued, and not prosecuted, then it cannot also be true that he was convicted. Suing someone results in a determination of liability (i.e. damages and compensation), not a determination of criminality. I'm aware that US jurisdiction provides for 'punitive damages', if the damage was accompanied by various aggravating factors; but still, losing a lawsuit never results in a conviction, even when punitive damages are awarded.

http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1585&context=ncilj says it was a suit under tort, which is a kind of damages suit; no conviction can arise from a tort suit.

Alternatively (and I have no source for this), perhaps Karadzic was actually charged under the 'Alien Torts Act', rather than sued; perhaps the act provides for criminal remedies, in which case he could have been convicted.

Can someone with access to the sources fix this? Failing that, I will come back later and remove the words 'tried and convicted', and rerplace them with 'lost the case' (I have not found a record of the outcome of the case, but I assume Karadzic lost, because failure to defend a civil suit automatically results in loss by default). MrDemeanour (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah - I see that he was in fact found liable (a civil outcome), and fined [[1]]. I will go ahead and make the change. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedic standards

"Rape, in the Bosnian war, was meant not only to take the bodies of the victims, but also their souls, identity, and their existence."

Is this wikipedia or a poem of some kind? Suggesting rape victims are removed from existence seems extremely metaphoric at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.100.177.101 (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Persecution or Genocide? Number of victims?

Article states that what happened to Serbs in World War 2 was persecution and not genocide. Is it to downplay what Serbs had to suffer in Bosnia in 20th century? Shouldn't it be clearly stated that it was a genocide? Also, article states estimates of 20000 to 50000 victims but also a formed number by an UN commission of experts which is 1600 so something is wrong. Also, when using estimates, no clear methodology is being used. Estimates vary from source to source. How do we pick which source is most reliable. I think that this way articles on Wikipedia are just a continuation of propaganda war. 185.37.26.16 (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The article certainly does NOT say that what happened to the Serbs in WWII was NOT genocide, it does refer to it as 'persecution' which would be a broader way to describe what happened, including genocide and lesser forms of persecution. The linked article is Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, which is explicit.

The numbers of victims is generally the most reliable/respected estimate, if no estimate is clearly more accepted, we generally print a range, as we do here. Most of the more respected sources are in the range 12,000 to 20,000, though cases of rape are notoriously difficult to assess, in wartime even more so. I'm not sure what the specifics of the 1,600 figure are. The source used doesn't give enough of a preview in Google books to assess why that figure is so much lower than the others, indeed implausibly low, below what might well occur even in peacetime. Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)