Talk:Rape during the Bosnian War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New start

This article was previously called Mass rape in the Bosnian War. The deletion debate, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_rape_in_the_Bosnian_War, reached no consensus but one of the suggestions was that the article should be moved. Firstly the article was extensively edited to give it a more neutral outlook and now the move has been completed. The hope is that now the title is more general the article can be more inclusive and cover all aspects of rape in the Bosnian War as well as mass rape. Polargeo (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict on Aftermath

Can I suggest that if Cinema wants to include the information about the Croat nationalism also being suppressed by Tito a source is found. From my general reading I'm sure it would not be difficult to find one. But unsourced information should not be added to the article. Polargeo (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also I note that Aftermath is not a good name for the whole of the section as this conflict appears to be about stuff prior to the events. Polargeo (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

“…from all sides”

The sentence above in the first paragraph before the table of contents may suggest to the reader that an equal number of rapes from the three main fighting forces of the Bosnian War occured; but according to the evidences presented to and findings from the ICTY, the majority of rape cases during the Bosnian War were committed by military and paramilitary Serb forces loyal to Belgrade.--BalkanWalker (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement in the lede section is very important for the general neutrality of the article and is backed up by the sources. It certainly does not state an equal number of rapes. There is no advantage of getting into a numbers argument, or a who is more to blame? argument, which have blighted most of the articles on the Bosnian War on wikipedia. If you read the whole article you will find more information on rapes by the Serb forces than on rapes by other forces because of the greater number of sources. An attempt to break down the numbers raped by each ethnic group in the lede section of this article is not going to be constructive. Polargeo (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, while I do understand your good intentions by trying to establish neutrality in this article; figures, statistics and allocation of guilt are nevertheless inevitable aspects of the aftermath of a conflict where obviously one side suffered the most. Please compare this with the articles on the Armenian genocide or the holocaust where I think there is a clear line of who did what. I myself, and obviously a majority of the editors since the articles look the way they do, agree on the fact that we are here to conclude the truth and pure facts, however when trying to compromise with facts only in order to forcibly create neutrality the truth takes damage and thus the presentation of pure facts. Therefore, in accordance with the literary aftermath of all conflicts, the following 'facts' should not be hidden in the article but instead clearly accounted for: (1) Rapes were committed on all sides, but the implication of the term "mass rape in Bosnia" is not solely based on the occurrence of rape as per se in the conflict. But rather the elaborate, systematic and strategic use of rape that was 'exclusively' employed by the Serb side, as also concluded by the tribunal. In line with this, the main victims were Bosniak women and girls while Serbs were clearly over-represented among the perpetrators, in addition using this terror as a deliberate elaborated tool, i.e. the main feature of the conflict and the actual reference of the term "mass rape in bosnia" as used in media and most literature. Thus this article may not touch upon the occurrence of rape as PER SE, but as the organized tool of Serbs on Bosniak women and society. I think you will have to rest on this one, I do recognize your good will but this is a wrong area to forcibly push neutrality on expense of the truth. Your argument is something like: "the reader will anyways snap up during the article that the Serbs were mostly responsible because it is written the most about their crimes". This does not hold, it becomes as if we are too afraid to tell the truth and instead place our hopes to the reader that he or she will somehow figure it out for themselves. Please accept my editing. They are merely facts. 83.254.139.39 (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot just change the text because you think you are right. Very good quality sources are needed for those statements and not just the speculative early guesses from 1992-1995 etc. but actual sources that are able to objectively sum up the whole conflict. When you find such a good quality neutral source then suggest the change to the text and add the source. The reason we don't have this sort of text in the lede is because the article was nearly deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass rape in the Bosnian War. I fought very hard to keep this article and I'm not going to mess about aportioning degrees of ethnic blame in the lede section, as you wish to do, without extremely good neutral and up to date sources. If you wish to turn this into another blame article then you had better find the sources rather than just altering the text to your prefered version. There are plenty of sources about hundreds of Serbs and Croats raped during the war, don't just imagine that they don't exist because you think they don't. Also the whole elaborate systematic strategy of rape is more tenuous than you think, yes there is the Kunarac case but you try to find solid proof that this was coordinated on a greater scale than this and you will struggle. This article already goes very far along this line. I'm not saying that it wasn't the case just that the solid proof is not there. Polargeo (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you must be kidding with me, almost in every article and trial excerpt out on the web you will read that Bosniak women were the principal victims, and the Serbs the principal perpetrators. As a matter of fact, more than 80% of the civilian casualties were on the Bosniak side (cited in the Bosnian war article), now this clearly hints who was the victim in the war. But the very unappetizing relativism and forcible pushing of neutrality that governs this article is beyond what can be considered correct, as for example having the guts to mention some maximal 200-250 rapes by Bosniaks and comparing it with the possible 50.000 by Serbs is beyond reality and objectivity. But deal, I will find you tons of (Western) sources for my statements (i.e. facts), and I might as well immediately start citing some of the external links provided in the article, ironically merely their headlines testify of the facts that I am concerned with. 83.254.139.39 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Maximal? From where do you get this "maximal" figure? Also those sources are from the european commission estimates from 1993. To get proper unbiased sources for ethnicity we need a neutral up to date study and not one simply repeating 1993 figures from the middle of the war. The 50,000 figure is highly questionable in itself and only remains in the lede as the upper end of the range e.g. 20,000 - 50,000. Polargeo (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I'm sorry, but I am at a loss to explain the significance of the first picture of a "Bosniak woman working in a field." Is it meant to show how nice her butt is? Or maybe to show "this is the object of the rapes?" I don't know, it appears unseemly. We know the Bosniak women were victimized horribly, we don't need a picture.98.170.201.48 (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay then remove it. I personally thought it was there to add some humanity rather than have a page of text where everyone could divorce themselves from the vitctims. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with a picture of a Bosniak woman, or even a group picture. I just felt uncomfortable, in an article about rape, with a picture of a Bosniak woman's butt. I'm not very adept at editing; I could remove the picture, but I agree that a picture of a Bosniak woman is appropriate and desirable. If anyone has such a picture, it would be preferable to remove this picture and insert a more appropriate one.74.239.2.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

I agree with the first complaint against that picture, it gives me the creeps basically and cannot be justified as 'humanizing', precisely because it is not humanizing because the woman is completely de-personalized and in the background. I also suspect the angle which the photo is taken is no 'accident', it deliberately focuses upon the 'between legs' area of the de-personalized woman in question, although she is fully clothed, because the midpoint of the photo is virtually aligned to it. I reckon it was put there as a prop to some sick individuals rape fantasies, or perhaps even by one of the Serb perpetrators. It is going --78.151.49.50 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this removal as I have stated previously. I would like to see more images in this article but I understand how difficult it is to add them. Polargeo (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the general consensus seems to be in favour of removing the picture, I have deleted it. The Last Melon (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

About contents of page

This article doesn't really address assaults on Croatian and Serbian women during the war. I understand that Bosniaks were the primary victims, but I don't think those from other ethnic groups should be ignored. --96.60.170.188 (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsupervised edits of 18 April 2012 14:32

The edit in question resulted in the rewriting of the following sentence

While on a lesser scale, women of all ethnic groups were affected, more specifically, rape was used as a highly systematized instrument of war by Serb armed forces predominantly targeting women and girls of the Bosniak ethnic group for physical and moral destruction.

to the following one

Women of all ethnic groups were affected, as rape was used as a highly systematized instrument of war by all factions, particularly the Serb armed forces targeting women and girls of the Bosniak ethnic group for physical and moral destruction..

The claim that rape had been equally systematized by all factions involved is erroneous and in contempt of the very same precedent rulings handed down by the ICTY and used by this article, concluding that the modus operandi of systematized rape was specific only to the Bosnian Serb Armed Forces. The systematic nature of the rapes and the precedent ruling of the ICTY is what makes this article relevant in the first place as general rape in war is unfortunately not unusual by any means. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"All sides"

The source (Ramet, Sabrina (2002). Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the. Death of Tito to the Fall of Milošević. Westview Press. p. 240. ISBN 0813339871.) explicitly states that "an estimated 20,000-50,000 Bosnian Muslim women had been raped by Bosnian Serb soldiers in a systematic campaign of humiliation and psychological terror." This is not a figure for all sides. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

When reading about the Bosnian war, I have always seen the 20,000-50,000 figure used as an overall estimate, not just for Bosniaks. I will change the source so the statement does not contradict it. --2602:304:6F77:6E99:FD18:E151:19C9:277A (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

While it is widely recognized that the overwhelming majority of rape victims were of Bosniak ethnicity I do believe the estimates are produced from all three groups alike. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Questioning the numbers"

While I am the first person to support a proper scrutiny of the estimates widely presented in the litterature this would presume the use of reliable as well as relevant sources. Sara Flounders of the IAC activist group (who opposes U.S. military intervention in all circumstances) is a well-known conspiracy theorist and a partisan source operating on the fringes of journalism and authorship along with the likes of Diana Johnstone.[1][2][3][4] The relevance of the material added is also highly limited, citing as a tertiary source a certain "Tom Post" who contributed to a "Newsweek" article. The "experience" of television reporter and journalist "Jerome Bony" is even less relevant in the sense of a wider conclusion or scrutiny. Feel free to "question the numbers" with proper reliable sources that are not tainted with passionate activist-partisan feelings and details of marginal relevance. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to something which will substantiate your claim that Sara Flounders is a "well known" conspiracy theorist operating on the fringes of journalism? No such claims are readily observable when reading about the individual on Wikipedia. You liken her to Diana Johnstone without referencing anything? Also please explain why "Into the Bosnian Quagmire" ISBN:18839590102 is not a valid source? User:Thefreshtake — Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been provided with four references in my post. See the small numbers in brackets above? Press them. She has on several occassions published in the same "magazines" and attended the same conferences as Johnstone. More recently, she has expressed support for the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The International Action Center (IAC) is an activist leftist conspiracy group [5][6][7] (<- references). You might buy into their narrative, fine, but it is not in line with WP:RS. The book "Into the Bosnian quagmire" is probably a reliable source, agreed, but I'm not sure what you are trying to prove or say by quoting the individual experience of a television reporter? Do you seriously think it can serve as the basis of an objective wider scrutiny or analysis? If such a quote is ever going to be useful, it will have to be against the background of sources offering an objective scholarly analysis. Honestly though, being familiar with the subject, I know for a fact that such studies are as of yet rare and the overwhelming part of reliable sources have used the estimates without scrutinizing them in any greater depth. That depth is certainly not offered by Flounders or television reporters either. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction: having made a quick search of the author of Into the Bosnian quagmire: the case against U.S. intervention in the Balkans, Justin Raimondo, it appears his bibliography also seems to consist of conspiratory litterature promoting a certain viewpoint or case, such as "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection".[8] You have quite a talent of sniffing up controversial litterature. Justin Raimondo and his "reliable" consensus litterature, not at all fringe.[9] Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be condescending. I know what references are and I clicked through them; they were, however, NOT about Sara Flounders. You personally have drawn a conclusion that she is a fringe "leftist" journalist, but this is obviously your own opinion, as is your view of the IAC. It's obvious that you have a personal bias about the subject. All I'm trying to contribute to the article is that the cited numbers should not be taken as cold hard fact, and that there were dissenting opinions about the methods used to arrive at those numbers. So, right now as I see it, you haven't shown anything to substantiate your claim that Sara Flounders is not a worthy source for Wikipedia. Before I edit and re-post to the article, have a look at this paper as well and offer your thoughts on whether its "worthy" of this page. http://unconqueredbosnia.tripod.com/Balk8.html Thanks User:Thefreshtake — Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Flounders is mentioned in each of the sources presented, as is my description of the IAC. I refuse to play some silly game with you and run out on a wild-goose chase of absurd pretenses. Any repost will be effectively reverted, so save your breath. Should you still insist, it is my duty to inform you it will only be a matter of time before an arbitration is raised. This will not be to your advantage, I speak of experience, and will only cost the both of us valuable time. A reliable source, is an objective source, a source that does not push a certain view or standpoint, and which does not operate on a hypothesis. Your use of Flounders, the IAC and not least Rainmondo speaks volumes as to your intention of promoting a certain fringe view. The paper written by Ragenfeld-Feldman, while perhaps attaining a higher level of authorship than the other "sources" given by you, still falls within the hypothesis-driven category and clearly goes against the mainstream consensus. I wonder why all your "sources" are so obscure coming from less than well-known publishers? I know the answer to this rhetorical question of course. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Very few "well known" publishers would have bothered to tackle this subject. When the dust settled, the western world moved on from this conflict. The wars in Yugoslavia were a flavour of the month for most of these journalists and various NGOs. The war came and went, propaganda was used in various ways to solicit support for foreign involvement (as it always is) and most of the world stopped caring when CNN and BBC stopped reporting. You're clearly pushing an agenda. At no point did I edit the article stating the claims were false, I merely posted the dissenting view. The claims, whether or not you publicly acknowledge it, were based from BIASED sources to begin with. Interviewing 10 Bosnian women and drawing the conclusion that 50,000 were raped is ridiculous. At the end of all this, the entire Balkan population (Serbs especially) comes off looking like a bunch of savages and sub-humans, who mass rape and murder each-other for no good reason whatsoever. As for arbitration, I'd welcome it. I will edit the article again in the coming days. If you feel the need to discredit the references again just to remove a tiny section of the whole article, we can star the process again. Thanks User:Thefreshtake — Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said aldready, Honestly though, being familiar with the subject, I know for a fact that such studies are as of yet rare and the overwhelming part of reliable sources have used the estimates without scrutinizing them in any greater depth. That depth is certainly not offered by Flounders or television reporters either. This does not mean that we should a) use fringe sources or b) undertake original research just to fill that void. If anything is going to be said on the quality of the estimates it will have to be within the framework of WP:RS, and not fringe view pushing. The role of rape in the Bosnian War has been established by the ICTY and a majority of scholars. And that is period, regardless of your frustration. In summary, question the estimates all you like using, guess what, reliable sources (RS)! As for now, you don't even have a RS of how the estimates were arrived upon. This whole Flounders-story of 4 interviews will not suffice. Write all you like about dissenting opinions, using verifiable RS. Actually, I'd love to read about Simone Veil's dissension, but not from Flounder's IAC makeshift webpage. And of course, as always, all sources have to be put in the right context, even RS. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Flounder's rubbish published to the word in the Workers World Party [10], a U.S. Marxist-Leninist communist party, under the fitting conspiracist POV title NATO IN THE BALKANS: Rape & U.S. war propaganda. In an absurd fashion, Flounders emphasizes Simone Veil's alleged "dissenting opinion", when Veil in fact herself had personally spearheaded the rape incrimination of Bosnian Serbs in what she concludes to have been "not a secondary effect of the conflict but part of the systematic policy of ethnic cleansing", "perpetuated with the conscious intention of demoralizing and terrorizing communities, driving them from their home regions and demonstrating the power of the invading forces".[11] Actually, searching the net for the purported "dissenting opinion" of Veil only returns hits on various blogs, Srebrenica genocide-denial and "counter-Jihad" sites thouroghly pro-Serb, as do other chunks of Flounder's text.[12][13] Not to mention the fact that the founder of the IAC, Ramsey Clark, is a supporter of Slobodan Milošević as well as Saddam Hussein. The use of highly unreliable POV sources together with the fact that you openly distort sourced claims here [14] defines your intention to malevolently undermine what is a well-covered and well-referenced topic with "exonerating" POV. Since you appear to do this intentionally, there is already enough material to have you reported. My advise to you is to review your future contributions carefully before pressing that "Save page" button. A sockpuppet investigation investigation of ties to user Obozedalteima might also be in place. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don´t see why wouldn´t we include this section. Seems pretty clear that numbers at time were inflated in order to make media impact. I see nothing wrong including a section where people question the large numbers. FkpCascais (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and calling "rubbish" people and their work, not very serious. FkpCascais (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see why an opinionated POV source echoing your own personal beliefs would suit you. But that is not how we operate. As I already explained thorughly, the sources are not WP:RS. We don't cite the far-left and partisan organizations in favour of Slobodan Milosevic. I welcome a proper analysis of estimates and every other possible aspect of this topic based on reliable sources. However, the biased sources in question only serve to undermine the credibility of the topic based on a predetermined agenda, also known as "POV". Pretending to not get my explanation does not add any value to the discussion. With all said and done having this revert come from an established user is hard to understand. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wait, it's actually worse than just not being understandable, it's downright unacceptable. I do not know to which extent WP:FAITH should apply here since I know that you know better. It's disruptive editing in a deliberate fashion, so I can only present you with the same word of advice as I did with "Thefreshtake", don't. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Next time you edit-war and revert sourced information I´ll report you. Your personal opinion about the authors of the study is absolutelly irrelevant. The citations are there and it is explicitelly said who says what, so it is up to the readers to judge. FkpCascais (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Look here this is the final advice and comment I will give you before taking the issue further, which will possibly have you topic banned. So give it a good thought. You are pushing "sources" that clearly breach WP:RS on so many levels. These "sources" first of all do not offer any actual analysis of any aspect of the subject, they are just an expression of the point-of-view that the estimates are "inflated", and to prove this POV they mention a certain reporter by the name of "Jeremy Bone" whose subjective experience was that the number of women raped in the part of Bosnia where he had been was being exaggerated. So what you have are simply two common ordinary every-day point-of-views that are entirely subjective and not based in any actual research or analysis. Understand the following, opinions and views are a dime! We don't cite them simply because someone has them, unless that person is someone relevant to the subject, as for example a scholar with a systematic scholarly analysis of the subject. What your sources basically say, though, is "Sara Flounders of the IAC thinks the estimates are inflated, and to prove this there was a reporter once in Bosnia who received the impression the number of women raped was exaggerated". Do you realize that you've said aboslutely nothing, but simply presented a point-of-view by someone who is absolutely irrelevant to the subject from an encyclopedic perspective. Now, the few hard facts allegedly given in the "sources" that could actually be useful, such as the interview basis for the estimates, are not given in what may be regarded as WP:RS. The sources are totally partisan and most certainly not afraid of misrepresenting or slanting the subject. Bottomline, they cannot be trusted because they are subjective POV-driven politicized sources and fringe (note: Flounders and the IAC consider the US responsible for "destroying Yugoslavia"). Find us reliable sources describing how the estimates were produced and I'll be the first to elaborate on them. Also, the claim that the "Croatian Ministry of Health in Zagreb was the main source used" is absolutely false. The New York Times article supposedly cited is linked in the article and says nothing of the kind. I will make a final revert, before acting upon the matter further if necessary. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 04:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue has been raised here. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 07:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are obviously not reliable sources for such controversial claims. FkpCascais, why do you continue to tag-team with sockpuppets? bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The lede

Would anyone object if I were to rewrite the lede? Currently it is a bit of a mess. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)'

By all means, as long as it preserves what the lede is essentially trying to make clear. Rape was not used in the same way by the factions, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively. There are clear distinctions in both cases, and what almost primarily makes this article relevant is the systematic (as opposed to sporadic) use of rape as a weapon of war by Bosnian Serb forces which led to precedent ruling mentioned. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I have written a fair few articles on genocidal rape and have a pretty good understanding of the issues surrounding this genocide. I will knock it up in userspace once I have finished with the article I am currently working on. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Darkness, I have been eagerly awaiting constructive and informed edits to this article. Exciting! :) Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Any reason in particular this page is move protected? It ought to be at Rape during the Bosnian Genocide, any objections if I ask an admin to move it? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You want to move the article title? FkpCascais (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, the notability of rape in the Bosnian War is the systematic nature by which it was implented by Bosnian Serb forces, as opposed to "sporadic rape" which is by no means unusual to armed conflicts, with the vast majority of rapes in the Bosnian War being the result of this systematic use of rape as a strategy of war, predominantly against Bosniak women. Hence, moving the article to a specific title which captures this aspect could be a good idea, either as "Rape in the Bosnian Genocide" or perhaps preferably "Systematic rape in the Bosnian War". The issue, though, with limiting the article title to this main aspect are those minority cases of sporadic rape which affected women of all ethnic groups; i.e. not only Bosniak women. The "general" title "Rape in the Bosnian War" is thus slighlty more inclusive in this sense, and underscores that on a lesser scale women of all ethnic groups were affected by [sporadic] rape. Simply put, there are arguments in favour of both titles, however my opinion is that the systematic use of rape was such a dominant and notable feature in the Bosnian conflict that this should be understood from the title (while for that matter also explaining in the article that sporadic rapes occured on all sides). The title "Bosnian Genocide" is a bit more complicated though, since the notion of the extent of the Bosnian Genocide is not entirely uniform. So far, the international courts have only ruled the Srebrenica massacre to be a genocide in the Bosnian War, whereas several academics and authorities, including the US congress, have deemed that ethnic cleansing as carried out by the Bosnian Serb army was genocide in a "wider" sense. Currently, however, genocide in wider Bosnia is being tried in the ongoing trials of Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, so the final word has not yet been heard from the international tribunal. For these reasons, I would (still) tend to prefer the title "Systematic rape in the Bosnian War" if a move is to be made. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, there were a genocide,the rapes were a part of it, this is quite simply what will be written/ Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see Darkness Shines engaging here, not least because this is a subject of deep personal concern and emotional import, which is why I don't edit it, and I trust DS to make an excellent job of covering it. (For some time now my user page has urged readers to visit several DS-authored articles.)

A title framed as "Rape during . . ." would follow numerous precedents (just enter "rape during" into the WP search box). While Praxis Icosahedron and I, and a bazillion others I"m sure, know there was systematic rape, there was also opportunistic rape. I don't feel entirely comfortable with the weight of "systematic" in PI's suggested alternative formulation of the title, although I totally understand the rationale. War rape tends to be both systematized and opportunistic. In this, more's the pity, what is now called the Bosnian War was typical. I think probably the best we can do is go with "Rape during . . .", and leave differentiations and clarifications to the lead and the subsequent content. Writegeist (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am also very pleased with the attention this article is recieving and hopefully will continue to receive from DS! As I said there are indeed dual perspectives that may be taken on the title, and while I do have a slight preference of differentiating the article title towards what was indeed the defining and by large dominant feature of the sexual assaults during the conflict, I am also fine with the "inclusive" title "Rape in or during the Bosnian war" that would include opportunistic rape. Either way, the bulk of the article's significance will be the large-scale systematic "mass rapes". Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Writegeist: Love you to bits dude, But a systematic campaign of genocidal rape went on there. A for wiki search of "Rape during", guess who wrote most of those. You need to realize, there is a world of difference between rape at time of war , opportunistic, and rape as a weapon of war, genocidal. What happened here, was the first time the world recognised that rape is genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I totally agree. (No surprises there :~) .) I didn't mean to give the appearance of saying that the systematic, policy-driven, raping wasn't genocidal; or that it isn't recognized as such. It was, and it is. Writegeist (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As Praxis correctly said, the term genocide is applied to events surounding Srebrenica, and I don´t beleave no one here is proposing to limit the scope of this article to Sebrenica events only. So DS naming proposal doesn´t seem to be a good approach, and I see nothing more in his proposal then simply wanting to inflate the emotional charge in the title. So I see DS´s approach here and I don´t share the enthusiasm some here expressed with his involvement in this article, as his proposal already lacked objectivity.

Regarding the previous issue, allow me gentleman to make something clear. I am not any of those denialists, however, I did witnessed how at that period large numbers were almost on daily basis lounched in the media in order to create world-wide impact, and, if I am not mssing anything, that aspect is missing in the article.

PS: Praxis, what I meant in that edit sumary was that in numerous modern conflicts numbers are largely manipulated by propaganda, and I really can´t beleave that you think that no propaganda was used in the Bosnian conflict. All sides used it, and lots of it. FkpCascais (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all academic sources say this was a genocide, do you have a source to dispel this? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

All? About the entire Bosnian conflict? FkpCascais (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see Genocidal rape for the sources, I wrote that and, yes the article is accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@FkpCascais, first of all let me say that I think you may have substantial NPOV problems with this topic, or possibly don't understand what qualifies a reliable source and a valid argument. You were, and probably still are, supporting unscholarly propagandist sources to prove the existence of propaganda in these events? Sounds reasonable to you? Propaganda surely plays a part in armed conflicts, but what details of a conflict that may in hindsight be regarded as propaganda and which may not is a subject to be dealt with scholarly, and not on a POV basis. It is very evident to every user here that you are emotionally inclined towards downplaying the role of Serbs in the Yugoslav wars since you feel they may have been misrepresented as part of some global conspiracy or propaganda effort, which is the reason you find conspiracist sources appealing. While I am not denying nor confirming the potential existence of such "global efforts" (highly unlikely though), I do require scholarly based RS discussing such aspects. I am sincerely trying to assume good faith, but honestly have my doubts whether you should be editing topics as these. Also, let me clarify that systematic rape is more or less synonymous with genocidal rape. Thus, genocidal rape or systematic rape can occur without a genocide having taken place. Also, you are misrepresenting my input to the discussion by concluding that "genocide is applied to events surrounding Srebreninca"; that is the question as far as the international courts are concerned, so far that is, since this issue is currently being tried in trials. Numerous academics and authorities have also acknowledged a wider definiton. But this is more or less on a side note, since you have been explained on these and other numerous aspects already. If you choose to not get it or cannot get it is irrelevant. Just do not disrupt the topic with POV sources, which are at least as much pervaded with propaganda as the international community is according to your accusations. I've made my point, for the last time. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Praxis, we reverted eachother and then we (you took the initiative, which I fully supported) took it to RS noticeboard. I beleaved IOC was an organisation worth mention. The edit is not in the article and, unless there is some unexpected turn on that discussion at RS, I wan´t be insisting on the edit, I think that is clear after all this time. Regarding the issue discussed here on this topic, I am not so sure how the expression genocide can be used so widely. I beleave the curent title is adequate regarding POV and the scope. Moving it to the proposal of DS would need to go trough a proper RfM and obtein consensus from a wider range of participants, not just "Hey, I love you (we share same emotional attachment), would you guys mind if I move it to this title?". Makes sense? FkpCascais (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

DS, almost the entire section dealing with Yugoslavia in your Genocidal rape article is from the book of Beverly Allen. Who is she? FkpCascais (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Citekill"

DS, this edit caused the removal of several sources discussing the systematic nature of the rapes. My decision to use such a large number of corroborating sources (i.e. "citekilling") was deliberate, since the topic is liable to POV pushing. Such disruptive editing will find it easier to challenge these facts with only a single source used. Don't you agree? As such, I acknowledge that the statement was being citekilled, but I believe this might be of necessity? Or? I'd say we support the statement with at least three separate sources? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I restored that part of the lede. DS clearly, besides ignoring the other victims besides Bosniak, clearly shows an agenda here in order to push the term Genocidal rape which, even in the article itself, seems to have very little consensus among scholars. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ehm, if you are restoring what is actually my own approach to the lede, shouldn't you also restore the part which explains that some scholars use the term "genocidal rape"? It's a very selective revert, especially since you accuse DS of an agenda. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Side note: Genocidal rape (admittedly a "relatively new term" back in 2007) is ment to be understood to be the same as systematic rape. Samuel Totten defines it as following "genocidal rape is used to suggest the use of mass rape by perpetrators as a weapon against the group they perceive as enemies".[15] This is systematic rape, so the two terms may be used interchangebly, albeit one may be prefered over the other in some circumstances? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Rape by itself is as bad as it can get. There are many sources talking about rape during the conflict in Bosnia (the main subject of this article) and very few talking about genocidal rape. Genocidal rape in this case seems more of a view of just few, quite far from being part of the lede by now. Btw, which exact scholars describe the rape that took place in Bosnia as genocidal rape? FkpCascais (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict:) How about taking a look at the actual sources you chose to not "restore" with your revert. Please, if you are going to revert DS, whom you accuse of an agenda, make a complete revert, immediately. I'm struggling to understand if you are really sincerely not getting it or just pretending to not get it? Systematic rape = mass rape = genocidal rape (not saying though that all terms are equally common, but all have been used by scholars). In this sense, the rape in Bosnia was what coined the term "Genocidal Rape" in the first place in 1996. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I restored the part missing, now it is as it was before DS changes. FkpCascais (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now we await DS's response. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There are no reason at all for there to be any citations in the lede, anything in the lede ought to be cited in the body. Those citations were going to be reused in the body, or at least some of them. I am intending to replace the primary and newspaper sources with academic ones. Does anyone really have a problem with that? And as for why I had made the changes, the majority of rapes were carried out by the VRS and as such their actions receive more weight than the actions of other groups, which were also mentioned in the lede. Multiple academic sources describe the actions of the Serbs during the conflict as genocidal rape, and of course this was the first time that people were charged and convicted for acts of sexual violence in wartime. If any change I make is to be reverted then is there actually any point to my improving this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

UN commission

DS, please note that ICTY and UN documents are public and not copyrighted. It is perfectly fine to have them quoted to the word. The fact that Allen uses them in her book, does not make them copyrighted. Also, considering that the commission's work constitutes the largest official large-scale investigation into the rapes based on hundreds of interviews and upon which scholars later based their works and conclusions warrants a full quote, and that is what I will insist on. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 11:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

All UN documents are copyrighted, I am actually thinking now that the quotes are needed, but as notes and not embedded in the ref as I have done with one. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'm very surprised to see that the material indeed seems to be copyrighted. However, it is possible to request for a permission which is what I am contemplating right now. The quotes from the UN are of the utmost importance, and not just as notes or refs, but as proper quotes in the text. The commission's work are not just some secondary conclusions produced by scholars and NGOs who quite possibly have never been to Yugoslavia or interviewed a single rape victim. The official large-scale investigation offered by the UN commission is by far the most authoritative account of the rapes in Bosnia. I would like to see the quote restored and I will request a permission for use in the meantime. Also, the ICTY judgment needs to be mentioned not only in the "legal proceedings" but also in conjunction with the international investigations. Duplication is acceptable since the judgment defines the nature of the rapes. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 12:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Duplicating content is quite simply bad editing. There are no need for it, investigations will obviously be mentioned, along with their conclusions, I have already added two for AI and HW. Great giant quotes are a distraction from an article IMO, all one needs to os hover their pointer over the note ref and you see the whole quote anyway. Have you looked at the way I have done this? See, a at the end of "On 6 October 1992 the United Nations Security Council established a Commission of Experts chaired by M. Cherif Bassiouni, according to them it was apparent that rape was being used in a systematic manner, and had the support of commanders and local authorities" Darkness Shines (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, saw that now. Looks fine. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 12:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Template being removed

What exactly is wrong with the Violence against women template being used in this article, it is used in similar articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Request move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Rape in the Bosnian War → Rape during the Bosnian War – You cannot have rape in a war, only during. --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - to me, "during" and "in" have the same meaning.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, they are not the same thing. during means throughout the course or duration of. In just means "in". You do not have rapes in a war, but during.Plus all the other articles we have on genocidal rapes during conflist are on the lines of "Rape during" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think there cannot be rapes in a war? —BarrelProof (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Because human rights abuses happen during a conflict, not in it. You can get killed in a battle, but you died during it for instance. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that is some grammatical fine point that is beyond my current capacity. I don't really understand the difference. To me it seems grammatically acceptable to have died in a battle. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose 'In' is listed as a synonym of 'during' in dictionary. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: The other articles in Category:War rape follow the practice "Rape during ...". Compare Rape during ... and Rape in .... DrKiernan (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per relisting comment from DrKiernan. --IJBall (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support per DrKiernan.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support because it seems to me both 'during' and 'in' are grammatically correct in this context. So we should go with the precedent that other articles in Category:War rape use 'during'. --Dash77 (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bibliography

Bibliography (reference) is seriously flawed (Reference numbering may be changed):

• Reference [1] points to page with next to none data related to Bosnia. Far from finding the estimated number of raped women.
• Reference [2] is a feature film, it is not a documentary.
• Reference [3] non-existing page. As far as I could understan, reports are annual, and the one I found do not mention rape at all.
• Reference [4]-[6],[9] [3]-[5],[8] news and media. Completely valid, though original source of the claims has stronger validity.
• Reference [7] [6] opening statement of an US senator, just mention in a single sentence Bosnia mass rape. No further source whatsoever. Btw. link is not working.
• Reference [10] [9] Nice reference, final judgment after the appeal. To long to read. I added a short Case information sheet that summarizes final judgment.
• Reference [11] I added this reference

• Reference [8] [7] (Stiglmayer) Nice reference, a book, too bad it is not accessible online.
• Reference [21] is same as reference [7] (Stiglmayer), apart from page pointer. Maybe this can be merged, or at least to make ref [21] have ISBN pointer.

Sign to allow for archiving Darkness Shines (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

minor textual glitches

Just noticed two minor 'glitches' which I was not able to fix as I didn't know the facts 1) "Stankovic ́and he was given a sixteen sentence for … …" Sixteen years? … … 2)"It was the longest sentence handed down after the trial of Sanko Kojic, who had been given a sentence of 43 years for his role in the Srebrenica massacre."[101], this is unclear, is the meaning that the 'it' sentence was the second longest (unlikely), or that the 'it' sentence happened after the Kojic one? Or … ???? I think there is a lack of clarity in what otherwise appears to be a very thoroughly researched and clearly organised article.Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

First one done, not seeing the issue with the second though? Vlahović has had the longest sentence handed down. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, issue is minor, but I was not certain myself how to read the sentence, is the meaning "It was the longest sentence handed down (ever/up to that time), superceding the previous longest, of Sanko Kojic, who had been given a sentence of 43 years for his role in the Srebrenica massacre (the previous year?/in 19XY)?." I think you are saying that IS the intended meaning.

I first read it as equivalent meaning to "Hilary Clinton is the most famous US politician after Barack Obama" (ie she is no 2 in the fame charts). I had to re-read the numbers to realise that meaning was probably wrong. As previously said though, very clear comprehensive page (which isn't always easy on topics like this).Pincrete (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been shitfaced for a month now, I will get back to this, I have done a little work on this article after all. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sorry, I have been shitfaced for a month now,, Well that does count among the frankest, most graphic, replies I've had on talk lately ! Get well soon !Pincrete (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I have changed it about a little, hopefully it is clearer now? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rape during the Bosnian War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 23 editor (talk · contribs) 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one. 23 editor (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No offence, but I don't find that to be a good idea considering your previous ties to the subject matter. We need someone unaffiliated to the subject, and neutral. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Previous ties? I don't follow. "Unaffiliated to the subject", "neutral"? Why am I "affiliated" with the subject (rape in Bosnia and Herzegovina)? Why am I not neutral? Is there a WP:COI? Explain yourself without being vague and provocative. 23 editor (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As also explained at the talk page of the requester (DS), the bulk of your edits (as far as our paths have crossed) relate to articles connected to the Bosnian War, as does the current article/subject matter/topic/whatever. Without intending to be provocative, your contributions to these articles are at their base largely characterized by one word, pro-Serb. One striking example is the work you tried to get away with at Siege of Srebrenica, that included selectively citing the litterature and attempting to portray the genocide as an understandable act of revenge on behalf of the Serbs. Thus in line with seeking to diminish the signifance of the crime, your version of the background to these events starts with, not the Serb ethnic cleansing and massacres during the summer of 1992, but interestingly with the, in comparison, small-scale offences by the besieged forces of Naser Oric in January 1993. Thus by piecing together sporadic acts of desperate Bosniak resistance you sought to construct a skewed presentation of Serb victimhood that allegedly culminated in a righteous act of bloody revenge (nothing new really but part of the Serb mainstream narrative). My advice to you is to understand that no one around here is really stupid enough to not see through the transparency. There are other examples as well. On the bright side, however, you are quite sensible and willing to - at least momentarily - bury your POV when confronted, although tediously. So, obviosuly, offering to review an article concerned with one of the darker chapters of Serb morale, is not only awkward but also doomed to be met with skepticism. As far as this nomination is concered, I'll leave it up to DS to decide seeing how most of the improved material is his/hers, while patiently observing in the background. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as our paths have crossed, you've jumped to conclusions far too quickly to be considered an editor that I am comfortable interacting and/or working with, especially on an area as controversial as the Balkans. The fact of the matter is this: after a year of virtually no interaction between the two of us on Wiki, you've decided to bring up a discussion from nearly 16 months ago (one which I considered long-resolved) and use it to protest the fact that I intend to volunteer my time and effort to review an article which I've hardly ever edited. You claim that I "[seek] to diminish the significance of [Serb] crime(s)", even though I clearly stated that this was not the case (both in general, and in relation to the article in question—Siege of Srebrenica). You went ahead and made productive additions to the article and I welcomed your input. That was it. Now, this. Why all the beef? I haven't even started my review; and, as far as reviews go, I've done several GA reviews, including one at Talk:Saborsko massacre/GA1, and no one has ever had any complaints. Furthermore, your claim that my edits are mostly about the Bosnian War is utterly false. I mostly focus on World War II in Yugoslavia, Serbia during World War I and the Croatian War of Independence. Within this scope, I've written articles such as Baćin massacre, Jezdimir Dangić and Grand Anti-Masonic Exhibition, which are hardly "pro-Serb". The simple fact is that I wish to expand this encyclopedia using academic sources. I try to be neutral at all times, even if you wish to disagree. If that ruffles your feathers, then that's your problem. If you want to have a civilized discussion, fine. If not, stop wasting my time and disrupting what was meant to be a calm and collected GA review.

P.S., don't use vague language such as "your previous ties to the subject matter" and "unaffiliated to the subject". It can be interpreted many different ways, and generally suggests that the person in question is personally mixed up in something. 23 editor (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, Praxis Icosahedron. Do I have your permission to review this article? 23 editor (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

• Background

1. ...Despite the government-led hate campaigns... – Which government?

   ...some Serbs tried to defend Bosnians... I assume you mean Bosniaks. "Bosnians" is a term used to refer to any citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina, whether they are Serb, Croat or Bosniak.

   ...Before the conflict began... Which conflict? The one in Bosnia, or the Yugoslav Wars in general?

   ...Other myths invoked included suggestions that Bosnian Muslims were racially different, typically that they were actually of largely Turkish blood... I suggest you write: "Serb propaganda suggested that Bosnian Muslims were racially different, typically that they were actually of largely Turkish blood."

   ...during the Ustaše genocide in the 1940s... link "genocide in the 1940s" to World War II persecution of Serbs.

   Feelings of victimhood... – Please clarify this statement. I assume you meant to say that Serb propaganda claimed Serbs were victim of Bosniak persecution. Do reword this.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

• Background
  • "...Prior to 1980, Croatian and Serbian nationalism..." Where? In Bosnia or Yugoslavia, in general?

1. B. Focused:

• Background
  • "Prior to 1980, Croatian and Serbian nationalism had been effectively repressed by Marshal Josip Broz Tito..." – Explain that Tito died in 1980 and that he was the leader of Yugoslavia. Also, Tito didn't just repress Croat and Serb nationalism—he repressed the nationalism of all ethnic groups.
  • "Slobodan Milošević had inflamed..." – Explain who the man was (i.e. Serbian President...)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

• Background
  • "...Milošević had inflamed Serbian nationalist sentiment with a speech referring to the Battle of Kosovo..." I assume you mean the Gazimestan Speech. If so, please add a few more sources backing up this statement. Also, clarify where Serbian nationalist sentiment was inflamed and specify that Milošević was referring to the 1389 battle. Also, if you are referring to the Gazimestan Speech, the speech didn't merely "refer" to the battle. It was about the battle and Milošević delivered it on its 600th anniversary.
  • "Feelings of victimhood and aggression towards Bosniaks...", "...myths invoked included suggestions that Bosnian Muslims were..." – use either Bosniak or Bosnian Muslim, not both. I suggest you use the term Bosniak but have "Bosnian Muslim" in brackets at first mention in the article, otherwise a casual reader will be confused out of their mind.

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Are you taking the fucking piss? Five days and not a peep? And now, still fuck all? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your rude profanities aside, I've wrapped up with the "Background" section and will continue the review tomorrow. 23 editor (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Go all that, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite, I still see "Bosnians" being used instead of "Bosniaks" and Milošević is listed as "former Serbian President", whereas he was the current president when the events in question occurred. 23 editor (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thought I had got all the "Bosnians" being used instead of "Bosniaks", will go through it again, Milošević is the former president, perhaps rephrase as "then president"? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"...some Serbs tried to defend Bosnians from the atrocities..." 23 editor (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor: Anything else? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be going over some more points over the next several hours. 23 editor (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Estimates of victims

• Consider renaming the section to "Wartime rape" or something like that, because—as far as I can see—it doesn't mainly deal with the number of victims.

Done

• "From May 1992, Bosniaks were rounded up and sent to the Omarska camp." There were literally hundreds of concentration camps in the country. The one referred to in this sentence was located in Prijedor and that should be explained. Prijedor, and north Bosnia in general, had other large camps where rapes took place (namely Trnopolje, Keraterm and Manjača). Omarska was by far the worst and should be described as such, but to single it out as the one place Bosniaks were held is absurd. Please expand.

All camps are mentioned are they not?

• "At the camp, which has been described as a "concentration camp"..." Either call it a concentration camp or attribute the claim to a source.

Done

• "Victims were told they would be hunted down, and killed, should they..." Remove the commas around ", and killed,".

Done

• "The commission also concluded that, "Rape has..." Replace the comma with a colon.

Done

• "It has been claimed that "For the Serbs, the desire to degrade, humiliate, and impregnate Bosnian Muslim women with 'little Chetniks' was paramount." "For" should not be capitalized. Also, 'little Chetniks' should be in double quotes and not single. Furthermore, who made the claim? Please clarify.

Done

Characteristics of locations and procedures

• It's good that you're mentioning the concentration camps, but see my comments above re: Omarska and other camps. Try to introduce the topic of concentration camps in a single paragraph and talk about them later without overlinking, as you have at Omarska camp in paragraph one of this sub-section.
• "Over a five month period between spring and summer of 1992 between 5,000-7,000 Bosniaks and Croatians were held in inhuman conditions at Omarska." Again, I've read about this over at "Estimates of victims". Put it all together in one place, so that readers don't have to dart back and forth between sections to get an overview of the camps. Also "5,000-7,000 Bosniaks..." should use an endash.

Done

• What I notice while I'm reading this is that you use Muslim and Bosniak interchangably. While I understand that many of the sources do indeed use the term "Muslim", I want you to decide on which term to use and stick to it throughout the article (except for quotes, of course).

Done

• "At Dretelj the majority of prisoners were Serbian civilians, who were held in inhumane conditions, while female detainees were raped and told that they would be held until they gave birth to an "Ustase"." Reiterate that Croat forces were responsible for the rapes; "Ustase" should be rendered Ustaša (Ustaše is plural).

Done

• "Women were questioned as to male relatives in the city, and one woman's 14 year old son was then brought to her to rape her." — "Women were questioned as to male relatives in the city, and one woman's fourteen-year-old son was forced to rape her."

Done

• "Some writers have expressed skepticism about men's claims in such situations to have been forced to rape, arguing that once his penis became erect, he was an active participant in the rape, regardless of other circumstances." — This should go something like this: "Some writers have expressed skepticism about men's claims to have been forced to rape in such situations, arguing that once their penises became erect, they were active participants in the rape, regardless of other circumstances."

Done

• "From the 1960s to the war, the percentage of mixed marriages between communities has been close to 12%..." — From the 1960s until the beginning of the war, the number of mixed marriages between communities was nearly twelve percent..."

Done

National and International reactions

• "The United Nations Security Council established the ICTY due to the massive human rights violations carried out by the Serbian armed forces". Questionable neutrality; needs rewording. The ICTY's website talks about "widespread atrocities" as being the reason for the court's creation and doesn't mention any ethnicity by name. Consider quoting the reason for the tribunals establishment ("In May 1993, the Tribunal was established by the United Nations in response to mass atrocities then taking place in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Reports depicting horrendous crimes, in which thousands of civilians were being killed and wounded, tortured and sexually abused in detention camps and hundreds of thousands expelled from their homes, caused outrage across the world and spurred the UN Security Council to act.") or read Susan Dewey's book to add some context (i.e. the court can't impose the death penalty, etc.)
• "John Y. Lee argues that a similar tribunal to the ICTY be formed to prosecute the Japanese armed forces for their use of "comfort women" during WW2." Going a bit off-topic here. This doesn't really have a lot to do with Bosnia, and presenting one author's opinion on another man in an article that is supposed to outline wartime rape is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.

Moved to rape as genocide section

• "The ICTY set the precedent that rape in warfare is a form of torture, and in 2011 indicted 161 people, and heard evidence from over 4000 witnesses" — Comma please (4,000).

Done

More to come. 23 editor (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor: Have gotten most of the issues raised, ready to continue when you are. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all, I'm afraid. You've still failed to introduce each set of concentration camps concisely and some of the copy-edit points haven't been fully carried out (endashes, etc). Please fix this quickly so I can continue the review. 23 editor (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I will get those when I have sources for them, I have no idea what an endashe is. Please continue with the review. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an endash → –

23 editor (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor:Added that little arrow where you said twas needed, but it looks stupid having an arrow there in the text, what purpose does that actually serve? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, you meant the one like a hyphen lol, done that now. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor:, and chance you can continue this review please? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article looks good for promotion. Just fix all the issues I raised and that should do it. 23 editor (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor: Sorry, what have I missed? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just come to my attention that there's citations in the lead. They shouldn't be there unless absolutely necessary, per WP:LEADCITE. What this means is that some of the content of the lead is either not mentioned in the article body or is being subjected to citation overkill. Therefore, I suggest you remove the refs and work into the article the assertations to which they pertain. Also, I suggest you reword the first sentence of the lead paragraph to: "An estimated 12,000–50,000 women were raped during the Bosnian War, and resulting Bosnian Genocide. Rapes were committed by all warring sides and women of all ethnicites were subjected to sexual violence, but the great majority of war crimes were perpetrated against Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) women by Bosnian Serb forces, who used rape as an instrument of terror as part of their programme of ethnic cleansing."

As for the concentration camps, they appear to be introduced concisely in "Characteristics of locations and procedures". Good job. 23 editor (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor: Your suggestion for the lede paragraph rewrite gives undue weight to the other warring factions, the Serbs carried out 90% of atrocities during the conflict, the rapes by the other two factions did not even compare. The actions by the others is already mentioned in the lede, and I honestly think I have gotten the weight correct there. As for the citations in the lede, on a contentious topic such as this it is better to err on the side of caution, I have written articles on this subject matter previously and people will put CN tags on anything they believe to be contentious. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Leave the citations. As for the opening sentence, I was trying to make it conform to WP:MOSBEGIN, which stipulates that leads "should define the topic with a neutral point of view". Rapes committed by combatants of other ethnic groups are implied in a single half-sentence in the middle of the lead ("While women of all ethnic groups were affected by instances of both rape and multiple perpetrator rape (MPR) during the conflict..."). If anything, rape by Bosniak and Croat forces is under-reported in the lead.

I fail to see why my proposal gives undue weight, given that it quite literally echos the UN Security Council's findings mentioned under "Abuses against women": "Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosniaks, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs..." and the assertion "Throughout the conflict women of all ethnic groups were affected, although not on the scale that the Bosniak population suffered..." attributed to Wood 2013, p. 140. All I did was take these statements and reword them, adding the figure of 12,000–50,000 women. 23 editor (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor and Darkness Shines: I agree with Darkness Shines, the rapes by the various warring factions do not even begin to compare, and not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. Bosniak and Croat forces are not considered to have undertaken systematic large-scale rape as part of their war campaigns. The litterature also explains that any subsequent tendency among Bosniak and Croat soldiers towards commiting individual, sporadic, rape was largely in response to the widespread occurence of systematized Serbian attrocities. As is known, the Serbs were vastly superior militarily, and they certainly set the stage as with regard to war rape and war crimes in general. 23 editor's suggested lede tends to omit these power relations by, in fact, giving undue weight to the sporadic rapes commited by Bosniak and Croat soldiers, simply by having them put together with the Serb campaign in the same opening sentence. As a matter of fact, what gives this article its relevance to begin with (as opposed to reducing it to a section in the Bosnian War article) is the unique as well as socially, judicially and academically significant nature of the systematized large-scale campaign of sexual violence carried out by Serb forces (because, unfortunately, sporadic war-time rape is by no means unusual. It is what you could call 'unspecific rape' and it rarely attains the same numbers or devastation as a systematic policy does). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor:, are you ever going to finish this? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you ever going to alter the opening? 23 editor (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

fuck no, but given I admitted I am a sock, it matters not, Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's most unfortunate. I'm failing this on grounds of neutrality. 23 editor (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sarajevo Ground Zero (documentary)

Is 'Sarajevo Ground Zero', the same documentary as here: [16] and here:[17]? … If so we appear to be wrongly describing it (Sarajevo Ground Zero is not named on the director's article page, although that page is very stub-bish).Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC) … … Afterthought, if the documentary isn't primarily/substantially about rape, should it be here at all? Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC) I have removed Sarajevo Ground Zero. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed re-wording of intro

23 editor, Praxis Icosahedron, Darkness Shines. Having read the GA Review above, I propose a re-ordering of the article intro.

The substantive point being made by 23 editor above, seems to be that by not mentioning NON-Serbian rapes till the middle of the intro, the article is not neutral, the substantive point being made by Praxis Icosahedron & Darkness Shines, seems to be that Serbian rapes are different in both their scale and purpose, and have been characterised as such by most studies. The following text is an attempt to satisfy both positions:-

During the Bosnian War, and the Bosnian genocide, violence assumed a gender-targeted form through the use of rape. While women of all ethnic groups were subjected to instances of both rape and multiple perpetrator rape (MPR) during the conflict, the great majority of rapes were perpetrated by Bosnian Serb forces of the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) and Serb paramilitary units, who used rape as an instrument of terror as part of their programme of ethnic cleansing. Estimates of the total number of women raped during the war range from 12,000 to 50,000.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) declared that "systematic rape", and "sexual enslavement" in time of war was a crime against humanity, second only to the war crime of genocide. Although the ICTY did not treat the mass rapes as genocide, many have concluded from the organized, and systematic nature of the mass rapes of the female Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) population, that these rapes were a part of a larger campaign of genocide, and that the VRS were carrying out a policy of genocidal rape against the Bosnian Muslim ethnic group.

The trial of VRS member Dragoljub Kunarac was the first time in any national or international jurisprudence that a person was convicted of using rape as a weapon of war. The widespread media coverage of the atrocities by Serbian paramilitary and military forces against Bosniak women and children, drew international condemnation of the Serbian forces. Following the war, several award-winning documentaries and feature films have been produced which cover the rapes and their aftermath.

My proposed text is largely a re-ordering of the existing, but by making BOTH points at the outset, and by removing some repetitions, I hope neutrality is achieved without 'watering down' the main thrust of the argument. It might also be apt to include in the first para that all sides were perpretators, although I did not do so as I thought it implied by 'all sides were victims' and 'the great majority were perpretated'.

I've left existing refs and hope I have not compromised any of them by re-ordering. Thoughts anyone? Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Only Darkness Shines has responded (on his talk page), therefore I intend to go ahead with a (slightly modified) version of this text, including that 'all sides were perpretators' in the opening para. Although I've removed refs from HERE, I intend to keep them in the lede, for the reasons given by DS above. Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

I have twice reverted an IP who is deleting sourced material in the article. I am starting this section for discussion. And to make it clear, I have never edited this article, nor on this subject, and have no stake of any kind in the matters. Jusdafax 00:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)