This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Višegrad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I notice mention of the destruction of the Ivo Andric statue, a terrible thing indeed. You even made sure to mention that the destruction was committed by a Bosnjak.
And yet no mention of the deliberate destruction of the mosques of Visegrad by the Serb paramilitary units, as well as the killings and forced expulsions of Bosnjaks in Visegrad. Why is that?
This article's POV problems, complete with a total lack of coverage of what happened during the war leaves little doubt about who wrote it. The rest of the world will be a worse place for that. --Risto
Whoever is vandalizing the population data... please stop. ( LAz17 ( talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)).
Who erased the history section and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicmet ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed this an extremely subjective and above all ridiculousely untrue article when it comes to the depiction of the recent history of Bosnia and thus Visegrad! Judge yourselves by the number of Bosniacs in today´s Visegrad! There´s no doubt about the author of this most ridiculous article I´ve ever come about in wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.161.148 ( talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I corrected some of the grammar and sentence structure within the Civil War in Bosnia section. I did not change the meaning of any of the sentences and only made changes for clarity. I changed the name of the bridge from "Bridge on the Drina" to the "Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge so that it matched the link within Wikipedia. I stopped the edits once I reached the section on the formation of paramilitary units since this section is fractured and difficult to follow. Much of this entire section needs sourcing. Perhaps the original author can provide such to give the Civil War more weight of scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.1.40 ( talk) 05:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to be reworked. Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic, and their crimes in Visegrad (burning of women and children) needs to be mentioned in the article. Bosniak ( talk) 00:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this article from the Institute For War & Peace Reporting is interesting enough to be added as a reference related to the recent history of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.105.6 ( talk) 12:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The "Massacre" section makes some bold claims: "Bosnian Serb paramilitary leaders burned masses alive in houses, forced women and children over the famous bridge and shot them as they fell, and slaughtered thousands of Bosniak men." The only citation is an article from a clearly partisan website which itself puts forward the "thousands" more as a vague, sweeping accusation than a fact.
The very same article clearly states that exhumations discovered 180 bodies. The ICTY link only mentions a murder of 135 people. I'm not trying to diminish that crime and tragedy, but neither 135 nor 180 count as "thousands".
Likewise, while the crime of burning 46 people to their deaths is absolutely horrible, I'm not sure it's honest, especially in the context of the war in Bosnia, to describe it as "burned masses alive".
PRODUCER, please only remove the "citation needed" mark if you have addressed these problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
To add: also the place that was "probably used as rape camp" (!) requires a citation. The phrase "rape camp" on its own is scary enough to require it, but any serious accusation of a great crime that is preceded by "probably" is itself "probably" suspect. I should delete it outright as speculation, but I'm instead just marking it. Any citation there would be very welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
For the last time it's already cited [1] - PRODUCER ( talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The only citation is an article that: (a) comes from a partisan website, (b) contradicts itself (just read the first two paragraphs!) (c) gives no source for that particular datum, whereas it gives plenty of sources for its more realistic claims (d) contradicts the ICTY citation, which I think is fair to see as a more dependable one.
Essentially, it's almost an op-ed. Somebody took some confirmed facts and based an article on them (I'm quoting from the article you're citing!): "180 bodies exhumed from mass graves" and then embellished those facts with an unsourced comment in the introduction that contradict the facts themselves: "slaughtered thousands of Muslim men".
I understand the author of the article is angry that some madmen killed innocent people. That does not make any expression of his feelings ("thousands!") into a fact that you can cite on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, thanks for sourcing and updating the "Vilina Vlas" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 16:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
We need source that town is "known" for the ethnic cleansing. If we dont have source for that, controversial information should be removed from there lede. -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
References
Do we have any current census for Višegrad? Last one in article is from 1991... I have also removed forking of other article in here. This article is small anyway, and such a massive section is pointless. -- WhiteWriter speaks 15:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
63,7% of the text of the article deals with Bosnian war and mainly about "ethnic cleansing and massacres carried out by Bosnian Serb forces against Bosniak civilians." Any thoughts?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Višegrad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Višegrad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I notice mention of the destruction of the Ivo Andric statue, a terrible thing indeed. You even made sure to mention that the destruction was committed by a Bosnjak.
And yet no mention of the deliberate destruction of the mosques of Visegrad by the Serb paramilitary units, as well as the killings and forced expulsions of Bosnjaks in Visegrad. Why is that?
This article's POV problems, complete with a total lack of coverage of what happened during the war leaves little doubt about who wrote it. The rest of the world will be a worse place for that. --Risto
Whoever is vandalizing the population data... please stop. ( LAz17 ( talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)).
Who erased the history section and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicmet ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed this an extremely subjective and above all ridiculousely untrue article when it comes to the depiction of the recent history of Bosnia and thus Visegrad! Judge yourselves by the number of Bosniacs in today´s Visegrad! There´s no doubt about the author of this most ridiculous article I´ve ever come about in wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.161.148 ( talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I corrected some of the grammar and sentence structure within the Civil War in Bosnia section. I did not change the meaning of any of the sentences and only made changes for clarity. I changed the name of the bridge from "Bridge on the Drina" to the "Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge so that it matched the link within Wikipedia. I stopped the edits once I reached the section on the formation of paramilitary units since this section is fractured and difficult to follow. Much of this entire section needs sourcing. Perhaps the original author can provide such to give the Civil War more weight of scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.1.40 ( talk) 05:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to be reworked. Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic, and their crimes in Visegrad (burning of women and children) needs to be mentioned in the article. Bosniak ( talk) 00:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this article from the Institute For War & Peace Reporting is interesting enough to be added as a reference related to the recent history of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.105.6 ( talk) 12:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The "Massacre" section makes some bold claims: "Bosnian Serb paramilitary leaders burned masses alive in houses, forced women and children over the famous bridge and shot them as they fell, and slaughtered thousands of Bosniak men." The only citation is an article from a clearly partisan website which itself puts forward the "thousands" more as a vague, sweeping accusation than a fact.
The very same article clearly states that exhumations discovered 180 bodies. The ICTY link only mentions a murder of 135 people. I'm not trying to diminish that crime and tragedy, but neither 135 nor 180 count as "thousands".
Likewise, while the crime of burning 46 people to their deaths is absolutely horrible, I'm not sure it's honest, especially in the context of the war in Bosnia, to describe it as "burned masses alive".
PRODUCER, please only remove the "citation needed" mark if you have addressed these problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
To add: also the place that was "probably used as rape camp" (!) requires a citation. The phrase "rape camp" on its own is scary enough to require it, but any serious accusation of a great crime that is preceded by "probably" is itself "probably" suspect. I should delete it outright as speculation, but I'm instead just marking it. Any citation there would be very welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
For the last time it's already cited [1] - PRODUCER ( talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The only citation is an article that: (a) comes from a partisan website, (b) contradicts itself (just read the first two paragraphs!) (c) gives no source for that particular datum, whereas it gives plenty of sources for its more realistic claims (d) contradicts the ICTY citation, which I think is fair to see as a more dependable one.
Essentially, it's almost an op-ed. Somebody took some confirmed facts and based an article on them (I'm quoting from the article you're citing!): "180 bodies exhumed from mass graves" and then embellished those facts with an unsourced comment in the introduction that contradict the facts themselves: "slaughtered thousands of Muslim men".
I understand the author of the article is angry that some madmen killed innocent people. That does not make any expression of his feelings ("thousands!") into a fact that you can cite on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, thanks for sourcing and updating the "Vilina Vlas" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 ( talk) 16:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
We need source that town is "known" for the ethnic cleansing. If we dont have source for that, controversial information should be removed from there lede. -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
References
Do we have any current census for Višegrad? Last one in article is from 1991... I have also removed forking of other article in here. This article is small anyway, and such a massive section is pointless. -- WhiteWriter speaks 15:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
63,7% of the text of the article deals with Bosnian war and mainly about "ethnic cleansing and massacres carried out by Bosnian Serb forces against Bosniak civilians." Any thoughts?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Višegrad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)