Talk:Čemerno massacre

original krivična prijava
The following persons were killed: Djordje Bunjevac (56), Rajko Bunjevac (56), Goran Bunjevac (35), Koviljka Bunjevac (56), Milosava Bunjevac, Milan Bunjevac, Ranko Bunjevac and Slavojka Bunjevac (7), Radinka Damjanovic (32), Ranka Damjanovic (30), Pasa Damjanovic (52), Zdravko Damjanovic (27), Staka Damjanovic (57), Stanoje Markovic, Djuka Markovic, Manojlo Markovic, Milenko Trifkovic (59), Jana Trifkovic (47), Rajko Trifkovic (17), Zarko Malesevic, Milovan Malesevic, Miroslav Jankovic, Sreten Jankovic, Stana Rasevic (68), Svetozar Kapetanovic, Radomir Jevtic, Gojko Djurdajic, Nedeljko Micic and Novo Cvjetkovic. source

-- Cin é ma C 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any verifiable, independent, non-biased source? The above source is a report by Milosevic government from 1992. ICTYoda (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Government sources aren't good enough? I also listed two videos, one is of the scene of the crime. It's quite graphic, so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone under 18. I also added the JPRS Report by the Defense Technical Information Center. -- Cin é ma C 22:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was Slobodan Milosevic government. I've seen many videos which Serbs presented as Serb victims, but they were Muslims. So please, provide some neutral sources.ICTYoda (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Defense Technical Information Center was Slobodan Milosevic government? Are you serious? Really? Milosevic ran it from Ft. Belvoir, VA? Wow. Reverting your obvious case of vandalism. -- Cin é ma C 21:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I have carefully searched the DTIC document you cite, I can't find any reference to Čemerno. Please help by directing me to the relevant page. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Page 24. -- Cin é ma C 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; much obliged. Writegeist (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was Slobodan Milosevic regime with influnce on all aspects of life. As you know, the first target of NATO attacks in Belgrade was Serbian TV. Why, because the whole world is aware of Serbian propaganda from that time. ICTYoda (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are completely ignoring the other source, video evidence, including footage made long after Milosevic. This seems like you're pushing a clear agenda, perhaps because you're focused on Milosevic too much (I don't know why), and you're not acting in good faith. -- Cin é ma C 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read this: WP:RS? ICTYoda (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. So? -- Cin é ma C 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This list from the original report indeed cannot be considered reliable and authoritative until the indictment is made. The article now talks of that process, which shows the apparent difficulties the prosecutor is having processing the original report - and there is no certainty that verifying this list went without a hitch. Because of the apparently problematic victim list of the Sijekovac killings, there is enough precedent to be cautious until there's an official update. Hopefully the prosecutors will reach that milestone soon, and provide us with an authoritative source of this information. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

JPRS Report cite
Cinema, I think the the JPRS document you cite is not a valid secondary WP:RS. The JPRS "...selects, translates, and abstracts foreign language political and technical media for federal agencies. Most JPRS reports are concerned with publications in communist countries, though materials from all nations may be translated." (My emphasis.)

Please note that FBIS is a federal monitoring and translation agency. The FBIS reports are "transcripts of foreign radio and television broadcasts, news agency transmissions, newspapers, periodicals, and government statements."

It comes as no surprise, then, that the cited document is a translation of unspecified foreign documents. Neither the FBIS nor the JPRS offer any independent verification or corroboration of the transcript's content.

Therefore, in the absence of any other independent source that cites and corroborates the JPRS/FBIS transcript - which is merely a translation from unknown primary sources - would it be agreeable to you if I delete the reference to it? Writegeist (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why in the world would you delete a reference that was approved for public release and reproduced by the U.S. Department of Commerce? If you had read the report, you would see that the cited document is not a "a translation of unspecified foreign documents", but that all the sources are listed. So perhaps it might be time to stop closing your eyes to information that doesn't suit your POV and just accept that even Serb civilians were, believe it or not, victims of the Bosnian war too. -- Cin é ma C 20:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cinema, please cease the unfounded and inflammatory accusations of POV-pushing. Nowhere have I ever denied that Serb civilians were also casualties of the war fomented by their own leaders.


 * You are right that the document is sourced, and it may be that it was your burning desire to press this point which led you to overlook the fact that, as already noted, the source is the Milosevic presidency, the author(s) is/are anonymous and the publication medium is a Milosevic-controlled Belgrade newspaper - i.e. the cited JPRS translation is a dish of Milosevic propaganda served whole. I repeat, this is not an acceptable source per WP:RS. Again also, if you care to provide corroboration by a qualifying independent (reliable) source, the Milosevic propaganda (thus verified) could remain in the article.


 * I assumed you already knew that I fully sympathize with your wish to include the massacre(s) of Serb civilians in Wikipedia. But you must also, please, understand that these additions must abide by WP:V and WP:RS. Is it agreeable to you now for the Milosevic propaganda to be deleted? Writegeist (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any new arguments but are merely repeating what you already said. Instead of working hard on finding ways of deleting sources you don't agree with, I suggest you spend more time on finding more sources that show how "Serb civilians were also casualties of the war", as you said. Also, adding "fomented by their own leaders" clearly shows how biased you are when it comes to the Bosnian war, taking a very black and white approach to the Yugoslav wars. Yugoslavia slipped into war because of many economic, political and social causes, not just because of the Serb leaders. Please keep your biased POV outside Wikipedia. Thanks, -- Cin é ma C 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Believe me, coming to the conclusion that Milosevic's propaganda, in the absence of independent corroboration, should be excluded on the grounds that it is not WP:RS does not even begin to approach "working hard" for me. (2) It's not that I "disagree" with the Milosevic propaganda; it's that, as I have repeatedly tried to explain, the way it's used here contravenes WP:V and WP:RS. (3) Fyi I shall not be obeying orders to find sources for Serb civilians as casualties; and anyway, so far, even in my extensive archives, I have no WP:RS or WP:V sources for massacres of Serbs (which is not to say that they didn't take place) that I'm aware of. (4) Please spare me any more lectures about what I think, what I should think, and what I shouldn't think. Please do not make wild assumptions based on one remark. (I was there at the time - the same as you presumably? So we will simply have to agree to differ about some aspects of the generalities.) Instead (5) it would be tremendously helpful if you'd contribute a post that puts your view as to whether the Milosevic propaganda cite should stay or go (assuming you care either way). If you choose not to, I shall take it as agreement to delete.


 * If you think it should stay, it would be helpful if you'd explain why. You have not troubled to specifically advocate either course. In fact the full extent of your engagement with the reasons I have given for deletion has been to claim that I repeated those reasons, which seems to displease you, even though the claim is largely inaccurate; and to attack me gratuitously on various fronts that are totally irrelevant to the simple question at issue, to wit: do you think the Milosevic propaganda cite should stay or go? And please, when you answer, bear WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPA in mind. Much appreciated. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You, my dear Writegeist, have not shown a single piece of evidence that the Čemerno massacre report by the Milosevic government was propaganda. While it's true that Milosevic's government engaged in several propaganda tactics throughout their 10 year rule of what was left of Yugoslavia, that's not an argument that proves that propaganda is the case with Čemerno. Until I see sources that suggest the FR Yugoslav report on Čemerno is mere propaganda, I can not agree to the removal of that reference. Furthermore, I have added several new references, since no one else is willing to do some research concerning Čemerno, but there's always lots of users willing to attack every reference concerning this article that they don't like. -- Cin é ma C 05:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop the sabotage! It is not important! Not Milošević, not governmant, there are a LOT of evidence that -- Cin é ma C presented. And those are rock hard. This was awful tragedy, and it must be here. STOP SABOTAGE! Tadija (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: who are you accusing of "sabotage"? Writegeist (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a JPRS Report referenced in the article, but it was badly attributed - the one in there now explicitly states its source and I've included that information along with an exact relevant quote. It is actually illuminating into the nature of Politika reporting at the time. Not to be disrespectful to the actual victims, but it was completely unsurprising to see this gory description because they were generating those kinds of texts practically on a daily basis. As usual, there was bound to be a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perpetrators
The alleged perpetrators vary from source to source. One says it was perpetrated by "Armije BiH", another says it was "Bosniaks and Croats" adding that it was TO and ABiH, whilst another says it was simply "Croats". All the perpetrators apparently belonged to the Barić family. PRODUCER (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed the same just now, and explicated all of it in the article. We'll keep all that speculation until an actual indictment is made, which will hopefully eliminate all this hearsay. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"čemerno"
It's probably not relevant enough to be included in the article, but I thought I should mention that the name of this village is a word that means - "sorrowful". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

background of the attack
It is not mentioned in the article, but the attack on the willage was carried out mainly because of the near-by located artillery (four 155mm canons). The main intention was to neutralise this military position because they were firing continuosly to the civilians (including me) in Breza municipality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.75.197.245 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)