Talk:Rape during the Bosnian War

Rape as genocide
I have restored this section as it is obviously pertains to this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would suggest 'pruning', so that it all relates to Bosnian War. Linking as apt. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Genocidal rape was related to the war, we have the sources in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No one doubts that, but a distinction needs to be made between 'genocidal rape in Bosnia' and 'genocidal rape', just as we make other distictions and use 'main article' to elaborate or give background. At present almost the first thing one reads is about Nanking, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Liberia, Sudan, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That info might be necessary on the 'general' page, it simply distracts IMO here, especially as the 'background' section is also quite complex. Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A 2700 byte section on how rape has been utilised as a weapon of genocide, with mention of how widespread this particular atrocity is used is not in my opinion a, "distraction". Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree, in 'pole position' and on this page, and with so much political and historic 'background' to absorb, but let's see what others think. Pincrete (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And it's been deleted again without consensus. And I fully intend to restore it unless a consensus is formed for its removal. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

My removals
I am happy to discuss what I have removed if anyone is interested. So I will fully explain the first part for now: It read
 * Prior to 1980, it is widely believed that the lack of ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia was due to nationalism being effectively repressed by Marshal Tito.

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


 * I thought that it was pretty much accepted that nationalism was suppressed under Tito, so the wording might need tweaking, but not removing. I don't think that the wording carries the implication you suggest, though 'suppress' might be better than 'repress'. Pincrete (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was suppressed, and I can give plenty of sources to back that. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the issue. The very fact that SFRY was constructed on a non-nationalist platform surmises that nationalism per se would be suppressed. Such a sentiment would have been treacherous to the system. If I stray off-topic slightly, no nation can be 100% without nationalism. There did exist Yugoslav nationalism and the country had irredentist claims to Bulgaria (as they too are South Slavs) in broadest terms, more narrowly to have included parts of all seven countries to border Yugoslavia+Bulgaria (including all of Albania), and at the very narrowest, all of Romania and Greece too for what would have been the Balkan Federation. Either way, the incorporation of Istria, Zadar, the islands, and the attempted takeover of Trieste all from Italy was to appease Croatian and Slovene nationalism, because as I said, there had to be elements of nationalism within the governing system. Likewise the hopeful takeover of Greek Macedonia during the Greek Civil War was with the hope of incorporating it into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. But what needs to be realised is that it was not only nationalism that was suppressed but so too was any conscience that was deemed treason by the state: Serbian monarchism never sought to end South Slavic unity nor to intentionally cause nations to hate one another, but it was suppressed. Likewise even communists were persecuted in cases where they disagreed with Tito over the split with Stalin; these people had hoped Yugoslavia would be a Coninform state, such as Panko Brashnarov and Pavel Shatev. If it is felt that my amendment has somehow sent a wrong message then we need to propose how best to tidy that section. My two qualms were with "widely believed" (let's say what something is, not what a majority believes as that is just speculation), and the very loaded "lack of ethnic conflict". One associates "lack" with a concept whereby expectation is depleted ("Come on, there should be more than this!"). I'd say the same for any synonym including "shortage". I welcome ideas on phrasing. --OJ (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Legal proceedings
It says:

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

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

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

Alternatively (and I have no source for this), perhaps Karadzic was actually charged under the 'Alien Torts Act', rather than sued; perhaps the act provides for criminal remedies, in which case he could have been convicted. Can someone with access to the sources fix this? Failing that, I will come back later and remove the words 'tried and convicted', and rerplace them with 'lost the case' (I have not found a record of the outcome of the case, but I assume Karadzic lost, because failure to defend a civil suit automatically results in loss by default). MrDemeanour (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


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

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

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