Talk:Siege of Sarajevo/Archive 1

Needs attention and needs to be cleaned up
User: I think this page needs to be cleaned up. I spotted and fixed a few mistakes while browsing, but a more major overhaul is required —the majority of the article expresses a distinct political view, and there are more small errors to be fixed. Nihiltres 02:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with the above, this article is far below wiki standards especially for a period in history that was relatively high profile. The 'alleged ethnic cleansing' section appears to be far too POV, there aren't any citations to support the opinions expressed.  I don't know enough about the topic to edit with authority, but i think its fairly clear this article needs help.82.46.144.194 18:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That particular section is nonsense throughout. The usage of the term ethnic cleansing is unencyclopedic and inappropriate.
 * E.g.: "150,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Sarajevo"....
 * Territories are "ethnically cleansed", people are not. You cannot wash peoples' ethnicity from them. If the section is intended to refer to deporting people or killing them, it should say so in those terms. TheMadBaron 13:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The clean-up should also include the changes in Eastern Europe after let's say the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Currently the development goes from 1980 directly to 1991 RoguePat 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

numbers
User:Igor just removed some numbers on the page; I suspect that that's an incorrect change, but I would prefer if we had exact external references to all the numbers so that further such changes could be undisputable. --Shallot 18:51, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

spontaneous peace marches
When did actually those spontaneous peace marches begun? On the day of the start of the siege? A day before? A day after? Nikola 05:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The shooting of Suada Dilberovic is commonly considered to be the start of the siege. It occured on April 5th. Peace marches begun on April 4th and ended with the shooting as the people dispersed (ran the hell away to be exact). Vedran 12:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Photo removed; date change
Sorry, I removed the photo to the right, which was formerly at the top of the article. I think it's worse than having no photo. It doesn't really illustrate the siege of Sarajevo, and it raises various questions. The scale is not apparent &mdash; is this a 6 inch crack in the sidewalk, or 5 feet? What's the pink stuff? What is the context of the photo?

I replaced it at the top of the article with the house-to-house search photo, which I think better evokes the subject.

Also I wanted to clarify my changing of the sentence:


 * It lasted from April 5 1992 (technically May 2) to February 29 1996.

I got rid of the parentheses and just changed it to May 2. According to the article, April 5 is accepted as the date the war started, but the blockade &mdash; the subject of this article &mdash; started May 2. Tempshill 18:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The pink stuff is a Sarajevo Rose. They have their own page now. Cordless larry 01:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath
I was in Sarajevo in October 2004 and would disagree with the following:

By 2004 most of the damage done to buildings during the siege was fixed, and ruins and bullet holes had become a rarity

By all accounts much of the damage has been repaired, but as someone who has never visited a recent war zone before I was struck by the widespread and obvious damage. Bullet holes were by no means a "rarity".. I was shocked as most buildings appeared to have sustained considerable damage, and most were covered in bullet holes. I hope that this situation is remedied soon, but to say that bullet holes are "a rarity" is just manifestly untrue.


 * Agreed. I visited Sarajevo in August 2004 and noted very much the same. I would go as far as to say the sentence is POV nonsense - 69.140.65.251 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was there last week (July 2007) and the ruins, bullet holes and ruined buildings are scattered throughout Sarajevo every where so many ruins all over the place. I have photos to prove the person who wrote "By 2004 most of the damage done to buildings during the siege was fixed, and ruins and bullet holes had become a rarity" is completely wrong as of July 2007.  The ruins from the war are perhaps a tourist attraction. Milos44 04:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Milos


 * May someone remove this entirely untrue statement or can I delete it? As much as I would like to believe that statement, it is unfortunatly untrue, I have many many photographs to disprove it.  In fact many buildings will not be fixed as a reminder of the war and tourist attraction. Milos44 09:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Milos


 * As a Bosnian myself I can verify this and even provide photographic evidence if need be. I visited Sarajevo extensively in 2005, and I can assure you bullet holes still pock-mark many buildings across the city, particularly high-rise apartments, which proved the easiest targets for Serb forces. Some buildings are still noticeably abandoned, i.e. the Bosnian parliament building, which is now a burnt-out, empty shell unlike it's former incarnation depicted in the infobox.
 * Gaping holes, a couple of metres wide are even still present in some of the more poorer apartment blocks of the city, as are land mines. Numerous billboards are all over Sarajevo advising children not to play in tall grass fields.


 * I've removed and reworded that sentence.

Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Markale massacre
Ok, there have been several edits about the Markale massacre, suggesting it was carried out by the Muslim side. These edits keep getting reverted. I think we need to resolve this issue here instead of going into a revert war. From what I can tell, both sides claim that the other side was responsible for the attack, and there have been studies conducted which are in contradiction. On the one hand we have the studies by a group of UN experts which was inconclusive, on the other hand we have the report by Russian colonel Andrei Demurenko, which found that the mortar was fired by the Muslim side, and then there is study by Zecevic and another one by General Rupert Smith which found that it was fired by the Serb side. Here is a BBC report about it from 2004 which claims that it has not been estalished who is responsible. Can we say that both sides claim the other side is responsible and leave it at that? Any suggestions on how to resolve this are welcome, but please stop editing/reverting and resolve it here instead. Edrigu 22:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd agree, though I think it should be noted that not only both sides blame each other, but that various foreign reports also disagree. And it should also be said that Serbs are regarded as culprits despite that.
 * For two overviews of various analysis you can see http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/markale1.html (heavy in commentary) or http://www.aeronautics.ru/markale8.htm (condensed version, only source material). Nikola 06:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will rewrite that part in a NPOV way. If anyone objects please discuss it here rather than reverting. Edrigu 22:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I do object. I would ask you to take the following inofrmative article deailng with ICTY testimony into account and modify the newest version. Asim Led 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

nternational Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) Milosevic Trial - The Hague - Court Room One Day 273, 16 January 2004.

By: Judith Armatta

Related article: Bosnian Serb Gen. Stanislav Galic Guilty of Terrorizing Sarajevo, Markale Market Massacre - sentenced to 20 years in prison... THE HAGUE - Berko Zecevic, an expert in designing ammunition who investigated the mortar shell that killed 68 and wounded 144 in Sarajevo's Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994, concluded that the shell could only have come from the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) positions. His conclusion was presented in a report commissioned by the Office of the Prosecutor and introduced into evidence when he appeared in Court today.

The source of the 120 millimeter mortar shell that exploded in the middle of the busy market has been a matter of serious contention since it occurred. Initially, members of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) said the shell was fired from Bosnian Government positions. From that, some concluded that the Bosnian Government was firing on its own people, to make it appear they were victims of Bosnian Serb aggression and gain international sympathy and, ultimately, international intervention on their behalf. A later, more indepth UNPROFOR report, however, noted a calculation error in the first UN report. Correcting the error led the UN to conclude that it was impossible to say which side had fired the shell.

Mr. Zecevic testified that, when he heard on television that authorities were unable to determine the source of the projectile, he offered his services as an expert to the judge investigating the incident. Working with two colleagues, their analysis revealed the direction from which the shell was fired and six possible locations from which it could have been fired (5 under VRS control and 1 under ABH (Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina) control). The site under ABH control was clearly visible to UNPROFOR personnel, who reported that no shell was fired from that position. The type of stabilizer fin (part of the projectile) found at the site was produced in one of two places, both under control of the VRS at the time. As a result of this and other technical measurements, Mr. Zecevic concluded the shell could only have come from one of the positions under VRS control.

While Mr. Zecevic's experience and expertise in ammunition design and testing was impressive, the Accused questioned his objectivity based on his having worked for the ABH until shortly before the massacre. Mr. Zecevic insisted he conducted a professional and objective analysis, which was fully supported by facts and calculations that could be checked by any expert in the field. He added that his assistance to the ABH ended in July of the previous year. Before that, he worked for 17 years in the Research and Development Section of a major munitions factory in Bosnia. The factory was part of the former federal Yugoslavia's interdependent military-industrial complex. When the JNA dissolved, the system was reorganized and Mr. Zecevic left.

An earlier witness, former UN officer David Howland, told the Court that UN investigations could not determine the source of the particular shell that exploded in the Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994, but UN records showed that almost 100% of shells landing on the ABH side of the confrontation line were fired by the VRS. He also testified that, while the BHA sometimes provoked fire at civilian targets, it did not fire on its own people (the citizens of Sarajevo of all ethnicities).

During his cross examination, Milosevic read out a portion of the dissenting opinion in the Galic trial, where Judge Nieto-Navia concluded that the prosecution in that case had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bosnian Serb forces were responsible for the shell that exploded in the Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994. He found support for his conclusion in the Special UN Team's official findings communicated to the UN Security Council that "there is insufficient physical evidence to prove that one party fired the mortar bomb." As Judge May noted, that is one judge's view and nothing more. He might also have pointed out that the majority in the Galic case found beyond a reasonable doubt that the shell was deliberately fired from VRS-controlled territory, after extensively reviewing expert opinions, including Mr. Zecevic's and the UN's, as well as eye witness evidence.

The conclusions in the Galic trial are not binding on the judges in the Milosevic trial. Here, as there, the judges will have to make a thorough review and analysis of all evidence submitted -- by both the Prosecution and Defence -- before making up their own minds. The question remains whether the matter will ever be finally resolved.

Mr. Zecevic also provided expert testimony that the source of significant quantities and types of ammunition used by the VRS against the citizens of Sarajevo came from Serbia. His conclusion was based on an analysis of unexploded ordnance in Sarajevo. The Prosecution produced numerous documents, showing that Mr. Zecevic's former factory, military production enterprises in Serbia, the JNA/VJ and the VRS/RS took over and adapted the former federal Yugoslav military production network. Under it, as a number of the documents showed, Serbia and the JNA and its successor the VJ supplied weapons, ammunition and needed raw materials to the Bosnian Serbs. This practice violated the UN arms embargo. And, as Mr. Zecevic told the Court, "[I]t means that the country [Serbia/FRY - Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] was directly taking part in the killing of people who were unarmed," i.e. the citizens of Sarajevo where the unexploded ordnance was found. The documents, together with Mr. Zecevic's testimony, add yet more corroboration that Serbia was supporting the war by the RS against the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The Prosecution has long since succeeded in establishing that Serbia supplied the Bosnian Serbs with significant quantities of weapons and military equipment without which they could not have waged war. Milosevic faces a formidable task to discredit this evidence.


 * Yes, I already mentioned the study by Zecevic above. As I said, there were several studies, sometimes attributing the attack to Serbs, other times to Muslims, and other times coming out inconclusive. I think it makes the most sense to quote the study by the UN (the one that was inconclusive) because it is the one that is being used by the ICTY (and therefore it's most likely the most reliable). Maybe we could add a sentence about how there were several other studies conducted and how they contradict each other. Edrigu 22:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it should be noted the Gaic was convicted by the ICTY for, among other things, the Markale market massacre, based on Zecevic's studies. I think something should be said of the following as well: Asim Led 22:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"An earlier witness, former UN officer David Howland, told the Court that UN investigations could not determine the source of the particular shell that exploded in the Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994, but UN records showed that almost 100% of shells landing on the ABH side of the confrontation line were fired by the VRS. He also testified that, while the BHA sometimes provoked fire at civilian targets, it did not fire on its own people (the citizens of Sarajevo of all ethnicities)"


 * It appears an ICTY judge did indeed blame Galic for Markale, based on the testimony by Zecevic. Although the ICTY has not used the same study to convict other Serbs for the same crime, relying instead on the inconclusive UN investigation. I am unconvinced that we should present the Zecevic study as the final word in this article. Edrigu 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok I have modified the section in a way that should please everyone. Edrigu 14:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For everyone of you who are talking about the Markale site have you ever even been there do you know how it looks. Do you know anything about ballistics and about trajectory of the shell cannoned in that way and preciseness with the first hit. Also you should consider that ICTY is considered widely as one sided how many muslims were appointed for war crimes in Bosnia and how many Croats and Serbs. And furthermore to explain to everyone around the markale marketplace are high buildings several flours, and it is by the way very small contracted between those high building I would like to see all those people standing there just standing because of the size. And since when are the mortars classed as heavy weapons.194.249.99.162 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Paramilitary Involvement
I think that in light of recent reports, mention is warranted of the function and activity of various paramilitary outfits during the siege. I'll throw something together along these lines if there is no objection. Timmay 21:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Needed: early war Serbian attacks and the JNA withdrawal from besieged bases inside Sarajevo
There was a major street fighting between armored columns and ad hoc groups of Bosnian militiamen, policemen and criminals (no real ARBiH yet). --HanzoHattori 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

At one point even the Bosnian president was captured and held hostage. When they released him, he noted he drove through the streets "full of" burned tanks and bodies. --HanzoHattori 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing
"150,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Sarajevo, with several thousand killed"

It seems that it is difficult to keep hostilities from the battlefields and war zones from spilling over into Wikipedia, not just with this article, but with most others that involve war or armed conflict. (This is less of a problem with ancient wars; I've not seen it happen in discussions of the Persians vs. the Greeks.) Maybe a solution to the problemof determining who should get the last word on statistics and claims of genocide, etc., would be to add a section devoted to the controversy over numbers. In some cases, disputes over just how many people were killed, whether it amounted to ethnic cleansing, and so on, are a large part of the historical record, so discussion of that controversy would be useful in the article. As an example, one could look at the controversy in the U. S. media over how many females were raped. The wide disparity of figures was at the time a major problem for those trying to end the conflict, as there was a real risk that people would simply distrust any reports as exageration. Rather than isolate the discussion of numbers and competing accounts of ethnic cleansing on this page, it would make sense to create a specific section in the main article. C d h 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Grbavica
The caption of the photo of Grbavica said it was "Serb-occupied". It was Serb inhabited before and during the war but not after. I changed the caption. Ilidza and Grbavica used to be Serb neighbourhoods in Sarajevo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.136.64 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the source I love nyc 2008 (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT TRUE that Grbavica was Serb inhabited-neighbourhood before the war. there was Serbs living there together with Bosnian Muslims and Croats, but it was never a Serb neighbourhood. It became serbian once all non-serbs were killed or kicked out from there. I know, I was there, along with other 300k people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.46.147 (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Brckic and ismic dead.jpg
The image Image:Brckic and ismic dead.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
I have added a photographic gallery of scenes from everyday life under siege in Sarajevo in 1992 and 1993. Writegeist (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Text edits
I made a start on editing the text for clarity, flow, encyclopedic style, etc. I trust the article's established editors to keep a close eye on my changes and correct any errors of fact that might be accidentally introduced. Thank you, those of you who have already made corrections. Writegeist (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Key dates
The article gives October 15 1991 and April 5 1992 as dates for BiH's declaration of independence. I thought it was March 3 (i.e. a couple of days after the referendum of Feb 29-March 1)? I also have March 2 as the date on which masked gunmen set up the first barricades in Sarajevo; and March 6 as the date of a big peace rally.

Can someone please clarify? Writegeist (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * T/y PRODUCER. Writegeist (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do the following two statements refer to the same event?


 * On April 5, Serbian policemen attacked police stations and then an Interior Ministry training school.
 * Also on April 6 Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) forces, Serb police units and paramilitaries attacked the Bosnian government’s personnel training center.


 * If so, we should note it just once, and get the participants right; and also we need to establish the correct date. Writegeist (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved by PRODUCER. Writegeist (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

dangerous and illegitimate practice


I noticed that some contributors remove images with referenced description without prior discussion on talk page. This dangerous and illegitimate practice leads us to edit warring and should not be used on Wikipedia. I repeat, please use talk page if you are disputing something. Edit summary is not enough for dispute resolution. --Mladifilozof (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing facts
Someone (from Bosnia, muslim nationality) removed well known fact: "On March 1, the second day of the referendum on the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a member of the Green Berets Ramiz Delalić shot on the Serbian wedding procession in Baščaršija and killed bride's father Nikola Gardović."

Return this fact! Keep this page controlled! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.110.147 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Serbian victims!
Mention the Serbian victims, that Sarajevo is cleansed of Serbs today, including the famous and notable Serbs like Zdravko Colic, Neda Ukraden, Goran Bregovic, Emir Kusturica, and many many others!

Mention the massacre of young Serbs in Dobrovoljacka street. It was ordered by Muslims!!! It was a crime and thing which provocated the civil war! Use both sides stories, use facts, don't create "poor Muslims" picture when they are everything but innocent! Be correct! Once!

Use this video and do not hide the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k64rXzdiA0&has_verified=1

Show all facts about Merkale set up and fake massacre story prooved in the Hague Tribunal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.110.147 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I agree there could be a more balanced description of Serbs in Sarajevo, but citing that "notable Serbs like Zdravko Colic, Neda Ukraden, Goran Bregovic, Emir Kusturica, and many many others" were part of some "cleansing" program is absolutely false. Bragovic and Kusturica in particular left Sarajevo with willing intention—Kusturica lives in the ethno-village he constructed in Serbia.  And, at least for the extensive time I personally spent in Sarajevo (and Serbia) this year, there were quite a few Serbians in residence there.

Aha, so they should stay to be killed? Brilliant!178.253.205.130 (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * YouTube is hardly a balanced citation to prove your point.


 * As for other theories you pointed out, I'd respond by pointing out that an exclamation point is not a replacement for verification of your claims. A military ambush of opposing military personnel is usually not considered a "massacre" in an objective sense.  It certainly did not "provocate" (sic) the civil war; barricades had already been in place and civilians had been murdered by the JNA before 2-3 May, 1992.


 * http://www.rferl.org/content/What_Really_Happened_During_The_Dobrovoljacka_Attack/1977945.html
 * http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/27720/
 * http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/27720/


 * [2 reasonable articles that might well be considered by a conspiracy theorist as being part of a constructed lie.] Kirkesque (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Military ambush is not a massacre even if they kill children who were serving their time in army but killing mostly in battle 10. Muslim division in Srebrenica is a genocide is it ? Hypocrats, when Serbs are killed they are aceptable military targets when Muslims are killed its genocide. When Muslims are expeled its ethnic clensing, when Serbs are expeled its "they left". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.113.137 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Be neutral for once!
Watch the video and use the words of lord Owen and add it if you are neutral!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5hk7zV3Yok

178.253.205.130 (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)