Talk:Ahmići massacre

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning about addition of inflamatory material

The addition of the material "Bosniak propaganda about Ahmići massacre" by an IP and Aradic-es by these two adjacent edits 1st, 2nd. Then subsequent edit war with ICTYoda and mainly PRODUCER to keep this material in is highly inflamatory. This what I call a whinge about Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) using the massacre as propaganda against Croats, when in 1993 up to 120 people including babies and old women were massacred in what the International War Crimes Tribuanl has ruled crimes against humanity. This completely highlights a lack of any perspective and is bordering on abusiveness. Aradic-es cites three blogs as sources. This sort of nonsense should not be welcome on wikipedia and I have completely lost my sympathy with Aradic-es's complaints about being reverted. Polargeo (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I invite Aradic - es to remove his recent edit and continuation of this edit war. I request this is not done by others involved in the edit war or they too may face sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The section is indeed mostly inflammatory nonsense. However, I suggest we include a brief sentence like this: (and source it with the stuff)

• "Bosniak wartime propaganda and nationalist elements have since heavily exploited the events to paint a negative image of CR Herzeg-Bosnia, and even, on occasion, (Bosnian) Croats in general."

That would take out the WWII crap... is the wording NPOV? (I tried to make it as neutral as possible, while still conveying the message - not easy) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming the "the stuff" is the forum nonsense Aradic added, these aren't reliable sources. As long as its not original research and you can find reliable sources (preferably in English for Polargeo's sake) to back up the claim, it's fine with me. On another note, Franjo Tudman's efforts in covering up Ahmici should be mentioned also. PRODUCER (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you're right... I wouldn't believe it but its all crap forums :P, they're not fit to be introduced in the article at all. You're absolutely right in keeping it out, there isn't even a moderate "middle-ground" here. Ok, I recommend the stuff remains out in its entirety. (btw, Aradic-es, the Handschar was SS, not Ustaše.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbers killed

The number killed cannot just be changed like this without getting a reference for the new number. Wikipedia relies on being verifiable. The number 103 is stated as "According to the ECMM report, at least 103 people were killed during the attack on Ahmići" and it appears that this is correct. If the actual number after more research has been done is 116 then you can add that in but you need a source. At present the article says "at least 103" not "103" Polargeo (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The number of casualties in Ahmic was 116-please refer to the link for names and number as per my change. http://ahmici.info/spisak.html RighteousBosnian. I am a survivor of this Atrocity and lost my dearest-my father was one of those brutally murdered while the British UN troops sat idly by and watched this massacre happen. After wards they loaded the bodies onto their vehicles, without respect that these people were fathers, sons, mother, wives, daughters, brother and sisters.

I have great respect for you in this but please note the number quoted in the article is the "minimum" estimate according the European Union monitors. If you wish to put in another number please quote a reliable source (WP:RS) for this number and put it in. I don't think the current text in any way denies that there were more than 103 killed it is just that we need a reliable source for numbers and the link you have given does not really add up to give 116 in this massacre. Polargeo (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality:

This paragraph:

Less than an hour after the attack British troops appeared in Ahmići along with the whole BBC journalist crew. Without any research and looking straight to camera British commander Bryan Watters repeatedly accused Croats for the massacre. An ex British premiere Margaret Thatcher, known to sympathize Croats, canceled her meeting with Croatian war government planned 6 days after this event. Ahmići tragedy was often used in BBC program as an example of Croat - muslim "war" with the agenda of guilt equity between all three sides of the conflict. Bošnjačka televizija broadcasted an interview of a witness that said: "I heard the attackers using English language."

American intelligence magazine EIR (Executive intelligence review) has published an article, 22. September 1995. about the role of MI6 in Ahmići tragedy. The article was written by Umberto Pascali.

...

appears to be attacking the neutrality of British Peakekeeping troops who discovered the massacre.

It also raises the opinion of EIR, hardly a neutral resource for Wikipedia.

I'd like to see that section edited, removed, and the EIR rubbish taken out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.149.231 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't "attack the neutrality" but involvement of British Peacekeeping troops. And the BBC. If any there is no FACTS disputable the section should be brought back to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.162.107 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, point taken, let me elaborate and be a bit more accurate.

I believe that this paragraph suggests, or appears to imply, WITH NO BASIS IN FACT, no references, no historical accuracy, that there were outside agencies involved in the Ahmici Massacre - perhaps that British Troops working for the UNITED NATIONS may have been involved in massacring civilians including women and children///<or that there waqs something underhand in the discovery of the massacre by British troops of the 1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment, under the command of Lt. Col. Bob Stewart (now Colonel Ret.)

Furthermore I'd say that this article is the only place on the internet taht such rubbish can be found.

Moreover, it reads like an opinion piece, with no references, and therefore does reduce the neutrality of the article

This would, for sure help the neutrality of Wikipedia: naming sources at your will "rubbish". Fascinating: whole article doesn't mention BBC, or Cheshire Regiment even having in mind "the discovery" of the event. Whole article doesn't mention how pointless would it be for Croatians to attack Bosnian people strategically, logically, historically. There is one side that took a good advantage, now publishing these articles. What documents there are about Lt. Col. Bob Stewart (and his previous employment with Karadžić) should definitely brought to the front of this page. For the sake of neutrality. (Mind me for not calling your sources rubbish at my will, for the sake of neutrality.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.39.10 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ahmići massacre. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109205109/http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/indictments/kordic1.html to http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/indictments/kordic1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225200519/http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/indictments/Kordic2.html to http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/indictments/Kordic2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)