Talk:Rape during the Bosnian War/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 23 editor (talk · contribs) 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one. 23 editor (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No offence, but I don't find that to be a good idea considering your previous ties to the subject matter. We need someone unaffiliated to the subject, and neutral. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Previous ties? I don't follow. "Unaffiliated to the subject", "neutral"? Why am I "affiliated" with the subject (rape in Bosnia and Herzegovina)? Why am I not neutral? Is there a WP:COI? Explain yourself without being vague and provocative. 23 editor (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As also explained at the talk page of the requester (DS), the bulk of your edits (as far as our paths have crossed) relate to articles connected to the Bosnian War, as does the current article/subject matter/topic/whatever. Without intending to be provocative, your contributions to these articles are at their base largely characterized by one word, pro-Serb. One striking example is the work you tried to get away with at Siege of Srebrenica, that included selectively citing the litterature and attempting to portray the genocide as an understandable act of revenge on behalf of the Serbs. Thus in line with seeking to diminish the signifance of the crime, your version of the background to these events starts with, not the Serb ethnic cleansing and massacres during the summer of 1992, but interestingly with the, in comparison, small-scale offences by the besieged forces of Naser Oric in January 1993. Thus by piecing together sporadic acts of desperate Bosniak resistance you sought to construct a skewed presentation of Serb victimhood that allegedly culminated in a righteous act of bloody revenge (nothing new really but part of the Serb mainstream narrative). My advice to you is to understand that no one around here is really stupid enough to not see through the transparency. There are other examples as well. On the bright side, however, you are quite sensible and willing to - at least momentarily - bury your POV when confronted, although tediously. So, obviosuly, offering to review an article concerned with one of the darker chapters of Serb morale, is not only awkward but also doomed to be met with skepticism. As far as this nomination is concered, I'll leave it up to DS to decide seeing how most of the improved material is his/hers, while patiently observing in the background. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as our paths have crossed, you've jumped to conclusions far too quickly to be considered an editor that I am comfortable interacting and/or working with, especially on an area as controversial as the Balkans. The fact of the matter is this: after a year of virtually no interaction between the two of us on Wiki, you've decided to bring up a discussion from nearly 16 months ago (one which I considered long-resolved) and use it to protest the fact that I intend to volunteer my time and effort to review an article which I've hardly ever edited. You claim that I "[seek] to diminish the significance of [Serb] crime(s)", even though I clearly stated that this was not the case (both in general, and in relation to the article in question—Siege of Srebrenica). You went ahead and made productive additions to the article and I welcomed your input. That was it. Now, this. Why all the beef? I haven't even started my review; and, as far as reviews go, I've done several GA reviews, including one at Talk:Saborsko massacre/GA1, and no one has ever had any complaints. Furthermore, your claim that my edits are mostly about the Bosnian War is utterly false. I mostly focus on World War II in Yugoslavia, Serbia during World War I and the Croatian War of Independence. Within this scope, I've written articles such as Baćin massacre, Jezdimir Dangić and Grand Anti-Masonic Exhibition, which are hardly "pro-Serb". The simple fact is that I wish to expand this encyclopedia using academic sources. I try to be neutral at all times, even if you wish to disagree. If that ruffles your feathers, then that's your problem. If you want to have a civilized discussion, fine. If not, stop wasting my time and disrupting what was meant to be a calm and collected GA review.

P.S., don't use vague language such as "your previous ties to the subject matter" and "unaffiliated to the subject". It can be interpreted many different ways, and generally suggests that the person in question is personally mixed up in something. 23 editor (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, Praxis Icosahedron. Do I have your permission to review this article? 23 editor (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

• Background

1. ...Despite the government-led hate campaigns... – Which government?

   ...some Serbs tried to defend Bosnians... I assume you mean Bosniaks. "Bosnians" is a term used to refer to any citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina, whether they are Serb, Croat or Bosniak.

   ...Before the conflict began... Which conflict? The one in Bosnia, or the Yugoslav Wars in general?

   ...Other myths invoked included suggestions that Bosnian Muslims were racially different, typically that they were actually of largely Turkish blood... I suggest you write: "Serb propaganda suggested that Bosnian Muslims were racially different, typically that they were actually of largely Turkish blood."

   ...during the Ustaše genocide in the 1940s... link "genocide in the 1940s" to World War II persecution of Serbs.

   Feelings of victimhood... – Please clarify this statement. I assume you meant to say that Serb propaganda claimed Serbs were victim of Bosniak persecution. Do reword this.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

• Background
  • "...Prior to 1980, Croatian and Serbian nationalism..." Where? In Bosnia or Yugoslavia, in general?

1. B. Focused:

• Background
  • "Prior to 1980, Croatian and Serbian nationalism had been effectively repressed by Marshal Josip Broz Tito..." – Explain that Tito died in 1980 and that he was the leader of Yugoslavia. Also, Tito didn't just repress Croat and Serb nationalism—he repressed the nationalism of all ethnic groups.
  • "Slobodan Milošević had inflamed..." – Explain who the man was (i.e. Serbian President...)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

• Background
  • "...Milošević had inflamed Serbian nationalist sentiment with a speech referring to the Battle of Kosovo..." I assume you mean the Gazimestan Speech. If so, please add a few more sources backing up this statement. Also, clarify where Serbian nationalist sentiment was inflamed and specify that Milošević was referring to the 1389 battle. Also, if you are referring to the Gazimestan Speech, the speech didn't merely "refer" to the battle. It was about the battle and Milošević delivered it on its 600th anniversary.
  • "Feelings of victimhood and aggression towards Bosniaks...", "...myths invoked included suggestions that Bosnian Muslims were..." – use either Bosniak or Bosnian Muslim, not both. I suggest you use the term Bosniak but have "Bosnian Muslim" in brackets at first mention in the article, otherwise a casual reader will be confused out of their mind.

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Are you taking the fucking piss? Five days and not a peep? And now, still fuck all? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your rude profanities aside, I've wrapped up with the "Background" section and will continue the review tomorrow. 23 editor (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Go all that, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite, I still see "Bosnians" being used instead of "Bosniaks" and Milošević is listed as "former Serbian President", whereas he was the current president when the events in question occurred. 23 editor (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thought I had got all the "Bosnians" being used instead of "Bosniaks", will go through it again, Milošević is the former president, perhaps rephrase as "then president"? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"...some Serbs tried to defend Bosnians from the atrocities..." 23 editor (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor: Anything else? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be going over some more points over the next several hours. 23 editor (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Estimates of victims

• Consider renaming the section to "Wartime rape" or something like that, because—as far as I can see—it doesn't mainly deal with the number of victims.

Done

• "From May 1992, Bosniaks were rounded up and sent to the Omarska camp." There were literally hundreds of concentration camps in the country. The one referred to in this sentence was located in Prijedor and that should be explained. Prijedor, and north Bosnia in general, had other large camps where rapes took place (namely Trnopolje, Keraterm and Manjača). Omarska was by far the worst and should be described as such, but to single it out as the one place Bosniaks were held is absurd. Please expand.

All camps are mentioned are they not?

• "At the camp, which has been described as a "concentration camp"..." Either call it a concentration camp or attribute the claim to a source.

Done

• "Victims were told they would be hunted down, and killed, should they..." Remove the commas around ", and killed,".

Done

• "The commission also concluded that, "Rape has..." Replace the comma with a colon.

Done

• "It has been claimed that "For the Serbs, the desire to degrade, humiliate, and impregnate Bosnian Muslim women with 'little Chetniks' was paramount." "For" should not be capitalized. Also, 'little Chetniks' should be in double quotes and not single. Furthermore, who made the claim? Please clarify.

Done

Characteristics of locations and procedures

• It's good that you're mentioning the concentration camps, but see my comments above re: Omarska and other camps. Try to introduce the topic of concentration camps in a single paragraph and talk about them later without overlinking, as you have at Omarska camp in paragraph one of this sub-section.
• "Over a five month period between spring and summer of 1992 between 5,000-7,000 Bosniaks and Croatians were held in inhuman conditions at Omarska." Again, I've read about this over at "Estimates of victims". Put it all together in one place, so that readers don't have to dart back and forth between sections to get an overview of the camps. Also "5,000-7,000 Bosniaks..." should use an endash.

Done

• What I notice while I'm reading this is that you use Muslim and Bosniak interchangably. While I understand that many of the sources do indeed use the term "Muslim", I want you to decide on which term to use and stick to it throughout the article (except for quotes, of course).

Done

• "At Dretelj the majority of prisoners were Serbian civilians, who were held in inhumane conditions, while female detainees were raped and told that they would be held until they gave birth to an "Ustase"." Reiterate that Croat forces were responsible for the rapes; "Ustase" should be rendered Ustaša (Ustaše is plural).

Done

• "Women were questioned as to male relatives in the city, and one woman's 14 year old son was then brought to her to rape her." — "Women were questioned as to male relatives in the city, and one woman's fourteen-year-old son was forced to rape her."

Done

• "Some writers have expressed skepticism about men's claims in such situations to have been forced to rape, arguing that once his penis became erect, he was an active participant in the rape, regardless of other circumstances." — This should go something like this: "Some writers have expressed skepticism about men's claims to have been forced to rape in such situations, arguing that once their penises became erect, they were active participants in the rape, regardless of other circumstances."

Done

• "From the 1960s to the war, the percentage of mixed marriages between communities has been close to 12%..." — From the 1960s until the beginning of the war, the number of mixed marriages between communities was nearly twelve percent..."

Done

National and International reactions

• "The United Nations Security Council established the ICTY due to the massive human rights violations carried out by the Serbian armed forces". Questionable neutrality; needs rewording. The ICTY's website talks about "widespread atrocities" as being the reason for the court's creation and doesn't mention any ethnicity by name. Consider quoting the reason for the tribunals establishment ("In May 1993, the Tribunal was established by the United Nations in response to mass atrocities then taking place in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Reports depicting horrendous crimes, in which thousands of civilians were being killed and wounded, tortured and sexually abused in detention camps and hundreds of thousands expelled from their homes, caused outrage across the world and spurred the UN Security Council to act.") or read Susan Dewey's book to add some context (i.e. the court can't impose the death penalty, etc.)
• "John Y. Lee argues that a similar tribunal to the ICTY be formed to prosecute the Japanese armed forces for their use of "comfort women" during WW2." Going a bit off-topic here. This doesn't really have a lot to do with Bosnia, and presenting one author's opinion on another man in an article that is supposed to outline wartime rape is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.

Moved to rape as genocide section

• "The ICTY set the precedent that rape in warfare is a form of torture, and in 2011 indicted 161 people, and heard evidence from over 4000 witnesses" — Comma please (4,000).

Done

More to come. 23 editor (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor: Have gotten most of the issues raised, ready to continue when you are. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all, I'm afraid. You've still failed to introduce each set of concentration camps concisely and some of the copy-edit points haven't been fully carried out (endashes, etc). Please fix this quickly so I can continue the review. 23 editor (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I will get those when I have sources for them, I have no idea what an endashe is. Please continue with the review. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an endash → –

23 editor (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor:Added that little arrow where you said twas needed, but it looks stupid having an arrow there in the text, what purpose does that actually serve? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, you meant the one like a hyphen lol, done that now. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor:, and chance you can continue this review please? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article looks good for promotion. Just fix all the issues I raised and that should do it. 23 editor (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor: Sorry, what have I missed? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just come to my attention that there's citations in the lead. They shouldn't be there unless absolutely necessary, per WP:LEADCITE. What this means is that some of the content of the lead is either not mentioned in the article body or is being subjected to citation overkill. Therefore, I suggest you remove the refs and work into the article the assertations to which they pertain. Also, I suggest you reword the first sentence of the lead paragraph to: "An estimated 12,000–50,000 women were raped during the Bosnian War, and resulting Bosnian Genocide. Rapes were committed by all warring sides and women of all ethnicites were subjected to sexual violence, but the great majority of war crimes were perpetrated against Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) women by Bosnian Serb forces, who used rape as an instrument of terror as part of their programme of ethnic cleansing."

As for the concentration camps, they appear to be introduced concisely in "Characteristics of locations and procedures". Good job. 23 editor (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor: Your suggestion for the lede paragraph rewrite gives undue weight to the other warring factions, the Serbs carried out 90% of atrocities during the conflict, the rapes by the other two factions did not even compare. The actions by the others is already mentioned in the lede, and I honestly think I have gotten the weight correct there. As for the citations in the lede, on a contentious topic such as this it is better to err on the side of caution, I have written articles on this subject matter previously and people will put CN tags on anything they believe to be contentious. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Leave the citations. As for the opening sentence, I was trying to make it conform to WP:MOSBEGIN, which stipulates that leads "should define the topic with a neutral point of view". Rapes committed by combatants of other ethnic groups are implied in a single half-sentence in the middle of the lead ("While women of all ethnic groups were affected by instances of both rape and multiple perpetrator rape (MPR) during the conflict..."). If anything, rape by Bosniak and Croat forces is under-reported in the lead.

I fail to see why my proposal gives undue weight, given that it quite literally echos the UN Security Council's findings mentioned under "Abuses against women": "Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosniaks, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs..." and the assertion "Throughout the conflict women of all ethnic groups were affected, although not on the scale that the Bosniak population suffered..." attributed to Wood 2013, p. 140. All I did was take these statements and reword them, adding the figure of 12,000–50,000 women. 23 editor (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor and Darkness Shines: I agree with Darkness Shines, the rapes by the various warring factions do not even begin to compare, and not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. Bosniak and Croat forces are not considered to have undertaken systematic large-scale rape as part of their war campaigns. The litterature also explains that any subsequent tendency among Bosniak and Croat soldiers towards commiting individual, sporadic, rape was largely in response to the widespread occurence of systematized Serbian attrocities. As is known, the Serbs were vastly superior militarily, and they certainly set the stage as with regard to war rape and war crimes in general. 23 editor's suggested lede tends to omit these power relations by, in fact, giving undue weight to the sporadic rapes commited by Bosniak and Croat soldiers, simply by having them put together with the Serb campaign in the same opening sentence. As a matter of fact, what gives this article its relevance to begin with (as opposed to reducing it to a section in the Bosnian War article) is the unique as well as socially, judicially and academically significant nature of the systematized large-scale campaign of sexual violence carried out by Serb forces (because, unfortunately, sporadic war-time rape is by no means unusual. It is what you could call 'unspecific rape' and it rarely attains the same numbers or devastation as a systematic policy does). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@23 editor:, are you ever going to finish this? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you ever going to alter the opening? 23 editor (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

fuck no, but given I admitted I am a sock, it matters not, Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's most unfortunate. I'm failing this on grounds of neutrality. 23 editor (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)