Talk:Vukovar massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

"massacre"

I'm not disputing the accuracy of the content, as I don't know enough about it, but in general, the use of "massacre" in the title is generally avoided on WP, as it may be too suggestive.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond to both tags,

• Battle of Vukovar has been the victim of a great deal of vandalism. Because of that, I thought it would be easier to manage if this was in its own article. Besides, these killings were not explicitly part of the battle itself anyway.
• Second, I wouldn't mind changing the article's title. However, "Vukovar massacre" gives 58,100 Google results. A search of Wikipedia also provides many articles which are titled "X massacre". There is simply nothing else to name it, unless we were to make up something ourselves, which would hardly be right. --Thewanderer 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Ovčara?

I wrote the Ovčara article today, without being aware that this article deals with the same topic. Now I am not sure how to proceed. The location of Ovčara can possibly be relevant only for this massacre and for the prison camp. On the other hand, there were other massacres in Vukovar proper (Old Cemetery and Stadium mass graves). Therefore, I think the article about this massacre should be called "Ovčara", not "Vukovar massacre". Any thoughts on this? (P.S. I also made several redirects, see here.) --Zmaj 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, I think that there should be one page about the Vukovar massacres even though it would describe several incidents, because they all have a common denominator - they all happened in the aftermath of the battle of Vukovar. The current pages could be merged into one, they are both fairly short.

There is a chance that someone will want to write up something general about Ovčara (it's a field used by Vupik, IIRC), but it's not likely. So Ovčara should definitely be one of the names (redirects) for the article about the massacres.

--Joy [shallot] 20:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will move Ovčara over here. This article's title should remain as it is or be just turned into plural. Blnguyen objected to the word "massacre" in the title, but I counted 134 Wikipedia articles with that word in the title, so it is obviously not unusual. --Zmaj 06:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a precautionary comment. There are instances where people scream "massacre!" but an event isn't so. However, here we have a complete corroboration by the ICTY so there isn't any doubt, it just has to be explicated. --Joy [shallot]

Contradiction regarding number of bodies identified

At the beginning of the article it claims 194 bodies were identified and the it later it states the number is 163. Which is correct?--68.149.181.145 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

The article nowhere mentions real reason behind the massacre: that healthy Croatian fighters were hiding in the hospital as if they were wounded, and that for this reason everyone in the hospital was rounded up. I'm not an expert, but for what I know, this is a grave breach of Geneva convention. See for example this news from B92[1].

Further, the article implies that hospital staff was killed, but this article from Danas[2] says that hospital staff were imprisoned but released, by Sljivancanin personally. Nikola 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

---

No time now to integrate it into the article, but another very informative source I found is [3]. Nikola 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...Serbian nationalist sources..LMAO! Too bad that the footages from Vukovar prove all your claims wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.132.16 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nikola, we are not interested in your Greater-Serbian conspiracy theories and Serbian sources (that's like using Nazi Germany sources about WW2). In Vukovar massacre wounded soldiers and civilians were carried out, TORTURED in Ovčara and killed. The same hospital stuff you mentioned were also tortured and forced to admit that they were steeling Serbian organs (classic Serbian propaganda, they used it in every place they tried to cleanse). Hard to steal organs when you are hiding in the hospital basement and praying that the bomb doesn't hit you.If you need sources look at listed wikipedia's sources in Vukovar massacre and Vukovar articles. Nikola,history was already written-Serbs tried to create Greater Serbia and only thing they got is ultimate knock-out. Stop trying to change it on wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.71.92 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Civilians?

“ They [Radic and Slivancanin] were convicted of war crimes, the tribunal accepting the claim that those killed were members of the Croatian paramilitary and not civilians, whose killing is considered a crime against humanity and incurs a heavier penalty. ”

This is the quote from the bbc article. Are there any reliable sources that confirm that there were indeed any civilians among the killed? Alæxis_¿question? 05:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, read the text. Sinisa Glavašević, his technician, one woman, a boy of 16 years, an old man of 77, another 52 people over 40 years... all in all about 1/4th of the victims. The Spanish Inquisitor 07:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now I see. However consider this fragment:

“ The names include one woman, a 77-year old man as the oldest and a 16-year old boy as the youngest victim of the massacre. 52 of these are older then 40 years,[2] meaning that a large number of the victims were civlians ”

The logic transition isn't that apparent here imho. Why are people older that 40 (or women) automatically considered civilians? Alæxis_¿question? 07:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[4] Fifth row, middle picture. No uniforms I can see. The Spanish Inquisitor 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but even if we leave aside the question of this source's reliability it's still not sufficient to state that 'a large number of the victims were civilians'. Alæxis_¿question? 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're questioning the reliabilty of ICTY's research material???

As far as age is concerned: except in certain African anarchy-dictatorships, 16-year olds are not considered fit for military service in any country in the world. It's also against a few international laws,18 years limit so you'd have to prove they WERE soldiers, not that they weren't. Like most civilized countries, Croatian law defines military service ages as "between 18 and 49". Over 49 is "unfit for military service". I don't know where in the world a 70-year old man would be considered for military service??? Aside all the Ancient Rambo jokes, anything you answer here can also apply to victims of Operation Storm... also a lot of older people. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You've probably misunderstood me. I don't question ICTY's material. I asked you for a source confirming that 'a large number of victims were civilians'.

ps. Why did you write about those older than 40 (and not 50) in the article then? Alæxis_¿question? 09:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the relevant ages today, so I've changed that now. The Spanish Inquisitor 10:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, certain African dictatorships such as the United Kingdom. As Croatian forces weren't a standing army, but have just began to organise, from local population, it is possible that some of its meembers would be under or over military age. Nikola 10:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's possible Serbs eat children... and it's possible you are a Chetnik... and it's possible your a 12-year old and still a Chetnik :)... etc. etc. Perhaps you should return to this discussion in 60 years so we can test your balistic skills :))))) ... The Spanish Inquisitor 07:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's possible this is original research and you should find some source that states that some people killed were civilians, and if so, how many of them were. Nikola 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's possible three sources saying for it are much stronger then your personal feelings. Get over it. The Spanish Inquisitor 06:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point to me which sources are saying it? Nikola 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the references. UN/ICTY, Amnesty International, New York Times... The Spanish Inquisitor 09:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They speak very generally; if there were civilians, they could only comprise a small percentage of all massacred. Nikola 18:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They speak very clearly; if there were soldiers, they could only comprise a small percentage of all massacred. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they do not, and no, they could not. I intend to find better, more specific references. Nikola 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is actually the point. The soldiers were disguised as patients, as I've told. Nikola 19:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you got reliable sources confirming this? Alæxis_¿question? 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone who claims otherwise? Nikola 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've got to have references to include such claims in Wikipedia. Alæxis_¿question? 14:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But I don't need references to include opposite claims? Look, there simply isn't anyone who claims otherwise. Above, I cited proceedings of the trial in Belgrade which show it, but unfortunately they aren't translated to English. Nikola 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone who claims otherwise". May I recommend, when discussing a subject, actually READING something about it... As you kindly always point out to everyone elses sources, the ones printed in Belgrade may not be considered absolutely reliable... :))) The Spanish Inquisitor 06:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

More killing grounds

There were more mass-killing grounds in Vukovar and neighbourhood (where Croats were killed), not only Ovčara.
See here [5] and [6]. Note: big *.pdf files. Kubura (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)