Talk:Omarska camp

death tolls

This article presents a series claims about death tolls not supported by any reliable source. These matters are too serious to be dealt with without hard facts. I urge knowledgeable Wikipedia editors to clean up this article. 158.37.109.11 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The section headed "Death toll" is quite clear about the status of information about deaths. Uncertainty is inevitable, given the deliberate efforts made to conceal the number of deaths, including the disposal of bodies in concealed mass graves. Given the difficulty of providing an accurate figure the uncertainty is adequately taken into account for the time being in the "Death toll" section. Opbeith (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. But still the first paragraph (about 4 lines) quotes numbers and mentions sources whithout providing reference to sources. The second paragraph cites HRW and professor Campbells private webpage. Mondeo (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

POV-check: Because of the lack of reliable sources the neutrality of this article can be questioned. 158.37.109.11 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of corroborative evidence of the atrocities perpetrated at Omarska (and the other camps) in the ICTY Trial Chamber findings in the case against Miroslav Kvocka, Milojica Kos, Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic and Dragoljub Prcac. http://www.un.org/icty/kvocka/trialc/judgement/index.htm Opbeith (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, hasn't Omarska been proven a hoax already?

Maybe someone could do the same to Auschwitz for example, but then you'd have proof of that already

Jewish organizations tout their suffering, try not to belittle it. Doesn't anyone else find this crap VERY offensive?

Yes, I in fact do find your belitteling of Omarska Camp VERY offensive. Thanks for asking --Dado 18:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the picture of the Tuberculosis infected inmate being used as the image descriptor for this article? There is clearly a POV motivation behind this (i.e. depicting it as an Extermination Camp). Asterion 12:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Details of the starvation regime at Omarska are provided in the ICTY's Kvocka case findings http://www.un.org/icty/kvocka/trialc/judgement/index.htm -

"55. The Trial Chamber finds that the detainees received poor quality food that was often rotten or inedible, caused by the high temperatures and sporadic electricity during the summer of 1992.130 The food was sorely inadequate in quantity. Former detainees testified of the acute hunger they suffered in the camp: most lost 25 to 35 kilograms in body weight during their time at Omarska; some lost considerably more.131"

The "tuberculosis" claim was used in an attempt to discredit the photos of Fikret Alic at Trnopolje. Alic had very recently arrived at Trnopolje from Omarska. - Opbeith (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Fikret Alic had TB (or if he was skinny because of TB, he is certainly not skinny now), but Deichmann/LM had a point that newspapers chose to use the picture of the skinny guy whereas many of his mates seemed to be well-fedd and in good shape. I also believe that the media at the time exaggarted the implications of these pictures with headings like "Bosnia-Belsen". Omarska was not a hoax, but the interpretation of the pictures were exaggerated. The famous picture of Alic is real, but it may elicit assocations that are not in accordance with the facts. That is why interpretation is very important.Images are very powerful (much more powerful than words and statistics), that is why it is important to use pictures that are representative of the actual conditions in the camp (i.e., neutral). It is not offensive or belittling to ask for facts and a neutral presentation. Mondeo (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an image from the camp. Interpret it any way you want it but that is your POV.--Dado 14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Omarska perhaps wasn't an extermination camp as such but it was certainly a death camp. The claim that Omarska was a hoax is extremely offensive. I don't suppose anyone who writes that sort of stuff is going to be bothered to read Peter Maass on Trnopolje and Omarska but anyway here's a link: http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=2&book=3 --Opbeith 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversy Regarding the Camp" section should have a sentence appended to it to the effect that "Efforts to challenge the well-documented reality of the crimes committed at Omarska parallel the campaign by supporters of indicted and convicted war criminals to deny, minimise or excuse the genocide perpetrated at Srebrenica and elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina." --Opbeith 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what he means by "hoax" is that the famous picture of the emaciated Muslim prisoner (Fikret Alic) behind barbed wire has allegedly been found to be that of a refugee in Trnopolje who was photographed from behind barbed wire (i.e., the British journalists, Penny Marshall and Ian Williams, were supposedly fenced in). The German reporter Thomas Deichmann broke the story in February 1997 with the headline "The picture that fooled the world". Deichmann's article is cited in Ramsey Clark's book "NATO in the Balkans: Voices of Opposition".

ITN, the British production company, Williams and Marshall pressed defamation charges against Deichmann, a freelance journalist, and his publisher Informing (LM) Ltd. I couldn't finde any press coverage of the trial (beginning on February 28, 1999) other than this one: Court sentences magazine for exposing the Bosnian war (in German), World Socialist website, March 2000. (Update: Here is an English version of roughly the same article: Britain: libel verdict vs. exposé of Bosnia War propaganda bankrupts independent journal, wsws.org, March 25, 2000) It maintains that Deichmann and LM were ultimately found guilty for their political agenda, not because their allegation of fabrication was wrong. Quote from the judge: '"The defendants claim that Ian Williams and Penny Marshall must have known as a fact that the men [the prisoners] were not locked up behind barbed wire, rather they themselves were standing behind it.... Ian Williams and Penny Marshall were obviously wrong if they thought otherwise - but is it important?" - "They [the Bosnian Muslims] were prisoners, that is the issue, not the barbed wire," said Nina Bialoguski, ITN press officer.'

Deichmann's article has been removed from most websites accordingly. 88.217.86.46 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Koricani Cliffs massacre

I'll make a stub (minimum). --HanzoHattori 11:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to your Koricani Cliffs massacre article at the Mt Vlasic article. --Opbeith 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ljubija

"Bosnia-Hercegovina Federation Missing Persons Commission" [[1]] This is hardly a neutral Missing Persons Commission. Stop The Lies 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

If you want to dispute the Commission's authority you need to do more than make throwaway comments. --Opbeith 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

About “Controversy Regarding the Camp” section

The findings of 'mass grave sites' were conducted by Bosnian officials, and not by international organizations. In the past, incidents such as Srebrenica have occurred, where Bosnian officials included Serbian bodies in their 'Bosniak body count', inflated numbers, and used soldiers in their 'civilian body count'. Also, there is controversy regarding the events that took place in Omarska in 1992, due to claims of false reporting and "journalistic crimes".[3][4][5][6]

This entire section is terribly bad-written and POV-pushing. And only the first [3] link to a paleoconservative news site works. It deserves entire deletion.--MaGioZal 12:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a point at which controversy finally becomes simple denial. --Opbeith 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

All citations have been restored. Please do not remove this as it is cited. Let encyclopedia readers review the sources themselves and decide what to think instead of you making the decision for them. By removing sources you do not agree with, you are the one POV pushing. Thank you. // Laughing Man 16:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, the way the paragraph was written induces the reader to believe that these allegations are spread and common, when everybody knows that just a tiny part of the World mass media, generally vinculated to religious-ethinc interests, contests the atrocities of the Omarska camp.--MaGioZal 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[2] - This is absurd -- references should not be prefaced "Pro-Bosniak" or "Pro-Serb" // Laughing Man 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MaGioZal, this Laughing Man seems to have decided to have an entertaining time for himself meddling with this article and pretending that he has some sort of authoritative role as a Wikipedia administrator. He's just been doing doing his best to cause the same sort of confusion at the Srebrenica Massacre article. He fell silent for a short while following the charge that he was one of the people put on "revert parole" after meddling with Kosovo issues, then obviously decided to move elsewhere.

Quoted from the Srebrenica Massacre Discussion page:

"Relevant decision by the Kosovo arbitration committee: 7) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page."

I don't see much discussion of content here.

This man pretends to authority he neither has nor deserves. Another classic example of apologism. It's like bird-spotting - at first it's hard to be certain the behaviour you're watching is characteristic of the species but the more you see of it the more readily recognisable it becomes. This agenda is a shameful one. --Opbeith 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Still with the personal attacks? Please comment on the content of the articles instead of your ridiculous comments about me. As I have already stated and explained on your talk page, I'm not wasting time on your blatant disrespect for Wikipedia policy and I suggest you focus on the content of article here and how to improve them instead of your opinions and biases about fellow Wikipedians. // Laughing Man 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, what informs my comments is your attempt to bully me into withdrawing my account of a situation that arose at Srebrenica Massacre. You issued instructions as if you had some authority. But you've been seen through. I have attempted to contribute to this article like other contributors whose efforts you have sought to interfere with and changed without discussion. I have contributed my account of events elsewhere so that they know the nature of the "authority" challenging them. --Opbeith 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You, and I have the same "authority" as editors of Wikipedia. The authority and duty as an editor is to inform other editors of policy and violations of that policy. In fact, I did the only thing I did is remove what I felt was a direct violation of WP:NPA in the talk page of the Srebenica article, and I reminded you on your talk page what the policy is -- commenting on the content of the article, not another fellow Wikipedian you had a problem with. Unfortunately you are not trying to understand and respect these policies of Wikipedia and instead come up with accusations and conspiracy theories. I am not going to respond to anything further attacks or accusations as you are not helping us edit the content of this article with this nonsense. // Laughing Man 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In the light of the following excerpt from a recent report from IWPR there is no justification for the first paragraph to continue as part of the content of the article. The International Commission for Missing Persons is an international agency.

...

Many of these people are thought to have died in the concentration camps that surrounded Prijedor in 1992: Omarska, Trnopolje and Keraterm. The camps were closed in August 1992 when journalists released photos of Omarska’s gaunt inhabitants, but an unknown number of detainees had already been executed.

The International Commission for Missing Persons, ICMP, has been active in advocating the exhumation and identification of their bodies from mass graves around the area. With their help, a number of victims have been identified through DNA testing.

But a decade later, the atrocities committed still haunt the friends and relatives of the missing and confirmed dead as well as the survivors of the camps. And many Bosniak residents of Prijedor claim that the Serbs refuse to acknowledge what happened.

“The crimes need to be discussed openly,” said Karabasic. “Serb local people don’t want to hear about it.”

But for others, such as Lejla Arifagic, it is something that cannot be forgotten. Her father’s body was exhumed from a mass grave near Omarksa camp last year. “The last time I saw my father was May 25, 1992,” said Arifagic, who is now a 23-year-old journalism student in Sarajevo. Later, after they were separated, she heard he was in Omarska.

No word came until a decade later, when her mother received a phone call requesting that they both give DNA because a mass grave with 200 men in it had been unearthed near Omarska.

After his body was identified, a funeral was held in July, which she said has provided her with some sense of closure.

...

Bosnia - A House Divided by Katherine Boyle (IWPR / TU No 484, 12-Jan-07) --Opbeith 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, the paragraph that you insist on retaining has been shown to be inaccurate. Could you explain why you want inaccurate information to be kept in the article? --Opbeith 07:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it sourced information. // Laughing Man 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, perhaps you'd explain how you reconcile the statement in the first sentence with the sourced information I have posted above? --Opbeith 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement was not coming from the source you supplied above, they were supported by other sources given directly following the statements ([3][4][5]) so I don't understand what you mean by "reconcile the statement" with another source, that would be original research. // Laughing Man 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I need to go back to Lewis Carroll. --Opbeith 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Laughing Man and other pro-Serb-nationalist editor uses the tools and policies in Wikipedia to justify their ends and make articles related to Yugoslav Wars and Serbian history to reflect their beliefs, sometimes trough harsh tatics of editing-reverting and (non) discussing.--MaGioZal 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More ad hominem arguments? Bravo. // Laughing Man 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Simplification" removing the description "death camp"

MaGioZal, the inhumane conditions in the Omarska have been adequately described. Even if there had been no active killing those deliberately-imposed conditions would have been enough for it to be described as a death camp.

I don't have the UNHCR reference itself but in "Witness to Genocide" Roy Gutman refers to a UN High Commissioner for Refugees report quoting a guard at Omarska telling a UN monitor "We won't waste our bullets on them. They have no roof. There is sun and rain, cold nights and beatings two times a day. We give them no food and water. They will starve like animals." A survivor Gutman interviewed described the ore loader where other prisoners were held in cages stacked four high with no toilets, so they were living in their own filth, which dripped through the grates. The prisoners were infested with lice.

But of course Omarska was not just a place where prisoners lived in conditions which would result in death. It was a place where murderous beatings and executions took place as well. So removing the reference to Omarska being a "death camp" is not a simplification, it's a misrepresentation. --Opbeith 12:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Opbeith,

Sorry if I’ve been misunderstood relating to the edition of the first paragraph. It was because English is not my first language, and in Portuguese the terms “death camp” and “concentration camp” are synonyms with equal weight, and the latter is more used, for example in “campo de concentração de Auschwitz”.--MaGioZal 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry MaGioZal, I thought you were using a lesser term in order to minimise the the significance of what happened at Omarska. A concentration camp isn't necessarily a killing camp though quite often deaths are the result of concentrating a population or ethnic group in camps. The term originated in the Boer War when the British tried to defeat the Boer guerrillas by depriving them of their rural support. They set up camps to which the Boer families, mainly women and children, were removed from their farms and confined in dire conditions that resulted in a number of deaths. However there was no deliberate policy of killing the people who had been concentrated in the camps.

Concentration camps may be part of the process of ethnic cleansing and they may lead to or be an aspect of extermination camps like Auschwitz but they are not necessarily death camps.

Because Auschwitz was a concentration camp as well as an extermination camp the terms are confused in English as well, so don't worry it's not your understanding of English that's a problem. In fact I reacted so precipitously to your change because an element of the LM accusations that the British media had misrepresented the situation at Trnopolje by portraying it as a concentration camp and so associating it in the public mind with Auschwitz. That was what an LM supporter tried to convince me. In fact a concentration camp was exactly what Trnopolje was.

It was used as a place where Bosnian Muslims were concentrated before being exchanged across the front line, in many cases after they had been sent from Omarska. Deaths occurred at Trnopolje because of the inhumane conditions and brutality, but it wasn't a death camp like Omarska, one of whose functions was the killing of the local Bosnian Muslim politicians and professionals as an important step towards the permanent ethnic cleansing of the Prijedor area.

I have met Ed Vulliamy, one of the three British reporters along with Penny Marshall and Ian Williams who brought back the first reports from Omarska and Trnopolje. He is an honourable and dedicated journalist and he gets very angry when people deny the truth of what he saw with his own eyes. His article about the LM trial Poison in the Well of History conveys some of his indignation.

I'm very sorry to have mistaken your intent.

--Opbeith 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an additional comment going back to Asterion's reference at the head of this page about the use of the photograph. Ron Havib took a number of photographs at Trnopolje of people in a similar condition to Fikret Alic, the emaciated man whom Penny Marshall interviewed in her report. Even the people who were not considered important enough to kill and who survived to be sent to Trnopolje and were then if lucky used as currency in the business of population exchange endured terrible suffering at Omarska where they were subjected to a starvation regime. Alic, who was amazed at the complete misrepresentation of his situation by the LM group says that he believed Marshall, Williams and Vulliamy's reporting saved his life. --Opbeith 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Foca rape camp

This guy deleted the article. Just sayin'. --HanzoHattori 00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jasenovac, Omarska and the Serb Voluntary Guard Cabal in Wikipedia

Interesting.

Jasenovac is classified and described as a “concentration and extermination camp”, while Omarska is described simply as a “notorious war prison”? Other descriptions of Bosnian Serb concentration camps do the same: “was a detention camp”, “also referred to as prison”, etc.

Com on, people. Both Omarska and Jasenovac were concentration camps. Both had the same intentions.

How can you document "intentions"? Wikipedia content should be reliable. 158.37.109.11 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The intentions of these concentration camps are to detain, to emaciate, to abuse — psychologically and sexually — and ultimatelly to kill people in large quantities.

Jasenovac was quite different from Omarska. In any case, Wikipedia requires claims to be documented by reliable sources, as pointed out by anonymous editor 158.37.109.11 above. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How can you state that this was not a concentration camp? Have you even read any testimonies by the survivers of these camps? here a few: http://home.ubalt.edu/calbrecht/Hell.htm http://www.hmd.org.uk/files/1157732216-101.pdf http://wwwc.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0005/18/bosna.html

I am deeply offended by not qualifying this camp as a concentration camp. The significance has been lost to you and the Serbs of wikipedia can be proud that they have won another round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.166.26 (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is not about winning or loosing, but about presenting verifiable facts in a balanced, neutral fashion. In any case, the intro to the article clearly states that many regard it as a concentration camp, nobody is trying to hide that point. It is not our task to judge if Omarska was a concentration camp. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never claimed it is about winning or loosing but the verifiable fact is that a concentration camp is defined with: concentration camp n. 1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. 2. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

Can you please elaborate why this definition does not apply for Omarska, Trnopolje? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.166.26 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IP 83.87.166.26: This has already been extensively discussed on this talk page as well as in relation to Trnopolje camp. It is not editors' task to judge if Omarska camp was in fact a concentration camp. In addition, the word "concentration camp" is heavily loaded with conotations after the WW2, "concentration camp" thus gives possible misleading associations to Auschwitz. Describing Omarsak only as a concentration camp does not add clarity to the article. Please do not change the intro even if you strongly believe that Omarska can accuratly be described as a concentration camp. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself because you are being the judge by setting the connotations yourself by simply stating that a concentration camp only applies to Auschwitz. Please elaborate why the term concentration camp should be limited to Auschwitz alone. The conditions of the camp for them selves state that it was indeed a concentration camp. It is not upon you to deny these conditions and to lose the signifigance by stating that it was merely a detention camp. See the above definition and please elaborate why it does not apply for Omarska. 83.87.166.26

Re: Conotations is just one more argument. I don't think that "concentration camp" should apply Auschwitz-type camps only, but the fact remains (as acknowledge in WP article on concentration camp) that after WW2 "concentration camp" is largely associated with nazi death camps. In any case, according to WP policy things should not be named according to editors' interpretations of the facts. Wikipedia after all is about verifiability, not truth [[WP:]], so the role of WP is to summarize how reliable sources refer to the events at Omarska. Some news articles refer to it as "camp", others as "detention camp" (Washington Post, May 30, 2002), and still others as "concentration camp" (Guardian, March 1, 2002). It is not our task to judge which of these names or descriptions are correct. Because reputable sources refer to Omarska as "detention camp", that word can not simply be deleted from the intro. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If we take the nazi connotation out the argument than you are only left with sources which refer to it as a prisonders of war camp, detention camp and concentration camp. You have been the judge by first refering to the camp as a "prisonders of war camp" secondly as a "dentention camp", and thirdly by stating that it also refered to as a concentration camp. In that order you have lost the signifigance of the camp and thus you have been the judge of the presentation of the camp. Why not change the order and simply state that it was a concentration camp or prisonders of war camp and it it also refered to as detention camp. Like I did when I change the intro. Apparently sources like the he washington post and the guardian are more significant than the HRW, ICTY and the sources presented above from the survivores of the camp. You have taking judging in your own hands which is not correct. 83.87.166.26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.189.43 (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is not about you and me, it is about WP policy. I did not write the intro, I simply reverted the deletion of the words "prisoners of war" and "detention". Because these words have been extensively used to describe the camp, they must be reflected in the article, we can not simply choose the word we as editors think is most accurate. The intro clearly states that HRW classifies Omarska as a concentration camp; if ICTY and other authoritative bodies also did, please include that in the relevant sentence provided that you also add a citation. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, I have not deleted the words "prisoners of war" and "detention camp". I have simply changed the order in which they are written. You claim that is about WP policy but the doesn't policy state: state the obvious, isn't it obvious enough that this was a concentration camp if we look at the definition of the term concentration camp? The intro and the article should written firstly by stating the obvious: Omarska was a concentration camp or a prisoners of war and also refered to as a detention camp. Thus the article's name should be Omarska concentration camp and not just Omarska camp because if WP presents the article only as Omarska camp than the significance and the obvious is lost to the reader. With which of these arguments do you disagree with me? 83.87.166.26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.189.43 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You can not simply change something because you feel like. WP policy is very clear: It is not really editors' task to judge if this was indeed a concentration camp. WP:NOR states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." This means that it is not important how "concentration camp" is defined. Our task as editors is to summarize material from reputable publications, it is not our task to draw conclusions based on an analysis of the material as you are trying to do. Your edit gives the word "concentration camp" a more prominent position without clear support in the sources.

WP naming policy WP:NC is very clear: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers' over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject. (...) Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. (...) Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. " (Italics added)

A Google search reveals that "Omarska concentration camp" is mentioned 1,021 times, compared to 5,210 times for "Omarska camp" and 646 times for "Omarska dentention camp". The Factiva news database returns 216 hits "concentration camp", and 826 for "camp"; Google Scholar search reveals a similar ration. Although "Omarska concentration camp" is sometimes used as a name for the camp, it is clearly not the common or most widely used name for this camp (in the English language). There is no basis for a title change according to WP policy. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Omarska Concentration Camp

If there is any objectivity on Wikipedia, this article should then be renamed to Omarska Concentration Camp, same as Trnopolje concentration camp: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/27/radovankaradzic.warcrimes2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. See identical discussion on Trnopolje camp. These are judgments by some actors (I do not necessarily disagree with HRW). Better leave the neutral title as it is and instead include judgments by respected organizations like HRW in the introduction and main text. The word "concentration camp" carries too many connotations in Europe since world war 2 and will only provoke an edit war. It will also open up similar discussions on other articles related to the war in Bosnia. Better let fact speak for themselves rather than imposing a frame in the title. Mondeo (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both were concentration camps but I agree with Mondeo, the facts speak for themselves, there's no need to complicate the title of the article. Opbeith (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to rename Auschwitz merely as “Auschwitz camp”.

Human Rights Watch - Omarska Concentration Camp

http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/prijedor/helsinki.html

Human Rights Watch: "Despite the absence of real non-Serbian threat, the main objective of the concentration camps, especillay Omarska but also Keraterm, seems to have been to eliminate the non-Serbian leadership," the U.N. Commission of Experts found. "From the time when the Serbs took power in the district opf Prijedor, non-Serbs in reality became outlaws. At times, non-Serbs were instructed to wear white arm abnds to identify themselves...according to Serbian regulations, those leaving the district had to sign over their property rights and accept never to return, being told their names would simultaneously be deleted from the census." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent unsupported edits - Serb vs RS vs Bosnian-Serb

Editor Krusko Mortale recently did several changes without giving reason nor inviting a discussion. I reverted the changes involving the word "serb" because it is ambiguous, it may refer to an ethnic group and it may refer to a country. "Bosnian-Serb" is somewhat more precise, but Republika Srpska (RS) is maybe even better as the latter clearly identifies a party in the conflict (rather than an ethnic group). Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Krusko Mortale changed "Bosnian-Serb" to "Serb", I reverted this. Even if the "Serb" is the offical name of an ethnic group within Bosnia-H., "Serb" is ambiguous, because it can mean other things, including people from Serbia and the Serbia itself. Let us join forces to find clear and unambiguous wording. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Broad claims and possible biased wording

In the section titled "The Camp" there are several broad/vague claims, apparently unsourced statements, and possibly biased language. For instance the statement "Omarska....operated in a manner designed to discriminate and subjugate the non-Serbs by inhumane acts and cruel treatment." Who made this conclusion? What source says that the camp was specifically designed this way, as opposed to the fact that it did function this way? What is an inhumane act?

One statement reads "The prisoners all suffered serious psychological and physical deterioration and were in a state of constant fear." This a very broad claim (all prisoners) and no citation given. It is also rather vague, what is for instance "serious psychological deterioration". These claims need to be more specific.

Also statements like ".... beatings and mistreatment which often resulted in death" should be made more specific if possible. How often is "often"? 1%, 10%, 50%?

In addition, some statements appears to be conclusions (WP policy says "no original research") made by the editor, for instance "Apparently, there was no legitimate reason justifying these people’s detention." Is this based on the cited source? What kind of "objective/legitimate reason" is this? If it is based on the court's ruling, please make sure that the court's judgment is accuratly reproduced.

I will consider removing or rephrasing some of these statements if no editors respond.

Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Serbs" and other changes

Serbs are never referred by themselves as Bosnian Serbs. Second, you changed the Serb-run concentration camp into "notorious prisoners of war or detainee camp", removing Serbs from the the description. Third, this camp was not POWs camp, but camp for Bosnian Muslim civilian population. Kruško Mortale (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that "serb" is the common name for an ethnic group within the context of Bosnia-H., but that is not the point. Writing only "serb" is ambiguous as the uninformed reader can assume that the article refers to Serbia (a country) rather than to a group or milita within Bosnia-H. WP strives to reduce ambiguity, one way to achieve this is to state the obivous. WP policy explicitly says that article should state the obvious Wikipedia:OBVIOUS#State_the_obvious. Please find a better naming solution rather than simply doing unexplained changes.

The words "notorious prisoners of war or detainee camp" have been there all the time, and you as a single editor can not remove it without reason.

Several statements are vague and lack source. Tags must remain until this is resolved. Please help out finding reliable sources. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ive resolved most of the tags. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. That is big step forward. It seems that you have added the word "horrible" to characterize what happened in the camp. We can certainly agree on that, but I think it is not in line with WP policy Wikipedia:MORALIZE#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. If that word is a quote from the sources, please make explicit who said it. WP describes opinions/judgements as facts, but should not use opinions as describtions of facts.

That is why I am not perfectly happy about words like "inhumane acts", "cruel treatment" and "brutal living conditions" - these are very vague and unspecific descriptions of facts with a clear moral tone. If this words represents the conclusion from the court, the article should clearly say so.

Re sources: If somebody can find a direct link to court documents (rather than via Google Books), that would be great. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Words like "horrible abuse", "inhumane acts", "cruel treatment" and "brutal living conditions", all describe the severity of the abuse, act, treatment, and conditions. For now they are as specific as they'll get, these statements are also correct and can be verified. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 19:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that these words indicate the severity of the conditions in the camp, that is not the point. Wikipedia articles should be encyclopedic. Broad, general and somewhat vague claims like these (for instance "horrible abuse") are difficult to verify precisely because they are unspecific. The moral tone of these claims is not encyclopedic, WP style guide implies that the facts should speak for themselves. It is not the task of editors to do moral judgments, we should however quote actors' moral judgment of the conditions in the camp. So, rather than listing very broad claims, the article should be specific about what these "inhumane acts" were. Let us work together to pull the article in a more encyclopedic direction. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have resolved all the tags in the article. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 18:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the word "abuse". The English word "abuse" is somewhat ambiguous/vague. It can mean misuse (use something in the wrong way or for wrong purpose), insults (bad, offensive language), physical maltreatment, and more. "Abuse of prisoners" is not precise and should in any case be more specific. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I also reinserted the word "Bosnian" ("Bosnian Serb") in the intro to avoid ambiguity. WP also uses the term Army of Republika Srpska as well as the "Bosnian Serb army". Perhaps use one of the latter to allow cross references as well as to be specific about who ran the camp.

After PRODUCER's edits, the word "camp" was left alone. To make specific I reinserted words. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor Krusko Mortale agained changed the article without giving reason or inviting discussion. Perhaps the camp was not at all a PoW camp, but this must be supported by the sources. In addition, the camp was, as I understand it, run by Bosnian Serb forces (Bosnian Serb Army), not by Serbs as an ethnic group nor by Serbia. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo as we cannot be sure that the Serbs who were running the camp were citizens of BiH (Bosnian Serbs) or citizens of Serbia, thus we should use the collective term: Serb forces, agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.189.43 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The camp was not run by an ethnic group, it was run by an organization. As far as I understand it was run by the forces (militia) or authorities of the Republika Srpska. So "Bosnian Serb" is the most accurate words. The nationality of the persons involved is another issue, please don't mix up these issues. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Exhumation" needs update

The "exhumation" section mentions "hundreds" of dead bodies yet to be found. This is based on a 2004 publication by Vulliamy, I did not find any other source mentioning this number. In any case this is already 4 years old and needs update, I will try to look at it if time permits. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)