# Talk:Sarajevo wedding attack

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarajevo wedding attack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


### Assessment
The article is reasonably well written, stable and free of tagged images, but seems to have some problems with neutrality and broadness of the topic. I will address these issues bellow.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Name of the article: Just a suggestion, but would "1992 Sarajevo wedding attack" sound better? This would narrow the event.
This would appear to be the only wedding attack in Sarajevo that merits its own article.
Background: no mention of SDS proclaiming the Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina, declaring it part of Yugoslavia. Nor is there any mention of the RAM Plan or rise of Slobodan Milosevic to power during the era, nor the wars in Slovenia and Croatia. This expands the context of the era.
All good suggestions. I've expanded the Background section with them in mind.
Responsibility: "Delalić led a Bosnian Muslim paramilitary unit that terrorized the Sarajevan Serb population". The source is a book, which in turns offers only a snippet view, which I cannot access. Is there a reliable source, that can be seen, which confirms this?
Not sure why you're unable to view Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies. The link provided in the article offers a full view of page 209. The relevant passage reads as follows: "...The same logic may have persuaded government officials who successfully resisted the president's objections to entrusting Bosniak criminal gangs with defending Sarajevo during the first year of the war, even after they had singled out ethnic Serbs for punishment. Izetbegović was only able to neutralize the two most notorious gang leaders, Ramiz "Ćelo" Delalić and Mušan Caco Topalović, in the summer of 1993 after they began preying on the general population. By then, the gangs may have accounted for a majority of all murders of Serb and Muslim civilians committed by Sarajevo's ARBiH defenders."
In any event, Delalić's role in war crimes against Serbs and Muslims deemed disloyal to the state is rather well documented. See, for example, this 1997 article from the Independent  and this 2007 Reuters article  .
Maybe instead of "terrorized", use such sentences as "attacked and murdered Serb and Muslim civilians".--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
That works also. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Legacy: "Nikola Gardović is often regarded as the first casualty of the Bosnian War". Several sources reject this hypothesis. For instance, this book regards two women (Suada Dilberovic and Olga Sucic) shot on 6 April 1992 during the demonstrations in Sarajevo as the first casualties of the war. Moreover, Croatian sources even consider Niko Brajic, killed in Ravno in October 1991, as the first casualty in Bosnia.
The sources cited in the article say precisely this:
"Mr Gardovic’s death is regarded by many as the first of the Bosnian war." (The Economist, 14 May 2013)
"A Serb, Nikola Gardović, had been shot during a wedding in the baščaršija on 2 March 1992 at the time of the referendum and is often considered the first casualty of the Bosnian War." (Carmichael 2015, 139)
There are two or three other academic texts that mention Gardović as the first casualty of the war, but I didn't include them for brevity's sake. Per NBC News  Bosniaks tend to consider the two women the first casualties, but not the two other ethnic groups. If you insist, I would be willing to alter the text to "Most Bosnian Serbs consider...", with the two other incidents mentioned in the footnotes, although there had been several massacres on both sides prior to 6 April.
Yes, that would do. The problem is that there is no exact date when the start of the Bosnian War is considered to have started. Wikipedia's own article agreed upon April 1992, one month after this incident. But you need to mention that Serbs consider Nikola Gardovic as the first casualty, while other sources consider the two women the first offical casualties of the war.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The alteration has been made, 3E1I5S8B9RF7. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
"The ensuing Bosnian War left 100,000 dead; an additional two million were displaced." ICTY verdicts against Karadzic and Mladic should be mentioned, who were found guilty of persecution of Bosniaks and genocide. Actually, the verdict confirms that their joint criminal enterprise existed already from October 1991. Also, it should be mentioned that the Serb proopaganda exploited the incident for its own agenda.
Excellent point vis-a-vis Karadžić, since he appears multiple times in the article, but Mladić isn't mentioned once in it and his inclusion would likely throw casual readers a curve.
The exploitation of this tragedy by the Serbian media is tackled in the Response section, with the daily Poltikia essentially blaming all Muslims for the shooting and the bishop eulogizing at Gardović's funeral rejecting the good faith apologies of the Muslim leaders, deriding them as "unintelligent". The Muslim assertion that the wedding procession was some sort of deliberate provocation also got thrown in for balance.
Thanks for taking this review, 3E1I5S8B9RF7! I hope my responses were helpful. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


### Conclusion
I think the article now meets the GA criteria. I am promoting it, accordingly.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no longer any need to spar about when the war began. In 2014, a trial chamber ruled  that an armed conflict was already underway in March 1992. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Amauensis, what you sourced is about war in Bosanski Brod, not war in Bosnia, “The Defence denied that the war in Bosanski Brod began in late March 1992, but, after having analyzed the evidence, the Chamber determined that all elements of an armed conflict existed in that period of time." 
This isn't equivalent to War in Bosnia (normally considered to start in April), it refers to the Sijekovac killings of Serbs by a Croat-Bosnian force. Not every clash equates to an all-out war in a whole nation. I don't know how you morphed its interpretation, but I do not like it.
And that said the sources you used for claiming Nikola Gardic as being the first victim are not proper. Not to mention you discard all opposing views to try to portray Serbs as the victim.
The Economist blog you added has no credentials. Even if it does the other source you use Carmichael says Nikola's killing is often considered the first casualty of the war. Though it doesn't claim that's when the war began [1]. You made the same type of edit before too it seems. And please don't unilaterally decide to remove sources unless you deem them unreliable. 117.199.83.116 (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Carmichael and The Economist are WP:RS. Your claim of the sources not being "proper" isn't an argument (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The reason they've been inserted to begin with is because of your nuance trolling earlier. If you continue with your reckless editing you will be blocked (WP:3RR). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I never claimed Carmichael is unreliable or Economist is. Nor it's because "I don't like it". I thought it as a blog of someone without credentials, after you cleared it up, I let it go. And that said I've only reverted you twice, in one of them I let you revert me even if I disagree with you reasoning of "only one person said it" so it's not going to count much. You yourself have reverted (even partially adding back info can count as so). So I suggest you save the threats of getting blocked for someone else. Don't be agressive. 117.199.83.116 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.92.163 (talk) 
@IP editor, I have reverted your latest edits. They do not seem as an improvement on any level. Please discuss first and do not edit war. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadko, please tell me on what basis have you decided my edits don't appear constructive and why you ignored Amanuensis Balkanicus edit-warring and POV pushing by distorting sources and omitting opposite viewpoints. I clearly mentioned the reason for my latest edits (mentioning Bosnian War is widely considered to have started on April 6 as an alternate viewpoint, I used DW as source. After that I added a source). If you're just using me being an IP editor as a reason, please revert yourself. 117.199.83.116 (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not here to judge you or anyone. AB knows what he is doing and he knows the rules of the game. You have seriously changed some of the key information in the article. Considering that there was a clear disagreement before, I for one do not think that it is okay to add the information or to introduce a major change without a debate on the TP (which was started). It seems to me that you, respected IP editor, are trying to "fix some wrongdoing" which, in this case is, as you have stated it, "potraying Serbs as the victims". I find that very, very interesting. Have a good day, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
No one asked you to judge anyone, just be fair. If AB knows what he's doing, doesn't that make his guilt even higher? Did AB discuss with me anything before he unilaterally removed all other viewpoints and tried to add what he preferred even though what he added is not what the sources said. I am trying to fix a wrongdoing, and that is potentially biased distortion of sources and unilateral removal of sources as well as opposite viewpoints which AB removed without discussion.
AB seems to be trying to portray Serbs as the victims, while my position is trying to be neutral and also presenting other viewpoints and what was actually said in sources, not cherrypicking sources and then falsely claiming they say "Nikola Gardić was the first casualty of the war" when sources he used clearly say "he is often considered".
Trying to be neutral and stopping POV-pushing is right, is it not? It seems the problem here is you not liking that I'm countering non-neutral edits you favour, ie you have a problem of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Don't be biased. Earlier disputes have no bearing on later edits. Unless AB disputed on my later edits, you have no right to revert me. 117.199.87.125 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The article currently contains:

The political scientist Keith Crawford describes the attack and the Sijekovac massacre of Bosnian Serb civilians in Bosanski Brod on 27 March as the two incidents that effectively precipitated the conflict.

Crawford, Keith (1996). East Central European Politics Today: From Chaos to Stability?. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-71904-622-3.
This date should actually be wrong because the sources at Sijekovac massacre say 26 March, not 27. So I clicked through, but Google Books doesn't show this at page 150. It says:

The Bosnian Muslims began the war on 1 March 1992, by attacking a Serbian wedding in Sarajevo and then killing Serbian women and children in Siekovas. (sic)
This seems like a very crass synthesis on the face of it.
On page 149, the author describes the civil war in Bosnia first as a struggle against the threat of Islamic fundamentalists, seeking to create an Islamic republic in the heart of Europe, before listing more conventional descriptions. This is glaringly at odds with the referenced descriptions at Bosnian War.
On page 148, it says In mid-1991, after the Croatian declaration of independence and the promulgation of a new constitution depriving Serbs of some of their rights, including the right to use their Cyrillic script, about 350,000 Serbs moved to Serbia, while those remaining declared the Krajina region an independent republic within Croatia. This idea of 350k people moving in mid-1991 is way off compared to the sources at Croatian War of Independence, and that one actually also cites Savo Štrbac. The conflict about Cyrillic and/or Serb rights in Croatia is described at Log Revolution and Independence of Croatia with far more nuance, in part explicitly contradicting this book. In turn, when page 148 continues to describe this period in 1991, it says Both sides had engaged in massive 'ethnic cleansing' of the regions they controlled, which is basically bothsiderism.
(In an appendix on page 346 where there is a timeline, there is no mention of 27 March under either The civil war in former Yugoslavia or Civil war in Bosnia.)
I don't think we need to cite this 1996 work with an apparent bias, esp. not in relation to random typos in factoids.
Article history indicates this was added in 2019 by @Amanuensis Balkanicus. Can we trust you to now replace this lousy source with something better? --Joy (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This looks fringe at best, and probably unreliable. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with your assessments of Crawford as a "lousy", fringe or unreliable source. On the contrary, he has worked as a professor at multiple universities and is described in other reliable sources as an "expert on nationalism and textbooks". [2] Moreover, the specific book cited was printed by Manchester University Press. If we tossed out every scholarly source whose conclusions someone didn't agree with, we wouldn't have very many sources left. The fact that this is an opinion attributed to Crawford and not something that is written in WP:WIKIVOICE further reinforces my feeling that this should stay. If anyone wishes to add diverging academic viewpoints, which may align more closely with views that prevail among the Bosniaks and Croats, they are welcome to do so provided they are attributed to WP:RS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
This implies that the four linked articles and their references align more closely with views that prevail among these groups. But we're not writing this article for one set of people, and another article for another set of people. The readers need the encyclopedia to relay a consensus of reliable sources. There can't be some sort of a barter system where articles mutually contradict and we're cool about that, especially in a contentious topic area. --Joy (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Likewise, is the linked Regulska and Smith (2012) such a reliable source on the history of the Bosnian War that would warrant using it to bolster the contradiction with the other sources? I think that claim requires references. In the limited Google Books preview, I can't find the page numbers to figure out who authored that specific text, which is important as the book seems to be a collection of essays. In the few reviews of the book I've seen I haven't seen mentions of Bosnia at all, so it doesn't seem like a secondary source on this topic. --Joy (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)