Talk:Markale massacres

message: I'll keep this brief: it is simply not right to insert "allegedly" into the article when the views expressed are the mainstream and widely accepted opinion - and the views expressed in the article ARE the mainstream and widely accepted opinion. Live Forever 22:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the picture I took was the one on the Serbian wikipedia where it said it was of the second Markale massacre. Was there an original mistake on the Sr. wiki? Live Forever 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegedly

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:Style issues, really - the article is long enough to need a lead section and table of contents.  Suggest sectioning into 'First massacre', 'Second massacre' and 'Subsequent events'.  Otherwise it's all great.  Worldtraveller 17:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: Minor notes
*Directly cite the dead and injured numbers at the beginning.
Otherwise, good job.--SeizureDog 14:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has passed

message: Due to edit warring.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of unprotection is not to let you edit war again. You've already done your two reverts like I said at Talk:Srebrenica massacre and blocks will be enforced in future. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: * Anatomy of a Massacre by David Binder, Foreign Policy #97, Winter 1994-95
* Serbs 'Not Guilty' of Massacre by Hugh McManners, The Sunday Times, October 1, 1995
* Bosnia's Bombers by David Binder, The Nation, October 2, 1995
* Senior official admits to secret U.N. report on Sarajevo massacre Deutsche Presse-Agentur, June 6, 1996
* Who was responsible for the market place massacres in Sarajevo? - There is doubt about who is the responsible party of the Markale massacre. It is Bosnian government. But in introduction it was written Republika Serpska. There are many facts that show Bosnian government responsibility.--Medule 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm glad that you've at least finally come to the talk page. Unfortunately, your "facts" and argument have more holes than swiss cheese. I'll offer a lengthlier response later today. Live Forever 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact or Fiction

message: It should be Markale incidents. Just like Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: :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) 11:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

message: Why is it written at the beginning that the massacre has been performed by the Army of Republika Srpska, if just a few lines bellow that it is written that there is a controversy about if it was done by ARBIH or RSA?! These two statements are contradictory!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.142.145.7 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: The Markale Massacres are controversial events. In the case of the first massacre the UNPROFOR investigation was inconclusive, and the Galic judgment at the ICTY was a majority decision and part of it was overturned by the appeals chamber which ruled that the shell wasn't deliberately fired at the market. In the case of the second massacre the UNPROFOR investigation and the ICTY verdicts in the Dragomir Milosevic and Perisic trials come to two completely different conclusions about where the shell was fired from; Lukavica or Trebevic. Moreover the ICTY appeals chamber ultimately acquitted Dragomir Milosevic on the charges related to Markale and Perisic was acquitted on all charges.
In addition to the official findings of the ICTY and of UNPROFOR, which don't even agree with each other, certain UN personnel and other commentators are of the view that the massacres were staged by the Bosnian government so that NATO would intervene in the Bosnian war against the Serbs, and their views have been published in noteworthy publications like the Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine. Even the Galic judgment conceded that the ABiH occasionally engaged in the practice of shelling their own civilians to garner international sympathy.
The parties involved in the conflict, namely the VRS and the ABiH, both deny responsibility and accuse the other side of firing the shells. 
WikiPedia's NPOV policy states that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view."
There is no doubt that when it comes to the issue of culpability we're dealing with opinions. Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires editors to "avoid stating opinions as facts." The article stated the opinion that the Bosnian-Serbs fired the shell as a fact. In reality it's the opinion of some of the judges at the ICTY, and the article should certainly say that according to certain ICTY verdicts the Bosnian-Serbs fired the shells, but the article itself should not state that opinion as a fact. Especially when an official UNPROFOR investigation and one of the judges at the ICTY was of the contrary opinion that either side could have fired the first shell, when UNPROFOR and the ICTY don't agree on where the second shell came from, and when the first instance verdicts did not withstand the Appeals process anyway. Moreover, the ICTY judgments themselves frequently use the word "opinion" to describe their own findings. 
The only way to handle a controversial subject like this is to describe the controversy and lay out the findings and opinions of the various interested parties and let the reader come to their own conclusion. You have to say: here is what the ICTY found, here is what UNPROFOR found, here is what the Serbs say, here is what the Bosniaks say, and here is what other relevant people have to say on the subject. It is a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy to take your own opinion that one side or the other is responsible and state that opinion as a fact in the article.
Regardless of whether you believe that the Serbs or the Bosniaks are responsible, there is published research out there that contradicts you and alleges that the other side is responsible. If we go down the road of stating opinions as facts, then we're not going to get anywhere because anyone could come here and cite to published research that says one side or the other did it and state it as a fact in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanResearch (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The photo of the market used now is, if I'm not mistaken, taken in 2006. Would it not be better to use an image that relates (even) more directly to the 1994/1995 events? 2001:1C02:1907:9500:E104:E95F:3805:8D1 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Markale massacres. 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/20070219161945/http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=9050&kat=3 to http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=9050&kat=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified