Talk:Voćin massacre

POV

The part with the church is clearly pov. Such accusations can´t be in a encyclopedia just based on the writings of a Croatian doctor. ICTY only lists 32 victims so how could 50 be in the church? Paulcicero 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on a writing of a Croatian doctor that performed autopsy on the victims. The referenced article clearly says the 45 was an understatement, but the police chief was talking about those massacred by Šešelj's men in the last massacre. The ICTY lists 32 (31 identified +1) victims - again, murdered by Šešelj's men - of the pre-withdrawl killing orgy, not including the ones killed before that and before the village was captured... Don't forget the village was under occupation for four months.

There were about 20 survivors from the 80 people who were in the village at the time of the massacre. They survived by hiding in basements and cornfields and were witnesses to what happened.

The Spanish Inquisitor 08:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Then something is wrong with this article. In the beginning it is clear that the massacre was carried out during december. Is the article just on the massacre commited by Seseljs men or of all killed in that village? Paulcicero 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's about the December massacre, as it is quite clear except in the pre and post sections which deal with what happened before and after. The number of 50 you opposed to is the number of bodies found in the church. I really cannot find a way to make the sentance any more clearer, especially as it is a direct quote from the source. The Spanish Inquisitor 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any ICTY document on the 50 in the church? Because according to Matovina most of the civilians were found in their homes. Paulcicero 08:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Paulcicero, you're playing dumb again. In fact, you've falsified the data here in your edit from 28 Sep 2007 [1].
You've changed 45-55 to 32 and quoted ICTY, although on that link, [2], says
"They went from house to house and killed whomever they found, in total forty-three civilians."
The title is "Annex for victims from Vocin, Hum, Bokane and Kraskovic". 31 in Vocin, 4 in Hum, 3 in Bokane, 4 in Kraskovic. For one unindentified, they mentioned no location (but under Vocin section).
Here're the locations of Voćin and Hum [3], Bokane [4] and Kraskovic [5].
That's near the places where the massacre in Četekovac, Čojlug and Balinci took place (3 villages that are one next to another) from 3 Sep 1991, when 24 Croatian civilians (including loyal Croatian Serbs) were killed by JNA. Kubura 10:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign media and Croatia before Voćin

I've made a revert.
International reports from Croatia weren't properly made as they were supposed to be. Untill then, the Croatian fight to defend themselves from Serbo-Montenegrin attack (with the aim of violent changing of borders, and conquest of whole Croatia) was presented more like a peasant rebellion and some "civil war". To make things worse, those media mostly asked and redistributed the information they've got from the Serb-led JNA, as well as the info they got through former Yugoslav diplomacy, mostly run by Serbs and Montenegrins.
However, Croatia survived. Those "rebellion of bunch of rebel scum and foreign mercenaries" wasn't "crushed in 15 days", as it was being told in all Serbian newspapers and magazines, but the Croatia made it in its resistence. Croatia proved to be able to resist and exist.
Vukovar hasn't fell easily, but after three months of bitter fighting. Dubrovnik resisted and made it. Until then, world media redistributed the falsified facts, given by Serb-led JNA. Croatian victims were presented as Serb victims "slaughtered by ustaše". Since then, some other pictures began to appear from Croatia. JNA failed to quickly "solve the case" (as in international diplomatic circles is said: the more quick you do it, the less questions are being asked).
With the liberation of Voćin, a lot of things changed. Rebelled Serbs and JNA were pushed out enough quickly, so the evidences couldn't be removed, damaged or destroyed. Neutral international observes (forensicians) have fully documented and reported the whole case to international media, so stories like "Croats against (by world beloved) Yugoslavia = bad Croats" and "Serbs "pro-(by world beloved) Yugoslavia" = good Serbs" didn't work anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Listing at List of events named massacres

The Vocin massacre is currently included in the above list. Unfortunately the entry does not meet with our inclusion criteria, which state that multiple reliable sources be cited to demonstrate that the word "massacre" is used as part of an accepted NAME for the event (in other words, that multiple reliable sources name the event the "Vocin Massacre" or some close varient thereof).

At the moment, there is one source (the NY Times article) that discribes the event as being a massacre... but it does not name the event as one. If sources that fit our inclusion criteria are not provided, we will have to remove the event from the list... and, if possible, we would prefer not to do that. Since it is likely that those who regularly edit this page will be familiar with the sources, we ask for your assistance in correcting this problem. Thank you. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voćin massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I will review this nomination. Initial comments should be post soon.

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research:
3. Broad in its coverage:
4. Neutral:

   • In general, I think you've done a good job of maintaining neutrality in the article, something that is often difficult to achieve with this type of subject matter. I have some concern over this phrasing: "Those who refused to leave were threatened and one person was butchered in front of his home." It is more neutral to say that the person was killed rather than butchered. If the wording comes from the source, then quotations should be put around it.

5. Stable:
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

The article is very well-written as it is and appears very close to meeting the GA criteria. The point above just needs to be addressed. --1ST7 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up the review. I amended the "butchered" to "killed" even though the source (Gagnon) literally says "butchered". Gagnon quoted (translated) this from Vreme - a Belgrade published magazine - and I suspect the original text said butchered as in "killed using a knife". Regardless, I now realize that "butchered" may be perceived both literally and figuratively in English and since I have no access to the original Vreme text, I changed it to "killed" to avoid ambiguity.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. The article looks good to go now, so I'm passing it. Congratulations, and thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

International Court of Justice ruling re Voćin

According to the following opinion by the ICJ JUDGEMENT RE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (CROATIA v. SERBIA), page 82, 3 February 2015:

"In the opinion of the Court, although the material before it raises grounds for grave suspicions about what occurred at Vocin, Croatia has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim that Croats were killed by Serb forces in that locality in December 1991."

I don't understand. If the ICJ cannot confirm "that Croats were killed by Serb forces in that locality in December 1991" then how can this article continue to exist? Please post your opinions here on how to proceed. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The source clearly indicates that lawyers representing Croatia's case did not present sufficient evidence - maybe they were sloppy maybe not. Wiki is not a court but a compendium of information available in reliable sources. The reliable sources presented in the article clearly support its prose. The section on the ICJ ruling added to the article may be merged at the end of the aftermath, saying that ICJ in the particular case ruled on the genocide case which listed the massacre as one of relevant events, and that the ICJ concluded that the evidence presented by Croatia's legal team was insufficient to conclude there had been a massacre there. Anything beyond it is unsupported by the source. Also, please note that wiki policies require new references added to the article to be kept consistent in formatting to the existing ones.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's what I am asking. Let's see what others have to say. Quis separabit? 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear the killings happened, the Croatian legal team just couldn't prove it. 23 editor (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd that a brilliant legal team, including lawyers who got the convictions of Ante Gotovina and the other general overturned on appeal, couldn't prove something that had been accepted as fact. Quis separabit? 23:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

They clearly weren't too brilliant, since they attempted to prove Croatia had experienced genocide even though the ICTY had never issued a genocide indictment pertaining to that particular country. But that's not the point. The ICTY clearly had reason to believe that serious killings had occurred, though Milošević died before a verdict could be rendered. If Šešelj lives to see the end of his trial, we'll get the ICTY's view of what actually happened. As far as I'm concerned, the ICJ's comments are a mere footnote. 23 editor (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree with 23editor - absence of proof of not proof of absence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)