Talk:Ferhat Pasha Mosque (Banja Luka)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion[edit]

Rather than reverting this article as well, I will explain what I find wrong with it and put the POV tag while the discussion is ongoing.

I am from Banjaluka and yes ethnic cleansing was very much present. Everyone who was not a serb lost their job. The Serb police used to set up checkpoints all over the city and target those who could not show ID cards proving that they are Serbs. Other ethnic groups were systematically beaten and abused in the Castel compund.

  • razed to the ground by Serb radical nationalists as part of ethnic cleansing campaign of Republika Srpska - first, Republika Srpska was not conducting any ethnic cleansing campaign. Second, even if it was, there is no evidence that these nationalists were a part of any campaign.
    • Unless you slept over years from 1992 to 1995 you would realize that they conducted the ethnic cleansing. It is an insulting constatation saying that they did not conduct the ethnic cleansing and you know it so quit playing devil's advocate.--Dado 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read what I wrote. An organised campaign of ethnic cleansing. Nikola 21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No additional data or arguement presented. This issue is closed
          • This issue is discussed to death on other articles, which you are aware of, being one of the participants in the discussion. In short, you are pushing ICTY's POV as supporting this, and being the only valid, while it is neither. Nikola 10:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are the one who is disputing this issue "to death" while not presenting a single valid information in last month to justify your claims. You cannot make of this a bigger issue by stating that you are doing the same thing on all other articles. Your disputes are dismissable in both cases.--Dado 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is a lie. I presented a lot of valid information. And, I am not making this any bigger than it is. If I encounter same error in any article, I will remove it. Nikola 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Would you care to share those valid information --Dado 15:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is something anyway. From the book Хронологија 1990-1995, published by aforementioned RS Secretariate, which is a chronology of event related to former Yugoslavia in 1990-1995:
  • 1992-08-26: British Prime Minister John Major [...] offered to all [emphasis mine] participants of Yugoslav crisis "tenets and standpoints" [which are] giving up of ethnic cleansing [...]
  • 1992-10-21: President of the International Red Cross Cornelius Samaruga stated that all three warring sides in B&H - Muslims, Serbs and Croats, are practising ethnic cleansing.
  • 1993-01-22: Muslim forces have on the previous day broke in [Serbian village of Cadzice in Visegrad municipality] and burned all Serbian houses in it, continuing in the most brutal way politics of ethnic cleansing [...]
  • 1993-02-26: Over Serbs in eastern Bosnia have committed massive crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide [...] said commander of Drina Corps of VRS colonel Milenko Zivkovic.
  • 1994-05-29: Process of ethnic cleansing in former B&H started over Serbs [...] is proven in Memorandum which the committee of the Federal Government for gathering of data about committed crimes against humanity and international law from Belgrade has send to the United Nations [...]
  • 1994-08-10: Special rapporteur of the Committee of the UN for human rights Tadeusz Mazovyetsky in his eighth report stated that on the area of the newly created Federation of B&H is "continued soft ethnic cleansing".
  • 1994-09-12: In an appeal signed by the president of the Red Cross dr Ljiljana Karadzic and commissioner Ljubisa Vladusic it is pointed out that [...] Muslim government is for two years ethnically cleansing these areas [...]
So, this is from a book published by an official organ which contains relevant quotes of other official organs. I think that this is as official as it gets. There are also several references about ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia or of Croats in Bosnia by Muslim forces, but they are not relevant for this article. Nikola 22:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the responses to your sources on that page. I don't want to go through that discussion again and just to point out, some of these were indicted war criminal that you are quoting. Beyond that. What does alleged ethnic cleansing of Serbs has anything to do with ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs in Banja Luka and more specifically in relation to the destruction of Ferhadija mosque.--Dado 16:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have, and I found them extremely weak. I translated all quotes I could found. Some are ambiguous and some made by people later indicted for war crimes, but some aren't. This doesn't have to do anything with Ferhadija, only with your claim that I am "not presenting a single valid information". Nikola 04:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first bombing of the mosque was carried out by unidentified people at the time supported by the authorities of Republika Srpska - if they were unidentified, there is no way of knowing whether they were supported or not.
    • If you had any knowledge about the life in Banja Luka from 1992 to 1995 you would not question this. The police hour was in force after 9PM and only way to conduct such synchronized and complex operation of setting up explosive and blowing up two mosques (Arnaudija and Ferhadija) simultaneously could occur only because they had a full involvement of the Republika Srpska authorities who were in complete control of the city. It is a disgrace that these people have not yet been identified.--Dado 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, so say you, but it is simply logically impossible that you can't identify someone yet know who supported them. Say, maybe it was a paramilitary group that was so strong that the police didn't dare arrest them. Nikola 21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unidentified by name but very clearly identifiable by the intention as part of the wider criminal activity in Banja Luka
          • This is same case as above. Was there a criminal activity? Nikola 10:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Obviously you know nothing about what took place in Banja Luka. I have presented numerous evidence for these claims and you are being arrogant and rude by ignoring it for about a month now and I am loosing my patiance with you. I have presented numerous sources on what happened there (which are only a tip of the iceberg)--Dado 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Look, what you wrote is logically impossible, and you can present any number of sources you want, they won't support it. Nikola 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't think it is logically imposible. I have pointed out how they were supported. You are pushing POV now. --Dado 15:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Or how about this:[reply]

The first bombing of the mosque was carried out by Serb radical nationalists at the time supported by the authorities of Republika Srpska


                  • No, you didn't. You stated that a) I don't have any knowledge about the life in Banja Luka, and b) that the only way to conduct this could occur because they had a full involvement of the Republika Srpska authorities, so say you. FWIW, I agree that it is perfectly possible that they had certain support, if not from RS then perhaps from local Banja Luka government or at least of someone from police. But it is also possible that they didn't.
                  • Let's say "believed to be supported" and it's OK for me.
                  • By the way, I changed "radical" to "extreme" to avoid impression that they were linked to Serbian Radical Party, I believe you'll agree. Nikola 08:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate:

The first bombing of the mosque was carried out by Serb extreme nationalists at the time believed to be supported by the authorities of Republika Srpska

OK? --Dado 16:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Relative to the destruction of Ferhadija (and 12 other mosques in Banja Luka)

The Law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Protection and Utilisation of Cultural-Historic and Natural Heritage:

Under the Law on Protection and Utilisation of Cultural-Historic and Natural Heritage (Official Gazette of SRBiH, Nos. 20/85 and 12/87) property within the meaning of this law shall enjoy special protection and shall be used on conditions and in a manner prescribed by law (Article 6). Such protection involves, inter alia, preventing destruction of the property, prohibiting every activity which would lead directly or indirectly to changing it, and conserving and renovating protected property (Article 11).

Just to remind that this law was in force at the time of destruction --Dado 03:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Republika Srpska? Nikola 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes --Dado 15:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How, in what way? Nikola 08:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some 4,000 Serb rioters beat and stoned three hundred elderly Bosniaks" - an obvious appeal to emotions. Why would all participants be elderly? Who checked their age, and can know that they were all elderly? It is safest to remove the word and let only the facts stay.
    • According to the report they were elderly. I usually stay clear from stating that "all" were elderly as generely that leads to potential errors but it would be safe to state that "most" were elderly.--Dado 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola 11:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • But now I noticed one more thing - it appears that all three hundred of them were beaten and stoned, which is obviously false (if they were mostly elderly most would have injuries from that and only eight were admitted in the hospital). Nikola 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per report they were. Unless you present some evidence here that proves otherwise I see no point to further discuss this with you.
          • The report is designed to appeal to emotions, and not everything stated in it can be taken literally. The same way as not everyone of the participants was elderly, not everyone was beaten. Please suggest a rewrite, as you did above, which I accepted. Nikola 10:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did not provide the link to the report for its emotions but for the facts on which it is based. You are the one who is disputing it. Why don't you suggest a rewrite --Dado 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC). Actually, I am OK to remove the word elderly as the sentance still makes a point.--Dado 00:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. You did provide the link to the report for its emotions, in the hope that casual reader will be influenced by them so much that he will believe that what is written in the article is true. However, I am not casual reader.
              • Around 4,000 Serb rioters stoned three hundred Bosniaks who participanted in the ceremony comemorating the laying of the cornerstone for the reconstruction and beat some of them. Nikola 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Or maybe this:

Some 4,000 Serb rioters beat and stoned a group of three hundred Bosniaks, participants of the ceremony comemorating the laying of the cornerstone for the reconstruction. --Dado 15:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

                  • No. You are again creating impression that all three hundred were beaten. Some 4,000 Serb rioters stoned a group of three hundred Bosniaks, participants of the ceremony comemorating the laying of the cornerstone for the reconstruction, at least eight of whom were beaten so badly that they [ended up in the hospital etc.]. Nikola 08:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate: Some 4,000 Serb rioters stoned a group of three hundred Bosniaks, participants of the ceremony comemorating the laying of the cornerstone for the reconstruction, at least eight of whom were taken to the Banja Luka hospital for medical treatment.

OK? --Dado 16:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting both and removing the tag. Nikola 04:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is coming off--Dado 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am stopping any discussion while the POV tag is not in the article. Nikola 09:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion is finished. You are wrong. You have not presented any information that is usefull to support your claims. --Dado 00:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't while the tag is not in the article. Nikola 10:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. :) --HarisM 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? Nikola 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed, again[edit]

ICTY is presented as if it should be trusted without any reserve. Nikola 06:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can add: According to International courte established by UN (Serbia and Montenegro is a member of UN), Serb war criminals did this or that...--Emir Arven 16:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of other things I could add, you know. Nikola 06:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every vandal can...but you know that. Maybe you are better in making things up as you are the author of Serbophobia article. --Emir Arven 08:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO List[edit]

Ferhadijy Mosque was not and is not on the world heritage list of UNESCO, as can be easily checked on [whc.unesco.org] . This does not mean it doesn't deserve too - on the contrary. Currently, the only Bosnian site on the world heritage list is Mostar. Luis rib 12:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can also check on List of World Heritage Sites in Europe. Luis rib 12:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ferhadija is not but it was on the UNESCO list. Just like Old Bridge was before, than lost the status and now it is again. In 1969 UNESCO financed the reconstruction of Ferhadija mosque after it was severly damaged in the earthquake. I have provided two links on this --Dado 14:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have been following the World Heritage List for years and am certain it was never inscribed (as can be found out by looking in the archived documents at whc.unesco.org.) In 1969, the Convention for the World Heritage List was not yet in place, so it cannot have been included on the List at that point. It may join the List in the future, and probably deserves to, but for the time being it is not on the List and it has not been on the list since the List was started. Therefore, I'm reverting it back. Luis rib 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am begining to get annoyed here. There are literary hundreds of source all pointing to the same fact that the mosque was listed under UNESCO before the war. Here are few:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Have you thought that in 1993 when the mosque was destroyed the website that you are pointing to did not exist either. The point that is currently not on the list prooves nothing about it not being on the list before. Please present proofs for your claims. I don't have a document to prove it to you but I do have other sources that claim it which makes this statement at least widely acceptable.--Dado 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dado, sorry but you're wrong. Journalists often claim that some monument is on the worldHeritage List even though it is not true. The fact is that Ferhadija Mosque was never inscribed on the list. Maybe the government of Yugoslavia was considering it for inclusion in the list - that is quite possible. Also, the mosque would certainly deserve to be on the list. However, it wasn't. You must notice that the World Heritage List is an ongoing process, which increases every year. Therefore, there are still a lot of monuments of universal importance which are not yet inscribed on it. You can check on [5] all the official documents of the World Heritage Comittee (the UNESCO body that compiles the world heritage list) from 1972 until 2006 and you will see that Ferhadija Mosque was never inscribed and never deleted from the list either (BTW: no monument was ever deleted from the list yet). So I'm sorry but I'll have to change it back. It's not because lots of journalists make a mistake that this mistake should be repeated on wikipedia. Luis rib 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I found another one [6]. Although this one is in Bosnian it also interestingly points out to what category the mosque was under UNESCO (Ferhadija and Arnaudija being 0 category, few others being categories 1 and 2). How is it possible that absolutely every website that you search on Ferhadija and UNESCO points to the fact that it was listed. This includes newspaper articles, but also some academic institutions and persons intimatelly involved with the Ferhadija such as its Imams etc. Actually what I have found is that most are stating that it was protected by UNESCO if that makes it any different. I am sorry but your reasearch seams to be an original reasearch. There are so many other sources who prove you otherwise and even if you would somehow be right, which you still have not quite proven, it is not considered a mainstream opinion, especially since you cannot possibly rebut all of these claims (or at least you have not done it so far). Unless you bring some other evidence to bear I would ask you kindly to return the previous version of the article. --Dado 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's showing you the definitive list. Ferhadija is not on it. The onus is now on you to show that UNESCO have made a mistake (if they have, which I doubt). --estavisti 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ferhadija is not on the list because it is currently not listed on the list and the website is not showing it. My point is that the Ferhadija was either listed or protected by UNESCO and I have provided at least 6 sources to proove it. Would you please open your mind just for a little bit and see what I and hundreds of others are saying. --Dado 01:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that probably Ferhadija was protected by UNESCO under some other program than the World Heritage List. After all, the UNESCO has lots of different programs. You also said that the UNESCO had provided assistance after an earthquake. I don't mind then if you mention UNESCO, but don't say it is or was on the Wolrd Heritage List because it was not. Luis rib 11:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a fair compromise given the lack of more detailed information on the subject. I have made a correction on the article. Please see if that is acceptable. Thanks --Dado 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that wording. Cheers. Luis rib 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


REBUILDING OF MOSQUES IN THE AREA[edit]

Can anyone provide proof (or a link) to support the articles claim that all of the old Mosques in the city have been rebuilt and also what the status is of Mosque reconstruction is in the Serb republic. How many Mosques have been rebuilt there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.153.25 (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Very few. To the Greater Serbian nationalists that rule that part of Bosnia with an iron hand, only Serb Orthodox churches has “absolute cultural” value. All other temples can be destroyed or let to rot. Sometimes I think it could be curious to compare the extent of the so-well-propagated “destruction of Serb cultural sites” (Orthodox churches and monasteries) in Kosovo with the not-so-much-propagated destruction of Bosnian mosques in that part of Bosnia created by Slobodan Milosevic, Arkan, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Maldic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.96.212 (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article revised for flow, and minor corrections[edit]

I have made a start on editing the article’s minor errors of grammar, syntax and flow. I hope this is acceptable to the other editors who have already done such a good job here. Although I have changed the order of some of the information (trying to lead from the general to the particular), I have not removed any so far as I am aware. I have added some details about the attack on the cornerstone ceremony. I have also revised the numbers of aggressors and victims in this attack, in line with those in the existing cited sources. I’m not sure where the article’s original figure of 4,000 Serbs came from. Have I overlooked a reference? If so I apologize and ask that it be restored. Anyway this change may well be temporary if someone can find other equally (or more) reliable souce(s).

If the established editors here are unhappy with what I've done, please feel free to revert.

I think the article could use quite a few more cites. Writegeist (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ferhat Pasha Mosque. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ferhat Pasha Mosque. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ferhat Pasha Mosque. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferhat_Pasha_Mosque_(Banja_Luka)&oldid=1207206916"