Talk:Višegrad

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

Arbitrary section 1[edit]

I notice mention of the destruction of the Ivo Andric statue, a terrible thing indeed. You even made sure to mention that the destruction was committed by a Bosnjak.

And yet no mention of the deliberate destruction of the mosques of Visegrad by the Serb paramilitary units, as well as the killings and forced expulsions of Bosnjaks in Visegrad. Why is that?

This article's POV problems, complete with a total lack of coverage of what happened during the war leaves little doubt about who wrote it. The rest of the world will be a worse place for that. --Risto

Population[edit]

Whoever is vandalizing the population data... please stop. (LAz17 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

  • History

Who erased the history section and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicmet (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this an extremely subjective and above all ridiculousely untrue article when it comes to the depiction of the recent history of Bosnia and thus Visegrad! Judge yourselves by the number of Bosniacs in today´s Visegrad! There´s no doubt about the author of this most ridiculous article I´ve ever come about in wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.161.148 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Civil War in Bosnia section[edit]

I corrected some of the grammar and sentence structure within the Civil War in Bosnia section. I did not change the meaning of any of the sentences and only made changes for clarity. I changed the name of the bridge from "Bridge on the Drina" to the "Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge so that it matched the link within Wikipedia. I stopped the edits once I reached the section on the formation of paramilitary units since this section is fractured and difficult to follow. Much of this entire section needs sourcing. Perhaps the original author can provide such to give the Civil War more weight of scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.1.40 (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs[edit]

This article needs to be reworked. Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic, and their crimes in Visegrad (burning of women and children) needs to be mentioned in the article. Bosniak (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Višegrad, today[edit]

I think this article from the Institute For War & Peace Reporting is interesting enough to be added as a reference related to the recent history of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.105.6 (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre citation needed[edit]

The "Massacre" section makes some bold claims: "Bosnian Serb paramilitary leaders burned masses alive in houses, forced women and children over the famous bridge and shot them as they fell, and slaughtered thousands of Bosniak men." The only citation is an article from a clearly partisan website which itself puts forward the "thousands" more as a vague, sweeping accusation than a fact.

The very same article clearly states that exhumations discovered 180 bodies. The ICTY link only mentions a murder of 135 people. I'm not trying to diminish that crime and tragedy, but neither 135 nor 180 count as "thousands".

Likewise, while the crime of burning 46 people to their deaths is absolutely horrible, I'm not sure it's honest, especially in the context of the war in Bosnia, to describe it as "burned masses alive".

PRODUCER, please only remove the "citation needed" mark if you have addressed these problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add: also the place that was "probably used as rape camp" (!) requires a citation. The phrase "rape camp" on its own is scary enough to require it, but any serious accusation of a great crime that is preceded by "probably" is itself "probably" suspect. I should delete it outright as speculation, but I'm instead just marking it. Any citation there would be very welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time it's already cited [1] - PRODUCER (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only citation is an article that: (a) comes from a partisan website, (b) contradicts itself (just read the first two paragraphs!) (c) gives no source for that particular datum, whereas it gives plenty of sources for its more realistic claims (d) contradicts the ICTY citation, which I think is fair to see as a more dependable one.

Essentially, it's almost an op-ed. Somebody took some confirmed facts and based an article on them (I'm quoting from the article you're citing!): "180 bodies exhumed from mass graves" and then embellished those facts with an unsourced comment in the introduction that contradict the facts themselves: "slaughtered thousands of Muslim men".

I understand the author of the article is angry that some madmen killed innocent people. That does not make any expression of his feelings ("thousands!") into a fact that you can cite on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for sourcing and updating the "Vilina Vlas" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed[edit]

We need source that town is "known" for the ethnic cleansing. If we dont have source for that, controversial information should be removed from there lede. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The town "houses" it, but that doesn't mean that the town is known for it. The source cited, the official website incidentally, backs nothing. On the other hand you can't search Google books for Visegrad without ethnic cleansing being mentioned. It's ridiculous that I even have to point this out. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source is for the Andrićgrad part, and not for the known part of it. That is just relevant information, and yes, it is know for it, as that is biggest project in towns history. It is not ridiculous, i finds this as a OR by you, and i ask for sources. Therefor restore once again. And please, try sometimes NOT TO RESTORE as fast as you can, but try to talk here with me first. That way you will show to me that you actually care for other editors, and not just your own POV. If you talk here, without restoring me, i will restore my self after we agree, i promise. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, talk with me first. I really have an oppinion that i cannot talk with you, as you only revert each time. Please, talk with me first, and i will remove everything we find problematic. Please, trust me. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that the source is just for the "Andricgrad part"? What justifies it being in the lede then? How can you accuse me of original research one second and then engage in it the next second? The Bosnian War part consists of two thorough sections while your bit, a film set, barely has a sentence, but somehow it is more noteworthy. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you! I respect that! Then, what do you propose? I think that Andrićgrad, and its new established award ("Andrićgrad - za razvoj umetnosti") will be highly important, and Višegrad almost literary don't have anything worth mentioning in the international sence beside Andrićgrad and bridge. And Bosnian War part is big in this article, but that is not relevant for the data it self, as wiki is not self referencing. Do you have any source about this? I dont think it may be to hard to find. And i will try to find something about Andrićgrad and Višegrad... Just a sec. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Višegrad - Andrićev grad Maybe this one... --WhiteWriterspeaks
Književna nagrada od 100.000 evra
O Andrićgradu, visegradturizam.com --WhiteWriterspeaks
I added those sources, what do you say next? Are you ok with this sources? And what about this unsourced data? --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are not a gatekeeper of this article who can deny others to edit while hypocritically allowing yourself to. Second, the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" WP:MOSINTRO. Subsequently an award with little actual tie to Višegrad is out of the question, add it to the "Andricgrad" article if you wish. The lead is not a place to promote tourism.
There's already an abundance of references in this article and in the massacres article, and the two sections have already established the ethnic cleaning bit's warrant in the lead. The way you modified the lead makes it appear that the film set is as widely known as the bridge which it isn't. Let me add that it's not at all surprising that your B92 source doesn't once mention the ethnic cleansing, not even in one sentence.
This should be the lead:
"Višegrad (Serbian Cyrillic: Вишеград, pronounced [ʋǐʃɛɡraːd]) is a town and municipality in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina resting on the Drina river and in the Republika Srpska entity. The town includes the Ottoman era Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge which was popularized by Nobel prize winning author Ivo Andrić in his novel The Bridge on the Drina. During the Bosnian War the town was one of the scenes of widespread ethnic cleansing against Bosniaks committed by Serb forces. Andrićgrad, a site dedicated to Andrić, was later built."-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 14:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, agree, with three fixes. Without word "widespread", as it refers only to Višegrad killings, and with "Bosnian Serb forces" instead Serb forces, as it was concluded by ICTY. And last sentence, Andrićgrad is still not finished, and will not be in few years to come:
""Višegrad (Serbian Cyrillic: Вишеград, pronounced [ʋǐʃɛɡraːd]) is a town and municipality in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina resting on the Drina river and in the Republika Srpska entity. The town includes the Ottoman era UNESCO world heritage site Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge which was popularized by Nobel prize winning author Ivo Andrić in his novel The Bridge on the Drina. During the Bosnian War the town was one of the scenes of ethnic cleansing against Bosniaks committed by Bosnian-Serb forces. Andrićgrad, ethno village dedicated to Andrić is under construction on the Jalija peninsula near the bridge, as a future most important tourist brend of Republika Srpska.[1]" What do you say? --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, i am not gatekeeper for sure, but i will never insist on something if we finds that useless. And we will agree now, for sure on something better then it was. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of your changes, but the last change just makes it sound like something out of a brochure. "Widespread" was meant illustrate its intensity in Visegrad as the Bosniak percentage is near non-existant now. Appended version:
"Višegrad (Serbian Cyrillic: Вишеград, pronounced [ʋǐʃɛɡraːd]) is a town and municipality in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina resting on the Drina river and in the Republika Srpska entity. The town includes the Ottoman-era Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge, an UNESCO world heritage site which was popularized by Nobel prize winning author Ivo Andrić in his novel The Bridge on the Drina. During the Bosnian War the town was one of the scenes of ethnic cleansing and massacres carried out by Bosnian Serb forces against Bosniak civilians, and it saw a drastic decline in its Bosniak population. Andrićgrad, a future tourist site dedicated to Andrić, is under construction near the bridge." -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not bad. I added that version in the article. Thanks for fine wiki cooperation, lets keep it that way. All best. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Heleta, Slavko. "Andrićgrad – najznačajniji turistički brend Srpske". Andrićgrad. Retrieved 3 August 2012.

Census[edit]

Do we have any current census for Višegrad? Last one in article is from 1991... I have also removed forking of other article in here. This article is small anyway, and such a massive section is pointless. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

63,7% of the text of the article about Serbs who massacred Bosniaks[edit]

63,7% of the text of the article deals with Bosnian war and mainly about "ethnic cleansing and massacres carried out by Bosnian Serb forces against Bosniak civilians." Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all without even mentioning the Chetnik massacres of WWII. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And without even calculating part of the lede about "ethnic cleansing and massacres carried out by Bosnian Serb forces against Bosniak civilians." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that there are many pleasant things to write about the town and its history. Feel free to research them and add them. That will decrease the proportion of the article that is dedicated to atrocities committed there, won't it? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, thats not the point. This article obviously lacks in balance. Most of the war situations are explained with questionable detail in here. We have (several) other articles for that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is exactly the point. Carrying on about "balance" in order justify the reduction or removal of material you don't like (when you have no interest in expanding the article yourself with all the good stuff about the place) is utterly transparent. Just the fact that Antid bothered to work out the percentage of the text that is about the Bosnian Serb massacres is an indication that he does not recognise or does not wish to accept that one of the significant reasons the place is notable is because there were large-scale massacres conducted there (at least) twice in the 20th century. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat past due, but still: praise to Peacemaker for having rumbled with such ease an attempt to conceal/downplay what is a dark but exceptionally well-documented chapter in the history of the town. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 14:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Višegrad. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Višegrad&oldid=1207508040"