Talk:Škabrnja massacre

2007

On ICTY's sentence judgement page (the case of Milan Martić), says:
"The Trial Chamber has taken particular note of the fact that the attacks on predominantly Croat areas during the autumn of 1991 and early 1992 followed a generally similar pattern, that is: the area or village in question was shelled, after which armed ground units entered. After the fighting had subsided, acts of killing and violence were committed against the non-Serb civilian population who had not managed to flee. Houses, churches and property were destroyed, and widespread looting was carried out as part of the forcible removal. On several occasions, the SAO Krajina police and TO organised transport for the non-Serb population in order to remove it from SAO Krajina territory altogether to locations under Croatian control. Members of the non-Serb population would also be rounded up and taken away to detention facilities, including in central Knin, and eventually exchanged and transported to areas under Croatian control.
Thus, the threat clearly expressed in Milan Martić's ultimatum in Kijevo was carried out in the territory of the SAO Krajina through the commission of widespread, grave crimes. This created an atmosphere of fear in which the further presence of Croats and other non-Serbs in the SAO Krajina was made impossible. The Trial Chamber has therefore concluded that the displacement of the Croat and other non-Serb population which followed these attacks was not merely the consequence of military action, but in fact its primary objective. "
This should be helpful. Kubura 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On that same page Martić's sentence, says:
"The attack on Kijevo marked a turning point in the JNA's role in the conflict in Croatia , and from that point, the JNA participated in attacks on majority-Croat areas and villages together with SAO Krajina MUP and TO forces. From August 1991 and into early 1992, these combined forces attacked several Croat-majority villages and areas, including Hrvatska Kostajnica, Cerovljani, Hrvatska Dubica, Baćin, Saborsko, Poljanak, Lipovača, Škabrnja and Nadin. The evidence shows that the attacks were carried out in order to connect Serb villages and areas across non-Serb areas. During these attacks, the crimes of murder, destruction, plunder, detention, torture, and cruel treatment were committed against the non-Serb population. ". Kubura 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Listing at List of events named massacres

The Skabrnja 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 "Skabrnja Massacre" or some close varient thereof).

At the moment, there are sources that discribes the event as being a massacre... but they 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.

Bad reference

On November 18, 1991, Serb paramilitaries, supported by the JNA, captured the village of Škabrnja (also: Škabrnje) and killed 25 Prisoners of war and 61 civilians over the next several days.

In article,used as a source for this claim says following:

na 18. studenog 1991., kad su četnici, predvođeni postrojbama bivše JNA, ubijali Škabrnju. (on 15. November 1991,when Chetniks led by JNA forces,killed Škabrnja)

Tog je dana u Škabrnji poginulo 25 branitelja i zvjerski ubijeno 55 civila, a još šest je mještana nastradalo nakon oslobođenja u minskim poljima (On that day in Škabrnja died 25 defenders and was monstruosly killed 55 civilians, and 6 more villagers died after liberation in mine fields)

So,we have following mistakes in initial sentence:

1. atack was carried out by JNA with support of Serb paramilitaries,not opposite
2. 25 croatian fighters died during fightings,not afterwards as PoWs
3. 55 civilians were killed on that day and 6 died after the war in mine fields around village,not 61 killed civilians over the next several days

CrniBombarder!!! (†) 15:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

G'day Royroydeb. It's been nearly a month since you took this one. In the interests of timely GAN reviews for Milhist, can you give an indication of when you might get to it? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The reviewer is unable to complete this review; see their statement at the Good Article Help Desk. I have placed the article back into the same place in the queue. Prhartcom (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Škabrnja massacre/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	in the lead executed seems rather formal for the circumstances. killed would probably be better, same when it is used further down suggest The overall commander of the operation was JNA... were the paras heli-lifted or via fixed wing? I assume not paradropped. suggest and had captured the hamlet of Ambar located on the western approach to Škabrnja by 11:30 suggest dropping "Namely" suggest replacing react to with observe that there had been the the Aftermath section World War II is overlinked
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	a few tweaks needed in the References section: formatting of the Woodward text isbn Rupić needs an isbn (see Worldcat) The Amnesty paper has an oclc (as above)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm not sure about the licensing on the Babic and Martic pics, will have to do some checking and might ask for a second opinion. See Nikki's second opinion below. The rest of the images are fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for seven days for above points to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Image rights not conclusively proven. Failing on image licensing without prejudice to removal of offending images. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: could you please have a quick look at the pics of Martic and Babic in this article? I'm not sure about the licensing, given they are drawn from the ICTY. The licensing seems to be based more on the absence of attached restrictions rather than positive evidence that they are PD. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Without evidence that the images are PD we have to assume that they are copyrighted - in this case, the source presented does not conclusively show that the images are PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Peacemaker67, the nominator, Tomobe03, has not edited on Wikipedia since June 20, and the edits prior to that were on May 12. I think it's unlikely that you'll get a response from that quarter. On the other hand, 23 editor has been active editing the article, and perhaps might be willing to address the issues you've raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

G'day 23 editor if you want to handle the rest of the remaining points, I'm happy to leave it open for another week. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll address the remaining points shortly. 23 editor (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: All addressed, except heli-lifted vs. fixed-wing. I really don't know. You're going to have to ask Tomobe03. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to fail this nom on the basis of image licensing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)