Talk:Omarska camp/Archive 1

Archive 1

death tolls

This article presents a series claims about death tolls not supported by any reliable source. These matters are too serious to be dealt with without hard facts. I urge knowledgeable Wikipedia editors to clean up this article. 158.37.109.11 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The section headed "Death toll" is quite clear about the status of information about deaths. Uncertainty is inevitable, given the deliberate efforts made to conceal the number of deaths, including the disposal of bodies in concealed mass graves. Given the difficulty of providing an accurate figure the uncertainty is adequately taken into account for the time being in the "Death toll" section. Opbeith (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. But still the first paragraph (about 4 lines) quotes numbers and mentions sources whithout providing reference to sources. The second paragraph cites HRW and professor Campbells private webpage. Mondeo (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

POV-check: Because of the lack of reliable sources the neutrality of this article can be questioned. 158.37.109.11 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of corroborative evidence of the atrocities perpetrated at Omarska (and the other camps) in the ICTY Trial Chamber findings in the case against Miroslav Kvocka, Milojica Kos, Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic and Dragoljub Prcac. http://www.un.org/icty/kvocka/trialc/judgement/index.htm Opbeith (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

---

[I've inserted a separator to remove confusion as the "Death tolls" entries were inserted out of order ahead of the earliest entries on this Discussion page. Opbeith (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)]

---

[This was the point at which discussion started on this page, in 2006 - anything above here has been inserted subsequently]

Uhm, hasn't Omarska been proven a hoax already?

Maybe someone could do the same to Auschwitz for example, but then you'd have proof of that already

Jewish organizations tout their suffering, try not to belittle it. Doesn't anyone else find this crap VERY offensive?

Yes, I in fact do find your belitteling of Omarska Camp VERY offensive. Thanks for asking --Dado 18:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the picture of the Tuberculosis infected inmate being used as the image descriptor for this article? There is clearly a POV motivation behind this (i.e. depicting it as an Extermination Camp). Asterion 12:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Details of the starvation regime at Omarska are provided in the ICTY's Kvocka case findings http://www.un.org/icty/kvocka/trialc/judgement/index.htm -

"55. The Trial Chamber finds that the detainees received poor quality food that was often rotten or inedible, caused by the high temperatures and sporadic electricity during the summer of 1992.130 The food was sorely inadequate in quantity. Former detainees testified of the acute hunger they suffered in the camp: most lost 25 to 35 kilograms in body weight during their time at Omarska; some lost considerably more.131"

The "tuberculosis" claim was used in an attempt to discredit the photos of Fikret Alic at Trnopolje. Alic had very recently arrived at Trnopolje from Omarska. - Opbeith (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I said Alic had just arrived from Omarska when he'd just arrived from Keraterm. Opbeith (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Fikret Alic had TB (or if he was skinny because of TB, he is certainly not skinny now), but Deichmann/LM had a point that newspapers chose to use the picture of the skinny guy whereas many of his mates seemed to be well-fedd and in good shape. I also believe that the media at the time exaggarted the implications of these pictures with headings like "Bosnia-Belsen". Omarska was not a hoax, but the interpretation of the pictures were exaggerated. The famous picture of Alic is real, but it may elicit assocations that are not in accordance with the facts. That is why interpretation is very important.Images are very powerful (much more powerful than words and statistics), that is why it is important to use pictures that are representative of the actual conditions in the camp (i.e., neutral). It is not offensive or belittling to ask for facts and a neutral presentation. Mondeo (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mondeo, a neutral presentation involves accepting evidence that has already been supplied. A constant questioning of evidence and demands that a narrative that has already been substantiated should be resubstantiated "elicits associations", as you put it, that suggest a non-neutral direction of activity. It is offensive and belittling to keep asking for facts that have been adequately demonstrated.

If you want to revive areas of controversy that have largely been settled then you need to show that you have taken due account of the evidence already offered here. Specifically you have ignored the evidence from the ICTY (Kvocka) that I have cited immediately above confirming the starvation regime at Omarska that Fikret Alic, recently arrived at Trnopolje, had been subjected to. You also ignore my reference on this page to the photographs of prisoners at Trnopolje taken by Ron Havib, showing prisoners whose visible condition varies but some of whom are in even worse condition than Alic. You ignore the evidence that prisoners at Trnopolje had had different experiences of detention in the Omarska-Keraterm-Trnopolje-Manjaca system. Differences in the condition of different prisoners is not adequate grounds for continuing to promote doubt about the cause of an individual prisoner's condition.

Apologies, Mondeo, I'd managed to confuse myself into remembering that Alic had just arrived from Omarska. It was from Keraterm that he'd just arrived (similar starvation regime).Opbeith (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your interventions here suggest you have only limited acquaintance with the established evidence about Omarska. And yet you make a confident assertion like "I also believe that the media at the time exaggarted the implications of these pictures with headings like "Bosnia-Belsen". The evidence shows that conditions at Omarska certainly resembled those at Belsen in many respects. Just read the evidence provided at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. When visited by the team of reporters Omarska had not been in existence as long as Belsen and its scope was more limited but nevertheless it was a concentration camp run under an extremely brutal regime. The evidence also indicates that it functioned as an extermination camp for the political, business and professional strata of Bosnian Muslim/Bosniak society in the Prijedor area, albeit in no way resembling an industrial-scale extermination system like Auschwitz. (The evidence has made me revise my opinion previously expressed here that Omarska should be described as a death camp rather than an extermination camp). But the media were not making comparisons with Auschwitz. The media reports of Omarska horrified many people, others responded by seeking to challenge the evidence. We know there's a similarity with Belsen there as well.

You regularly insist that Wikipedia is not the place for personal hypotheses. You insist that other people's beliefs, in some cases acquired through painful personal experience, should not influence editing of of the content of Wikipedia articles. But you say that "The famous picture of Alic is real, but it may elicit assocations that are not in accordance with the facts." Your demand that fellow editors should be guided by strict adherence to your interpretation of Wikipedia principles seems inconsistent with your own stance.

While disclaiming any viewpoint concerning Alic's TB, you observe that "Deichmann/LM had a point". That's a rather sideways way of communicating your view. And of course we know what happened when Deichmann's and LM's observations about the reporting of Trnopolje were put to the test at the libel trial. Dr Idriz Merdzanic gave his evidence and the LM case collapsed. Merdzanic, who was a doctor interned at Trnopolje, appeared in the original ITN broadcasts. His testimony at the trial made clear - as trials at The Hague had already made abundantly clear - that Trnopolje was a camp where Bosnian Muslims were imprisoned and many were beaten, tortured, raped and killed by their Serb guards. The libel trial showed that Deichmann and LM had sought to do precisely what they reproached the media for doing, in other words create a misleading impression of Trnopolje and Omarska. That is the endeavour that you endorse with your comments. From other comments of yours at the Srebrenica Massacre article and on your own Talk Page you seem to accept that genocide took place in Bosnia and refute the allegation that you are a "genocide denier". But while you constantly insist on others relying only on "verifiable reliable sources" as the basis for an article, you appear to use the refuted claims of genocide deniers to test the evidence. This seems inconsistent with your professions of personal good faith and your academic credentials. Perhaps you should respect the rules that you insist your fellow editors observe.

Opbeith (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an image from the camp. Interpret it any way you want it but that is your POV.--Dado 14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Omarska perhaps wasn't an extermination camp as such but it was certainly a death camp. The claim that Omarska was a hoax is extremely offensive. I don't suppose anyone who writes that sort of stuff is going to be bothered to read Peter Maass on Trnopolje and Omarska but anyway here's a link: http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=2&book=3 --Opbeith 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversy Regarding the Camp" section should have a sentence appended to it to the effect that "Efforts to challenge the well-documented reality of the crimes committed at Omarska parallel the campaign by supporters of indicted and convicted war criminals to deny, minimise or excuse the genocide perpetrated at Srebrenica and elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina." --Opbeith 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what he means by "hoax" is that the famous picture of the emaciated Muslim prisoner (Fikret Alic) behind barbed wire has allegedly been found to be that of a refugee in Trnopolje who was photographed from behind barbed wire (i.e., the British journalists, Penny Marshall and Ian Williams, were supposedly fenced in). The German reporter Thomas Deichmann broke the story in February 1997 with the headline "The picture that fooled the world". Deichmann's article is cited in Ramsey Clark's book "NATO in the Balkans: Voices of Opposition".

ITN, the British production company, Williams and Marshall pressed defamation charges against Deichmann, a freelance journalist, and his publisher Informing (LM) Ltd. I couldn't finde any press coverage of the trial (beginning on February 28, 1999) other than this one: Court sentences magazine for exposing the Bosnian war (in German), World Socialist website, March 2000. (Update: Here is an English version of roughly the same article: Britain: libel verdict vs. exposé of Bosnia War propaganda bankrupts independent journal, wsws.org, March 25, 2000) It maintains that Deichmann and LM were ultimately found guilty for their political agenda, not because their allegation of fabrication was wrong. Quote from the judge: '"The defendants claim that Ian Williams and Penny Marshall must have known as a fact that the men [the prisoners] were not locked up behind barbed wire, rather they themselves were standing behind it.... Ian Williams and Penny Marshall were obviously wrong if they thought otherwise - but is it important?" - "They [the Bosnian Muslims] were prisoners, that is the issue, not the barbed wire," said Nina Bialoguski, ITN press officer.'

Deichmann's article has been removed from most websites accordingly. 88.217.86.46 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This contemporary report in The Guardian describes the collapse of the LM case following the testimony of Dr Idriz Merdzanic, a doctor interned at Trnopolje who had appeared in the broadcast report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/mar/15/medialaw.media

Opbeith (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As a postscript, the original allegation that because one of the individuals in the image was "tuberculosis-infected" this indicated a POV motivation in the use of the image was made without any substantiating evidence being provided either concerning the camp inmate's identity or their medical status. Given the evidence supplied to the ICTY and others about the starvation regime at Omarska it is not unreasonable for the prima facie assumption to be that any emaciated individual shown in an image from Omarska was a victim of the camp regime and that TB infection should not be presumed in relation to any image from any of the Proejdor camps unless evidence is provided that the emaciated condition was the result of a TB infection. Opbeith (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Koricani Cliffs massacre

I'll make a stub (minimum). --HanzoHattori 11:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to your Koricani Cliffs massacre article at the Mt Vlasic article. --Opbeith 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ljubija

"Bosnia-Hercegovina Federation Missing Persons Commission" [[1]] This is hardly a neutral Missing Persons Commission. Stop The Lies 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

If you want to dispute the Commission's authority you need to do more than make throwaway comments. --Opbeith 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

About “Controversy Regarding the Camp” section

The findings of 'mass grave sites' were conducted by Bosnian officials, and not by international organizations. In the past, incidents such as Srebrenica have occurred, where Bosnian officials included Serbian bodies in their 'Bosniak body count', inflated numbers, and used soldiers in their 'civilian body count'. Also, there is controversy regarding the events that took place in Omarska in 1992, due to claims of false reporting and "journalistic crimes".[3][4][5][6]

This entire section is terribly bad-written and POV-pushing. And only the first [3] link to a paleoconservative news site works. It deserves entire deletion.--MaGioZal 12:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a point at which controversy finally becomes simple denial. --Opbeith 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

All citations have been restored. Please do not remove this as it is cited. Let encyclopedia readers review the sources themselves and decide what to think instead of you making the decision for them. By removing sources you do not agree with, you are the one POV pushing. Thank you. // Laughing Man 16:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, the way the paragraph was written induces the reader to believe that these allegations are spread and common, when everybody knows that just a tiny part of the World mass media, generally vinculated to religious-ethinc interests, contests the atrocities of the Omarska camp.--MaGioZal 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[2] - This is absurd -- references should not be prefaced "Pro-Bosniak" or "Pro-Serb" // Laughing Man 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MaGioZal, this Laughing Man seems to have decided to have an entertaining time for himself meddling with this article and pretending that he has some sort of authoritative role as a Wikipedia administrator. He's just been doing doing his best to cause the same sort of confusion at the Srebrenica Massacre article. He fell silent for a short while following the charge that he was one of the people put on "revert parole" after meddling with Kosovo issues, then obviously decided to move elsewhere.

Quoted from the Srebrenica Massacre Discussion page:

"Relevant decision by the Kosovo arbitration committee: 7) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page."

I don't see much discussion of content here.

This man pretends to authority he neither has nor deserves. Another classic example of apologism. It's like bird-spotting - at first it's hard to be certain the behaviour you're watching is characteristic of the species but the more you see of it the more readily recognisable it becomes. This agenda is a shameful one. --Opbeith 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Still with the personal attacks? Please comment on the content of the articles instead of your ridiculous comments about me. As I have already stated and explained on your talk page, I'm not wasting time on your blatant disrespect for Wikipedia policy and I suggest you focus on the content of article here and how to improve them instead of your opinions and biases about fellow Wikipedians. // Laughing Man 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, what informs my comments is your attempt to bully me into withdrawing my account of a situation that arose at Srebrenica Massacre. You issued instructions as if you had some authority. But you've been seen through. I have attempted to contribute to this article like other contributors whose efforts you have sought to interfere with and changed without discussion. I have contributed my account of events elsewhere so that they know the nature of the "authority" challenging them. --Opbeith 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You, and I have the same "authority" as editors of Wikipedia. The authority and duty as an editor is to inform other editors of policy and violations of that policy. In fact, I did the only thing I did is remove what I felt was a direct violation of WP:NPA in the talk page of the Srebenica article, and I reminded you on your talk page what the policy is -- commenting on the content of the article, not another fellow Wikipedian you had a problem with. Unfortunately you are not trying to understand and respect these policies of Wikipedia and instead come up with accusations and conspiracy theories. I am not going to respond to anything further attacks or accusations as you are not helping us edit the content of this article with this nonsense. // Laughing Man 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In the light of the following excerpt from a recent report from IWPR there is no justification for the first paragraph to continue as part of the content of the article. The International Commission for Missing Persons is an international agency.

...

Many of these people are thought to have died in the concentration camps that surrounded Prijedor in 1992: Omarska, Trnopolje and Keraterm. The camps were closed in August 1992 when journalists released photos of Omarska’s gaunt inhabitants, but an unknown number of detainees had already been executed.

The International Commission for Missing Persons, ICMP, has been active in advocating the exhumation and identification of their bodies from mass graves around the area. With their help, a number of victims have been identified through DNA testing.

But a decade later, the atrocities committed still haunt the friends and relatives of the missing and confirmed dead as well as the survivors of the camps. And many Bosniak residents of Prijedor claim that the Serbs refuse to acknowledge what happened.

“The crimes need to be discussed openly,” said Karabasic. “Serb local people don’t want to hear about it.”

But for others, such as Lejla Arifagic, it is something that cannot be forgotten. Her father’s body was exhumed from a mass grave near Omarksa camp last year. “The last time I saw my father was May 25, 1992,” said Arifagic, who is now a 23-year-old journalism student in Sarajevo. Later, after they were separated, she heard he was in Omarska.

No word came until a decade later, when her mother received a phone call requesting that they both give DNA because a mass grave with 200 men in it had been unearthed near Omarska.

After his body was identified, a funeral was held in July, which she said has provided her with some sense of closure.

...

Bosnia - A House Divided by Katherine Boyle (IWPR / TU No 484, 12-Jan-07) --Opbeith 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, the paragraph that you insist on retaining has been shown to be inaccurate. Could you explain why you want inaccurate information to be kept in the article? --Opbeith 07:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it sourced information. // Laughing Man 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, perhaps you'd explain how you reconcile the statement in the first sentence with the sourced information I have posted above? --Opbeith 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement was not coming from the source you supplied above, they were supported by other sources given directly following the statements ([3][4][5]) so I don't understand what you mean by "reconcile the statement" with another source, that would be original research. // Laughing Man 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I need to go back to Lewis Carroll. --Opbeith 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Laughing Man and other pro-Serb-nationalist editor uses the tools and policies in Wikipedia to justify their ends and make articles related to Yugoslav Wars and Serbian history to reflect their beliefs, sometimes trough harsh tatics of editing-reverting and (non) discussing.--MaGioZal 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More ad hominem arguments? Bravo. // Laughing Man 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Simplification" removing the description "death camp"

MaGioZal, the inhumane conditions in the Omarska have been adequately described. Even if there had been no active killing those deliberately-imposed conditions would have been enough for it to be described as a death camp.

I don't have the UNHCR reference itself but in "Witness to Genocide" Roy Gutman refers to a UN High Commissioner for Refugees report quoting a guard at Omarska telling a UN monitor "We won't waste our bullets on them. They have no roof. There is sun and rain, cold nights and beatings two times a day. We give them no food and water. They will starve like animals." A survivor Gutman interviewed described the ore loader where other prisoners were held in cages stacked four high with no toilets, so they were living in their own filth, which dripped through the grates. The prisoners were infested with lice.

But of course Omarska was not just a place where prisoners lived in conditions which would result in death. It was a place where murderous beatings and executions took place as well. So removing the reference to Omarska being a "death camp" is not a simplification, it's a misrepresentation. --Opbeith 12:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Opbeith,

Sorry if I’ve been misunderstood relating to the edition of the first paragraph. It was because English is not my first language, and in Portuguese the terms “death camp” and “concentration camp” are synonyms with equal weight, and the latter is more used, for example in “campo de concentração de Auschwitz”.--MaGioZal 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry MaGioZal, I thought you were using a lesser term in order to minimise the the significance of what happened at Omarska. A concentration camp isn't necessarily a killing camp though quite often deaths are the result of concentrating a population or ethnic group in camps. The term originated in the Boer War when the British tried to defeat the Boer guerrillas by depriving them of their rural support. They set up camps to which the Boer families, mainly women and children, were removed from their farms and confined in dire conditions that resulted in a number of deaths. However there was no deliberate policy of killing the people who had been concentrated in the camps.

Concentration camps may be part of the process of ethnic cleansing and they may lead to or be an aspect of extermination camps like Auschwitz but they are not necessarily death camps.

Because Auschwitz was a concentration camp as well as an extermination camp the terms are confused in English as well, so don't worry it's not your understanding of English that's a problem. In fact I reacted so precipitously to your change because an element of the LM accusations that the British media had misrepresented the situation at Trnopolje by portraying it as a concentration camp and so associating it in the public mind with Auschwitz. That was what an LM supporter tried to convince me. In fact a concentration camp was exactly what Trnopolje was.

It was used as a place where Bosnian Muslims were concentrated before being exchanged across the front line, in many cases after they had been sent from Omarska. Deaths occurred at Trnopolje because of the inhumane conditions and brutality, but it wasn't a death camp like Omarska, one of whose functions was the killing of the local Bosnian Muslim politicians and professionals as an important step towards the permanent ethnic cleansing of the Prijedor area.

I have met Ed Vulliamy, one of the three British reporters along with Penny Marshall and Ian Williams who brought back the first reports from Omarska and Trnopolje. He is an honourable and dedicated journalist and he gets very angry when people deny the truth of what he saw with his own eyes. His article about the LM trial Poison in the Well of History conveys some of his indignation.

I'm very sorry to have mistaken your intent.

--Opbeith 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an additional comment going back to Asterion's reference at the head of this page about the use of the photograph. Ron Havib took a number of photographs at Trnopolje of people in a similar condition to Fikret Alic, the emaciated man whom Penny Marshall interviewed in her report. Even the people who were not considered important enough to kill and who survived to be sent to Trnopolje and were then if lucky used as currency in the business of population exchange endured terrible suffering at Omarska where they were subjected to a starvation regime. Alic, who was amazed at the complete misrepresentation of his situation by the LM group says that he believed Marshall, Williams and Vulliamy's reporting saved his life. --Opbeith 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Foca rape camp

This guy deleted the article. Just sayin'. --HanzoHattori 00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jasenovac, Omarska and the Serb Voluntary Guard Cabal in Wikipedia

Interesting.

Jasenovac is classified and described as a “concentration and extermination camp”, while Omarska is described simply as a “notorious war prison”? Other descriptions of Bosnian Serb concentration camps do the same: “was a detention camp”, “also referred to as prison”, etc.

Com on, people. Both Omarska and Jasenovac were concentration camps. Both had the same intentions.

How can you document "intentions"? Wikipedia content should be reliable. 158.37.109.11 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The intentions of these concentration camps are to detain, to emaciate, to abuse — psychologically and sexually — and ultimatelly to kill people in large quantities.

Jasenovac was quite different from Omarska. In any case, Wikipedia requires claims to be documented by reliable sources, as pointed out by anonymous editor 158.37.109.11 above. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How can you state that this was not a concentration camp? Have you even read any testimonies by the survivers of these camps? here a few: http://home.ubalt.edu/calbrecht/Hell.htm http://www.hmd.org.uk/files/1157732216-101.pdf http://wwwc.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0005/18/bosna.html

I am deeply offended by not qualifying this camp as a concentration camp. The significance has been lost to you and the Serbs of wikipedia can be proud that they have won another round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.166.26 (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is not about winning or loosing, but about presenting verifiable facts in a balanced, neutral fashion. In any case, the intro to the article clearly states that many regard it as a concentration camp, nobody is trying to hide that point. It is not our task to judge if Omarska was a concentration camp. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to judge. That judgment has already been made by verifiable reliable sources including The Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at Washington College of Law, American University, Human Rights Watch and others and is in fact referenced in the article. In the Kvocka case I have previously referred to, the International Criminal Tribunal certainly considered there to be sufficient parallel for it to use the criteria established in the Dachau and Belsen concentration camp jurisprudence in its examination of the issue of the joint criminal enterprise among camp guards. Opbeith (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is confusing so I open a new at the bottom. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never claimed it is about winning or loosing but the verifiable fact is that a concentration camp is defined with: concentration camp n. 1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. 2. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

Can you please elaborate why this definition does not apply for Omarska, Trnopolje? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.166.26 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IP 83.87.166.26: This has already been extensively discussed on this talk page as well as in relation to Trnopolje camp. It is not editors' task to judge if Omarska camp was in fact a concentration camp. In addition, the word "concentration camp" is heavily loaded with conotations after the WW2, "concentration camp" thus gives possible misleading associations to Auschwitz. Describing Omarsak only as a concentration camp does not add clarity to the article. Please do not change the intro even if you strongly believe that Omarska can accuratly be described as a concentration camp. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself because you are being the judge by setting the connotations yourself by simply stating that a concentration camp only applies to Auschwitz. Please elaborate why the term concentration camp should be limited to Auschwitz alone. The conditions of the camp for them selves state that it was indeed a concentration camp. It is not upon you to deny these conditions and to lose the signifigance by stating that it was merely a detention camp. See the above definition and please elaborate why it does not apply for Omarska. 83.87.166.26

Re: Conotations is just one more argument. I don't think that "concentration camp" should apply Auschwitz-type camps only, but the fact remains (as acknowledge in WP article on concentration camp) that after WW2 "concentration camp" is largely associated with nazi death camps. In any case, according to WP policy things should not be named according to editors' interpretations of the facts. Wikipedia after all is about verifiability, not truth [[WP:]], so the role of WP is to summarize how reliable sources refer to the events at Omarska. Some news articles refer to it as "camp", others as "detention camp" (Washington Post, May 30, 2002), and still others as "concentration camp" (Guardian, March 1, 2002). It is not our task to judge which of these names or descriptions are correct. Because reputable sources refer to Omarska as "detention camp", that word can not simply be deleted from the intro. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If we take the nazi connotation out the argument than you are only left with sources which refer to it as a prisonders of war camp, detention camp and concentration camp. You have been the judge by first refering to the camp as a "prisonders of war camp" secondly as a "dentention camp", and thirdly by stating that it also refered to as a concentration camp. In that order you have lost the signifigance of the camp and thus you have been the judge of the presentation of the camp. Why not change the order and simply state that it was a concentration camp or prisonders of war camp and it it also refered to as detention camp. Like I did when I change the intro. Apparently sources like the he washington post and the guardian are more significant than the HRW, ICTY and the sources presented above from the survivores of the camp. You have taking judging in your own hands which is not correct. 83.87.166.26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.189.43 (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is not about you and me, it is about WP policy. I did not write the intro, I simply reverted the deletion of the words "prisoners of war" and "detention". Because these words have been extensively used to describe the camp, they must be reflected in the article, we can not simply choose the word we as editors think is most accurate. The intro clearly states that HRW classifies Omarska as a concentration camp; if ICTY and other authoritative bodies also did, please include that in the relevant sentence provided that you also add a citation. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, you refuse to accept the article title "Srebrenica genocide" on the basis of use by authoritative bodies such as the International Court of Justice and the European Parliament and others because you consider them less acceptable referees under Wikipedia rules than your selection of "verifiable reliable sources" (the precision of whose usage is not always apparent).

I hope that the United Nations is a sufficiently authoritative body to convince you of the legitimacy and authority of the use of the expression "concentration camp" to describe Omarska. I'm not sure whether your knowledge of the war in Bosnia is sufficient for the name Bassiouni to stir some recognition. Are you aware of the Bassiouni Commission Report - UN Document S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I) of 28 December 1994, "FINAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONS OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 780 (1992)- ANNEX V THE PRIJEDOR REPORT"?

Throughout Bassiouni's report on Prijedor you will find references to the concentration camps of Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje.

In PART ONE - VI CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND DEPORTATIONS at para. 22 you will also find some basic information of relevance to other queries you have concerning the death toll and the use of descriptive terms.

"22. As the "informative talks" or interrogations basically took place in the Omarska and Keraterm camps, it can be concluded that more than 6,000 adult males were taken to these concentration camps in the short period they existed (from the end of May to the beginning of August 1992). Since only 1,503 were moved on to Manjaça camp according to Mr. Drljaça, a limited number transferred to the Trnopolje camp, and almost none released, it may be assumed that the death toll was extremely high, even by Serbian accounts. The concentration camp premises were sometimes so packed with people that no more inmates could be crammed in. On at least one occasion, this allegedly resulted in an entire bus-load of newly captured people being arbitrarily executed en masse. Some 37 women were detained in Omarska, whilst no women were kept over time in Keraterm."

And shortly after, at para. 27, under VII THE STRATEGY OF DESTRUCTION you will also find an explanation of the purpose of these concentration camps - the reason why the camps were used to "concentrate" key members of the Muslim and Croat communities.

"27. Despite the absence of a real non-Serbian threat, the main objective of the concentration camps, especially Omarska but also Keraterm, seems to have been to eliminate the non-Serbian leadership. Political leaders, officials from the courts and administration, academics and other intellectuals, religious leaders, key business people and artists - the backbone of the Muslim and Croatian communities - were removed, apparently with the intention that the removal be permanent. Similarly, law-enforcement and military personnel were targeted for destruction. These people also constituted a significant element of the non-Serbian group in that its depletion rendered the group at large defenceless against abuses of any kind. Other important traces of Muslim and Croatian culture and religion - mosques and Catholic churches included - were destroyed."

The .pdf version can be downloaded from

www.law.depaul.edu/centers_Institutes/ihrli/downloads/V_a.pdf

Further information about Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje can be found in PART TWO - VIII. THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS (paras. 337-505).

And here also are a few more of the "verifiable reliable sources" showing common use that you insist should be cited:

Vatican Radio - http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=220578

New York Times - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EFDE1139F932A25754C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

The Guardian/Observer - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/aug/06/warcrimes.theobserver

The Daily Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1312821/Tyrants-extradition-is-warning-to-the-worlds-war-criminals.html

Institute of War and Peace Reporting - http://www.iwpr.net/?p=bcr&s=f&o=155750&apc_state=henibcr2004

The Aegis Trust - http://www.aegistrust.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=763&Itemid=88

The Forgiveness Project - http://www.theforgivenessproject.com/stories/Kemal-Pervanic

Court TV News glossary - http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/warcrimes/reports/glossary.html#O

and perhaps if you insist on a really "popular" source, The Sun - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1457722.ece

Opbeith (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, I have not deleted the words "prisoners of war" and "detention camp". I have simply changed the order in which they are written. You claim that is about WP policy but the doesn't policy state: state the obvious, isn't it obvious enough that this was a concentration camp if we look at the definition of the term concentration camp? The intro and the article should written firstly by stating the obvious: Omarska was a concentration camp or a prisoners of war and also refered to as a detention camp. Thus the article's name should be Omarska concentration camp and not just Omarska camp because if WP presents the article only as Omarska camp than the significance and the obvious is lost to the reader. With which of these arguments do you disagree with me? 83.87.166.26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.189.43 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You can not simply change something because you feel like. WP policy is very clear: It is not really editors' task to judge if this was indeed a concentration camp. WP:NOR states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." This means that it is not important how "concentration camp" is defined. Our task as editors is to summarize material from reputable publications, it is not our task to draw conclusions based on an analysis of the material as you are trying to do. Your edit gives the word "concentration camp" a more prominent position without clear support in the sources.

WP naming policy WP:NC is very clear: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers' over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject. (...) Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. (...) Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. " (Italics added)

A Google search reveals that "Omarska concentration camp" is mentioned 1,021 times, compared to 5,210 times for "Omarska camp" and 646 times for "Omarska dentention camp". The Factiva news database returns 216 hits "concentration camp", and 826 for "camp"; Google Scholar search reveals a similar ration. Although "Omarska concentration camp" is sometimes used as a name for the camp, it is clearly not the common or most widely used name for this camp (in the English language). There is no basis for a title change according to WP policy. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, how can you state that the word "concentration camp" does not have clear support in the sources while I have given you the sources above and which are also presented in the article itself?You have apparently decided that one source has a more clear support than another. Thus you have pushed your own POV on this topic. A google search does not resemble the use of the word in the common english language. For example A google search of the "Knockaloe camp" gives us a result of 493 and a search of "Knockaloe concentration camp" gives us 3 results which two of them are from a public library and one of .edu site. This concentration camp is also listed on the list of concentration camp and internment camp while the Omarska is not. Your argument is flawed. You have also presented the WP policy: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" So a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. This policy does not apply for the current state of the article since the article is maximized with uncertainty when it is simply state as "also referred to as a concentration camp". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.166.26 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Omarska Concentration Camp

If there is any objectivity on Wikipedia, this article should then be renamed to Omarska Concentration Camp, same as Trnopolje concentration camp: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/27/radovankaradzic.warcrimes2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. See identical discussion on Trnopolje camp. These are judgments by some actors (I do not necessarily disagree with HRW). Better leave the neutral title as it is and instead include judgments by respected organizations like HRW in the introduction and main text. The word "concentration camp" carries too many connotations in Europe since world war 2 and will only provoke an edit war. It will also open up similar discussions on other articles related to the war in Bosnia. Better let fact speak for themselves rather than imposing a frame in the title. Mondeo (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both were concentration camps but I agree with Mondeo, the facts speak for themselves, there's no need to complicate the title of the article. Opbeith (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to rename Auschwitz merely as “Auschwitz camp”.

Human Rights Watch - Omarska Concentration Camp

http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/prijedor/helsinki.html

Human Rights Watch: "Despite the absence of real non-Serbian threat, the main objective of the concentration camps, especillay Omarska but also Keraterm, seems to have been to eliminate the non-Serbian leadership," the U.N. Commission of Experts found. "From the time when the Serbs took power in the district opf Prijedor, non-Serbs in reality became outlaws. At times, non-Serbs were instructed to wear white arm abnds to identify themselves...according to Serbian regulations, those leaving the district had to sign over their property rights and accept never to return, being told their names would simultaneously be deleted from the census." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent unsupported edits - Serb vs RS vs Bosnian-Serb

Editor Krusko Mortale recently did several changes without giving reason nor inviting a discussion. I reverted the changes involving the word "serb" because it is ambiguous, it may refer to an ethnic group and it may refer to a country. "Bosnian-Serb" is somewhat more precise, but Republika Srpska (RS) is maybe even better as the latter clearly identifies a party in the conflict (rather than an ethnic group). Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Krusko Mortale changed "Bosnian-Serb" to "Serb", I reverted this. Even if the "Serb" is the offical name of an ethnic group within Bosnia-H., "Serb" is ambiguous, because it can mean other things, including people from Serbia and the Serbia itself. Let us join forces to find clear and unambiguous wording. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Broad claims and possible biased wording

In the section titled "The Camp" there are several broad/vague claims, apparently unsourced statements, and possibly biased language. For instance the statement "Omarska....operated in a manner designed to discriminate and subjugate the non-Serbs by inhumane acts and cruel treatment." Who made this conclusion? What source says that the camp was specifically designed this way, as opposed to the fact that it did function this way? What is an inhumane act?

One statement reads "The prisoners all suffered serious psychological and physical deterioration and were in a state of constant fear." This a very broad claim (all prisoners) and no citation given. It is also rather vague, what is for instance "serious psychological deterioration". These claims need to be more specific.

Also statements like ".... beatings and mistreatment which often resulted in death" should be made more specific if possible. How often is "often"? 1%, 10%, 50%?

In addition, some statements appears to be conclusions (WP policy says "no original research") made by the editor, for instance "Apparently, there was no legitimate reason justifying these people’s detention." Is this based on the cited source? What kind of "objective/legitimate reason" is this? If it is based on the court's ruling, please make sure that the court's judgment is accuratly reproduced.

I will consider removing or rephrasing some of these statements if no editors respond.

Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Serbs" and other changes

Serbs are never referred by themselves as Bosnian Serbs. Second, you changed the Serb-run concentration camp into "notorious prisoners of war or detainee camp", removing Serbs from the the description. Third, this camp was not POWs camp, but camp for Bosnian Muslim civilian population. Kruško Mortale (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that "serb" is the common name for an ethnic group within the context of Bosnia-H., but that is not the point. Writing only "serb" is ambiguous as the uninformed reader can assume that the article refers to Serbia (a country) rather than to a group or milita within Bosnia-H. WP strives to reduce ambiguity, one way to achieve this is to state the obivous. WP policy explicitly says that article should state the obvious Wikipedia:OBVIOUS#State_the_obvious. Please find a better naming solution rather than simply doing unexplained changes.

The words "notorious prisoners of war or detainee camp" have been there all the time, and you as a single editor can not remove it without reason.

Several statements are vague and lack source. Tags must remain until this is resolved. Please help out finding reliable sources. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ive resolved most of the tags. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. That is big step forward. It seems that you have added the word "horrible" to characterize what happened in the camp. We can certainly agree on that, but I think it is not in line with WP policy Wikipedia:MORALIZE#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. If that word is a quote from the sources, please make explicit who said it. WP describes opinions/judgements as facts, but should not use opinions as describtions of facts.

That is why I am not perfectly happy about words like "inhumane acts", "cruel treatment" and "brutal living conditions" - these are very vague and unspecific descriptions of facts with a clear moral tone. If this words represents the conclusion from the court, the article should clearly say so.

Re sources: If somebody can find a direct link to court documents (rather than via Google Books), that would be great. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Words like "horrible abuse", "inhumane acts", "cruel treatment" and "brutal living conditions", all describe the severity of the abuse, act, treatment, and conditions. For now they are as specific as they'll get, these statements are also correct and can be verified. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 19:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that these words indicate the severity of the conditions in the camp, that is not the point. Wikipedia articles should be encyclopedic. Broad, general and somewhat vague claims like these (for instance "horrible abuse") are difficult to verify precisely because they are unspecific. The moral tone of these claims is not encyclopedic, WP style guide implies that the facts should speak for themselves. It is not the task of editors to do moral judgments, we should however quote actors' moral judgment of the conditions in the camp. So, rather than listing very broad claims, the article should be specific about what these "inhumane acts" were. Let us work together to pull the article in a more encyclopedic direction. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have resolved all the tags in the article. PRODUCER ^(TALK) 18:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the word "abuse". The English word "abuse" is somewhat ambiguous/vague. It can mean misuse (use something in the wrong way or for wrong purpose), insults (bad, offensive language), physical maltreatment, and more. "Abuse of prisoners" is not precise and should in any case be more specific. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In the ICTY Kvocka ruling you'll find the term "abuse" in the same way as in this article. The ICTY doiesn't seem to have had any problem with it.

http://www.un.org/icty/kvocka/trialc/judgement/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opbeith (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of your concerns about the strength and ambiguity of terms you'll find resolved in the ICTY's Kvocka et al. and the Bassiouni Commission Report. Tadeusz Mazowiecki should provide you with another reassuringly authoritative source. Opbeith (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is based on the sources, than it is OK, but the paragraph would be greatly improved if it is specified what is meant by "abuse" in this context. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I also reinserted the word "Bosnian" ("Bosnian Serb") in the intro to avoid ambiguity. WP also uses the term Army of Republika Srpska as well as the "Bosnian Serb army". Perhaps use one of the latter to allow cross references as well as to be specific about who ran the camp.

After PRODUCER's edits, the word "camp" was left alone. To make specific I reinserted words. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor Krusko Mortale agained changed the article without giving reason or inviting discussion. Perhaps the camp was not at all a PoW camp, but this must be supported by the sources. In addition, the camp was, as I understand it, run by Bosnian Serb forces (Bosnian Serb Army), not by Serbs as an ethnic group nor by Serbia. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo as we cannot be sure that the Serbs who were running the camp were citizens of BiH (Bosnian Serbs) or citizens of Serbia, thus we should use the collective term: Serb forces, agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.189.43 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The camp was not run by an ethnic group, it was run by an organization. As far as I understand it was run by the forces (militia) or authorities of the Republika Srpska. So "Bosnian Serb" is the most accurate words. The nationality of the persons involved is another issue, please don't mix up these issues. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is sad that instead of accepting the truth and apologising for what they had done; Serbs still have a Nazi-minded view. Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Exhumation" needs update

The "exhumation" section mentions "hundreds" of dead bodies yet to be found. This is based on a 2004 publication by Vulliamy, I did not find any other source mentioning this number. In any case this is already 4 years old and needs update, I will try to look at it if time permits. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Concentration camp" - in title and in article body

There has been a long discussion about using the words "concentration camp" in article name and in the intro as part of the description of the camp, last in the section on "Jasenovac, Omarska and the Serb Voluntary Guard Cabal in Wikipedia". I continue the discussion here because the thread was difficult to follow.

There are (at least) two issues here: 1) Title of article. 2) Prominence of the words "concentration camp" to describe the conditions in the camp or the purpose of the camp.

1) WP guidelines are clear at this point: The common name for the thing or event should be used, the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers' over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. A good indicator for "common name" is the name most widely used in the sources. As I have shown above, "Omarska camp" is clearly the most widely used. Editors' opinion or the opinion of authoritative bodies is of very limited relevance in this regard. So it doesn't really matter if Omarska was indeed a concentration camp according to the evidence presented in the article or on the discussion page. In addition, WP naming policy also states: "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."

2) Several names have been used to describe Omarska camp. It is not our task as editors to judge which one is correct, but we should indeed clearly indicate that authoritative and independent bodies (such as HRW) classified it as a concentration camp. At the same time, other words used to describe the camp, for example "detention camp" or "investigation centre" should also be reflected. The article should reflect what the sources say. For example the word "prisoners of war camp" was used by Bosnian Serb authorities, although the detainees did not arrive in uniforms (see for instance "War crimes in Bosnia-H. vol 2" by HRW 1993). I will consider altering the intro slightly to clarify which words where used by Bosnian Serb authorities, and which were used by independent observers - in this way, the readers can draw their own conclusions.

Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, the "most commonly used" rule is a pragmatic guideline, not an article of faith that takes no account of other important considerations. There is another Wikipedia principle that is relevant here, involving a "minimum of ambiguity". Where ambiguity is unimportant, then applying the "most commonly used" criterion is perfectly reasonable. But there is a point at which ambiguity may not just cause confusion but may lend itself to misinformation. The simple term "camp" may in itself not be disputed but if it is used in preference to another term in order to avoid acknowledging the correctness of the other term or to cause confusion then any ambiguity is no longer "neutral". In that situation the choice of a more general term expresses a point of view.

When you referred to the Deichmann/LM article you returned to the controversy in which it was alleged that the Prijedor area camps were not concentration camps but, as people such as Diana Johnstone have maintained, were designated as such in order to represent "temporary Bosnian Serb prison camps" as the equivalent of Nazi death camps. This is the allegation that you seem to endorse with your "connotations" reference. I will do you the respect of assuming that you were unaware of this implication of your previous comments, though the level of your engagement here suggests that you should have at least a passing knowledge of these problematic issues.

As you know I've recently argued quite forcefully in support of the Wikipedia article using the title "Srebrenica massacre" instead of "Srebrenica genocide" on grounds of ambiguity as well as changing use. Before the International Court of Justice ruling the term "Srebrenica massacre" was extensively championed and exploited by those who sort for partisan purposes to avoid the use of the term "genocide" in relation to Srebrenica. There have been signs here and elsewhere of a similar exploitation of the ambiguity of "Omarska camp" in order to challenge the camp's unambiguous identification as a concentration camp, by Bassiouni and others.

My preference at the moment is still to remain with the commonly used "Omarska camp" but I am not a blind slave to the "commonly used" principle when it is inappropriate. The more insistence there is on adhering to that principle without taking account of the problems it gives rise to, the I think it is important to take account of the injunction to ensure a "minimum of ambiguity". I understand the argument for changing the title and although on balance I'm still in favour of staying with the simpler form it would not take much further evidence of the risks of ambiguity being exploited to move me firmly in favour of a change of name. The pragmatic principles that Wikipedia applies are intended to ensure neutrality. They are not intended to ensure a pseudo-neutrality that fails to distinguish between established fact and denial. They are not intended to facilitate misinformation. Applying principles that are inappropriate to specific circumstances can legitimately be construed as promoting a point of view.

Opbeith (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good points there, Opbeith. WP of course has several guidelines that must be balanced if in conflict in specific cases, for instance "minimum ambiguity" vs "common name". Because of WPs growing importance as a source for journalists, students etc and the general public, it is vital that WP articles does not influence the way things and events are understood and interpreted, so we should not present "original research" (editors' own data and/or analysis) nor should we try to look into the future. Re change of article name, WP is also slightly conservative, article names that have been stable for a long should only be changed if there clear and strong reasons. But as I suggested above: name is one thing, description is another. The description of Omarska as a concentration camp by reliable sources and authoritative bodies now has a prominent position (perhaps too prominent according to "undue weight" principle") in the intro, and the contrast to the official name is also highlighted. The fact that Omarska has been classified as a concentration camp is in no way hidden. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How on earth could the description of Omarska as a concentration camp occupy too prominent a place in the article when its function as a concentration camp was central to the camp's existence? Was the wording of those extracts that I quoted from the Bassiouni Commission totally past comprehending? Opbeith (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not what I understand, but how Omarska is described by the sources. I haven't had time yet to look carefully at the sources, if different sources describe the camp differently, this must be reflected in the intro. The current intro is perhaps well balanced. Let us get back to this. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, excuse my moment of exasperation. Omarska's operation as a concentration camp is clearly described and it is referred to by that term in a report by a commission of experts that was accepted by the United Nations Security Council and published as an official UN Security Council document. Other descriptions may of course be valid in their own terms but unless the description "concentration camp" is refuted by a body of equivalent authority, the use of partial synonyms such as "detention camp" should not be understood as offering an alternative to the more explicit description.

If you think the introduction is "perhaps well balanced" it sounds as though you may consider that "concentration camp" and "prisoners of war camp" offer a balanced choice of equivalent terms. That's a position that implies neutrality between the Bassiouni analysis of a socio-political function for the camp as part of the Bosnian Serb programme of ethnic cleansing and the definition used by the 1st Krajina Corps responsible for control of the Prijedor area to describe a standard military function. The expressiom "is known as ... or ..." gives no indication that these two definitions cannot coexist - if one is correct the other is incorrect. Opbeith (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, Opbeith, I am not on trial here. "Balanced" in this context means balanced with regard to how the sources use terms like "detention camp" and "concentration camp". And as I have already said: because many concepts have been used to describe the camp these should be reflected in the intro, also specifying which source/institution use which concept will secure the balance. The word "concentration camp" also carries a heavy load of associations after WW2 (WP uses the word "internment"), so perhaps it's a good idea to specify in what way for example HRW classified Omarska as a concentration camp. I don't see a major problem with the first sentences of the intro at the moment, but the intro can of course be improved further. Let us take the time to look at the sources and discuss rather than doing hasty changes. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, I'm not putting you on trial. I see no reason why the scope of meaning and relative appropriateness of the terms "detention camp", "concentration camp" and "extermination camp" should not be discussed, providing that there is no attempt to treat all sources as equally authoritative. What is important is to understand the meaning that the words are intended to communicate and the relationship their use has to verifiable fact. All the same I don't understand how you consider that the first sentence does not give equal weight to the objective report that Omarska was a concentration camp and the deceptive suggestion that it was a prisoner of war ("prisoners of war") camp. Opbeith (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(rev indent) Let us focus on issues, not on editors. Sources are not equally authoritative, that is precisely why I suggest that sources should be specified (for instance, to let readers understand that the words used by Bosnian Serb officials were euphemisms). Because several terms have been used and are still used, editors can not simply choose one by arguing for instance that "Omarska was a concentration camp." Editors are not entitled to do such analysis of the facts. Descriptions widely used by independent observers and/or authoritative bodies should of course be emphasized, but we can not simply pick one report and say "this is the right answer". I don't think we really disagree on this.

In addition, the word "concentration camp" is ambiguous (or possibly deceptive) because a lot of readers will associate this word with "extermination camp" (which is not the same as concentration camp). In this sense, "concentration camp" can be as misleading a term as "prisoners of war camp" (Omarska was not a PoW camp). Inserting "concentration camp" very early in the first sentence can for this reason give the impression that it is an unquestionable fact that Omarska was an extermination camp rather than an internment camp. That is why I think the reasons for using the word "concentration camp" should be specified, that is, we need to quote from the sources (for instance HRW). Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Though as I pointed out earlier, there's sufficient evidence from authoritative sources for us not to have qualms about describing Omarska as an extermination camp. That was how it functioned within the Omarska-Keraterm-Trnopolje-Manjaca system of concentration camps. Of course Omarska was not a massive industrial-scale enterprise like Auschwitz but its role was still that of eliminating the members of the Muslim and Croat social, political and economic elite of Prijedor. Opbeith (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If reliable sources does indeed describe Omarska as an extermination camp we can include this in the article, but we can not draw such conclusions on our own (that would be original research, see WP:OR). If reliable sources does not agree or if the issue is contested, then the article must report the diverging opinions or controversy as a fact. So far I have not seen reliabel sources explicitly concluding that Omarska was indeed a death camp, rather than an internment or detention camp. Please provide sources and let us discuss. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As posted here by me five days ago (see above):

Bassiouni Commission Report - UN Document S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I) of 28 December 1994, "FINAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONS OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 780 (1992)- ANNEX V THE PRIJEDOR REPORT"

Throughout Bassiouni's report on Prijedor you will find references to the concentration camps of Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje.

In PART ONE - VI CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND DEPORTATIONS at para. 22 you will also find some basic information of relevance to other queries you have concerning the death toll and the use of descriptive terms.

"22. As the "informative talks" or interrogations basically took place in the Omarska and Keraterm camps, it can be concluded that more than 6,000 adult males were taken to these concentration camps in the short period they existed (from the end of May to the beginning of August 1992). Since only 1,503 were moved on to Manjaça camp according to Mr. Drljaça, a limited number transferred to the Trnopolje camp, and almost none released, it may be assumed that the death toll was extremely high, even by Serbian accounts. The concentration camp premises were sometimes so packed with people that no more inmates could be crammed in. On at least one occasion, this allegedly resulted in an entire bus-load of newly captured people being arbitrarily executed en masse. Some 37 women were detained in Omarska, whilst no women were kept over time in Keraterm."

And shortly after, at para. 27, under VII THE STRATEGY OF DESTRUCTION you will also find an explanation of the purpose of these concentration camps - the reason why the camps were used to "concentrate" key members of the Muslim and Croat communities.

"27. Despite the absence of a real non-Serbian threat, the main objective of the concentration camps, especially Omarska but also Keraterm, seems to have been to eliminate the non-Serbian leadership. Political leaders, officials from the courts and administration, academics and other intellectuals, religious leaders, key business people and artists - the backbone of the Muslim and Croatian communities - were removed, apparently with the intention that the removal be permanent. Similarly, law-enforcement and military personnel were targeted for destruction. These people also constituted a significant element of the non-Serbian group in that its depletion rendered the group at large defenceless against abuses of any kind. Other important traces of Muslim and Croatian culture and religion - mosques and Catholic churches included - were destroyed."

The .pdf version can be downloaded from

www.law.depaul.edu/centers_Institutes/ihrli/downloads/V_a.pdf

Opbeith (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what Mondoe's agenda is but it is pretty clear that the camp was indeed a concentration camp by authoritive sources, so why is there still refusal to rename the title of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathieus (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any agenda beyond improving articles. Article titles should conform to WP standards and policies, the reasons for not changing the article title is detailed above (see also discussion in Srebrenica article). If you disagree with WP policy, please raise the issue at the appropriate talk page. Even if title change is not justified, the camp can still be described as a concentration camp in the article body. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, I'm afraid I have to disagree. The outcome of your interventions is not so much to improve the article as it is often to obfuscate and confuse by maintaining more than a minimum of ambiguity. Rather than "improve" the article you seek to "restrain" it. More than that I couldn't guess what your agenda is without entering too far into the realms of speculation. In this particular matter of the change of title I still have no absolute preference as long as the camp is prominently and unambiguously described as a concentration camp at the beginning of the article. Nevertheless there's a very strong argument in favour of changing the title which I would not oppose. Opbeith (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't focus on editors, please don't speculate about other editors' agenda, please focus on content and issues. A description of Omarska as a concentration camp should be as prominent and unambiguous as reliable sources are, not more and not less prominent. And because the word "concentration camp" has several (ambiguous) connotations in the general public (WP is directed at the general public, not at experts that already know the precise meaning of these words), a specification of the grounds (reasons) for classifying Omarska as a concentration camp would clearly improve the article. Clarity, NPOV and evidence is my agenda, please respect that. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, this issue of "agendas" arises when editors start to recognise a pattern of bias in the way other editors operate and their recognition of that pattern is denounced as a point of view.

In your case this pattern emerges from an obdurate refusal to accept, despite the weight of authoritative evidence, that the term concentration camp is an entirely appropriate and unambiguous description of Omarska and your determination to ensure that it is associated with other less adequate or inaccurate terms.

There is nothing in the slightest ambiguous about the term concentration camp being used in reference to Omarska. Bassiouni didn't find it ambiguous. The ICTY found the Dachau and Belsen jurisprudence appropriate to refer to. Both Bassiouni and the ICTY have described the camp in a way that makes nonsense of any assertion that it was a prisoner of war camp or merely a detention centre. It was a concentration camp in the classic sense in which that term has been used since the Boer War - what the Serbs described as a "collection centre" - but it was also a concentration camp in that it was a preliminary stage in the extermination of key sections of a target population, the non-Serbs of the Prijedor area, as part of the strategy aimed at ensuring the area's enduring ethnic homogenisation.

Omarska was not a prisoner of war centre, it was not an investigation centre, it was not an assembly point and its legitimate description as a detention centre is subsumed in and overwhelmed by the reality of its role as a concentration and extermination camp.

Your response to the evidence of the authoritative sources supplied at your insistence has been to play semantic games with reference to events that have been authoritatively established as atrocities and may yet be understood as genocide. Someone has described that as offensive and I can't disagree. Your interpretation of Wikipedia conventions may allow you to dismiss such comments as irrelevant. What is not irrelevant even within your wilfully confined perspective is the fact that your interventions complicate and confuse the content of this article.

Respect is deserved, not commanded. Opbeith (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder of what Ed Vulliamy had to say on his return visit following Karadzic's arrest last year:

"...

The long road to Fikret, Trnopolje and Omarska - and to being back in Kozarac last week - began in London at the end of July 1992, when my colleague Maggie O'Kane and the American Roy Gutman published reports from fugitive deportees from Bosnia telling of beatings, torture and murder in the camps, among them Omarska - the place that would emerge as the second most deadly killing field in Bosnia's war, after Srebrenica.

When he invited us to visit the camps, Karadzic greeted us with that professorial, wayward air and faux academic veneer that belied his deranged vision, but left no doubts about his authority over Omarska, promising that we would enter the camp on his word. He sent us down the chain of command to Omarska, first to his Deputy President, Nikola Koljevic, who would be our supervisor, then the crisis staff of the nearest town and administrative centre for Omarska, Prijedor. On the way there we passed the incinerated ruins of Kozarac - 'They are the people who fled because they would not accept the peace,' said our escort, Colonel Milan Milutinovic of the Bosnian Serb army.

After hours of obfuscation and failed attempts by the committee to take us to other camps that had already been inspected by the Red Cross, we set out for Omarska, eventually passing through the back gates of the camp and into another world.

A column of 30 men emerged blinking into the sunlight from the depths of a hangar. They were in various states of decay, some skeletal, with shaven heads. They drilled across a tarmac piste under the watchful eye of a machine-gunner and into a 'canteen', where they gulped down watery bean soup like famished dogs, keeping their bread roll for later. They were told they were allowed to speak freely, but they clearly dared not, the guards swinging their guns; there are few things like the burning eyes of a prisoner who dare not speak what he yearns to say. One man, Dzemal Partusic, said only: 'I do not want to tell any lies, but I cannot tell the truth.' Another, Serif Velic, replied when I asked him about a wound to his head, that he had fallen - it had happened naturally.

When we tried to get to the hangar in which the prisoners were held, we were stopped by the commandant and Prijedor's chief of police, Simo Drjlaca, cocking their guns. Time, and subsequent trials at The Hague, would tell what Karadzic wanted to hide - a nightmare of killing, torture, mutilation, starvation, drunken sadism and rape.

..."

Ed Vulliamy, Observer, 27 July 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/27/radovankaradzic.warcrimes2

Detention centre, yes, collection centre, yes, but those expressions don't inform, they deceive. This was a concentration camp and an extermination camp. That was the reality of Omarska. Opbeith (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo seems to resist using accurate terms, like the term: Omarska Concentration Camp. Or the term: Srebrenica Genocide. Instead, he is pushing his own agenda, his own point of view, and he is doing it by borrowing various vague "policies" from Wikipedia and then interpreting them in a way that they support his own pre-conceived conclussions. When his view is challenged, his friends - LaughingMan and other Srebrenica Genocide deniers - come up with excuses "Let's not focus on authors," etc. This looks like a circus. Wikipedia has failed. People are using loopholes to push their own points of view. They are disrespecting the memory of Srebrenica Genocide by pushing the term "Srebrenica Massacre." There was no Srebrenica Massacre; there was Srebrenica Genocide. There was no Omarska Camp; there was Omarska Concentration Camp. Somebody needs to clean up wikipedia from special interests groups who spend 10 hours of their daily time to argue and disrespect the truth about Srebrenica Genocide and Omarska Concentration Camp. Bosniak (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop attacking and insulting other editors, this a violation of Wikipedia policy. I am not member of any special interest group or anything like that. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The pattern of your interventions calls either your good faith or the substance of your claim to an academic position into question. Opbeith (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the term "Concentration Camp". I do not dispute that Omarska was a CC (this really does not matter), nor do I dispute what reliable and authoritative sources say. "Concentration camp" is still an ambiguous term in the general public (WP article on CC acknowledges this), WP is aimed at the general public and not at specialists. WP should therefor be unambiguous for the general reader. So I am simply saying that the reasons for calling Omarska a CC should be specified in the intro to avoid misunderstanding. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to add: Bosnian-Serb description of the camp (as PoW or investigation centre) belongs in the intro, not because these are correct or accurate descriptions (they are of course not true, words used by Bosnian-Serbs were at least euphemisms), but because these words were actually used. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, you pick and choose your line of argument as it suits you. You claim that the general public's understanding should be the ultimate reference point. You disregard any problems of ambiguity. You ask for authoritative sources whose authority you then proceed to ignore or treat as equivalent to discredited sources. You assert the significance of connotations. And you quote or ignore other Wikipedia articles as it suits you (cf our discussion of the issue of concentration camps at the Trnopolje article).

You also cite Wikipedia conventions and guidelines with partiality, citing the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit or giving undue emphasis to elements of a guideline while ignoring others - an approach somewhat at odds with your "all-inclusive" approach to this article.

Do you want a clear and informative article or do you want a hotchpotch of anything anybody may have said with a view to obscuring the true nature of events? Discredited claims can and should be dealt with in the subordinate place in the article that they deserve.

It is not necessary for Bosnian Serb definitions of the nature of the camp to be given any prominence. They have been authoritatively established to be lies and lies intended to conceal war crimes of the vilest kind. Please do not seek to credit them here with significance they do not have and do not try to claim you are seeking to avoid misunderstanding when you are promoting confusion.

I would be grateful if you would review the sequence of exchanges between us and the way in which you have called for and responded to other people's substantiation of their arguments. Looking back at your interventions on this Discussion page, do you believe they satisfy the standards of intellectual rigour to be expected of someone with the professorship to which you lay claim in your User page?

This is a public forum, please treat us your fellow editors with the sort of intellectual respect you would accord to your fellow academics in a similar discussion. The rest of us here do not lay claim to academic status. While some have considerably more direct knowledge and experience of the matters discussed here than you appear to possess, others - myself included - simply hope that our interventions are reasonably logical, informed and consistent. We want a clear, accurate and useful article. Please stop obfuscating and confusing. Opbeith (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Best regards to you Mondeo. But simply throwing best regards to each other doesnt' solve the problem. We have two huge problems with two extremely important articles and all I am asking for you guys is to be fair. I even distanced myself from Wikipedia, because I (alone) cannot fight a special interest group that pushes its own agenda and that is aligned with Bosnian Serbs' point of view. We know what's going on here. You guys resist the term Omarska Concentration Camp on the grounds that most people allegedly heard about it as "Omarska Camp." That's why when average reader comes to Wikipedia, they will notice that this article is titled as "Omarska Camp." Maybe we should name Jasenovac Concentration Camp simply as "Jasenovac Camp." Nazi-aligned Ustashe committed genocide against Serbs, Bosniaks (Muslims), Roma, and Jews in Jasenovac Concentration Camp, but of course, special interest groups refuse to acknowledge that 10,000 to 20,000 Muslims were also victims of Jasenovac, but that's another story. Regarding this article, editors seem to use same excuse as with "Srebrenica massacre" article. They refuse to re-title the article to its proper name - Srebrenica Genocide - just as they refuse to re-title this article to its only proper historical name, which is - Omarska Concentration Camp. Wikipedia started as a good idea with global editorialship, but it has been hijacked by special interest groups who monitor and defend their point of view - not the point of the International Courts, International Criminal Tribunals, Human Rights Watch, but their own points of view. I admit, you should not be the main target of criticism, but I hope you will understand that we are not asking for too much. We are just asking for proper historical terminology to be used. That's all. Thank you.

---

From The Oxford Handbook of Fascism:

In Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina in the late 1980s and early 1990s, authoritarian former Communists seeking new bases for their power and legitimacy came together with dissident nationalist opponents of the Titoist order to produce regimes that were arguably, to a greater or lesser degree, fascist or semi-fascist. Above all, the regime of Slobodan Milosevic was fascist in practice, if not in self-identification…

Milosevic began, like earlier fascists and proto-fascists such as Georges Sorel and Mussolini, as a radical socialist who decided that nationalism provided a better weapon than the class struggle and internationalism with which to overthrow the liberal (in this case, quasi-liberal) order. He centred all power in Serbia in his own hands and proceeded to tear up the Titoist settlement of the national question, much as Hitler had torn up the Versailles settlement. As President of the League of Communists of Serbia, he effectively seized power against his Communist rivals in September 1987. He consolidated it by using Serbian party, police and media organs to carry out a mass nationalist mobilisation of the Serbian population, above all over the Kosovo issue. Post-Titoist Yugoslavia was governed by a quasi-pluralist system, with power divided between different institutions and individuals, and it was this system that Milosevic’s ‘anti-bureaucratic revolution’ brought down. A series of mass nationalist rallies between October 1988 and February 1989 overthrew the governments of Vojvodina and Montenegro, replacing them with ones loyal to Milosevic, and pressurised the Yugoslav Federal leadership first to pass legislation restoring Serbian control over Kosovo and Vojvodina, then to deploy the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) against the Kosovo Albanians. These rallies were Milosevic’s ‘March on Rome’, establishing his power through crowds and intimidation. Milosevic became President of Serbia on 28 May 1989.

This mass nationalist mobilisation used to consolidate power flowed seamlessly into ill-conceived wars of conquest…

Serbian forces – the Serbian-controlled JNA and Croatian Serb and Bosnian Serb militias - engaged in systematic massacres and forced expulsions of Croats, Muslims and other non-Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina. This involved concentration camps, most notoriously at Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje in north-west Bosnia. In July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces conquered the East Bosnian town of Srebrenica and massacred 8,000 Muslim civilians, an act that constituted genocide according to the International Court of Justice. By the war’s end in late 1995, the territory of the self-proclaimed ‘Serb Republic’ in occupied Bosnia-Hercegovina, under the leadership of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, had been almost wholly emptied of the 50% non-Serb part of its population…

At the height of his power, Milosevic’s control over his country’s political life was probably greater than the pre-Salo Mussolini’s had ever been; unlike Mussolini, his power was unconstrained by king, church or army, and he could not be removed constitutionally but had to be overthrown…

Ultimately, however, Milosevic fell because, like Hitler and Mussolini, he could not stop the boulder of nationalist mobilisation that he had set in motion from rolling; he could never rest on his laurels, but needed continuously to provoke crises and pick fights with ever-stronger opponents until he destroyed himself.

Now, what more evidence is needed that this was indeed a CONCENTRATION CAMP. When are we going to stop denying that this was indeed a CONCENTRATION CAMP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.157.18.91 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Death toll

It's time to move on from this time-wasting discussion about Omarska's authoritatively established identity as a concentration camp. There are important substantive issues to be resolved. One of these concerns the death toll at Omarska, insofar as it can be estimated in isolation from the killings and deaths at the other camps in the Prijedor system.

The Bassiouni Commission Report concluded that more than 6,000 adult males were taken to Omarska and Keraterm between the end of May and the beginning of August 1992. Keraterm closed fairly early on the life of the system, Trnopolje not long after Omarska. According to Simo Drljača only 1,503 detainees were transferred to Manjaça camp, a limited number were transferred to Trnopolje camp and almost none released. 4,497 detainees are said to be unaccounted for in the camp system. This is presumably a simple mathematic subtraction.

I suggest that the energy of editors might be better spent at the moment in identifying up to date sources that can provide a reasonably authoritative figure by which to measure the horrific record of the camp. Opbeith (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Up to date sources regarding victims is really needed. Even if death tolls may be in the thousands (not merely in the hundreds) we need sources that positively establish the number of deaths. In the news media there are only scattered reports about mass graves opened or discovered after the war. For instance back in 1996 some reports suggest 1,500 based on rough estimates (not on actual body counts). Perhaps UN is the best place to look for sources that gives estimate based on a compilation of all available data? Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get a figure from the Research and Documentation Centre in Sarajevo's Human Losses in Bosnia 1992-1995 project. Opbeith (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (Only figures at municipality level available Opbeith (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

And what do you mean - "Even if death tolls may be in the thousands (not merely in the hundreds)..."? On what basis do you assume the probability that the death toll was under a thousand? Personal research? It is well established that concealed mass graves and reburials were used throughout Bosnia to conceal mass slaughter and genocide. The numbers of the missing are frequently a more accurate guide to the number of the deaths than the numbers of bodies retrieved, as the history of Srebrenica identifications has demonstrated. Opbeith (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate an authoritative estimate for the number of deaths. The RDC database isn't yet sufficiently focussed to provide figures for Omarska rather than for the Prijedor area as a whole. Although the precision of the Bassiouni figure of 4497 may be open to question, Bassiouni's report is an authoritative appraisal and there's no reason to dispute an approximate figure of roughly 4000. There is no authoritative source citing a lower figure.Opbeith (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, an approximate figure of 4500 may be just as appropriate as 4000, based on Bassiouni's findings cited by me earlier (Bassiouni Commission Report - UN Document S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I) of 28 December 1994, "FINAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONS OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 780 (1992)- ANNEX V THE PRIJEDOR REPORT"):

Para. 22 of "PART ONE - VI CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND DEPORTATIONS" summarises the information about the death toll at Omarska:

"... it can be concluded that more than 6,000 adult males were taken to these concentration camps in the short period they existed (from the end of May to the beginning of August 1992). Since only 1,503 were moved on to Manjaça camp according to Mr. Drljaça, a limited number transferred to the Trnopolje camp, and almost none released, it may be assumed that the death toll was extremely high, even by Serbian accounts."

Opbeith (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Omarska Concentration camp

It has proven without a doubt that Omarska was indeed a concentration camp. Renaming the article should be a logical step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.220.62 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Omarska 1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Omarska 1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)