The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After a lengthy review of the discussion here I'm afraid this is the only conclusion, and I'll explain why. Before I do though let me state that I've never edited on topics related to the Bosnian War or indeed the Balkans as a whole, and I have no personal stake in these matters.

While one editor suggested a merge, the real debate here is between keeping or deleting. In terms of the numbers, valid delete !votes slightly outnumber valid keep votes (a couple of socks were discounted) 8 to 7, which is worth noting though it did not have much of an effect on the outcome. The essence of the delete rationale is that this article violates our guideline at WP:POVFORK (copyvios were also mentioned, but that does not appear to be a pervasive or unfixable problem). Created by an editor blocked for socking, this article is inherently non-neutral in every way and could never be whipped into shape, say those in the delete camp. Most keep !voters admit that there are major POV problems, but feel that editing and/or a change in title could alleviate those problems. The possibility of merging some of this content back to a parent article (which would necessitate not deleting) is also implicit in certain comments on the keep side.

So the central question is not whether this is currently a POV fork, but whether it is irremediably so, or rather whether there is useful content here which should be retained in some fashion. After reading through all the back and forth below, it is precisely on that issue where consensus seems to be lacking. Valid arguments are posited on both sides, and I'm not going to put my thumb on the scale one way or the other (ultimately in closing this the choice was between "delete" or "no consensus"—there clearly was not consensus to "keep" outright).

Some final thoughts are worth noting for the immediate future. Though the article has been edited by a couple of users since the AfD, the current state is still clearly unacceptable in NPOV terms. The title is likely part of the problem and discussion about that should begin immediately, but there are content issues as well. Non-neutral or poorly sourced material should be removed post-haste. If the article is greatly reduced in length as a result, a merge and/or redirect are still possibilities which can be discussed on the talk page.

The basic logic of the keep commenters is that this article can be improved. As closing admin I feel that there's a definite time limit to that, and a rather short one. The current state of this article is not acceptable, and if significant improvement is not visible within the next couple of months, another trip to AfD would not only be reasonable but indeed advisable. If that time comes, the argument that this remained a POVFORK even after being given a reprieve for work to be done would likely prove rather persuasive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass rape in the Bosnian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Completely unnecessary and inappropriate POV fork. I had previously redirected the article per WP:BOLD, but it's since been restored. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge + redirect - underlying the POV problems within the article, the title itself is POV. With what the text covers, I see no reason why this could not easily fit into Bosnian War#Mass rape and psychological oppression. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If only the title was just a point of view. If only it was a POV fork. UN court findings, a film on the children of the rape etc etc. plenty of extremely strong evidence with lots of information for a massive article. Yes article is not neutral but that is as far as it gets. It completely meets criteria for inclusion. Having been to Bosnia myself and seen the mass graves excavated there is mass denial. We should not fall in to that trap here. Try and assess this based on Wikipedia criteria. I am just amazed that the editors have managed to keep it as neutral as they have. Yes terrible atrocities carried out on all sides but there was a much more widespread (succesful) persecution of Bosnian Muslims. There was mass rape, and plenty for separate article, any issues of neutrality can be sorted out within the article. Polargeo (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect, have you read the article? It is essentially a glorified essay, and not neutral by any means. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Multiple chunks of the text are taken, sometimes word-from-word, from this source (it is listed under References). For example, "While 'Mars na Drinu' was playing, the women were ordered to strip and soldiers entered the homes taking the ones they wanted. The age of women taken ranged from 12 to 60. Frequently the soldiers would seek out mother and daughter combinations. Many of the women were severely beaten during the rapes." is written in the original source, the exact same text is included in the Wikipedia article in question. Not sure what this says for the article. Icy // ♫ 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions.

-- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Text you mention is not excessive and from a UN report, I have now put it in quotes. I have checked through quite a lot of the text and I don't think this is anywhere near a copyvio. Please, if you spot another isolated sentence taken from a UN report, or similar, we can see if that needs to be in quotes but I certainly can't see that the article has been substantially copied from anywhere. I am worried that this is a little mud slinging because it is a good way of deletion. Article is perfectly notable for a full article and just needs cleaning to get it more away from POV. Polargeo (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for putting it in quotes. The text I mentioned is just an example, there may be other examples ... when I get home, I think I'll look for more of these and try to put them in quotes / reword them. iceunshattered^Public! 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there are definitely more examples that I've been putting in quotes, and they're not just isolated sentences. Any help with this would be appreciated. Icy // ♫ 16:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Icy. I've been following your good work. I think this whole article needs to be thoroughly rewritten but the vast majority of the info in it can be left in some form. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a fresh start or even moved the page to a different name. Polargeo (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Referenced historical events. Cleanup is an editorial duty, and deletion is not a substitute for it. Edison (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a matter of cleanup, really. This is a blatant WP:POVFORK, and to be honest I can't see it ever becoming a legitimate, neutral, encyclopedic article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Sufficient sources that this is something specific. It's a very bad precedent to remove articles because they are difficult to write properly.DGG (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument here is not to remove the article because it's hard to write; it's that this article is an POV fork of the paragraphs in Bosnian War#Mass rape and psychological oppression that can be kept there. An entire article is just not needed; we don't have separate articles for Rape in World War II (although there is comfort women), for example. Outside of this, I don't think we have another Rape in _(blank)_ war... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may have started as a POV fork in March 2008 and still needs a POV clean up but it does not say anything significantly at odds with the section it comes from (So not really a POV fork now) it is an important article and it gives plenty more information than Bosnian War#Mass rape and psychological oppression, so I would say drop the POV fork argument and clean it (with sandpaper if need be). Polargeo (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per copyright violations. Come on people, it was said above; this has to be deleted as a copyvio! Skinny87 (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The text you mention can be cleaned up as a quote. Although the citation given is a web reference it is actually from the United Nations 'Seventh Report on War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia' unless you can come up with better copyvios just stick the text in quotes and attribute it correctly. The citation was there, it just needs cleaning up. Polargeo (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Mass rape is for the first time recognized as crime against humanity by the ICTY. I am not talking about rape, but mass rape. Those two are different criminal acts. The sources are all relaible per WP:RS. Emir Arven (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As Prodego (talk · contribs) said, "You can have 100% reliable sources and still have a POV". I don't doubt the sources are reliable, or the topic is notable; I just believe that in its current form, this article is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. As such, once we cut down on everything but straight fact, we'd likely have no more content than is current in the Bosnian War article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh Julian. What about the list of people convicted; the sentences for mass rape; the film link Grabavica; the BBC audio documentary; the external links; the extended reference list; the valuable quote from the UN source about systematic rape and much much more. Plenty would remain here. Would you like to put all this back into the Bosnian War article? This is getting silly. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, Emir Arven (talk · contribs) hasn't edited for over two years and seems to have come back almost solely for this article. Unless it's a massive coincidence, one can't help but be suspicious of possible sockpuppetry or canvassing. Spellcast (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record Emir Arven came back on May 30 and started editing this article. Emir also edited Graz agreement, Doljani massacre and several other articles. It looks like these or other edits by Emir Arven may have drawn the attention of certain editors User:The ed17, User:Prodego and then User:Juliancolton who have decided to tag Mass rape in the Bosnian War for copyed, POV and AfD respectively; since the return of Emir Arven and not the other way around. Maybe if Emir hadn't come back this article would not have been 'team tagged' and AfD'd! Polargeo (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the closing admin: Emir Arven (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the article's creator, The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well-documented form of war crime. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The vital distinction from Bosnian War is the depth of reporting on the numerous incidents. Contrast this with the reasons to delete. Copyvio, which has -already- been fixed in many cases, to say nothing of shouldn't have been brought up as a reason for deletion in the first place, as it was a matter for the Discussion page. PoV fork, which has not been shown, only asserted. My assertion to the contrary, at the beginning of my statement, is backed by a reason. And ad nauseum repetition of Fork and PoV, see above. Thank the lucky stars no one is trying for some version of WP:NN. Perhaps you are having trouble with the issue of neutrality, thinking it is supposed to be equal on both sides? If one side commits genocide, say, and the other doesn't, that is impossible to do. Reporting on a terrible thing that someone or group of someones does is not PoV. Within the limits of shared understanding, or consensus, and taking all possible efforts to neutralize the language without whitewashing the subject, referring to the language that reliable sources use to describe atrocities is not PoV either...I really don't know how to address your concerns, as you have not delineated them adequately, with examples, or even fully explained them. Anarchangel (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear delete. Sources are used inappropriately. There is a lot of original research. There are major problems with presentation. There is also stereotyping and unnecessary categorizations. Ethnic groups do not do anything, only individuals do things. This does not meet any standards in any form, separate or included in a regular article. This is the equivalent of a page stating "Thefts by Jews in World War II" or something equally ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What original research? I can't find any. Which bit of your argument has anything to do with deletion criteria? Polargeo (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the above obviously includes such wonderful things as: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This page not only includes blanket statements of race, the sources are incredibly poorly used. The formatting problems and lack of appropriately quoting in "Mass rape" alone should have tipped you off. If you bothered to look at the page in an objective manner, you could see this. There is nothing encyclopedic about this page. It is thinly veiled racist smears and lumping of a few individuals to claim that there was a larger ethnic conspiracy against another ethnicity. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but your reply still has no specific points outlined. You seem an experienced editor. Mass rape is what it was. UN war crimes convictions 'crime against humanity' should have tipped you off before making silly statements. Polargeo (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Oh and by the way I've checked virtually all of the links and searched them for text matches. I agree this is not neutral but it is not inaccurate. I refer you to sofixit. Polargeo (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• According to you. The page doesn't operate on raw numbers. It includes synthesis, point of view, racist comments, and the rest. Your response only verifies the disruption that the page originally is and the extent that people would go to keep such completely non-encyclopedic entries. "Sofixit" is not an acceptable response, and it is incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment 'should have tipped you off. If you bothered to look at the page in an objective manner' deserves a slightly uncivil repy so please don't act hurt, you are an experienced editor. As to mass rape check out the book Mass Rape: The War Against Women in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Paperback). Polargeo (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I can link you to books claiming that Jews mass rape people too, but such things do not deserve articles. It is easy to find sources propagating racist views. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do people keep mentioning Jews? Sometimes they rape, sometimes they don't, like every other group of people. Have they been convicted by UN tribunal of enslavement of women in the Bosnian War? No? Argue the article in question please. You don't seem to wish to argue specific points for deletion. You could take any biased comments out of this article if you wish. That is what we do on wikipedia. The core of this article is pure fact as evinced by the references. Polargeo (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Come to think of it if we take this Jewish reference to its limit we could argue that some of the objections to this artilcle have a similar psychology to holocaust denial. Polargeo (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am 100% sure that the UN tribunal did not say "Serbians" did anything. They may have named individuals, but this is not about individuals. This article is, at its very premise, racist but linking all people based on an ethnicity and not treating them as individuals. Individuals commit actions, ethnicities do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you're wrong. UN tribunal said: "All this was done in full view, in complete knowledge and sometimes with the direct involvement of the Serb local authorities, particularly the police forces." [1] Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the enthusiasm KM, quote says 'local authorities' but if you read the context they are the Serb authorities. Anyway the various UN reports are littered with Serbs did this and Serbs did that e.g. as per KM's ref "Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosnian Muslims, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs. There are few reports of rape and sexual assault between members of the same ethnic group." Polargeo (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a blatant and obvious difference between "local authorities" and "Serbs". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There would be if the Serbs hadn't taken control of the town on 8 April 1992. Please read the sources properly. I think I'll go to bed now as debating with someone who refuses to even read the sources before making comments and accuses me of not bothering to be objective is like trying to spit into the wind. Polargeo (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your above statement is completely racist. It does not matter what an individual's ethnicity is as their actions do not apply to the ethnicity as a whole. Once you do so, you are making a racist comment. They are individuals and only individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out)It is not possible to list all the individuals that committed crimes. Thus, "Serb" is used, and whenever possible, distinctions such as "Serb authorities". Ottava Rima has made clear that he finds the article 'racist' because it names a race rather than individuals.
"I am 100% sure that the UN tribunal did not say "Serbians" did anything. They may have named individuals, but this is not about individuals. This article is, at its very premise, racist but linking all people based on an ethnicity and not treating them as individuals. Individuals commit actions, ethnicities do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)"
"Your above statement is completely racist. It does not matter what an individual's ethnicity is as their actions do not apply to the ethnicity as a whole. Once you do so, you are making a racist comment. They are individuals and only individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)"
How, then, do we explain the following deletions of individuals names? They were convicted by the ICT; their arrests, convictions, and sentences are a matter of public record. And their listing aids in distinguishing the fact that not all Serbs are guilty of these crimes.
Ottava's deletions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_rape_in_the_Bosnian_War&diff=298196623&oldid=298184050 (all of the names of those listed, removed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_rape_in_the_Bosnian_War&diff=298219365&oldid=298217459 "removing - no evidence from source of conviction or proof" The source, http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/perfil/db/facts/dragoljub_kunarac_379.html , is in fact quite clear about not only conviction, but indictment, sentencing, the house of incarceration. I'd love it to include the evidence provided by the prosecution, but that can only be a regret, not a reason for deletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_rape_in_the_Bosnian_War&diff=298219730&oldid=298219365 (again, all names removed)
Ottava, your 'contributions' to this page are conflicted at best. Requiring that the article not name Serbs as a people when it takes a mass of people to commit mass crimes is unwise. Removing mentions of individuals after berating others for not mentioning individuals is questionable. Requiring of other editors that they discuss changes, in the description of your changes, while you yourself are not part of the discussion on the talk page, although it is all too common, is most irregular. I suggest you take a little time off to reflect on what exactly it is you want from this page, and why, and if/how you can achieve it through compromise and other WP:EQ. Anarchangel (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus, "Serb" is used" That is utterly racist. Wikipedia makes it clear that racism is not acceptable under WP:CIVIL. You cannot lump any race under one banner. The fact that you do that and then attempt to smear a group of people as "mass rapists" when there isn't even such a term is morally reprehensible. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Ottava is getting at (I think?) is that not all Serbian authorities, not all Serbian soldiers, and not all of the Serbian people took part in these crimes. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Serbian authorities" is equivocal. It can mean all authorities or some specific authorities. Since this, and "soldiers" are accompanied by specific examples, it can be seen in context to be the latter. Although I believe it to be unnecessary, I would not object to wording that was unequivocal, if such can be found. However, this is starting to sound an awful lot like a discussion for improving the article. None of these things are grounds for a deletion, they are the beginning of a Talk page discussion. We should have that discussion, and the article should remain, to be improved. And I am quite convinced, so far, that Ottava is not getting at anything useful, and will not be a helpful contributor to any discussion about the content of the page. Anarchangel (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket racism, POV pushing, and the fact that it was created by a sock of a user banned over this are 100% reasons to delete the article. The fact that you are still unable to see the difference between individuals and ethnicity is definitely in violation of WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above discussion. Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the closing admin: the above user has been blocked as a sock of the article's creator, The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete and redirect as a clear POV fork. You do not discuss atrocities as a class outside the context of the war in which they occurred. That is the very essence of the WP:POVFORK rule, and is essential to preserving our neutrality policy. Not all content forks are created equal - we can have split out articles on discrete incidents, but groupings of incidents cannot be cherry-picked specifically to promote a strong point of view. If we're not going to make a mockery of our neutrality policy, this needs to go. Ray^Talk 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By your argument we would delete The Holocaust, a very very dangerous precedent to set. Polargeo (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Godwin's Law so soon, eh? The Holocaust was a discrete phenomenon that happened in parallel with, not as part of, the German effort of World War II. The Holocaust started before the German assaults, and quite often the efforts were run independent of the war effort. Show me that mass rape and war crimes were part of a deliberate, organized campaign entirely separate from war brutality and happening behind the lines where the war had little part, and we might have a comparison. Ray^Talk 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you making new wikipedia rules? Also, although I shouldn't need to say this as I am being sucked into your side argument the 'German effort' was not completely separate it was all part of the Nazi plan for a strong Germany, lets not rewrite history. This is a significant article by any standard. A completely new international crime. I would like to see it cleaned up. Polargeo (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Piece of text from the article Godwin's law 'Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.' Please don't mud sling! Polargeo (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that the Holocaust is distinct from a war crime, which should be covered in the article on the war. And you're the one who invoked the Holocaust, which is a) not a good example for the case at hand as it was, by your own admission, a major program distinct from the war itself, and b) loaded down with emotional resonance, c) of an entirely different scope than war crimes committed in the Balkans in the 1990s. That seems as perfect an example of Godwin's Law as anything I've yet come across. Anyhow, I'm upgrading my position to strong delete. Thanks for clarifying my thinking - this discussion has been helpful that way. Ray^Talk 02:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually Ottava Rima first mentioned Jews in this debate, which got me thinking. The mass extermination of Jews (and others) happened during WWII and was driven by elements of one ethnic group (Nazis) trying to exterminate or remove/crush another ethic group. Mass rape and killing of Bosnian muslims (Bosniaks) happened during the Bosnian War and has by very reliable sources been categorized as 'ethnic cleansing' or genocide. It appears to have been sanctioned as a tactic from the very top of the Bosnian Serb military/political machine as it promoted their cause every bit as much as using military means (similar to the Nazis). We are talking mass rape 20,000 to 50,000 people (A figure that is also in the Bosnian War article and UN sources, this is not POV fork now). Ethnic cleansing is also written about in the Bosnian War article and execution of thousands of Bosnian muslims was carried out, see for example Srebrenica_massacre. The men were executed in the thousands (8000+ men and boys from the town of Srebrenica alone, and I mean civilians rounded up and executed not soldiers dying in combat) and women were made sex slaves. You obviously have an issue admitting the truth here, that is not helpful and where I addressed holocaust denial earlier in the debate seems an extremely close psycological analogy. That you have changed to strong delete is meaningless because your arguments remain extremely weak. This is not an article about a war crime alone. Do you think 20,000 to 50,000 people being 'systematically' raped somehow does not deserve its own article when there are so many good sources? The existance of this article is not POV so I urge editors to stop this argument and clean it up. Polargeo (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, per above discussion. PRODUCER (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please be a bit more specific? The above discussion includes arguments for deletion as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clearly notable plus it has tons of reliable sources, the pov has been dealt with.PRODUCER (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources for this, and it's a clearly notable topic, something that can't be covered appropriately in sufficient detail in a broad article on the war. It needs to be watched for POV, and I'm not sure about the current title, but nonetheless, it should definitely remain. Rebecca (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the reliable sources use the term "mass rape", so there are no reliable sources for the page. This means that your keep vote is invalidated per WP:NEO. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a very strange objection, seeing as the first two sources in the article, both clearly reliable sources, not only mention "mass rape", but use it in the title. Have you even read the article? Rebecca (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean pointing out that a term does not exist in an article based around such a term is a strange objection? If so, I am rather confused about what you think in regards to WP:OR, NEO, etc., which make it clear that such things are completely unacceptable. And I take it that you didn't actually read the article where those "convicted of mass rape" were convicted of rape, and that there was no such thing listed as "mass rape". Furthermore, one of those reliable sources is a link to Amazon. But yes, please reread WP:NEO. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The link to Amazon is part of a cite book. It is an academic, edited volume called 'Mass Rape: ...' Actually a very neutral book, please read the Amazon summary. And this article isn't about specifics of court terminology it is about mass rape. What would you call the rape between 20000 and 50000 people and soldiers keeping 'rape camps' many reliable sources call it Mass rape. And as to the UN court case it says in the article Dragoljub Kunarac (28 years in prison) was found guilty of several rapes; inciting his soldiers to commit collective rape and forcing women into slavery. Judged guilty of crimes against humanity (Torture, enslavement and rape) and you are here arguing the semantics of the charge, that is pretty low. Also 28 years may not sound much to a US perspective but most EU nations don't give out 100+ year sentences. Polargeo (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? An "academic book"? You don't say.... because it seems like a story book telling about the future. "Publisher: University of Nebraska Press (April 1, 1994)" Hmm, from all of the other links, the trials were dated from 98 and onwards. That means that it is 100% impossible for them to make any claims about "mass rape" let alone convictions and actual use of the term mass rape in said convictions. Furthermore, the "war" ended in 95, and this book would have been completed just a year and some into it, which makes any information in it completely unreliable for this page and probably introduced under a WP:OR violation. Completely unethical. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems the main difference between this article and the section in Bosnian War is adding incidents of specific atrocities. Looking at the article's history and the user who created it, this was definitely started as a POV fork. The same user also created Serb propaganda in the Yugoslav wars and the delete arguments in that AFD can also be applied here. By all means, mass rape as a whole should be mentioned in the Bosnian War article, but when a separate page is created for various incidents that happened to victims, it starts becoming a POV fork and perhaps a coatrack. Therefore, delete. Spellcast (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since all of the above discussion I have done some significant work on this article. Together with IceUnshattered (Icy) there have been over 40 edits within the last day. I still think the article needs improving but the worst of the POV is now removed. In one form or another this article will remain and so I urge everyone to come together and improve it by constructive edits or suggestions on the talk page. Lets even have a discussion on possibly moving it. This deletion or fitting it back into the Bosnian War article will not work because I will just bring this back much bigger, and clean as a whistle from all POV, so lets just pull together and make it work and save ourselves the hassle. Polargeo (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Obvious POV fork. Using the suffering of thousands of rape victims to further a nationalist POV is frankly disgusting. This case is similar to Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic cleansing in Croatia. No-brainer... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess we'll never know, Direktor, as it was deleted following the use of red herrings, bandwagon arguments, and other logical fallacies, some of them by yourself. E.g. 'no brainer' is a bandwagon argument. OTHERSTUFFWASDELETED will go nowhere here. i/u Anarchangel (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After removing most of the POV this article looks more like an international account of the facts than nationalist POV to me, it is the non-acceptance or wish to hide these facts which is the POV. This is not a synsthesis as in the case you mention because it doesn't come to a different conclusion than its sources by the combination of them. We should not fall into the trap of basing this discussion on other deletes per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Polargeo (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "International accounts" don't have sources making claims about people who weren't tried until 4 years after publication. This is a smear and only a smear. A major BLP violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  OK all claims backed up by second reference from reliable source, US Embassy, ICTY, BBC etc. Look at the speed of my edits to put these in. That is how long it took to google each name and get a reliable reference to the claims. This illustrates without question that your arguments are unconstructive and you have a major POV against this article as do one or two other editors. Stop smearing. I urge the closing admin on this to be completely uninvolved in any of the arguments or previous edit wars and consider this neutraly because this seems to me to not be what is happening with many of the comments. Polargeo (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet I searched in the pages of those listed as convicted under it and the word "mass" doesn't show up at all for "mass rape". Amazing how that happens. You can claim the above as much as you want, but the reality doesn't back you up. The fact that you tried to defend a book as making a claim that was pertinent 4 years before it was even possible to make the claim without actually admitting that the book was a false source only shows that you aren't here impartially nor are looking at the page clearly. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You are getting 'mass rape' confused with individual court cases. The section in the Bosnian War article is also called Mass rape so certainly no POV fork. Where does it state in the article that any of the convicted people mentioned, or anyone else, has been found specifically guilty of the crime 'mass rape' I don't see it. Do you want the article to be called Incitement to collective rape, sexual enslavement and the keeping of women in sex camps while lots of them are colectively raped by lots of people, oh well 20000 at least, in the Bosnian War It takes many people for it to be mass rape so as pointed out to you previously it is not a crime that an individual has been charged of, but outside of courtroom semantics many reliable sources have called it exactly what it is and that is mass rape. You are so hung up on legalistics, as your history as an editor shows, you cannot see the reality beyond the end of your nose. And I have never heard anything so ridiculous as accusing me of not looking at the page clearly when you examine many of the ridiculous comments that you have made during this AfD. Polargeo (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  OK sorted an academic journal article on legal studies Prosecuting Mass Rape: Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic. If you would like some more major sources that say it was mass rape, many of them stating there was a mass rape campaign by Serb forces then try [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Its not worth going past the sixth screen of google hits, I think this is enough to be getting on with. POV! Polargeo (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but your above post is pure bs. The courts didn't use the term mass rape in their ruling and that is proven by the individual court cases. Therefore, the documents you have aren't reliable sources as the primaries directly contradict them. This is a BLP issue and BLP makes it clear that any source that has a possible contradiction when it comes to a living character that is of a negative nature cannot be included. This fails BLP along with OR, NEO, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Guardian story cited in the article:

“

In a judgment that is likely to have far-reaching implications for war crimes trials in Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor, the tribunal elevated systematic rape from being a mere violation of the customs of war to one of the most heinous war crimes of all - a crime against humanity. "This verdict is a significant step for women's human rights. Sexual enslavement in armed conflict is now legally acknowledged as a crime against humanity and perpetrators can and must be held to account," said Amnesty International in a statement after the decision. The court ruled that the three veterans of the 1992-95 Bosnian war - who stood in silence as the verdict was read out - were guilty of the systematic and savage rape, torture and enslavement of Muslim women in 1992 in the town of Foca in south-eastern Bosnia. They were convicted on 19 separate counts. "This is the first case where sexual slavery has been charged," the UN prosecutor Dirk Ryneveld said yesterday. "What sets this apart is that this is a case in which we have a large rape camp organisation. This is the first case of sexual enslavement and the only one with sexual assaults and no murders."

”

I would in fact prefer to rename the article "Sexual enslavement and rape in the Bosnian War". Not that the acts were not mass rape, but it is better to specify. Anarchangel (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The really sad thing about your post is that you claim the books aren't POV when they are all labeled as feminist studies and other clear markers that they are POV. Do you even bother to read what you post? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist does not equal PoV. I am against labelling sources as PoV in any case; the material should be judged on its merits, and calling sources PoV to discredit their works is ad hominem. Oh, and btw, your personal attacks on Polargeo are beginning to become intolerable even to me. I.E. "BS", "Do you even bother to read what you post", etc. As are your violations of WP:AGF: "shows that you aren't here impartially". If you are finding your points alone to be insufficient, perhaps you should concede a few. Anarchangel (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Feminist -does- equal POV. The dictionary makes that 100% clear. And I think you don't understand what "ad hominem" means. It means to attack the person, not the ideas or the matter. This would be calling the person stupid, ugly, etc. It has nothing to do with what you said. Please, if you are going to bother throwing out these claims at least do it with knowledge about what they mean. AGF only exists to the point that you verify that you were here to cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin. User:Kruško Mortale and User:Emir Arven are confirmed socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar). The CU data is too stale to see if they're socks of the article's creator User:The Dragon of Bosnia, but given the behavioural similarities and interests, it's highly likely. Spellcast (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not let this color your view of the arguments. It appears that this sock puppet war is what drew the attention of various editors to this article. It should remain separate from the substance of the AfD argument. Thankyou. Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sock puppets don't have the right to vote, so they were struck accordingly. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's standard practice to discount the input of blocked socks regardless of the argument. Again, the main difference I see between this article and Bosnian War is the incidents of specific atrocities. When you shift the focus from mass rape to tragic stories of individuals to highlight negative facts, you have fundamental violations of WP:NPOV#POV forks. If you exclude individual accounts, there's nothing here that can't be mentioned in Bosnian War. Spellcast (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material is factual. The presentation is now free of PoV. The material presents evidence that is not available in 'Bosnian War'. The facts are unpleasant; this is not to be confused with a motivation by the creator or contributors, to show the unpleasant side of facts. Please elucidate your conditional "If you exclude individual accounts,". Anarchangel (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was proven wrong when it was revealed that the ICTY did not convict anyone of "mass rape", thus all other sources fail WP:BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By individudal accounts, I mean incidents that happened to various victims (under "Particulars of Sexual Slavery"). Spellcast (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was 'mass rape' according to

The President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in an address to the United Nations, 1997

US Senate hearing 2000 [12]

The US Senate 2008

CNN News 2006

The BBC 2002

If it is called this by these sources then why are we changing the description for Wikipedia or trying to delete an article over some sock puppet edit war and some easy POV edits that should be sorted outside of an AfD. Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my preference of a namechange for the article. Anarchangel (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term only comes up once ("Assistance must be given to requests from the Tribunal. People must know that genocide, mass rape and other egregious abuses are regarded as the pinnacle of human criminality and that their own States will arrest them if they are indicted by the Tribunal. "). That does not claim that it happened, nor is it proof. Polargeo, why do you keep manipulating sources to say exactly what they don't say? You can be blocked for that if you keep it up. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps the title to use is a question for the talk page of the article, presumably followed by some form of dispute resolution. "Organized rape..." perhaps. The actions took place; the motivations for them as a group were proven., so there can reasonably be an article, under whatever title. DGG (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please take a moment to look at a few specific sources from the ICTY, which is the judicial authority that determines what crimes were committed. VII A describes the sentences. These are the ones who have been charged with some of the more egregious crimes. There is no charge of organized rape, institutional rape, or anything that can be generalized. The court was clear that these are individuals that committed standard crimes during a time of war. There is no "mass" anything, nor is there an organized "Serbian" action. The fundamental problem of the page is that it removes the individualization of the actions and also attributes the actions to a side and a race. These are both egregious BLP violations and the sources used to justify fail because they contradict the findings of the court, as per BLP requiring sources to not have any fundamental flaws or contradictions. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - It is obvious in my view from reading this article that it is a clear POV fork and highly imbalanced in both its scope and the synthesis done when creating this article. This topic is adequately covered in the Bosnian War#Mass rape; if specific article is to be recreated because it needs to be split off from the main article in the future, it ought to be done from a clean slate. NW (Talk) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious is an oxymoron with 'in my view', as it would be obvious to all, no? Your use of the word synthesis is fundamentally flawed. Two facts existing simultaneously do not equal synthesis. See WP:SYNTH Your assertions are thankfully out of the lower three tiers of the debate pyramid but they fail to reach the top three tiers, for lack of supporting evidence. Anarchangel (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Obvious POV fork. As noted by NW, this topic is adequately covered in the main article. There is no reason for this page to exist, and as it is in no way neutral, the history should be wiped. Not to mention, the article's creator is a sockmaster with a clear agenda. لennavecia 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Obvious", see above. Obvious to you it may be, obvious to everyone it most certainly is not, and it is not helpful to say so, as merely asserting as such without reasoning, let alone supporting evidence, is unlikely to build consensus.

The majority of the material does not exist at 'Bosnian War', in particular the involvement of and quotations from the United Nations Commission on Breaches of Geneva Law in Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which argues against your assertions that the topic is adequately covered at 'BW' and that there is no reason for it to edist. Your opinion that it is not neutral is noted. The creation of the article is long passed; perhaps you should take a look at the state of the page at creation and compare it with the work that has been done to remove the PoV. "Clear agenda" is a perfect example of the reason for WP:AGF. The PoV was evident in the article and has been removed; in short, and intended as constructive criticism of your methods, you 'don't know what you're talking about'. Anarchangel (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced info can easily replace the largely unsourced section of the main article (again, if you exclude the individual stories). Spellcast (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to read 'Bosnian War' again. There are individual stories in that section. I don't see anyone adding that info to the main article. I doubt it would survive there. All this ignores the potential scope of 'MritBW', that goes well beyond what is in the article so far. It was high time for BW to be split, 'MritBW' is the article to do it with. Anarchangel (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel, your assertion is completely wrong. The ICTY did not convict anyone of "mass rape", therefore, you cannot say the lack of discussion of the ICTY at any other page is covered by this page, as this page does not reflect the ICTY correctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that is gobbledegook. Even if the ICTY material was covered wrongly, which is all about your conflation that the article must be deleted if the title is wrong, that material still does not exist at 'BW'. As to your assertion that the 'page does not reflect the ICTY correctly': the ICTY mentioned mass rape, and the incidents are referred to in the -secondary sources- as mass rape, so although I concede that the charges use another wording, and previously preferred to change the name, I have retracted that. And of course none of this is relevant to AfD; it is a matter for the talk page discussion. That is the last word I have on that subject; can we move on now? We answer all your assertions, and are now repeating answers. Time for you to concede some points, I think, so the discussion can reach a conclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As Ottava outlined... POV fork and not possible to make a reasonable article out of just this topic ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we'll mark you down as 'ditto', then. 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.