Talk:1997 Mostar car bombing

Unreliable sources?

I'm concerned that Free Republic and dDH do not conform with WP:RS. Anyone disagree? 23 editor (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, dDH isn't a major source. It is used as a source in one sentence, which isn't controversial. The source says that Handala and his associates were arrested and that their trial begun in May 1998. The source from the Free Republic was used as a source for the origin of Handala. However, other sources in the article clarify Handala's status. Also, Free Republic isn't a major source for the article. Handala's origin also isn't controversial. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What I've noticed is the use of a television programme as a source. In all my years on Wikipedia, including the last 7 years of active editing, I had not seen television programmes cited as sources. Such information is practically unverifiable. Surtsicna (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

RTS being "encyclopedically inappropriate source"

User:Surtsicna erased the Radio Television of Serbia source, claiming it is "encyclopedically inappropriate source", after which I undid his edit, and he did mine later. So to avoid any possibility of an unnecessary edit warring, I propose we make a discussion about this issue here. Sturscina later said that television programmes are not cited as sources at Wikipedia, to which I object.

For example, BBC is used as a source at thousands of Wikipedia's articles, without anyone seriously challenging this as encyclopedically inappropriate. It is necessary to mention that I haven't cited a television show or any sort of a video, but an article published by the Radio Television of Serbia, a state-owed public media in Serbia (the obviously). Since I'm aware that Surtscina is an editor for a very long time, his statement that he didn't encounter a practice of broadcasting television networks being cited as sources at Wikipedia is rather odd to me, since, like I said, thousands of Wikipedia's articles use sources from television houses such as the BBC, FOX, ABC etc. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, is this the article you [thought you] cited? Clicking on the reference number did not lead me there. If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I suggest that you employ a clearer referencing style. See, for example, an article currently on the main page: Sudanese general election, 2015. Each reference number leads directly to the source. Surtsicna (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, when you click on the note, it links you to the source that is related to (it becomes light blue). This is how write notes and sources at Wikipedia articles, since it is clearer that way, especially when there are more sources. I did so here, and other articles that I have wrote. I don't see it as a major issue, so I hope you will agree that it is alright that the note is fine as it is. :) Unless you insist I change it. :D --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now. Thanks for the clarification. I encountered the template for the first time while reading about Jogaila, but it didn't catch my attention now. I've replaced "Radio Television of Serbia" with the author's name. Hopefully it might make things clearer. Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank. It's good now. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

I have removed Category Islamic terrorism in B-H. Before one use such a Contentious label, one need to check if article talks about motivation which stems from Islamist causes - it is not an evidence of Islamism if perpetrator is/was Muslim or even Wahhabi, especially if article talks about organized crime, revenge, or political motivations usual for ethno-nationalist quarrels.

It is noteworthy that main sources and all the refs used for the narrative come from extremely partisan and antagonistic authors:

1. Ivo Lučić, a former intelligence officer for former Yugoslav intelligence agency, turned the head of the SIS (abbr. for intelligence agency) of the Croatian Community of Herceg Bosna (abbr. HBHZ) and who considered a commander of a string of concentration camps for Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims during Croat-Bosnian Muslims conflict, Šakota, his subordinate: (Slobodan Praljak at ICTY: "Witness Slobodan Praljak testified that everything that was supposed to be done by the SIS was under the competence of its Chief, at the relevant time Ivica Lučić, T. 42420." - p.34; his career from oslobodjenje), who after the war managed to obtain PhD in history and now engages in relativizing Ustasha ideology and crimes, whitewashing of crimes committed by political and military leadership of HBHZ, which he was a prominent member, and engages in hate-mongering (radiosarajevo - ko-je-ivica-lucic).
2. Zoran Krešić, a mouthpiece of nationalist narrative in B-H, through main nationalist-conservative media outlets such as Večernji, Hercegovina,info.(kas.de analysis of bh.media; or Krešić slavio ratnog zločinca Radića i kolege nazvao govnima!)
3. And here how Schindler sees B-H and its Muslims, and what Hoare has to say about that claptrap: Christopher Deliso, John R. Schindler and Shaul Shay on al-Qaeda in Bosnia

On general note, we have an excellent overview of historiography on recent history and war in B-H, we can read: U dijelu radova očita je namjera da se odgovori “suprotnoj” strani u svrhu njene optužbe za ratna događanja, da se istakne vlastiti značaj u ratu, značaj vlastite jedinice, mjesta ili ustanove, ali i stranke kojoj se pripadalo, što vrlo često ima za posljedicu da se čitalac uputi na pogrešne zaključke. Postoje i radovi koji su prepoznati kao dio obavještajnog djelovanja autora ili saradnje s obavještajnim organizacijama s ciljem nanošenja štete državi Bosni i Hercegovini. Kao primjer izdvojili bismo knjige Ivice Lučića, bliskog Tuđmanovog saradnika i rukovodioca Sigurnosno-izvještajne službe (SIS-a), pod nazivom Uzroci rata, Bosna i Hercegovina od 1980. do 1992. godine, 36 ali i drugi objavljeni radovi i članci istog autora.37 Druga knjiga jeste knjiga Muslimansko-hrvatski građanski rat u srednjoj Bosni: vojna povijest 1992–1994. autora Charlesa Schradera.

All in all not RS, or at least extremely partisan and antagonistic.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

All of these objections against particular sources are baseless since all of them are used for pure facts, like, where certain preparator originates from. There's no interpretation on their part, and I really don't see how they're affecting the who narrative. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)