Talk:Lora prison camp

point of view issue

This prison camp article, while describing a place where horrific things happened, need to present a neutral point of view. - If I have time in the next week I'll do some editing, but please leave the tag in place as it is very one sided at the moment - Peripitus 11:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Majkovicc - you are editing in a way that does not conform with WP:NPOV and also seem to be sock puppetting. Checkout the Auschwitz concentration camp article for a good way to report neutrally on the horrors of this type of camp. At the very least you need to reference the things you write to a reputable source - Peripitus 12:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back NPOV tag

The article neglects recent developments that have seen a retrial & convictions of camp gaurds. Article needs extensive cleanup to conform to NPOV.

For NPOV, refer Manjača concentration camp as an example.

croatian_quoll 18:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing, the autor forgetted to mention that trial was dismissed as irregular and that new trial is under way. Thip proves that this user willingly avoids to write any affirmative information on Croatia and selectively chooses to include only the data that fits his political preferences. This is a clear example of writing in bad faith. I believe its possible that user didn't know about new trial, but since I saw this kind of bad faith writting a zillion times here, I find quite unbelievable that this could be explained by lack of information. --Ante Perkovic 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this anti-croatian sockpuppet did wrote one afirmative sentence about Croatia, I would be shocked. But, of course, that will never happen because it would be a real miracle. Their hatred is just to strong... Pitty little people, thinkg only about spreading anti-croatian propaganda. What a pitty living. :( --Ante Perkovic 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ante Perkovic, please be civil. Negative pigeonholing of contributors will not help us achieve a good article. Please don't inflame the POV war on articles like this. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I rephrase it. I hope this is better. --Ante Perkovic 08:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove 'Treatment of Prisoners' section

When I checked the source, an article written by Gregory Elich, I tried to trace back his sources. footnotes existed for more mundane facts such as dates of military operations, UN conferences etc, giving the article an air of credibility. But on closer inspection but there appeared none - I could find no footnotes, nothing to back up the claims of the alleged acts that took place in the prison.

Further, judging by some of the language used and allegations raised elsewhere in the article, suggested that Gregory Elich was not a NPOV source.

I am happy to include a section if there is a verifiable, credible source e.g. Amnesty international, Croatian court document . But based on the source provided, it does not stand up to scrutiny. iruka 14:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not find a source that says otherwise, as what you are doing is original research. // Laughing Man 15:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

I'm telling you the article is not reliable b/c it is on POV website SWANS, and the article itself does not provide sources for its claims about the treatment of prisoners. Mundane facts such as dates of UN meetings & military operations have been footnoted, but not the claims about treatment of prisoners. iruka 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No original research, Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Challenging a source as not NPOV and unreliable does not constitute oriinal research. It is part of the Wikipedia:Verifiability process. iruka 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So the basic crux of the problem is you have included a section in the article citing an unreliable and POV source. I have requested you provide a primary source to back it up, e.g. Amesty International report etc. Thanks for your understanding, iruka 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The basic crux of the problem is that I haven't included anything (I did not add the source you have a problem with) I am just questioning your original research of this cited source. // Laughing Man 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifying a source,then disputing b/c it does not conform to wiki stds is not original research; an unrelaiable source for example, does not footnote as to the source of it's claim. Original research is when an edit involves material not published - you are clearly misusing the term original research here. And since it is not your edit, then you should have no problem leaving as is or providing a reliable source (for example Amnesty International or court documents from the trial) to back up the claims. iruka 12:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

From author of Lora article Gregory Elich: The article most certainly does identify its sources on the treatment of prisioners. Please see note 3 in the article, which reads: "The testimonies of former prisoners of Prison Camp Lora are taken primarily from these sources: "Crime of Genocide Against Serbs in the Prison Camp 'Lora' in Split in the Period 1991-1997, Committee for Compiling Data on Crimes Against Humanity and International Law (Belgrade), October 1998. Vladimir Matijanic, "Victims of Sadism," Feral Tribune (Split), October 28, 2000." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.77.167 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms

Edits like this [1] do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a forum nor a wall for graffitis. Kubura (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Rewrite this article -- We need a neutral wikipedian to write this article alloveragain, because the person that wrote this is biased, and you can smell it from a mile away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klesk85 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)