Talk:Omarska camp

Active discussions
Omarska camp has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
May 10, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA ReviewEdit

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    prose:   (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
  7. Overall:


1. and send them in the camps. Suggest - and send them to the camps

2. held on the area. Suggest - held in the area

3. The corpses of the inmates were spotted in front of the White House and the camp's guards continued to shooting rounds into them. Everyone was given an extra bullet that was shot in their heads. Suggest - The corpses of the inmates were spotted in front of the White House and the camp's guards continued to shoot rounds into them.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you've left (3) unchanged I assume that you spotted that the text in italics was a quote from the evidence cited in the Stakic Judgement. I've added quotation marks to make it clearer to other readers. I've also revised the surrounding text that seems to have been taken from the Judgment but not verbatim to bring it a bit closer to current English.Opbeith (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Omarska concentration camp survivors want to put a memorial at the site…Edit

...but the authorities of Republika Srpska deny the authorization for the construction. Maybe this info should be put in the article…-- (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lack of progress re memorial and ArcelorMittal blaming RS authorities now incorporated. Separately, the awkwardly phrased assertion by Nick Hawton in the existing paragraph that "many Bosniaks believe that construction should be postponed until all the victims are found and only if the entire mine – which is in use – be allocated for the memorial site." seems questionable. Survivors have called for an investigation to locate unexhumed mass graves on the site but it's not clear that this is seen as excluding progress on the construction of a memorial and the alleged insistence that the whole mine should be made into a memorial site seems questionable as Bosniak returnees to the area want the mine working and providing employment, currently denied them by the discriminatory employment practices of ArcelorMittal's local management (contrary to the provisions of the Dayton Agreement).Opbeith (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)Edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Omarska camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for uniformed name is false balancing for the sake of false neutralityEdit

To - your suggestion to call all camps with one uniformed name is false balancing for the sake of false neutrality, which could and, in this case in particular, should be considered whitewashing. We don't use "uniformity" principle for the sake of uniformity, and here's why: we don't name these camps according to our own opinion or desire, we use reliable and neutral sources (UN, Red Cross, ICTY, ICJ) to verify how these camps are called. That's why we can't use "uniformed" name for something which isn't called in uniform manner.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Omarska camp" page.