Contents

Talk:Stari Most

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stari Most article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Bosnia and Herzegovina High‑importance Stari Most is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Bridges and Tunnels High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 9, 2008, November 9, 2009, and November 9, 2023.

Who are you to focus on justifying the destruction of a historical monument? The fact that the first few lines about the stari most focus on why it was okay to destroy and not the repercussions of the destruction are very telling! Destroying historical monuments is a war crime! Croatian army had no right to shell that bridge. You know very well you are spreading propaganda. Shame on you! Lamijahodzic (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing one part [1] and leaving the other there does not constitute neutrality, @Governor Sheng. Either restore this version or remove both, as I did [2], which you reverted. The removal of "The ICTY Trial Chamber in its judgment from 2013 stated that the bridge was a military target, but its destruction was "disproportionate to the military gains achieved", hence it was an illegal act of a "war crime and a crime against humanity", adding it was “an underlying act of persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds as a crime against humanity and unlawful infliction of terror on civilians as a violation of the laws and customs of war “. In 2017, in appeal of the first judgement, court revised its rule, deeming that destruction was legal if the bridge was considered a military target. One of three judges, Fausto Pocar, contested this appeal ruling in his dissenting opinion, stating that he was surprised that his colleagues had ignored the Hague Convention of 1954 (the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict), especially its Article 4, paragraph 2" still remains questionable to me. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was given undue weight... The court decision is what it is. The bridge was a military target. There's no need to downplay the court's decision by explaning the whole criminal process. How about we also include every testemony in the article? This isn't the article about the trial, but about the bridge. That's the first thing. The second thin is - the verdict itself, which was used here, is a primary source, thus it cannot be used here. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No - it's not WP:UNDUE to include the first judgment of the ICTY and the second verdict, it's still in the scope of the topic. And nobody's talking about witness testimonies here - it's a brief sentence that gives a better perspective of the situation and does not "downplay" the second judgment in any way. You're absolutely right that this is not about the trial, but you opened the door. (Is there even an article about the trial?) We can also remove both, the whole discussion is too complex to explain it in one sentence in the lead. Up to you.

My second issue can therefore be dismissed, as the source constitutes a PRIMARY source. I did not note that. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:UNDUE because this was a trial, and it would be very much unfair to write how someone was found guilty on murdering someone, and then being released by the appeal. What should be emphasised in that case is their innocence. Doing otherwise presupposes their guilt and the "mistake" by the court to acquit them on this particular point. We shouldn't force our views unto readers. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "unfair" to add the court's first ruling. I could argue the same: that you intentiously want to leave that out to misrepresent the whole discussion. The discussion and the whole topic is too short to summarize it into one sentence (especially when it's potentially misleading). Either add the part that it was (once) decleared illegitimate or leave it out completely. There's no in between. Readers can familiarize themselves with the whole discussion at the bottom of the article. Otherwise I will seek a thrid opinion. I am in favor of leaving it out as well as dropping Judge Fausto Pocar's dissenting opionion since this is beyond the scope of the article. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not have a misunderstanding. I'm not against including the 1st instance verdict. I'm in support of it. What I'm against is giving it undue weight, which is clearly the case here, especially with the inclusion of the dissenting opinion in the 2nd instance verdict (and we're all aware, at least those of us who are familiar with the subject, that there was a dissenting opinion in the 1st instance verdict). The whole sentence was made to push one POV. Now, I repeat - I support including both verdicts, with neutral language without giving any of them undue weight. Do I support having the 1st instance in the lead? No. It's irrelevant. It's obsolete. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against including the 1st instance verdict. I know.

The whole sentence was made to push one POV. It's not, in what way does mentioning the first verdict fall under WP:UNDUE? The current lead is completely misleading and makes it appear that the whole consensus about the legality of the destruction has already been established. It's not. Because of that, let's remove both. Or include both. I'm in favor of removing both - to prevent potential WP:NPOV and bias in the lead. But since I haven't heard anything from you about this particular idea I'll request a third opinion unless something changed. I've struck my previous comments to make it easier for the user to read our discussion. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fine with excluding both. Governor Sheng (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Okay. You didn't write anything about that particular idea, that's why I hesitated a little bit with the third opinion. I removed the request for a 3rd opinion. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can still include the dissenting opinion of Judge Fausto Pocar from this [3] source in the destruction part. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why there's need to include anyone's disenting oppinion? Maybe we should also include Antonetti's disenting opinion in the 1st instance verdict? Governor Sheng (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]