Talk:Bosnian Genocide/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

All the Kids are united!!!

OK, kids, that was enough. Please stop this stupid edit war and start thinking about what to do with information in this article. Obviously it can't be called "Bosnian genocide" since (1) it's not a name commonly used to refer to the events and (2) it's an open invitation to edit warring. I suggest that we find a better name, like Bosnian war or War in Bosnia and write about its history properly. Zocky 13:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the name of this article was based on the Rwandan Genocide article. Just because some cannot personally deal with facts and the thruth is a weak excuse.--Dado 15:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Dado, Rwandan Genocide was actually just one event, so it's known after that name. "Bosnian Genocide" is a vague term, and like Zocky said, it just begs for edit wars. --Dejan Cabrilo 03:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I have raised this issue of a single event at Talk:Srebrenica Massacre page as a move to rename the article Srebrenica Genocide. Please see that page for more info. It is a bit dual standard if you are willing to name Rwanda Genocide and not name Bosnian Genocide while they were both proven by the same institution International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. So far there has been only one person (who is still stuck in the eigth stage of the genocide see Genocide Watch - The Eight Stages of Genocide) has been willing to pursue an edit war on this article and looking at his other activity at Wikipedia it does not surprise me. Others have been constructive on this article. I do agree that this is a bit controversial topic but only because there is a small number of people who are willing to pursue an edit war for whatever personal subjective reasons. I will repeat that just because some cannot deal with facts and the truth it is a weak excuse to question the merits of this article.--Dado 16:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Dado, I see your point, and I do not wish to undermine any attrocities committed in Bosnia. I am just saying that Rwandan Genocide is something that took place within few days, while it is unclear what would Bosnian Genocide be (there were many instances of massacres, of course... but hardly as a continuing spree that you can define by one name). Srebrenica Massacre is a better concept, for sure. --Dejan Cabrilo 01:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Argh.. that just looks wrong :) What I wanted to say, of course, is that one article for one instance of genocide is a better concept than one article for all of war crimes. --Dejan Cabrilo 01:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Genocide

The only case which ICTY declared as a genocide in Bosnia so far (2005.5.) is Srebrenica. If you have links under ICTY which show different, please give them clearly. If you cannot, the only officialy proved genocide in Bosnia were in Srebrenica. --User:oldadamml

You are correct. The only Bosnian Genocide that was proven so far in ICTY took place in Srebrenica. So why are you removing the entire page which is pretty much what is said in the judgement Prosecutor vs Krstic. In fact the article talks about what you are saying specifically. --Dado 13:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


I'm not removing the entire page, I just considered ICTY facts. You mentioned http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/index.htm. There are no any mentioned Prijedor, Sarajevo, Banja Luka or others victims there. --User:oldadamml



I am stating again that you are correct that the only Bosnian Genocide that was proven at ICTY so far took place in Srebrenica. However what you are not saying is what I am exposing in this article and that is there are several other genocide proceedings currently going and few indictments for persons still at large responsible for genocide at the entire teritory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. See

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm

Also see Schedule A and C for Milosevic trial. I know that you will say that these cases are not yet finished which is true and article stresses that any increase in numbers will take place only after these cases are complete. However it is critical to say that story is not over yet and that additional circumstances need to be considered as the scope of the genocide in Bosnia may increase.

-- Those are indictments and Schedule A and shedule C is irrelevant so far. Let's wait for the judgment. --User:oldadamml


Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic have been indicticed for genocide on the entire teritory of BiH (including Banja Luka, Prijedor and other areas)

Name of the article

Can anybody provide proof that "Bosnian genocide" refers to "The Bosnian Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks)", i.e. that it excludes attrocities by Serbs against Croats, by Croats against Bosniaks and Serbs and by Bosniaks against Croats and Serbs?

It seems to me that this should be dealt in a section in the article Bosnian war or War in Bosnia, (which we still don't have) or in an article called War crimes in the Bosnian war. OTOH, if the point is just to describe what ICTY thinks about it, it should probably be merged to ICTY. Zocky 10:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Even if contributors were to do everything you recommend, one could still re-create the Bosnian Genocide article and start writing "The Bosnian Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks)". IMHO, more importantly, contributors here should follow Wikipedia's dispute policies.--AI 10:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, apologies if I'm out of line (literally meant--I'm not sure how to use these discussion boards so I'm just taking a guess). The term "Bosnian Genocide" (and similar expressions) are recognized in the academic spheres of Political Science, History, and Peace Studies. I've just completed a university course centered on genocide. Amongst numerous texts, I would recommend Century of Genocide to anyone who thinks that something as factual as the very title of this article is not neutral. The relevant chapter is entitled "Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina." Sound familiar? --Adtrace 07:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The article begins by stating that "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on February 26, 2007, cleared Serbia of direct involvement in genocide during the Bosnian war". However, it it is to mention this, it should also state that the ICJ did not find evidence of genocide outside of the Srebrenica massacre. As it is now, this information is buried further down in the article ("genocide outside of Srebrenica is not supported by evidence"). Since the ICJ was directly asked to consider wether there had been other instances of genocide during the Bosnian War and found in the negative, this should be mentioned early on.Osli73 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...

I don't see that a lot of war crimes on this page (other then Srebrenica Massacre) are relevant to the page about genocide. Similar killings (not including Srebrenica) was on other sides, too. It would be usefull to say the sum of other killings, because the sum says the general number of killed people. It would be better to make other page about all victims of the Bosnian War. --Millosh 01:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, "proven by ICTY", as it is said, is only Srebrenica massacre/genocide, so it should be said in different way. However, statement about authorities of Republica Srpska is truth (I know that from Serbian side.) Also, "wide group of Bosniaks" should be explained. --Millosh 01:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that no mass killing of women and children was, too. --Millosh 01:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


First I would ask you to refer to the discussion on the Talk:Srebrenica Massacre where I raised an issue that given article should be renamed Srebrenica Genocide in light of the ICTY judgement which states this cearly and explains why. Some of the rethoric such as "wide group of Bosniaks" was taken directly from the judgement narrative of the Prosecutor vs Krstic case which proved the genocide.

The point was raised at the talk page that Srebrenica Massacre can be called a genocide only in a larger context as in case of Rwandan Genocide in a context of a country. Given this and also the parallels between the ICTY and ICTR and their genocide judgements it made only logical to start this article under its given name.

Other information noted in this article is clearly marked as being depended on other genocide proceedings (which are relevant). Perhaps noting which proceedings would help. I am not excluding a possiblity the the main definition of this article may evolve to include genocide over Croats as well (as there are Genocide indictments currently at ICTY that claim this) and to include information on the genocide on Serbs if any such indictment ever take place. If you agree with this concept we can resolve details easily (I hope).

Also I support the idea that there should be an article about Bosnian War to include all victims of the war --Dado 04:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Millosh, there are also some discussions that took place at Talk:Banja Luka that you may find interesting regarding the crediblity of the person that initiated this edit war and lost any NPOV consideration on my part for further discussion. This is not a fair nor a productive way to initiate a discussion on this topic while the same individual still has an open door policy to vandalize both articles as he sees fit. --Dado 04:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I did read both talk pages and I'll explain my position: --Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Genocide is a hard word and it mainly refers to Holocaust: organized killings of millions of human beings because of ideology of supreme nation. During the Bosnian war there were no such ideology and there were no organized killings of all members of some population. However, there were ideology of ethnic clean territories, a lot of hate, ordinary killers and people with mental disorders with guns, as well as one organized mass killings of the male part of one population. With those facts, I prefer to call article Srebrenica Genocide, but I prefer to move this article into the name like War crimes during the War in Bosnia, which should intend to describe all war crimes during that war. --Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I think that it is malicious not to call event in Srebrenica as genocide -- only because there were no killings of women and children. It can be treated as "revenge" or whatever, but it was organized mass killings of one part of one group of people, based on ethnicity and/or religion. However, it was not general behaviour of authorities of RS during the war, such was in Rwanda, such was in Nazi Germany. However, again, we should carefully research one by one event. Inside of this article I see very different numbers: (1) if one human is killed, it is a crime; (2) if couple of humans are killed, it was a big crime; (3) if 10 or 100 soldiers were killed after their surrendering, it was a big war crime; (4) but, if 10 or 100 people, not soldiers, were killed to make territory "ethnic clean", it was a genocide, too. So, if we find some other such event, we can call it as genocide. But, with a lot of respect to all of victims, we should be very conservative in naming something as genocide. I think it is better to waste a lot of time in gathering relevant information before we put that name. --Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
And to ask here for better organization: May we gather all problematic articles on one place (at the m:Balkan NPOV page) and start to work on those problems? I would refer to the page of resolving conflict between Polishes and Germans: Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice. Our situation is more complicated, so I am sure that such notice would not be enough. But, we should work on that. Also, I think that we should make NPOV pages here and to implement it on our local Wikipedias. However, I am sure that it is problematic question. In general, I can say that any page about this matter which is NPOV would be implemented in Serbian Wikipedia. --Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
And about User:oldadamml: It seems that he is finding some relevant data. It seems that he doesn't know how work on Wikipedia looks like, too. Remember what did say two persons from Bosnian Wikipedia (on Bosnian Wikipedia) to me only because I am from Serbian Wikipedia. Even they didn't (and don't) know what I am by origin (and we can talk about that a lot). So, we should try to talk. And I am glad to see that you are ready to talk. --Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
(The point of the last paragraph is that people who tasted the war are very sensible about their identity. User:oldadamml is from Banja Luka and I think that two persons from bs: lived in Bosnia during the war.) --Millosh 06:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

We can move this to BalkanNPOV but I find it useful to be on this page as well for others to reference. We could copy it to have a record on both pages once we are done.

I do agree that genocide is a strong word. This word is not something that should be used easily hence I point to sources that have the credibility to call something genocide (ie. ICTY). If you have issue with the credibility of ICTY that is another discussion.

But regardless, let’s take for the sake of discussion that ICTY is a credible source. In that case our personal opinions should not matter (NPOV Wiki policy). Following is an exact official narrative issued by ICTY regarding the Srebrenica massacre:

“In Prosecutor v. Krstic, a landmark ruling that put to rest any doubts about the legal character of the massacre, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia unanimously ruled that it was an act of genocide. As the Chamber’s judgment states:

By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general.…The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act.”

There are clear gradations of crimes that are identified at the ICT ranging from incidents, to murders, war crimes, massacres, genocides and holocausts in such order. There should not be any confusion that genocide is not a holocaust. You cannot relate holocaust of 6 million Jews and 5 million Slavs and Roma in WW II with genocide of 8000 Bosnians in Srebrenica hence the difference in terminology. I could relate them on another level to say that they were both genocides but that WWII crimes went a step further.

For all these reasons I think it is fruitless to discuss if the genocide in Srebrenica was really genocide but rather killing in revenge, killing of male only, killing of POV’s etc. etc. The main question is if you are willing to accept ICTY ruling as a credible source. I should also point out that there were and still are those who question the credibility of Nuremberg trials although it was probably most beneficial for German people in the long run.

Now if you and others have trouble understanding and accepting what ICTY is and what it means than I will certainly talk about those issues. I will help you find information on how they arrived to their judgments as I am certain that all of those points that you are stating some of which are credible to a certain degree were also raised at the ICTY during the genocide proceedings. I will not however negotiate facts and judgments that were accepted at ICTY just because they don’t feel cozy to some. On the other hand you will find accepting it a much better alternative to get closure on this subject than to allow the situation to escalate where emotions and people who cannot control them take the issue over (on both sides).--Dado 15:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

  • While ICTY's findings are mostly well researched and proven, the fact remains that it is used for political purposes (e.g. delaying Croatia's EU ascendency talks) and that it refuses to even investigate alleged war crimes committed by foreign powers (e.g. NATO). Even if we all agree here that ICTY is a 100% credible source, there are millions (probably the majority) of people in countries that it directly applies to (Serbia, BH and Croatia) who would disagree with us. Ergo, ICTY is not an undisputed source and it must be treated in the same way, i.e. quoted and attributed (but not necessarily equally prominent) as other sources.
  • Naming conventions tell us to use the most common name for things, persons and events. For the mass murder in Srebrenica, it's "Srebrenica massacre", not "Srebrenica genocide". "Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide" is a correct sentence.
  • "Bosnian genocide" is used by some people to mean what this article assumes that it does, so the name itself could be justified, but I still think that it would work better and cause less edit warring in a wider article.
  • The article as it is now reads as advocacy, not an encyclopedia article. Dado, I understand that you believe that everything it says is correct, and I also have no reason to doubt the accuracy of presented facts. But the way it is written now, a reader can tell that it was written by somebody who has chosen a side in the Bosnian war. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with chosing sides in real life, it's just not encyclopedic. Zocky 16:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


Well I don’t think it is scientific either.

Regardless of what I personally think and which side I take; hypothetically, on one hand you have a university with an immense body of knowledge, expertise and invested time into proving a theory. On the other hand you have a local coffee shop spewing out legends and conspiracy theories that are used to entertain the masses and keep them blind. Which one would you use to create an encyclopedia?

I am willing to state that both exist but there is no doubt in my mind which one is more credible. Otherwise Wikipedia will become just a conglomeration of fancier forum type discussions without a clear layering of facts and without a clear hierarchy of relevance. If we are here to write down coffee house fairy tales than I don’t want to have any part in it as it adds 0 qualities to Wikipedia and as I can do that on any other forum on the internet. Also I am not willing to hide and obscure facts in a different article just so that some people may feel cozier, while there is a clear precedent (Rwandan Genocide) article to follow.

I will not be so naïve to deny that politics have their hand in everything but claiming the exact level of their involvement in this is highly subjective. As an example, how do you explain a plea bargain where one of the convicts (I think it was Nikolic case but I may be wrong) gets 5 years in prison for killing 70 people.

So can we agree that this article or information provided therein is:

  1. Factually correct
  2. Relevant to be called in its given name
  3. That Srebrenica Massacre article should retain its original name but only if there is a Bosnian Genocide article to put it in a larger context as in the case of Rwandan Genocide article
  4. That it should include information on both completed genocide cases and the cases that may potentially change the nature and the scope of its meaning.

If these principles are acceptable than we can move to fine tune the article.--Dado 18:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. I believe that all of it is correct, but I don't know, as there are no references to sources where I could check.
  2. I still think that this information, if presented out of context of crimes on other sides will be an endless edit war battlefield, so I would prefer to merge it elsewhere, but I agree that the current name is relevant and if other people think that it's good where it is, I have no problem with that.
  3. Srebrenica Massacre article should be called that regardless of where we put this. It's a separate issue.
  4. I'm not sure whether it should include all the cases that may (or may not, that's what "may" means) "change the nature and the scope of its meaning". How do we establish that?

These are some of the problems I have with the article as it is now written:

  • It treats ICTY as the word of god. Even if we accept ICTY as a 100% reliable source, we can't report its findings like we report easily observable natural phenomena.
  • The purported number of people killed in the genocide (100,000-250,000) is probably larger than the total number of dead in the war, including military and civilian casualties on all sides.
  • Quotes by Karadžić and especially Rašković are too prominent in the article, presented out of context, and unreferenced.
  • The data in the breakdown is undated, unreferenced and not all of it looks necessarily relevant - cases of several men killed in a town can arguably be attributed to military or personal matters.

Zocky 20:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's start with some information that we currently have regarding the data in the breakdown which is combined Schedule A and Schedule B lists of Killings not Associated with Detention Facilities and Killings Associated with Detention Facilities from the Milosevic trial Indictment [1]. You can also find dates on those schedules but I think that it may be just too much information. It may be usefull to put the date of the Indictment which is April 21, 2004. I would definatelly put the above link in the article for more information including also:

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm

I would gladly consider other sources if you can provide links.

I do agree with some of your concerns and I will think about the organization of the article further as there may be an ambiguity between what is a judgment and what is an indictment and what may and what may not "change the nature and the scope of its meaning".

Around 105,000 people killed is a current estimate but there are two ways to calculate the number of victims (which I am not going to get into now). The larger question is if all 105,000 can be considered as genocide in this article and the answer at this point is probably not. --Dado 21:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


Good Day,

I am curious to know why there is only reportings on Non-Serb murders? Since this is about the "bosnian" genocide; I Demand that you include Croat and Serb murders!!! The NPOV is lost in this article completely. How can you call it the Bosnian genocide if it is only targeted against Bosniaks? Call it the Bosniak Genocide!

I would like to find about the other deaths of Croats and Serbs in the "bosnian" genocide. Bosnia doesn't just include Bosniaks you know? It is a rainbow of different people. This article is biased as it does not acknowledge the Genocide of Croats and Serbs (Serbs in particular) in the "bosnian" genocide!!! I suggest you delete the article in it's entirety and start over with an introduction similar to this (watch for the NPOV :P)

The Bosnian Genocide took place during the 1990's and involved genocidal attacks and beliefs from the Bosniak, Croat, and Serb parties. The evidence leading to the proof of this genocide can be found below.

The Genocide was an extension of the Yugoslavian Genocide (1941-45)...

I bid you all a farewell...

Auf Wiedersehen,

-Gustav-


We've been over this. Other than to say that this person should read the article carefully before jumping to conclusions I could say that article may need to reinforce what the genocide is and differentiate it from other victims of war. It also reinforces the notion that there should be an article about victims of Bosnian War on all sides.--Dado 00:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh... We are at the middle of the talk. I think that this page should be renamed into War crimes during the War in Bosnia or something like that because there were only one sanctionied act of genocide (Srebrenica Massacre) and a lot of war crimes on all sides. However, we are at the beginning of the road. And we would talk about it for a months (maybe years). You (Gustav) are welcome to join our conversation. --Millosh 00:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dado, what do you think about naming article as Genocide acts during the War in Bosnia? --Millosh 00:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it sounds silly. It is just a fancier elaboration of the same title. We are not trying to design an article here (including the name). Call it what it is. Just as a thought to give you some insight to the commonality of the name.

Bosnian Genocide

Bosnia Genocide

The name should not be disputed but the definition may. I do think that there should be a separate article perhaps as you named it above (War crimes during the War in Bosnia) or Victims of the Bosnian War but such article should differentiated between killings, war crimes and the genocide.--Dado 18:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I agree that Millosh name is more descriptive. Bosnian Genocide is term ICTY don't have so Wikipedia should not have either. --Oldadamml 15:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indictment is not the judgment

Indictment is not the judgment, so I think data from Milosevic trial are irrelevant. --Oldadamml 07:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The list of locations and the number of Muslims killed refers to a specific event: Bosnian Genocide.

The list of locations and the number of Muslims killed is a list of massacres. Does Bosnian Genocide correctly label "Bosnian List of Massacres specifically aimed at Muslims"?

Mediation or arbitration

In this case we need some of that. Bosniak users still work on the article even it is disputed. And it is seems that there is no solution without mediation or arbitration. --Millosh 20:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to rules described on the page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, I am asking other parties to agree about asking mediation. --Millosh 20:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see the need. There's no rule that says articles shouldn't be worked on while they're disputed - indeed, it's desired, if it helps improve them. Zocky 22:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The existance of article is disputed and there is no any kind of intention from Dado and Asim to talk about that. (Instead of that, they are working on disputed content.) So, at least we need mediation here. However, I prefer arbitration because arbitration can bring some results even if someone doesn't want to talk. --Millosh 11:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it's the existance of the artice that's the problem, then it can be put on VfD and potentially deleted. However, the term seems to have some use, so an article at this name could be OK. I'm still not sure about the definition, though. Zocky 11:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please suggest and alternate definition. --Dado 17:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what this article is supposed to be about.
  • Is it about genocidal acts during the war in Bosnia, as the name suggests? Then it should include acts from all sides against all sides for which some credible or politically important source claims they were genocidal, and ICTY should be just a part of it. Controversial and untrue claims by important sources should be described as such, not omitted.
  • Is it about something else? Then it should clearly say that the article is about whatever it is, not that the term means that. Zocky 17:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. OK. It seems that I don't understand your terms. I am out of this discussion from now. --Millosh 18:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


To my knowledge there were indictments that also included genocide of Croats in region of Bosanska Krajina. I am not aware of any indictments of killing of Serb population as genocide (but I could be wrong). Or we can simply call it the killing of Bosnian nationals (without specifying the ethnicities).

I think we should be careful not to enter a gray zone here if we decide to introduce all war crimes as genocide. We will have edit wars from all sides speculating on a definition and which war crimes should be considered a genocide.

So far ICTY had provided the most extensive reasearch to where genocide occured in Bosnia. I think their work should be used as a basis but other credible sources should be introduced as you described them. I do agree that controversial and untrue claims by important sources should be described as such, not omitted.

Let me remind that the genocide is not a single event but a series of systematic and planned actions that are designed to bring a destruction of a certain group or groups. Please see Eight Stages of genocide for more info. This also include a denial as one of the stages of the genocide.

Data that is currently used is from ICTY. I would ask that you bring to light other sources as I will look for them as well. --Dado 18:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Please don't change these parts of the article while discussing the dispute. I am attempting to avoid a revert war which sparked again yesterday. Here is a list of tips on working toward agreement.--AI 01:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed contents

The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks). The Bosnian Genocide has been proven...

1. Name of the article is something not reffered in ICTY. 2. ICTY have cases against all three sides in the war So definition in the first two sentences is disputed. --Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The name is not used by ICTY but it is used by HRW and other Human Rights organizations who provide information and material to ICTY, as well as by respectable public outlets. The definition is what ICTY has provided in terms of genocide in Bosnia (Srebrenica). Perhaps we can rephrase it to say.
The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnians, predominantly Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the war between 1992 and 1995 by authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army.
Also this sentance should be added somewhere:
This article is about genocide that took place during the Bosnian War from 1992-1995 while there were other cases of genocide in the same region during the WWII covered in other articles.--Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, ICTY does have cases on all three sides but they are not the same. On one hand you have indictments for war crimes while on the other is about the genocide. The whole point of the article is to differentiate the two (or three)--Dado 15:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Recent Developments ... There are several genocide trials and indictments currently at the ICTY including Milosevic trial and Karadzic and Mladic indictments for genocide. Evidence have been presented which have prove...

Trials and indictments is better name for this part. Evidence have not been presented, some have been presented but some might be presented (see the shedule). Also, AFAIK evidence have also meaning of testimony in English language so itself it don't prove anything. The court judgement might or not prove something. --Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me to call it Recent Developments especially since the same is used at Srebrenica Massacre article. I think the whole point is to show that these cases are taking place as we present this article and may change the scope of the definition. The evidence that is introduced in these cases were proven. Bodies have been found, identified, cause of death and executioners determined. The only question remains is if the persons indicted for these crimes will bear the responsibility for the executioners.--Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, these "evidence" are not proven. Some of the witness might be perjure witness. Some of the photos might be fake. Look in the http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence Law: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. So nothing in shedule is not fact. So this should be removed. --Oldadamml 09:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with oldadamm that even though some thing have been entered as evidence, they have not been proven in court. Such information should be take taken off until proven, or a qualifier should be added to the comment stating that it has not been proven but only presented as evidence.--AI 02:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not entered as evidence, it is in shedule. Some might be presented, some not. --Oldadamml 08:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Background paragraph

Are these quotation from Prosecutor vs. Krstic? I don't see them there so why should this be write here? --Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The quotes were not from ICTY proceedings as far as I understand and they will need to be placed in the context but I think they are usefull given the definition of genocide.--Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why these quotes should be censored. They are relevant.--AI 03:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Breakdown of confirmed killings by city or region paragraph

This is not comfirmed by ICTY. It is part of trial which might or might not be proven. --Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These have been confirmed as killings as otherwise they would not be addmissible in the court. See my comments above--Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, these "evidence" are not proven. Some of the witness might be perjure witness. Some of the photos might be fake. Look in the http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence Law: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. So nothing in shedule is not fact. So this should be removed.

--Oldadamml 09:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Am I lying?

i have listened to talks and seen evidence that strongly sugests that many of the events in this so called war never hapened. ex; what started it all, the two little musslum kids who said that the serbs pushed their brother into the river, they later admited they had lied but by then it was to late and emense anti-serb sentiment had already spread. please consider the alternate evidence. French media has done a good job of findig the truth, why can't the rest of us? - User:198.166.251.116 16:11, 6 Jun 2005

You are not correct. Also please sign your postings. Don't give us propaganda, if you want to edit the article, then join in.--AI 02:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"disclaimer"

The statement "Some of the information presented here has not been established as fact. Currently the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is ongoing." cannot be applied to the entire article but maybe to some parts that are disputed. Can anyone point to portion of the article that needs this disclaimer. Also is there anyone here to discuss the issues above. Otherwise I will make suggested correction and remove POV tag from this article. --Dado 00:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's accuracy dispute policy (WP:AD) should be followed. I would suggest taking that disclaimer off (Some of the information presented here has not been established as fact. Currently the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is ongoing.) Instead, use the dubious tag at each disputed statement and disputed tag at each disputed paragraph. Don't remove the POV tag until all disputes have been negotiated (Wikipedia:Negotiation). Try to find objective criteria. Just my suggestion.--AI 03:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the disclaimer as it just did not serve any purpose. As the article appeared before there were more items pasted denouncing the entire article that the actual issues than need to be resolved. I have moved dubious statement to specific sentances that are problematic. If we are going to use that system I would ask anyone if they have objections to paste the dubious tag on a specific sentance or a portion of the text. I have also rephrased the definition as stated above. I think there are still some issues to be resolved here so anyone's input will be welcomed. Thanks --Dado 13:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, the disclaimer was POV and a little dishonest, of course some will dispute the removal of the disclaimer. However the dubious tag is a disclaimer on it's own. No one should disagree with the use of the dubious tag, if they do, then refer then to Wikipedia policy (WP:AD).--AI 19:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added a sentance to "Recent developments" section that I find important to consider and I hope you will agree. Question: If we already have a "dubious" tag at the portion of the article that is disputed i.e. "Killings admitted as evidence at ICTY" does the entire article need to start with the POV tag at the top. I would think that if we resolved a good chunk of disputes at this article that POV tag should be removed and other disputes should be resolved on a case by case basis. Any thoughts? --Dado 03:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed contents

Any increase in numbers will only occur after those and other cases (such as the Siege of Sarajevo in which an estimated 12,000 were killed) are ruled to be genocide.

This increase in number MIGHT occur after court process, not will. Also "ruled to be genocide" should be explained (provide links). --Oldadamml 08:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So alternate should read: Any increase in numbers may occur after those and other cases (such as the Siege of Sarajevo in which an estimated 12,000 were killed) are ruled to be genocide. --Dado 2 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

Can we put the Siege of Sarajevo in which an estimated 12,000 were killed elsewhere in the article where such a comment is more relevant. They way it is presented now it breaks up a sentence which is confusing. --AI 3 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)

No, you cannot put estimates until the finish of court process. --Oldadamml 06:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed 23. jun 2005

Above genocide indictments also include incidents where a significant number of Bosnian Croats were also killed particulary in Bosanska Krajina teritories which were under control of Army of Republika Srpska. The shedule in the indictments is below, so this seems incorrect to me. --Oldadamml 07:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know the schedule is bellow but the point is emphasize that also killing of Bosnian Croats are part of the genocide indictments as a clarification of the main definition of the article. ...an organized killing of Bosnians, predominantly Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the war between 1992 and 1995... It serves to say who are other Bosnians included in genocide indictment proceedings.--Dado 05:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But in your sentence it seems that it DID happend. It didn't happend until the court make the judgment. --Oldadamml 29 June 2005 13:54 (UTC)

The killings DID happen. Court judgement will not change that (you cannot bring back the dead). Court judgement will only serve to punish those responsible (whoever that may be)--Dado 2 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

For each possible killing courte prosecutor invite the witness, show the photos, etc. He present the evidence. I will remind you that movie about Srebrenica's wictims were presented on the judgment of Slobodan Milosevic recently to show that the killings DID happend. I sometimes watch the Slobodan Milosevic judgment. For each other possible violation of the law the try to prove it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3528587.stm http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020228IT.htm--Oldadamml 7 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

Genocide did happen

@all:Will you change your attitude if I show you the proves that there were etnic cleansing against Serbs in Bosnia? Will you rewrite the article then? Would you like me to write down the names of all 3287 Serbian civilians brutally killed by Naser Oric troops from 1992 to 1995? Would you like me to write about the way they died? Would you like me to show you pictures of mutilated bodies? Will you believe then? Would you like to see Muslim extremists destroying Serbian churches and monasteries? Do you even have an idea how many refuges from Bosnia we have in here Serbia today? Do you know how many Serbs lived in Bosnia and Crotia before the war and how many of them are there nowadays? Theodosias 19:05, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

US resolution removed

I removed US resolution because it is not officialy UN document. Previous discussion on talk pages for Srebrenica_massacre and here gave the conclusion that ONLY ICTY judgments are relevant for the recent war issues in the former Yugoslavia. --Oldadamml 06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the same is noted on Srebrenica article in Recent developments section. Although I don't care much about it, it is an official US document. Also we have used HRW and few other reputable institutions here as well.--Dado 17:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So it will be returned, as it is defined as a US resolution.Emir Arven 17:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Biljana Plavsic pleaded guilty to war crimes

Biljana Plavsic CNN

In an interview she gave later, she admitted that she lied when she pleaded guilty. Nikola 15:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find in the link you provided that she admitted that she lied when she pleaded guilty. Do you have a source that confirms this. --Dado 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When have you asked for a source and I didn't have one? [2], [3]. Nikola 22:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Again I don't see anywhere that she said that she lied before the court. Only in one paragraph the author of the text is interpreting her statement about not creating a contract to accept the guilty plee (which is untrue because she did accept the contract as can be seen from the official judgement). Everything else is pure fluff. I am begining to doubt that she ever said what you are claim she did.--Dado 22:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 ??? "says that she decided to admit guilt in front of the Hague tribunal when she realised that it is completely impossible for her to proove her innocence and supply defence witnesses"; "she doesn't deny that crimes were committed by the Serbian side during war in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. Yet, she claims that she was never involved in war questions"; "at least I don't have to sit there and listen to false witnesses"... Oh, and "I can't understand one man, for whom I know that he is honourable, and that is general Mladic" Nikola 12:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


You stated "she admitted that she lied when she pleaded guilty." I don't see anywhere explicitly that she said that she lied. Lieing in from of the court is a serious offense and you better be dead on with your claims. All she said was bunch of inconclusive political fluff that can be interpreted in several different ways and where one cannot see what were the entire circuimstances of her statement. Every plea bargain comes with certain conditions. Everything else is her POV which we can add in the article but I see no point.

About a more serious issue, you are using this discussion to retract attention from your vandalism of the article and edits that don't have any merit. Either productively work towards resovling this or you will be sanctioned. --Dado 17:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, she didn't said that she lied, she only said that she isn't guilty. In ICTY, she said that she is guilty. That is quite conclusive.
If you look ten centimeters above, you will notice that you started the discussion. Nikola 07:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


So now you are saying that she did not say she lied. I don't know when and where she stated that she was not guilty after she admitted that she was guilty before the court. Or perhaps this is what you are refering to.

"kaže da je odlučila da prizna krivicu pred Haškim tribunalom kada je shvatila da je potpuno nemoguće da dokaže svoju nevinost i da obezbedi svedoke odbrane, jer niko nije želeo da svedoči."

She realized that it was "immposible to prove her innocence and find witnesses for her defense because no one wanted to testify" .

Hm. What could that mean? Perhaps that she is guilty and no one would want to lie before the court so save her? Well one is presumed innocent until proven guilty and she was proven guilty. And I did not start this discussion nor have I began attacking this article for no reason as you are doing --Dado 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So now you are trolling. She did said that she lied, just not with that exact words. In her plea she said that she is guilty, later she said that she is innocent. That's all that matters.
Oh, and she wasn't proven guilty. She plea bargained. And, you did start this discussion. I answered to an anon, then you asked me. Nikola 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I have just now noticed this article. Like many other users have said on the talk page, I find even the title not neutral and factually inaccurate, and what little contents there is even more. I see that the article was tagged as POV, which was of course removed without any attempt of discussion. So, I will return the tag, adding factual accuracy tag as well. Doubtless it will be reverted again, well, so be it. Nikola 15:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

What is disputed here other than the statement by Plavsic, which frankly, I don't care much about.--Dado 15:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm, pretty much everything?
  • The title of the article.
    • The name (title) is commonly used: [4], [5] --Dado 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Use by a few de facto pressure groups does not mean "commonly used". In addition, the groups are using the term wrongly, even if sincere. Nikola 08:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Well let's see what others think about Human Rights Watch and United Human Rights. You apparently have no respect for them. --Dado 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I do. However, these groups are abused by politicians in their home countries. Nikola 10:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Same as you are --Dado 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't understand this. Nikola 11:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Again I will defer this question to other users. --Dado 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized killing of Bosnians, predominantly Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the war between 1992 and 1995 by authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army. - no such thing happened.
    • Your POV and highly offensive denial. Parallels claiming that Holocaust did not happen. --Dado 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't. Nikola 08:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Bosnian Genocide has been proven at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) through the court case entitled Prosecutor vs Krstic (see Srebrenica Massacre). - ICTY has no credibility. Even if it would have some, this is still not true.
    • See [6] Krsic case.--Dado 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • ICTY still has no credibility, and the "judgement" refers only to Srebrenica. Nikola 08:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • If you have a problem with ICTY bring it up on that article. It is generally aceptable to the majority of world countries. Unless the Wikipedia is a settlement of radical fringe pushing highly offensive and illegal (per international law) agenda than it should be acceptable here as well.--Dado 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Majority of world countries are completely outside of ICTY's field and it does not relate to them in any way. Nikola 10:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
            • ICTY was established by the UN resolution passed before the 190 nations. It is legal. End of discussion. Its neutrality is controlled by the balance of state government's and NGO recomendations, and in particular by the CICC (Coalition for the International Criminal Court) a coalition of over 2000 world wide NGO's --Dado 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
              • No. ICTY was established by a resolution of the UN Security Council, which is not authorised to establish international courts. It is illegal. It is also illegitimate because majority (or at least, a significant minority) of people under its supposed jurisdiction doesn't consider it legitimate. CICC is apparently doing a very poor job, as there are many cases where the court has shown that it is not impartial. Nikola 11:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Security council had the mandate to found the ICTY. It is legal. --Dado 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The government of Republika Srpska found 7,779 missing people in Srebrenica. - not true.
    • I don't have a link on hand but I am sure one can be presented --Dado 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't bother. The government was forced to issue a statement in which it claimed to have found 7,779 missing people. Nikola 08:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • So you admit that they made a statement (under preasure which we can pointed out)--Dado 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • They have, there's nothing to admit about it. But they did not find 7779 missing people, as the article claims. Nikola 10:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
            • First you were claiming that they did not found 7,779 missing people in Srebrenica. Than you admited that they issued a statement in which they did find this number. Now again you are claiming that they did not find it again. Could you be more clear. Suggest the alternate sentance. --Dado 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
              1. The government did not issue a statement; the government was forced to issue a statement.
              2. The statement said that they find this number (or maybe it doesn't, but I trust you that it does).
              3. The statement was false; they did not find this number.
              • I suggest that the article is deleted entirely. Nikola 11:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
                • I am OK with deleting the section "The government of Republika Srpska found 7,779 missing people in Srebrenica". --Dado 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That from the introduction only. Nikola 20:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nikola, if you have specific problems with the article, offer a solution as well. You may question ICTY's credibility, but that has nothing to do with this article. Also, if you have more correct sources on Srebrenica, do provide them. Organized killings, tortures, etc. have of course occured, just like the Holocaust did, and can be sourced by first-hand accounts reported by media as well as testemonies in the Haag. --dcabrilo 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I propose that the article is deleted, and until it is done, that there is factual accuracy disputed tag at the top, so that unaware readers don't get impression that it makes some sense.
To unaware users beware of these claims who have no basis in reality and are pure denial of what has been proven as legal truth at ICTY. If you care to learn more see Srebrenica massacre for start.
To unaware users ICTY is illegal, illegitimate, and not impartial. Nikola 08:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Your POV. Bring it up on ICTY page--Dado 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
My, and POV of many other people. Nikola 10:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
So much about solutions. And sorry, but if the article, in its second sentence says that "The Bosnian Genocide has been proven at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)", then ICTY's credibility has a lot to do with the article. I don't understand what do you refer to by "sources on Srebrenica". Yes, organised killings, torture, etc. have of course occured, but a genocide organised by the authorities of Republika Srpska simply did not happen. Nikola 20:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
In March 1995, Radovan Karadžić, President of Republika Srpska (“RS”), in spite of the international community pressure to end the war and the ongoing efforts to negotiate a peace agreement, issued a directive to the VRS concerning the long-term strategy of the VRS forces in the enclave. The directive, known as “Directive 7”, specified that the VRS was to: "Complete the physical separation of Srebrenica from Žepa as soon as possible, preventing even communication between individuals in the two enclaves. By planned and well-thought out combat operations, create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica."--Dado 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Your introduction is patently false. A few Western countries are not international community. Further, those countries were those which pushed for start of the war in the first place. What they marketed as efforts to end the war and negotiate a peace agreement were efforts to win the war in their favor.
Karadzic apparently wanted to pressure population of Srebrenica so that they would stop the raids on surrounding Serbian willages. Nikola 08:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The whole paragraph was taken from, I think, Krstic judgement. It is not my introducion. Speaking of raids:

Diego Enrique Arria (Venezuela's permanent representative to the UN during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina) , told the Trial Chamber in the Milosevic case that the United Nations' failure to take decisive action against ethnic cleansing by Bosnian Serbs produced a climate of impunity that permitted slow motion genocide against the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica from 1993 to its culmination in 1995. More at [7] There was a continuity of premeditated doctrine in Srebrenica that only culminated in 1995. The directive was in line with the strategic objective which led (and Karadzic was aware of it beforehand) to genocide.--Dado 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What an idiot. He doesn't even stop to think that maybe Muslim massacres of Serbian villages around Srebrenica might caused Serbian retaliation. Nikola 10:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nikola, Can you stop using Ad hominems and talk with civility? as this is what is expected from members. Dado, has valid and sound arguments unlike you. --Street Scholar 20:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That was sarcasm. Of course he knew that, but for some reason forgot to mention it in ICTY. He's not an idiot.
I don't think that Dado has any solid arguments. Nikola 09:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


OK, lets leave that at that. However the comment you made was not very nice and It also seems like you are showing sympathy to the atrocities the Serbs committed. By trying to say well the Bosnians brought this on themselves. And also can you not make generalizing comments such as "...maybe Muslim massacres..." there are 1.6 Million Muslims in the world. And also you wouldn't like it if someone said: "Christian Massacre of Bosnians" rather then saying: "Serb massacre of Bosnians". Just think of your words before you type, thanks. --Street Scholar 12:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to help, but you may want to read Bosnians, Bosniaks and Muslims by nationality first. Zocky 18:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for good-hearted advice. I believed that it is obvious that if Serbian crimes were prompted by Bosnian Muslim crimes, that doesn't make them justified, but only explains them. So, that's why I was mentioning that.
When I said Muslims I meant Bosnian Muslims, I use the term because I don't like term Bosniaks. Nikola 06:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Nikola, I couldn't give a yellow flying money about the fact that you don't like the term; Bosniaks, don't go using generalizations when you're referring to incident which allegedly may have even taken place. --Street Scholar 15:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Scholar, I couldn't give a yellow flying money about the fact that you couldn't give a yellow flying money about the fact that I don't like the term; I wasn't making a generalisation, and if you still think that I am, you should read articles Dado recommended (especially Muslims by nationality to find out why. Nikola 07:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Last changes are an improvement, but I have to note that now the article is internally inconsistent. Introduction states that "Bosnian Genocide was an organized killing of Bosnians during the war between 1992 and 1995", then the following sentence says that "Bosnian Genocide is a term used by some academic and human rights institutions when referring to the case of genocide that took place in Srebrenica". Nikola 09:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

ICTY declared Srebrenica massacre as an act of genocide. Academic and Human rights groups refer to this act of genocide as a Bosnian genocide. Hence the definition of Srebrenica massacre is the same as definition of Bosnian genocide. If A=B and B=C, than A=C as well, where A = Srebrenica massacre, B = act of genocide and C = Bosnian genocide. The section is perfectly balanced. --Dado 22:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that it does not exist. The article does not say what you have just wrote. Nikola 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Yes it does--Dado 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and anyone who can read can see it. Nikola 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that I can't read? --Dado 04:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I am certain that you know perfectly that the article does not say that. Nikola 07:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying to specific as possible since you already removed the more generic NPOV I had previously placed, and I think if you read the WP:WEASEL it very good examples of why this article is not NPOV, I'm attempting to highlight this to improve quality of this article. --Lowg 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Yet you are still to note what is specifically wrong with current verision of this article. Repeatedly blanketing entire or a section of an article with the POV tag without explaination can be considered vandalism.--Dado 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This section in particular is obviously not NPOV, maybe we can start here, then I will point out other NPOV issues in article.

"Bosnian side claims that Srebrenica..." "Bosnians point out " "Bosnian side further claims "

"Many Serb groups on the other hand espoused" "Some others,... have engaged in pointing out" "Some groups have manipulated the number of victims"

Your edit summary says "Please read POV section too. I was involved in that discussion and the article is a result of it. State which words or phrases are biased)". If you made all these statements, they should be attributed to you, instead of attributed them to anonymous sources. They give the force of authority to a statement without leting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. Please read WP:WEASEL for more details. --Lowg 22:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You must live under a rock to object these items but fine. I have added sources to claims that you consider problematic.--Dado 23:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

The link that was added shows data that is more than a year old. Reasearch and Documentation Center in Sarajevo recently (December 2005) presented a breakdown of casulties in the Bosnian War. I have added a table to an article Bosnian War that shows this.

I have nothing against adding the section Criticism or maybe Controversy or Denial, revisionism and scepticism such as is on Srebrenica massacre but such that will describe the sentiments and statements by the other side and not include personal thoughts and analyses such as

one cannot claim that the killing of Bosniaks by Serbs was genocide without also claiming that the killing of Serbs by Bosniaks was also genocide, which no one has ever claimed.

This has no place on Wikipedia (see WP:NOT). I will revert the article for now until the sensible section could be written --Dado 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you agree that there should be criticism, but don't think that criticism is valid, you should edit the criticism, not remove it. Nikola 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Denial of genocide is not the same as criticism without a serious sentence. --Emir Arven 11:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the study was conducted a year ago couldn't possibly be less relevent. It was carried out by the ICTY, and it is still the only study used in the ICTY court, and if it's good enough for them it is good enough for Wikipedia. It is also the most reliable breakdown of casualties we have, as the study done in December 2005 was done by a Bosnian Muslim so it is more likely to be biased than the one done by the ICTY.


No one is saying that is less relevant but you conclusion and analysis is irelevant. I have added a section similar to one Srebrenica massacre. I would ask you one more time to cool off. --Dado 00:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree on the name of this article, for one thing; if it's called Bosnian Genocide than besides the Srebrenica Massacre you should include Kravica Massacre (over 1000 Serbs were slaughtered in relative proximity of Srebrenica by Bosniaks), and murders of Croats as well. Next thing: Genocide does not exist unless it's ackgnowledged by the world; as far as I know there are still more opponents to this theory than there are suppoters, since all 3 sides have had blood on their hands and commited horrifying war crimes, so more appropriate word would be Massacre, as it's beeing used in literature. The word genocide is very ungratefull to use in the Balkans since there have been many during history, so ackgnowledgement of only one would be extremely unfair to the others (take Jasenovac genocide as an example, where hundreds of thousands of Serbs have perished during WWII) and would lead to chain reaction, which would be very risky in the Balkans that has lately commited itself to European integrations. It could also apply to at least 5,000 Serbs that are currently missing in Kosovo and thousands more in former yugoslav republics....the proof for this claim would probably be the enormous pressure that has been put on B&H government by international community to drop charges (for genocide) against Serbia and Montenegro.

Dispute and vandalism

Let me clarify something here. Just because there is 63K of opinions on this discussion page it does not grant the general clearance to anyone to randomly dispute this article without justifying the dispute with specific valid and credible issues. Most of the issues presented here were either pure garbage and personal grievences with the facts or they were already corrected in the article.

On top of that the anonimous user has recently entered this article and has violated 3RR and was banned for 8 hours only to be back as a sock puppet under different IP. I refuse to waste my time and engage in a discussion with the user that 1. Apparently does not understand how the Wikipedia works or 2. know's is well enough to pose as sock puppet to avoid the ban on his aggressive behaviour on this article. 3. has apparently no understanding of the issue and 4. Has probably not even read the article.

If anyone else is open for a constructive, rational discussion on elements that may be disputed I am open for it--Dado 19:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As an admin unrelated to the editing of this article, I have semi-protected this page due to the massive reverts and semi-vandal attacks going on since early January. Only registered usersa may now edit this page. If vandalism continues under registered names, please report as needed. -Husnock 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I dispute this article, not its content, but its purpose for existence. By the article's own admission, the only case of genocide in Bosnia was the Srebrenica massacre. Since we already have an article about the Srebrenica massacre, why do we need this article? Surely all the information in here is already in the Srebrenica massacre article (or can be added if it isn't)? Edrigu 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is relevant for many reasons some of which have been explained on this discussion page back 6 months ago so I would suggest you to read it thoroughly. The simplest way to explain it, the article is based on a similar grounds as the Rwandan Genocide article. Furthermore the term Bosnian Genocide is in regular use and the article explains that and provides relevant sources.

It's true that only case of genocide proven so far is Srebrenica massacre. However there are at least 3 other court cases ongoing that are based on indictments for genocide on the other regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina (in particular Bosanska Krajina). All of that is quite clearly spelled out on the article.--Dado 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That comparisson doesn't make sense at all. The Rwandan Genocide refers to a single, continuous act which took place over only a few days. On the other hand, it's not even clear what the Bosnian Genocide refers to. If it refers to only the Srebrenica massacre, then it should be merged with the article about the latter, since it is against Wikipedia policy to have multiple articles about the same thing. If it refers to the entire Bosnian war, then you would have to prove that the entire war was one big genocide, which not even the ICTY has claimed. Edrigu 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you dispute the article's existance then take it to the AfD and see if it passes. I think the only reason you don't is because you know the nomination would go up in flames. Bosnian Genocide is a widely-used and accepted term for exactly what this article describes. Just because some people wish it didn't exist doesn't mean it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Asim Led 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I just might do that one of these days when I have more time. Edrigu 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the following a couple of days ago, but did not post it for some unexplained reason. Looks like Edrigu beat me to it in the meantime. But anyway, here goes. I see nothing in this text that required a separate article and couldn't have been placed in the alredy existing Srebrenica Massacre article. For one, its non-Srebrenica content is three-lines long and it's still called BOSNIAN genocide. Srebrenica alone (a town in Eastern Bosnia that covers oh-I-don't-know 1.5% of its territory) is hardly entire Bosnia. In an attempt to "pad the stats" article then uses a lot of 'may had been', 'statistcs still may change' weasel stuff in the Recent Developments section which as I said is the only non-Srebrenica part of the article. User:Zvonko

Back to present day. As for the responses. What Dado calls "regular use" is a stretch to say the least. And what Asim referred to as "widely-used and accepted term" is a wild exaggeration. The article talks about “some academics” (doesn’t mention which ones – grounds for weasel wording) and "some human rights organizations" (again without any references). But even if these were to be produced (hopefully, you'll cite the basis for such a statement), "some academics and some human rights organizations" is hardly "widely-used, accepted term" and "regular use".User:Zvonko


This is just a sample that is also noted on the article. I can find more where that came from. What's the problem? --Dado 03:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


And by the way Google search yields 9090 hits if you need more. 'nuff said --Dado 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


All of these links talk about what went on in Srebrenica, and mention the term 'Bosnian' as a geographical adjective in an effort of making the story more accessible and readily comprehended because they're aware 'Srebrenica' by itself means nothing to most of their readership. It's the same as writing "Croatian skier wins Schladming slalom", or "Serbian b-baller drops in 25points" instead of "Ivica Kostelic wins....." or "Nenad Krstic drops...." knowing these two names ring no bells for majority of the readers around the world.

It would be pretty pointless to write two articles on Wikipedia named "Nenad Krstic" and "Serbian basketball player", both about Nenad Krstic, using the above as the basis. Having two articles about the same thing is pointless. This article offers nothing that Srebrenica massacre didn't already. Zvonko

Actually, Google returns 736 hits when Wikipedia is excluded[8]. Add to that that some of them are not mention of the article's supposed subject, but of "a Bosnian genocide" (such as the above article from Taipei Times) and the number is even smaller. The term is in some use, but it doesn't mean what this article says it does. Nikola 08:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Searching just for "Bosnian genocide" limits the matter, although it shows the exact term this article takes is still pretty commonly used (the Taipei Times article is an exception rather than the rule). Searching for Bosnia and Genocide as well as Bosnian and Genocide without wikipedia links comes up with somewhere around 1,600,000 hits. Of these, only 168,000 mention Srebrenica. Just because the exact term "Bosnian genocide" isn't as commonly used says little more than that such a recent historical event does not have an established term in textbooks. If you searched the exact titles of current event articles from the front page you wouldn't get nearly as many results as just generally searching for the event in question. This is a similar situation here. Despite how the facts might be twisted around by Smolenski, it is hardly a wild assertion that a genocide occured in Bosnia. For an interesting comparison, the search for Bosnia Genocide above actually had more links than Armenia genocide. Asim Led 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what makes this a separate article from Srebrenica Genocide. Maybe a request for comment is what we need? Edrigu 15:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that Taipei Times is rule rather than exception. And your proposed search takes us even further away - "Bosnia genocide suspect arrested", "Bosnia Genocide Resources", "General Guilty of Bosnia Genocide". Neither of these refers to entire Bosnia. Nikola 07:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Because the articles on the Bosnian genocide and the Srebrenica massacre are not the same thing, just like the article on the Holocaust and Auschwitz are not the same thing. The Srebrenica massacre is the single most famous and significant event in the Bosnian genocide, but not the only one. Asim Led 19:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
But it IS the only one, the article itself admits that! Edrigu 02:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The article admits that as of early 2006 its the only one recognised as such by an international court, but that there are numerous other cases involving charges of genocide with pending decisions. Asim Led 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There could be a million charges of genocide, that's irrelevent because only Srebrenica is recognized. Besides, even if there were more cases of genocide, there would still be no need for this article because each of those cases would have its own article. Edrigu 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is quite relevant that the same institution that defined the Srebrenica massacre as the act of genocide is conducting several other trials including genocide in other regions of Bosnia that share the same established doctrine that Srebrenica event had. It is not suprising that many consider this as a commonality that is defined in terms of a Bosnian genocide or that the Srebrenica is only an example of what has happened elsewhere in Bosnia.

Also here is an excerb from Milosevic indictment:

COUNTS 1 and 2 GENOCIDE OR COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE

  1. From on or about 1 March 1992 until 31 December 1995, Slobodan MILOSEVIC, acting alone or in concert with other members of the joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation and execution of the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslim national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, including: Bijeljina; Bosanski Novi; Brcko; Kljuc; Kotor Varos; Prijedor; Sanski Most and Srebrenica. The destruction of these groups was effected by:

The widespread killing of thousands of Bosnian Muslims during and after the take-over of territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those listed above, as specified in Schedule A to this indictment. In many of the territories, educated and leading members of these groups were specifically targeted for execution, often in accordance with pre-prepared lists. After the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, almost all captured Bosnian Muslim men and boys, altogether several thousands, were executed at the places where they had been captured or at sites to which they had been transported for execution. etc.. etc..

Others indictments are relatively similar. Now it stands that this trial is still ongoing but the article that we have here is very carefull not to make presuptions of guilt until the trial is finished.

Your suggestion that each incident will have its article is probably true but it is also clear that this article binds them together in what is acceptable and relatively widely used term.--Dado 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


There are entire books written on the subject, hundreds of thousands of mentions on the internet, and a clear presence in the relative political arenas. That the article shouldn't exist because only one incident has been labeled as such by an international court completely misses the point: the event is so recent that the international court in question hasn't had time to rule on all charges. And asserting that the article shouldn't exist even if there were multiple acts of genocide recognised by an international court is ridiculous, considering the wide variety of umbrella articles on wikipedia for a series of sub-articles with far less in common. There are many other holes in your arguement but, in short, I disagree; and I also feel that if this article was put up for deletion that many others would disagree as well. Asim Led 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Before you two get carried away, I will remind you that legality, legitimacy and impartiality of ICTY are seriously disputed. Bottom line: the article says that
If I hear this bullshit about ICTY being illegal one more time.... ICTY is perfectly legal and credible. Serbs raise this point as a matter of politics but ICTY has been founded under legal mandate. To question its legality serves only to propagandists and historical revisionsts.
ICTY is illegal, ICTY is illegal, ICTY is illegal. You heard it three times. Now what? Nikola 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized killing of Bosnians, predominantly male Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) during the war between 1992 and 1995 by authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army.
The Bosnian Genocide is a term used by some academic and human rights institutions when referring to the case of genocide that took place in Srebrenica which has been proven at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) through the court case entitled Prosecutor vs Krstić (see Srebrenica Massacre). Thus far the Srebrenica massacre has been the only case which the UN Hague tribunal has officially defined as genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The presentation of evidence implicating the killing of at least 8,000 persons, predominantly Bosniaks has been made. Bosnian-Herzegovina Commission for Missing Persons claims that the number of killings is much greater than has been currently represented at the tribunal.
While actually Bosnian Genocide is a propaganda term used by some media, human rights groups and governments in order to create impression that in Bosnia, organized killing of Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) happened during the war between 1992 and 1995 by authorities of Republika Srpska and its army. In reality, no such thing happened. There were instances of RS army killing Bosniak civilians, but there were also numerous instances of it not killing them when it easily could, and instances of Bosnian Muslim army killing Serb civilians.
The rest of the article is even worse than the introduction: the US resolution presented while not noting hostile politics of USA towards Serbia;
Completelly irrelevant. Ad himinem logical fallacy--Dado 15:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 ? Nikola 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

valid strategic objectives presented as background for genocide, while neither of them actually requires it; three statements of which one is retracted,

I think you are refering to a Biljana Plavsic statement which you never provided source where she explicitly reverted this exact statement. In the past you have provided articles that shown conversations with her where an author of the article made personal conclusions about her position.--Dado 15:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have, multiple times. What you say is wrong: she explicitly said that she is innocent and accepted the plea bargain because she couldn't prove it. Nikola 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

into which you read anything you want, but neither of them actually says what you claim it does; use of terms "Denial" and "revisionism" which implies that this is established fact, which is being denied and revised, while it was denied from the first moment anyone claimed it;

Bosnian Genocide is an established fact at least in the case of Srebrenica--Dado 15:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
No. Even if your version of Srebrenica events would be an established fact, it still would have nothing to do with supposed Bosnian Genocide. Nikola 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

and various inaccuracies sprinkled throughout, such as pointers to "this ideology", "prior awareness of the consequences" and so on. Nikola 07:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Asim said "For an interesting comparison, the search for Bosnia Genocide above actually had more links than Armenia genocide."

I'm not sure whether you're using the above as an actual argument or just trying to pad the stats a little, but its fairly weak, nonetheless

Paris Hilton, chick who shops and has her street-walking photos taken for a living, returns 4X more Google hits (26 million) than Marilyn Monroe, one of the defining pop-culture icons of the second half of the 20th century (6 million).

William Hung, half-retarded one-time American Idol contestant returns just about the same number of hits (6.5 million) as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Humphrey Bogart all added together (2 + 2 + 2 million) - three of the performers whose careers spanned the entire century.

Eminem returns about the same as John Lennon and Elvis Presley hits added together.

Are we to conclude based on this that they're that much more socially and culturally significant and relevant. Of course not. That just proves recent events and contemporary personae, no matter how insignificant and absurd, get way more attention, especially in cyberspaces, over something that happened 50, 70, or 100 years ago.

Are you seriously comparing Google hits of Paris Hilton, William Hung and Eminem to Bosnian Genocide? --Dado 15:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously comparing Google hits of Paris Hilton, William Hung and Eminem to Bosnian Genocide?
Huh!?
I'm pointing out the fallacy of him padding thae stats by saying Bosnian Genocide returns more than Armenian Genocide. And also pointing out the fallacy of using the web as a supreme judge of relevance of two events that happened in different eras. And you seem to be pretendng not to notice that. Zvonko 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So weak, in fact, that it’s used throughout Wikipedia. Either way, if you really want to make an issue of it, I could point out that all of the figures you searched for achieved their fame at a time when the internet had attained great world-wide popularity, whereas the Bosnian Genocide occurred well before this period of time. A search for certain contemporary figures reveals a different story. Kurt Cobain, for instance, scores 3.5 million hits compared to Lennon's 18 and Presley's 11. Asim Led 06:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Asim said "Searching for Bosnia and Genocide as well as Bosnian and Genocide without wikipedia links comes up with somewhere around 1,600,000 hits. Of these, only 168,000 mention Srebrenica. "

I randomly opened between 70-100 pages that come back when you give the above criteria minus Srebrenica (two hours of my life I'll never get back, by the way). Not one of them mentioned a specific non-Srebrenica case in connection with genocide. Not a single one. Some cited specific things that happened in Srebrenica without mentioning the town's name, others used "Bosnian" instead of "Srebrenica" for comprehension reasons in a way I described previously, and yet others had "Bosnian" and "genocide" on the same page but in no connection to each other.

Asim finally concluded "Just because the exact term "Bosnian genocide" isn't as commonly used says little more than that such a recent historical event does not have an established term in textbooks. "

Exactely, and here you're prejudicating that it will or that it should have an established term in textbooks. Wikipedia is not to be used for writing history. And its articles definitely aren't supposed to reflect personal psychic predictions or personal opinions/desires about choices of historical terminology.Zvonko

I have provided an excerb from an Milosevic indictment above that talks about the crimes commited in other regions of BiH. if you cared to read.--Dado 15:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, notice the word "crimes". Last time I checked, crime does not equal genocide.User:Zvonko
No. But a genocide is composed of such crimes as the ones listed above. Asim Led 20:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Asim Led would appreciate it if Zvonko would stop writing in 3rd person seeing as it is getting mildly ridiculous. Asim Led would also like to point out the numerous smaller cases of genocide wholly separate from Srebrenica that, when searched for specifically, together attain dozens of thousands of hits as well. Asim Led would further like to note that the fact that cases dealing with these instances of genocide have not yet been resolved in international court as of early 2006 should not cause any obstruction seeing as this lack of official recognition can be easily pointed out and followed by a list of facts on the matter. Asim Led 06:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can't talk about something that isn't defined by trying to define it (at least not in an encyclopedia entry) and then correct it by pointing out: 'oh, by the way, this strictly speaking doesn't really exist as such, though it very well may have, and here's why I think that it should exist or that it will'. Srebrenica does not equal entire Bosnia. Either have this article be about War crimes in Bosnia which would include all the non-Srebrenica stuff or have it concetrate on legal aspects of Srebrenica, as I suggested below.Zvonko 02:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't defined how?
...Isn't defined as genocide, the article itself is trying to define it as such. This article, the way its currently written, takes Srebrenica (which does have legal basis to be mentioned in terms of genocide) and tries to lump it in with other war crimes committed against Muslims (which no court ever labeled as genocide). According to its title, the article is implying a Bosnia-wide genocide committed by Serbs against Muslims took place (and maybe it's also saying that Croats, too, 'effectively helped Serbs along' for a period of time, it isn't really clear). As evidence it offers 1 or 2 pending court cases the outcome of which can certainly not be psychically predicted even though it tries to. That is what I object to. The article is called Bosnian Genocide and yet it only talks about Srebrenica. All of the other non-Srebrenica stuff that would hopefully justify the adjective "Bosnian" in its title (meaning: more than just Srebrenica) is speculation and predictions. So, as I said, my suggestion is to either have the article be about legal side of Srebrenica (which in large part it is already) or to give it a major re-haul into War Crimes in Bosnia theme (although that may be a bit too ambitious) but it would be a start.Zvonko 11:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

ICTY prosecution has labeled incidents in Omarska camp, Manjaca camp, Brcko, Zvornik, Visegrad and Sarajevo as genocide (to name few). International court of Justice has a case of BiH vs SCG for genocide that is to begin shortly. The trials are not finished but that does not lessen the fact that acts commited can be defined as genocide under the Roman statute and that is what many sources are doing including academic and media. Article is carefull about not to jump to conclusions before the trial is over but it serves at least to point to other cases of war crimes that many in the world consider to be also cases of genocide on the teritory of BiH.

Nikola's comments don't even merit a response.--Dado 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

ICTY prosecution was wrong, and you know it, so stop dragging that old argument again and again. Nikola 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think he was saying that it is an established term in textbooks. --Dado 15:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, read what he wrote again. You won't be thinking that anymore.Zvonko 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Right. So please explain to me then, strictly using english language norms, what term should be used to describe a genocide that took place in Bosnia? Or is this impossible to do without delving into "personal psychic predictions"? Asim Led 05:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As I already stated, all of this could've been mentioned in Srebrenica Massacre article, but if you (the general you) feel further explanations are required to Srebrenica or that this legal speak (which, essentially, is what this article is about) would clutter the original Srebrenica article, you could name this article Genocide in Srebrenica or Legal Case for genocide in Srebrenica and have it as a companion / addendum article to Srebrenica Massacre. Zvonko 01:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No genocide which encompassed entire Bosnia happened recently. Nikola 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful. Now you might want to try and actually answer my question. Asim Led 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As no genocide happened in Bosnia, there is no term which should be used to describe it. Nikola 10:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You have yet to answer my question. Read what I wrote again and quit straying off topic. Asim Led 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless you guys can bring some valid arguements and not beat the dead horse I will have to ask for admin mediation on this case because frankly I am getting tired of this non-sense--Dado 15:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, with that disingenuous, pre-determined attitude, this will certainly not work.Zvonko 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Dado: "It is quite relevant that the same institution that defined the Srebrenica massacre as the act of genocide is conducting several other trials including genocide in other regions of Bosnia that share the same established doctrine that Srebrenica event had. It is not suprising that many consider this as a commonality that is defined in terms of a Bosnian genocide or that the Srebrenica is only an example of what has happened elsewhere in Bosnia."
This is full of editorializing. Translated into common language: “None of this was/is established, but I hope it will be so I wrote an entry on Wikipedia to anticipate that event.”
You also wrote: "Now it stands that this trial is still ongoing but the article that we have here is very carefull not to make presuptions of guilt until the trial is finished. "
How can something entitled Bosnian Genocide not be presuming guilt!?Zvonko 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Dado appears to be thinking that he'll be able to vandalise Wikipedia when ICTY judges Milosevic guilty. Rest assured Dado, you won't. Nikola 08:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth hurts, doesn't it. --Dado 15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, truth is sweet and lovable, and you hate her. Nikola 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation has been requested for this article --Dado 18:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tag

Is the tag really necessary? It's been for quitte a while here... --HolyRomanEmperor 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. But than again I am not the one who is disputing the article. --Dado 04:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The article speaks about things that have never happened as if they have really happened. Nikola 07:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Events did happen and your denial is also included in the article so I don't see a problem with the article. --Dado 18:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, and I though that you two have argues only on places within BiH.

I'm sorry if I seem harsh for saying this, but you must either learn a common language or both stay out of your "disputes". Please don't get insulted by this - by your conflicts are starting to colateral damage the rest of good ol' wiki. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I thought that this topic does relates to BiH. Instead of commenting on users what is your comment on the content presented in the article? --Dado 22:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Relates to BiH, yes; but not places in BiH that have been cought in edit wars (Prijedor, Cazin,...) --HolyRomanEmperor 13:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article is wikipedia-worthy. Although, that mention "predominantly male" is a little unencyclopedic. I mean, I know that males had the most sacrifices - but that can be seen in the text. This way, it is unnecessary exclamation, I am afraid to admit. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

...on the second hand, the article could be also at least a little bigger and tydied. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I agree with your comments in general. I agree that it needs to be expanded and cleaned up. There are few items I think would need to be rephrased as well. However, I have refrained from editing on this article since it is such a sensitive topic that any movement will probably cause an edit war. In addition to that, although I have started this article I feel as if I am a persona non grata on this article and my edits are blindly viewed as biased by some users.

Please bring up suggestions on how to revise and settle this issue. Thanks --Dado 18:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Nikola should specify what he thinks didn't happen and then follow the policy route:
  • If no source at all can be found for the claim, then it should be removed.
  • If a partisan source claims it happened, then the claim should be attributed to that source (e.g. ...according to source X, this happened ...).
  • If all sources (neutral and some partisan) agree that something happened, then it can be presented as a statement of fact.
--Latinus 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Let me remind what was Nikola's principle position so far most of which can be found on this discussion page above.

  • Bosnian genocide did not happen.
  • Even if the genocide was proven at the ICTY, ICTY is illegal and hence has no merit or at a very least is a partisan in itself (which is a logical fallacy and a dubious argument at all)
  • Would say that I am spreading lies and hate the truth (which is an ad hominem logical fallacy and borderline personal attack)
  • Would say that I am wrong in this summary of his position and that I am commenting on a user and not the content which would somehow discredit me.
  • Or conjure up another nonproductive argument.

Instead of asking others, who have dragged out this issue to an absolute absurdity with their comments, I am asking you and Holy to comment on the article and point out which elements are problematic. --Dado 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Main problem with the article is that it claims that "The Bosnian Genocide was an organized killing of Bosnians during the war between 1992 and 1995 by authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army." Authorities of Republika Srpska and its army have never organised a killing of Bosnians on a level which would encompass entire Bosnia or a significant portion of it, nor does anyone claim that they did, including even ICTY (which is illegal and not impartial, and it isn't logical fallacy to say so), and so there has been no event which could be described as "the Bosnian Genocide". Nikola 22:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nikola, but ICTY is commonly viewed as legitimate and, as far as I know, is recognised as such by every member of the UN, so their rulings, for our purposes at least, are valid. If an institution of some credibility were to doubt its legitimacy, then you could say something like the incident at Srebrenica was held to be a case of genocide by the ICTY, however, their impartiality and legitimacy have been contested by X, Y and Z. If every credible institution however acknowledges its legitimacy, then nothing need be mentioned and their legitimacy and impartiality are presumed, therefore it is also presumed that the Srebrenica incident was both factually and legally a case of genocide.

However, as the ICTY defined only the Srebrenica incident as genocide (didn't it?), I'm suggesting that the contested paragraph be replaced with:

The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was a massacre of Bosnians, predominantly male Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), conducted by the Army of Republika Srpska during July 1992.

And then elaborate... --Latinus 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism

Hello. I've been trying to include the Srebrenica massacre and the Bosnian genocide in the Historical revisionism page, but one - yes, only one - user is systematically erasing it, along with the Rwandan Genocide (he considers revisionism of this last one as a "French internal affair"). Maybe some of you guys up there would like in helping us write a relevant Wikipedia entry on all types of historical revisionism. Lapaz 14:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes...

I think that I see the main problem why is this article causing edit wars. One of them is that the RS government conducted mass killings. Although there is no doubt that the Serbian government indeed did organize the mass removal & ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population - the current phrase is like a Big Bertha. You should rephrase it (as actually - the Army conducted the mass murder - not the government (at least no directly)) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This subject is far too fishy - so you'll have to understand, Dado, if I don't want to get involved any deeper. I wish to note another compromise: On wikipedia, we have established that the Croatian military is responsible for Operation Medak pocket and Gorski Kotari massacres of Serbs in the Croatian Civil War - and that the massive exodus of the Serbian populace from Croatia in Operation Storm was caused by the Croatian Army's military campaign. However, some sources like this: Tušmanove izjave and other, show the "removal of Serbs from Croatia" was organized by the President himself and the supreme commander of the Army, as well as other high officials. However, this is too fishy - so we just point out that the Croatian Army conducted a genocide in the operation and that the military commanders were acused by ICTY. Get what I am pointing at? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


The reason why the sentence is stating "authorities" is because there were several police and paramilitary units organized by the government who also commited a great deal of killings. But we can be more explicit than that to avoid any confusion.

"The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was killing of Bosnians, predominantly male Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995 by the army and police forces organized by Republika Srpska"

--Dado 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, but Dado - here's that "male" again. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, "the" is missing between was and killing (grammar). Other than this & several other issues, it should be OK. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also - what is this list of 3,278 civilians? I haven't heard about it before - but it's appearing frequently, so I think that someone should do a reaserch on it - and if sourced - include it into the article. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think those are minor edits. Thanks for your comments:

"The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was the killing of Bosnians, predominantly Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995 by the army and police forces organized by Republika Srpska"

I am not sure what list are you talking about. Please clarify. If there are no further objections I will add this section to the article--Dado 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't "object" in the first place - I merely noted minor errors of the article. :) I agree with that sentence.

3,287

About the list - beats me. I've heard about it on several occasions, but cannot guarrantee anything 'bout it. There is some sort of a list of 3,287 (not 3,278) civilians altogether executed by a certain Naser Orić, next to others? Don't take my word - I only heard it a while ago and cannot guarrantee that that thing even exists - does anyone know about it anything? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


I think you are refering to a list of Serbs allegedly killed near Srebrenica prior to the massacre. The list surfaced in early part of 2005 and was made public in BiH on a day when a major police reorganization agreement was supposed to take place to divert attention or gain political points on the fact that RS MUP was supposed to be abolished. No proof was ever given in relation to the list and the list has been discredited numerous times. Naser Oric is on trial at the ICTY for plundering property during the war.--Dado 18:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well don't tell me. Like I said - I know nothing 'bout it. So I can't really help discussing 'bout it, I am afraid. :( --HolyRomanEmperor 22:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Fork; merge

Dado, you're really a master of POV Forks. When you encounter resistance on one article, you go on to create another and present your PoVs there. Did this article survived an AfD or am I daydreaming, as I can't find it? (I don't have time to read entire discussion now). As I can see, the only proven genocide in BiH was the Srebrenica massacre and all info in this article is about that. Other cases did not get further than allegations AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong), and, again, to my knowledge, no one is accused in ICTY for genocide in cases other than Srebrenica. What is the rationale, apart from more pretentious wording, to not merge this into Srebrenica massacre? Duja 00:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was never nominated for AfD. Cases other than Srebrenica case are still ongoing and they are not merely allegations but rather indictments for genocide on ICTY. Two of them (Karadzic and Mladic) have gone through Rule 61 rulling where a court has taken a case only short of trial in absentia and allowed prosecution to make its case before the indictees were arrested. There is also ICJ case where Srebrenica is only a drop in the bucket.

Comments (Moved from Talk:Srebrenica massacre)

Bosnian Genocide and Srebrenica Genocide are, in my opinion, two different things. They should not be merged together.

Care to expand? The article Bosnian Genocide gives only a broad definition, and then proceeds to tell the facts about Srebrenica Genocide and allusions that other cases might have potential to become accepted as genocide: "Statistics may change as these and other cases ... develop", "He warned that attempting this process would amount to genocide." etc. There is also article Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ where Bosnian PoV about the issue should be presented; however, Bosnian Genocide article states it as a fact. If the Bosnian side should win the trial, I might change my opinion. However, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Duja 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide article presents only those elements as facts that have been proven at the ICTY ie. Srebrenica Massacre. Bosnian Genocide as a subject goes beyond the case of genocide that took place in Srebrenica and presents other cases that are dealing with this complex issue. What Duja is attempting to do here is to conceal the matter of genocide as only pertaining to Srebrenice and make a quick conclusion and closure, while the scope of it is at a very least disputed and claimed by many to be much broader. The article presents several indictments at ICTY against individuals for crimes in the whole region of BiH and the case BiH vs SCG at the ICJ while not jumping to conclusion that these cases can yet be considered as facts. Although the articles are related I see no reason to merge the two.--Dado 21:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were trying to make a quick conclusion and closure of anything, I would edit the article, AfD it or whatever. I just added tags, and raised my concerns on the talk pages. If, as you say "The article presents several indictments at ICTY against individuals ", then the title of the article should read "Indictments of genocide in Bosnia", and it should not start with words "Bosnian Genocide is killing of Bosniaks.". If the "scope of the term is much broader", then the article should mention that its scope is disputed. And it has a PoV title from the start. Duja 22:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What specifically is my POV on this article and what specifically are you argueing here. --Dado 21:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, point by point:

  • Intro: The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was killing of Bosnians...by the army and police forces organized by Republika Srpska.
Who uses the term "Bosnian Genocide" in that sense apart from Bosnian government circles and some Bosniaks? Genocide is a too big a word to be used so easily. Ethnic cleansing? Yes. Crimes against humanity? Yes. Genocide? Maybe, but not proven.
  • The Bosnian Genocide is a term used by some... when referring to the case of genocide that took place in Srebrenica, which has been proven..."
This instance of genocide is proven, so merge it to Srebrenica massacre.
  • There are several genocide trials and indictments... Statistics may (emphasis mine) change as these and other cases develop.
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
  • In addition ... there is an ongoing court case before the International Court of Justice a so called Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ.
There is indeed. So, the "Bosnian genocide" is not a proven term, but a point of dispute and a trial.
  • US House of Representatives resolution.
I admit this has certain merit, though it's not binding for US Government. And also, bear in mind that this is a political statement.

I won't go further. Note that I'm not objecting about the factual accuracy of the article, but just one-sided presentation of those facts. Most of all, I object to the title, which presumes proof of existence of the Genocide (apart from Srebrenica one, again). I'd prefer instead War crimes in Bosnia, or, if you insist, Serb war crimes in Bosnia, Croat war crimes in Bosnia and Bosniak war crimes in Bosnia. At this point, this article looks like a part of Bosnian case over ICJ more than an encyclopedia article. Duja 21:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have presented several links where the use of the term is shown in relation to Srebrenica massacre but also in relation to the ICTY cases such as "Milosevic to Face Bosnian Genocide Charges". I see no problem with the title as it correctly points out that there is judicial debate about the genocide conducted on the entire region of BiH. --Dado 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In line 148, in one sentence. The intro doesn't mention that. Duja 18:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If I was speaking from a POV I would state numerous Bosniak sources that take the crimes commited in BiH as definite genocide based on the Genocide Convention from 1949. --Dado 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you should have. Seriously. The article now does not mention Bosniak views, nor Serb one. Duja 18:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind that this is a debate if articles should be merged but so far you have only argued the content of the article. Since you have not commented on the fact that the article takes in account other genocide cases and deserves a separate stub to review those cases I don't see any other reason to merge these articles.--Dado 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But if you take out Srebrenica facts, what remains? Only few hints, as I said above. That's why I suggested to merge it there. Don't take my "merge" as a definite proposal—but when I stumbled upon this collection of factoids, I didn't know myself what would I do with it. Merge is one option. Rewrite from scratch another. Delete third (I know it wouldn't pass an AfD so why bother). The title is IMO a bombastic POV, and the substance is incoherent.
Look, I support the idea that war crimes in Bosnian War should be summarized at one place, even if solely Serbs' war crimes. But this article does not have a focus on anything. If I may summarize it in few words, it goes like:
"Bosnian Genocide is commited by RS against Bosniaks. Some people refer Srebrenica by that name. Srebrenica genocide is confirmed by ICTY. There might be other cases of genocide sentences. Americans said this. Karadzic and Mladic said that." All of it are hints – there is no substance, no story.
If you want to have my opinion: go ahead and create a summary article about war crimes in Bosnia. Give it a less bombastic title. Mention every case of war crime and ethnic cleansing. But, for God's sake, don't create articles like "I'd-like-to-have-this-title-but-I-don't-know-what-to-put-in-there". And yes, this time I'm willing to help on it (as long as you decide what you want to write about). Duja 18:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the article is a bit all over the place particulary due to different styles of many users who have changed it.

But, let's have all the facts in order:

  1. According to ICTY Srebrenica massacre was a genocide
  2. Many academic and human rights institutions name that genocide a Bosnian genocide.
  3. According to ICTY many war crimes particulary against non-Serbs have been committed on the entire region of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  4. Bosniak and few other sides (US House of Rep.) consider those crimes as collectively being part of the larger Bosnian genocide intent in line with the definition of genocide and based on Genocide Convention of 1949.
  5. Serbian side either denies that there was a genocide (both in Srebrenica or in BiH) or it accepts that it only happened in Srebrenica.
  6. There is a court case at ICJ ongoing where BiH is accusing SCG and its surrogate RS of Bosnian genocide on the entire region of BiH.
  7. There is also at least one case (Krajisnik) before the ICTY that also stipulates genocide on the entire region of BiH.
  8. There is at least inconclusive trial of Milosevic that brought to light many facts about what can be considered a Bosnian genocide on the entire region of BiH.

If we were to take only first two points here than you would be right to claim to merge this article with Srebrenica massacre article and I would agree with you. However, the debate is obviously much more complex than that so merge has no merit. Another option to name Srebrenica massacre - Srebrenica genocide would be a possibility but there are common points among these fact that rightfully justify the name of this article as Bosnian Genocide. We can pursue rewriting the article based on these facts. --Dado 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section: shouldn't it be Bosniaks (not Bosnians)

The Controversy section talks about Bosnians (eg. There is a significant disagreement between the Bosnian and Bosnian Serb/Serbian side about the ... Bosnian side claims...). Shouldn't it be Bosniak and Serb? Osli73 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I already noted why Bosnian in one of the reverts. It should be Bosnian as it relates to both Bosniaks, Croats and even few Bosnian Serbs as the view is represented in the ICJ case. Also the same case and the view is a representative of R BiH government which is non-ethnical or multi-ethnical--Dado 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Preposterous

Why is there a "Bosnian Genocide" about a fabricated incident known as Srebrenica and not a section for the genocide against Serbs in Ustashe Croatia?

Total whiteash of Omarska repaired

Omarska camp ("Original" article - "journalistic crimes", "no mass graves", "no women in the camp" and other idiocy.) --HanzoHattori 12:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com

I have removed the Srebrenica Genocide Blog from the list of external links because it was added by the author of the blog himself (to this article and to many, many others) in contravention of WP:COI.[9] However, I suspect that it may actually be useful to keep here (I'm not sure, as I don't know much about the Bosnian Genocide and about the blog). If someone other than the author re-adds it, please leave a note here so that it isn't mistakenly removed again. —Psychonaut 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored it as a useful source of relevant links. --Opbeith 12:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Srebrenica Article

Since it has been officially determined by the Hague that "there was no Bosnian genocide on the scale of the whole country in an effort to exterminate the Bosnian Muslims" apart from the incident in Srebrenica, this article should be merged with Srebrenica Massacre, or it should simply become a 'Redirect' to Srebrenica Massacre, because in this case it becomes simply redundant. Maîtresse 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume "the Hague" means the International Court of Judgment, in its judgment on the Bosnia&Herzegovina-Serbia&Montenegro case. Although the citation is in quotation marks I don't find this anywhere in the judgment (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/91/13685.pdf?PHPSESSID=e1bec511eefd706861fbe60c59b50a7a). --Opbeith 07:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I also put the tag --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Here are some references:
--GOD OF JUSTICE 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The two could be merged, but the name cannot remain "Srebrenica massacre". It must be renamed to Srebrenica genocide (then again, problem is the latter is far less notable than the first).
On the other hand, I think the subject is notable enough to have its own article; although the controversy of its factual existence should be explained in the article (that's why, AFAIK, it should have its own article). --PaxEquilibrium 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For once I agree with PaxEquilibrium. As he says, "the controversy of its 'factual existence' should be explained in the article", but the article should not be deleted. The events that occured throughout the country from 1992 to 1995 are still considered genocide by many (nearly every organization devoted to the study of genocide, numerous human rights organization, the vice-president of the international court as outlined in his dissenting opinion, the United States government, a number of Serb/Montenegrin academics and intellectuals, a long list of academic institutions, etc.) and as such deserves its own article seperate of the Srebrenica massacre. Certainly, in light of the ruling, it should be noted just that: the International Court of Justice ruled 11-4 that the genocide was limited to Srebrenica. However, merging the article into the Srebrenica massacre would unjustly submerge the far from marginal opinion that genocide occured throughout Bosnia - from Srebrenica to Prijedor. After all, the ICJ has still essentially reaffirmed the ICTY's ruling that the actus reus of genocide occured throughout Bosnia, and that deserves an appropriate explanation. Live Forever 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article remains, it should be made clear that any reference to genocide outside of Srebrenica remains a controversy, as it failed to be established officially with evidence in court. Maîtresse 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The international court's ruling that genocide occured only in Srebrenica should be explicitely mentioned in the introduction. Live Forever 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm against the "classic" merge; this article was started as (what I believe was) a User:Dado's POV-fork from Srebrenica massacre article (first rev). However, it was fairly well sourced from the outset and kept on topic of the controversy of the opinions whether the entire Bosnian war should be considered genocide. The main reason, however, is that Srebrenica massacre is already way too long. Currently, at Talk:Srebrenica massacre there's a heated debate on inclusion and characterization of "alternative/revisionist/denialist" views.

I propose something along the following lines:

  • Rename this article to Bosnian genocide controversy, Bosnian genocide debate (or something similar)
I support renaming it Bosnian genocide controversy, while explaining that genocide is officially established in Srebrenica (thus linking to that article), and officially declared as non-existent outside of Srebrenica (which is where the controversy arises from) Maîtresse 22:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Include overview and relevant opinions of "genocide deniers" here, shortening the corresponding section in Srebrenica massacre and linking it to this article as ({{main}}) Duja► 09:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I support including all revelant viewpoints in this article, however, I wouldn't even touch the Srebrenica article... you might get shot lol (simply contributing to the talk page and not even touching the article itself makes you a target) Maîtresse 22:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Category

In addition, its rather loaded title apparently caused the creation of even more loaded Category:Bosnian genocide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (oh, Dado again). While I'm all for proper categorization of those crimes, the category should be renamed to something else; however, I can't find a succinct title: Category:War crimes in Bosnian War?. There already are Category:Massacres in Bosnia and Herzegovina (mostly duplicated with Category:Bosnian genocide, but not all war crimes are "massacres" in strict sense: e.g. Trnopolje camp is not one, as it spanned over few years) and almost empty Category:War crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Since it's unlikely that we'll ever have articles about WW2 war crimes/massacres in Bosnia, I propose the following scheme:

  1. Rename Category:Bosnian genocide to Category:War crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina
  2. Category:War crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be a child of Category:Bosnian War and Category:War crimes by country
  3. Category:Massacres in Bosnia and Herzegovina stays as a sub-cat of Category:War crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina
  4. In addition, Category:Bosnian War perhaps should be renamed to Category:War in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the main article?

Duja► 09:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you describe the existence of the Trnopolje camp as spanning a "few years". It closed in August 1992, almost as soon as its existence and nature was revealedn to the outside world. In any case while the brutal but intermittent murders at Trnopolje might not be classed as a "massacre", how would you describe the systematic killings at Omarska? --Opbeith 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read carefully the entire article; the intro said 1992-1995, but it referred to the entire war, not the Trnopolje camp itself. My understanding of the word is that it describes a one-off event, not something that spanned 4 months, like Omarska. Perhaps I was nit-picking; according to the massacre article: "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." — it doesn't mention the exact time span. Duja► 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't redundant. Hague only determined that Serbia as state was not involved in genocide, which was committed by Army of Republika Srpska (as noted by court). This article must stay, in order to describe ethnic cleansing and genocide in Foča, Višegrad, Bijeljina, Zvornik, and so on... But I see your point. Nothing can surprise me these days. I will cite you: incident in Srebrenica... incident. I mean, we don't need to hide anything, I understand your point of view, ironically. That's reallity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarisM (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
In addition to determining that Serbia was not involved in genocide, the Hague found that the only genocide which occured in Bosnia from 1992 - 1995 was Srebrenica:
  • "The ICJ found only one act of genocide...Srebrenica"[1]
  • "In more than 10 years of activity, the tribunal has so far found that genocide occurred solely in Srebrenica. For that reason the prosecution in the Milosevic case sought to link him to the Srebrenica massacres of July 1995. A genocide finding requires proof of "specific intent" to wipe out an entire or part of a religious or ethnic community."[2]
I watched the ruling. I listened to the judge specifically say that evidence did NOT support genocide outside of Srebrenica. Therefore, any mentioning of genocide outside of Srebrenica remains a controversy. Maîtresse 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No Maitresse, you'll find that at para 219 of the judgment it refers to the fact that the ICTY found in the Krajisnik case that the actus reus (the fact) of genocide (of the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia) was proven. However (and I found that decision difficult to understand but that was the decision) the intent on Krajisnik's part - the mens rea - was not proven. So the fact of genocide occurred in the municipalities named but no-one was convicted on the charge, and that presumably was why the genocide in Bosnia could not be submitted to proceedings aimed at determining legal responsibility. Para 219 below:

"219. The accused does have a role at the fourth stage - motions for acquittal made by the defence at the end of the prosecution’s case and after the defence has had the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, on the basis that “there is no evidence capable of supporting a conviction”. This stage is understood to require a decision, not that the Chamber trying the facts would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution’s evidence (if accepted), but rather that it could be so satisfied (Jelisić, IT-95-10-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment, 5 July 2001, para. 37). The significance of that lesser standard for present purposes appears from one case on which the Applicant relied. The Trial Chamber in August 2005 in Krajišnik dismissed the defence motion that the accused who was charged with genocide and other crimes had no case to answer (IT-00-39-T, transcript of 19 August 2005, pp. 17112-17132). But following the full hearing the accused was found not guilty of genocide nor of complicity in genocide. While the actus reus of genocide was established, the specific intent (dolus specialis) was not (Trial Chamber Judgment, 27 September 2006, paras. 867-869). Because the judge or the Chamber does not make definitive findings at any of the four stages described, the Court does not consider that it can give weight to those rulings. The standard of proof which the Court requires in this case would not be met."

So please do not say that genocide was not committed elsewhere in Bosnia. It was. --Opbeith 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Opbeith, but as Judge Higgins clearly stated "specific intent to destroy a group that is the required proof of genocide". Therefore, genocide was not proven. To make such a claim, you need proof for it. But good effort on your part, your really spend a lot of time looking for documents, keep up the good work. :) Maîtresse 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will help, Opbeith. It is the definition of "genocide":

"Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The definition of genocide shows that genocide itself is the intent to destroy a group through harmful acts (murder etc.). Without the intent, those acts simply become ACTS (ex: murders, deportations). Maîtresse 00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maitresse, though you are right, I still think it's quite notable that international courts have found the actus reus of genocide to have been committed - especially in light of the great criticism to the court's ruling due to unavailability of key evidence and the high standard of proof. That is to say, the court's approach to determining intent is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the ruling - by international law academics, human rights officials from serbia and elsewhere, etc. I'd urge you to read vice president of the court Al-Khasawneh's dissent here to gain a better understanding of what I mean. Live Forever 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No one is arguing that controversy doesn't exist. It does exist, just as it does with the ruling that Srebrenica itself was genocide, or the scope of the massacre etc. (which is what everyone's been arguing about on the Srebrenica page.. quite the boiling pot heh). However, controversy is not enough to simply say "do not say that genocide was not committed elsewhere in Bosnia. It was." (as opbeith did) Proof is required. But the proof was not provided. (intent, people, intent!)
  • And I no longer think this article should be merged with Srebrenica because the case for genocide in Bosnia does contain many controversies (both for and against) which should be explained here (in which case as Duja pointed out, the article's name should be changed to Bosnian genocide controversy, or something similar).
  • That paragraph which Opbeith posted is contradictory. The 'actus reus' of genocide is absolutely meaningless without the intent. The 'actus reus' then simply become 'massacres', 'deportations' etc., which is PRECISELY WHY the court ruled against genocide. It's getting kind of tiring repeating why the court ruled against genocide (outside Srebrenica), they did so for a reason. I have stated that reason (both with a definition of genocide and with a direct quote from a Hague judge) so that is settled.
  • With regard to the link you provided, could you please point out which part you wanted me to read (with regard to genocide outside of Srebrenica), thanks a lot.

Maîtresse 23:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thorough Examination/Cleaning up of Article

Changes:

  • Added that genocide outside of Srebrenica failed to be established officially in court to the introduction
  • Grouped statements/opinions together
  • Removed photo from Trnoplje because it is irrelevant in this article: Camps were officially declared by Judge Higgins as not genocide, photo is found in numerous other articles
  • Put section regarding controversy from intro into article's Controversy section
  • Removed Notes from 'ICTY Trial Chamber' because it is a statement regarding expulsion, not genocide, therefore, irrelevant
  • In US Resolution, removed content after "Srebrenica Massacre" because it is redundant, the massacre is explained in the intro, and in other articles
  • Removed Serbian Democratic Party (irrelevant) & Genocide (there are links to genocide throughout article) from See also

Discuss these changes, and further changes here. Maîtresse 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a reference in the ICJ's decision for your statement that "Camps were officially declared by Judge Higgins as not genocide"? The Court might have found that the role of the camps in the genocide hadn't been proven within the timeframe of reference for its judgment but since the ethnic cleansing of Prijedor municipality is the subject of extant charges of genocide it seems unlikely the ICJ would preempt the ICTY's consideration of those charges by making such a definitive finding. --Opbeith 09:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It was declared by the judge during the ruling. If someone could provide the text of Higgin's ruling I could find it. I did a quick google search but I can't find the text. Where could I find it? Maîtresse 10:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further changes of Controversy section:

  • Removed that there's "currently a trial", already occurred, outcome of trial explained partly in intro
  • Removed image that had been labeled as unsourced
  • Some grammar but much more grammar to be fixed

Maîtresse 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Charges still outstanding against R. Karadzic and R. Mladic of genocide perpetrated in Bosnia, including but not restricted to Srebrenica

Maitresse, Mladic and Karadzic are still indicted on charges of genocide applicable throughout Bosnia. The relevant information about their indictments is very easily accessible at the ICTY website. To save you the trouble of looking for information I have copied the relevant details below.


From the Mladic indictment at http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm


COUNTS 1 and 2 GENOCIDE, COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE


By his acts and omissions, General Ratko MLADIC participated in:


Count 1: GENOCIDE, punishable under Articles 4(3)(a), 7(1) and 7(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal;


Count 2: COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE, punishable under Articles 4(3)(e), 7(1) and 7(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal.


32. From no later than 12 May 1992 until at least 22 December 1996, General Ratko MLADIC, acting individually or in concert with other participants in the joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation or execution of the intentional partial destruction of the Bosnian Muslim national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such, from Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor, Sanski Most, and Srebrenica.


33. As alleged in paragraphs 20 to 26, General Ratko MLADIC participated in a joint criminal enterprise. The main objective of the joint criminal enterprise was primarily achieved through a manifest pattern of persecutions as alleged in this indictment. This campaign of persecutions included or escalated to include conduct committed with the intent to destroy in part the national, ethnical, racial or religious group of Bosnian Muslims, as such, in certain municipalities within BiH. Bosnian Serb Forces under the command and control of General Ratko MLADIC targeted a significant part of the Bosnian Muslim group for intended destruction. This form of partial destruction of the Bosnian Muslims took place in Banja Luka, Bosanska Krupa, Bratunac, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Vlasenica and Zvornik.


34. The destruction of these groups was effected by:

1. the widespread killing, deportation, and forcible transfer of non-Serbs during and after the attacks on Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor, Sanski Most, and Srebrenica. Bosnian Muslims were killed and hundreds of thousands deported or forcibly transferred in furtherance of the 1992 and 1993 "ethnic cleansing" campaigns in the Bosnian Krajina and in eastern Bosnia. These killings include those in Banja Luka, Bosanska Krupa, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor and Sanski Most specified in Schedule A. In eastern Bosnia, a large segment of the Bosnian Muslim population was driven into the area of Cerska-Kamenica and then ultimately routed to Tuzla and Srebrenica. After the fall of Srebrenica, thousands of Bosnian Muslim males were executed in Bratunac, Srebrenica, Vlasenica and Zvornik in an organised and systematic fashion over the course of several days, an event which occurred contemporaneously with the forcible transfer of the remainder of the Bosnian Muslim community of Srebrenica. These killings include those specified in Schedule B;

2. the causing of serious bodily or mental harm to Bosnian Muslims in Banja Luka, Bosanska Krupa, Bratunac, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Vlasenica and Zvornik, including during their confinement in the detention facilities in Banja Luka, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor and Sanski Most specified in Schedule C. Bosnian Muslims in these municipalities were subjected to cruel or inhumane treatment, including torture, physical and psychological abuse, sexual violence and beatings;

3. the subjecting of Bosnian Muslims to conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction, namely through cruel and inhumane treatment, including torture, physical and psychological abuse and sexual violence, inhumane living conditions, and forced labour, in Banja Luka, Bosanska Krupa, Bratunac, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Vlasenica and Zvornik. In addition, in the detention facilities in Banja Luka, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor and Sanski Most specified in Schedule C, the conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Bosnian Muslims also included the failure to provide adequate accommodation, shelter, food, water, medical care or hygienic sanitation facilities.


35. From no later than 12 May 1992 until at least 22 December 1996, General Ratko MLADIC knew or had reason to know that the crimes alleged in paragraphs 32 to 34 above were about to be committed or had been committed by his subordinates, and he failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.


From the Karadzic indictment at http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm


COUNTS 1-6 (GENOCIDE, COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE, EXTERMINATION, MURDER, WILFUL KILLING)


16. The Prosecutor re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-15; and alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 67-92 in Counts 1-6.


17. Between 1 July 1991 and 31 December 1992, acting individually or in concert with others, including Momcilo KRAJISNIK and Biljana PLAVSIC, and between early March 1995 and 30 November 1995, acting individually or in concert with others, Radovan KARADZIC; planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation or execution of the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, in several municipalities, including but not limited to: Bijeljina; Bratunac; Bosanski Samac; Brcko; Doboj; Foca; Ilijas; Kljuc; Kotor Varos; Novi Grad; Prijedor; Rogatica; Sanski Most; Srebrenica; Visegrad; Vlasenica; Zavidovici; and Zvornik. The destruction of these groups in these municipalities was effected by:

1. the killing of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats which took place during and after the attacks on and within the municipalities; the killing of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in and after they had been taken away from camps and detention facilities; and the killing of Bosnian Muslims after their captivity in several different locations in and around the Srebrenica enclave;

2. the causing of serious bodily or mental harm to Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats during their confinement in camps and detention facilities, and during their interrogations at these locations, police stations and military barracks, where detainees were continuously subjected to, or forced to witness, inhumane acts including murder, sexual violence, torture, beatings and robbery; and

3. the detention of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in camps and detention facilities under conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part of those national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, more fully set out in Paragraph 30. --Opbeith 12:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the information. That paragraph can stay in the article then. Maîtresse 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

People, people

Let me remind you about Nicaragua v. United States. The fact that this Court (which obviously is not as supreme as many would like) doesn't have the last word and besides, this encyclopedia is about GENERAL verifiability, if you know what I mean. --PaxEquilibrium 22:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I understand that Wikipedia does not want its content linking to blogs, unless absolutely necessary or relevant. For a topic as important as this one, please update the link for Reference #10: "US House of Representatives, Resolution 199 (H. Res. 199): Srebrenica Genocide. 27 June 2005." which is currently linked to:

<http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2006/02/us-resolution-199-srebrenica-genocide.html>

to a more dependable and official source like:

<http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/laws/Srebrenica%20Massacre%20Resolution.htm>.

Also, a more complete citation for the record:

Smith, Christopher H. United States. Cong. House. Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives Regarding the Massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995. 109th Cong., 1st Sess. H. Res. 199. 27 Jun. 2005. Washington: GPO, 2005.

Thanks.

Redirect to Srebrenica massacre

Seems like a POV fork: 8000 is the official estimated number but the article incorrectly says it's the lower bound. The article frequently uses POV langauge elsewhere. etc.

Courts have ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide but that no other events were genocide. So both Bosnian Genocide and Srebrenica Genocide should redirect to Srebrenica massacre.

If your interested in the other events ,great write about them in their own articles!! Obviously Srebrenica massacre should mention other events where Bosnians claim genocide occured, just as it mentions serbian objections to the body count in Srebrenica.

But Srebrenica massacre is currently a well written and informative article. Don't muck up people's attempts to read about it with this dribble.--130.88.123.57 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever you are, it's not correct that courts have ruled "that no other events were genocide". They have ruled that other acts constituted "actus reus" of genocide but have not so far found any individual guilty of genocide in respect of any event other than at Srebrenica. If you look a few lines higher up on this page: "Mladic and Karadzic are still indicted on charges of genocide applicable throughout Bosnia. The relevant information about their indictments is very easily accessible at the ICTY website. ...", and the relevant details from the charges are also cited. --Opbeith 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with redirecting “Bosnian Genocide” to “Srebrenica Massacre” because that massacre was just part of the Bosnian Genocide, which included other things like Sniper alleys, concentration camps, many mass slaughters, expulsions and mass rape.--MaGioZal 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
MaGioZal, thanks for reverting Philip Baird Shearer's intervention, which simply ignores the still extant genocide charges at the Hague, in particular the indictments against Karadzic and Mladic, and the controversy over the Serbian government documents lodged with the ICTY under Section 54bis protection which could provide the basis for a reopening of the Bosnian government's case before the ICJ. --Opbeith 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved Bosnian Genocide to Bosnian atrocities

I have moved Bosnian Genocide to Bosnian atrocities. Since the February 26, 2007, judgment that it was not a general genocide is a non NPOV to have an article with this title. Using the word atrocities will allow for the developemnt of a more balanced article with atrocities on both sides included. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see 1971 Bangladesh atrocities for a model of how this article could develop. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is always advisable to follow process for any such name change to avoid people edit-warring about it later on. Please list this at WP:RM with your rationale. Thanks, --Asteriontalk 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Asterion, but the matter has nothing to do with the threat of edit-warring. Philip Baird Shearer is simply wrong in asserting that the ICJ judged there to have been no general genocide and he should not have decided unilaterally to dismantle the Bosnian Genocide article in the way he did.

Because of the nature of the case (an action between sovereign states) the Court's findings related only to claims of genocide against Serbia and the accusations of genocide perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina were considered only insofar as they involved Serbia.

The Court accepted the ICTY's findings of Bosnian Serb culpability for genocide at Srebrenica. As far as the perpetration of genocide elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina is concerned, the Court found that genocide found that on the basis of the evidence presented to it concerning deportations, expulsions, etc. the intent to destroy the 'Bosnian Muslims' as a protected group had not been conclusively established, nevertheless Serbia had violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention by failing to transfer Ratko Mladić, indicted for genocide and complicity in genocide, for trial by the ICTY, and had failed fully to co-operate with the Tribunal, and it then decided that Serbia should immediately take effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation under the Genocide Convention to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any of those other acts for trial by the ICTY and to co-operate fully with thet Tribunal.

So it acknowledged the charges still outstanding against Mladic (and elsewhere those against Karadzic) that relate to crimes of genocide perpetrated elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as at Srebrenica. (Excerpts from the indictment relating to the perpetration of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina elsewhere than at Srebrenica are given above on this Discussion page.)

Philip Baird Shearer also fails to note the current controversy over the Serbian government papers lodged with the ICTY whose secrecy is protected under the Tribunal's Section 54bis decision. These papers may provide the basis for the Bosnian Government to bring its allegations of Serbian genocide in Bosnia before the ICJ again. It is being argued by experts in international law that the decision to protect the secrecy of these papers was illegitimate and also that despite claims to the contrary the ICJ did in fact have the authority to seek their release.

Philip Baird Shearer's action was arbitrary, untimely and unjustified. ----Opbeith 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion and I disagree, because I think that the article can be expanded to include atrocities on both sides. As it stands at the moment the article is at a dead end and the title does not lend itself to a NPOV article. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Genocide in the Doboj area - the Jorgic conviction

On 26 September 1997 Nikola Jorgic was found guilty by the Düsseldorf, Germany, Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) on 11 counts of genocide involving the murder of 30 persons. His appeal was rejected by the German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) on 30 April 1999.

The Oberlandesgericht found that Jorgic, a Bosnian Serb, had been the leader of a paramilitary group in the Doboj region that had taken part in acts of terror against the local Muslim population carried out with the backing of the Serb rulers and intended to contribute to their policy of “ethnic cleansing”.

The Bundesgerichtshof ruled that under the Genocide Convention of 9 December 1948 (ratified by Germany in 1954) genocide is a crime that all nations are required to prosecute and that the lower court had been correct in asserting the jurisdiction of the German judiciary. It also confirmed the lower court's finding that Jorgic had committed genocide.

This was the first case of genocide prosecuted in the German courts. Other Bosnian genocide-related convictions by the German courts include that of Maksim Sokolovic.

http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/facts/nikola_jorgic_283.html http://www.preventgenocide.org/punish/GermanFederalCourt.htm

--Opbeith 12:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Muslim or Bosniak

From the history:

  • 22:08, 15 May 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (see paragraph 560 for name of group in English on whom the genocide was committed)
  • 09:20, 16 May 2007 Opbeith (PBS, please read the Guardian reference. "Bosniak" is the term used by the group and others to identify itself. "Bosnian Muslims" is appropriate for specific references (eg ICTY, 1991 census))

The ICTY trial an appeal the term used is "Bosnian Muslims" See paragraph 560 of the trial:

The Chamber concludes that the protected group, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Statute, must be defined, in the present case, as the Bosnian Muslims. The Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica or the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia constitute a part of the protected group under Article 4. The question of whether an intent to destroy a part of the protected group falls under the definition of genocide is a separate issue that will be discussed below.

CIA World Fact Book points out that Bosniak is an imprecise synonym for Bosnian Muslim because in Bosnia, Bosniaks make up 48% of the population, but only 40% of the population is Muslim. As the term Bosnian Muslim is not the same as Bosniak, it is not up to Wikipedia to use an imprecise term when the Court has used a specific term. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia used the term "Bosnian Muslim" to designate the "nationality" and the 1991 census used the term "Bosnian Muslim". UN and ICTY documents used the term as the accepted official designation prior to the events that followed the break-up of FRY. This position began to be modified as external analysts gradually began to recognise that there was a distinction to be made between members of the ethnic group and adherents of the faith.
At paragraph 17 of the UN Secretary-General's report to the General Assembly on the Fall of Srebrenica (Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35 "The fall of Srebrenica", A/54/549), dated 15 November 1999, you will find a reference to "Bosniacs (known until 1993 as “Muslims” or “Bosnian Muslims”)" (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/348/76/IMG/N9934876.pdf?OpenElement). The CIA World Fact Book similarly points out that "Bosniak has replaced Muslim as an ethnic term in part to avoid confusion with the religious term Muslim - an adherent of Islam" (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bk.html).
I agree that quotations from published documents should not seek to revise the original source material. So that references to the census or direct quotes from ICTY findings should continue to use the term "Bosnian Muslims" and it is legitimate to use the term in quotation marks when referring indirectly to those original sources.
Nevertheless we are now looking back at events from the present, May 2007, when the term "Bosnian Muslims" is no longer considered a useful or appropriate term to describe the ethnic group as distinct from the religious community and we should not be seeking to perpetuate confusion that has already been resolved in authoritative sources. --Opbeith 10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Both the trial (2001) and the appeals court ruling (2004) post date the report of the Secretary-General you mention, so if the court agreed with you they could have used that term. They did not and that may have been intentional for all I know. So who says it is not an appropriate term to describe the group who upon whom the genocide was perpetrated? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


The Court operates subject to its own rules of procedure. Court findings employ the terminology used in previous documentation going back to the first indictments. This means that internal consistency can be maintained without administrative inconvenience and avoids the possibility of legal confusion.
We should certainly respect the Court's usage within the framework of its proceedings and continue to use its anachronistic terminology in direct quotations but we should not be bound by its conventions where they have been superseded. --Opbeith 11:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Opbeith in paragraph 558 of the Radislav Krstic - Trial Judgement it says the "Prosecution appeared to use an alternative definition in its pre-trial brief" and that "In its final trial brief, the Prosecution chose to define the group as the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, while it referred to the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia in its final arguments". This would not on the face of it seem to tally with your statment "Court findings employ the terminology used in previous documentation going back to the first indictments", please could you clarify what you meant. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be clear as to what was going on here. The Court was pointing out that there was a problem arising from an inconsistency in the terms being used by the Prosecution, which the Court then had to resolve. --Opbeith 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I did understand that. The point I was highlighting was that the court was not bound to "employ the terminology used in previous documentation going back to the first indictments", because as that paragraph highlights the terminology was not consistent. Therefor the court could if have introduced the word "Bosniak" if the judges had thought it pertinent to do so. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The teminology is that the Genocide was committed against "Bosnian Muslims" I reiterate who says it is not an appropriate term to describe the group who upon whom the genocide was perpetrated?. Secondly what verifiable reliable source do you have that the court's use of the term Bosnian Muslim is "anachronistic terminology"? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It might help if you considered what I've said above rather than just repeating what you've said. I have given you the arguments and the references to support my argument that the use of the term "Bosnian Muslim" other than as a direct reference to the faith community as opposed to the ethnic group or in the context of quoting a historical use is anachronistic. I use the expression "anachronistic terminology" in the same way I use English generally, with reference to the accepted meaning of the words themselves. I suspect that you're querying my use of the word "anachronistic" rather than the word "terminology". I'd refer you to a definition of the noun from which the adjectival form is derived at www.answers.com: "a·nach·ro·nism ... 1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order. 2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time"
In answer to your question "So who says it is not an appropriate term to describe the group who upon whom the genocide was perpetrated?" I have to say that the overwhelming majority of members of that group with whom I've been in contact myself choose to use the term "Bosniak" to refer to their own identity and that of the dead friends and relatives you are referring to. I'd also refer you back again to the Guardian article I cited previously (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1294446,00.html). Ed Vulliamy wrote "However, these people have not returned to Omarska only for remembrance; it is also a gesture of defiance. It was intended by the Bosnian Serbs - as has been affirmed at The Hague - that no Muslims (or rather Bosniaks - the secular ethnic term by which they are properly known) should remain on this territory alive; that they should all be deported or killed." It's hard to conceive of Vulliamy writing in this way in the face of opposition from those members of the group in question with whom he has collaborated so regularly and whose plight he helped bring to international attention.
You seem determined to pursue your own line of logic which even though you may not recognise it as such is in effect a point of view. --Opbeith 13:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Assuming there is a distinction in the Srebrenica context between Muslims and Bosniaks (i.e. there wouldn't be many Gorani etc there), perhaps the genocidal Serb army was targeting the religious group and not the ethnic group.--Ploutarchos 13:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not (just) my line of logic, the wording is also used by the UK Foreign Office on their Country Profile: Bosnia and Herzegovina. They use the term "Peoples: Bosniak (Muslim), Croat, Serb, Others" and "Religions: Islam (Bosniaks), Roman Catholicism (Croats) and Orthodox (Serbian)" and use the term Bosniak in most of the page, but in the sentence talking about genocide they write "However the court ruled that Serbia did not use its influence to prevent the genocide of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in July 1995, and that Serbia's leaders had failed to comply with their international obligations to punish those who carried out the massacre - calling for the immediate transfer of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Members of the international community called upon both countries to respect the judgment and react constructively." --Philip Baird Shearer 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I can't go through all that about a Court (ICJ in this case) continuing to use consistent terminology when you just disregard what I say. --Opbeith 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what you have just written. Please can you rephrase it? Did you read what the UK FO wrote in the source I provided? I think it makes it clear that the UK FO makes the same differentiation that I am making, probably for the same reason that Ploutarchos highlights (that without further clarification from the court record it is not possible to know if the genocide was ethnically or religiously based. As that is not clear it is best to stick with the same phrase that is used in the court case so that there is no chance the Wikipedia is misrepresenting who were the victims of the the genocide --Philip Baird Shearer 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you to read what you yourself wrote. The FO use the term Bosniaks except when they are quoting the International Court of Justice which is dealing with a case in which proceedings were instituted back in 1992 when it was customary in international circles to refer to the ethnic community by the FRY designation of Bosnian Muslims. You simply ignore what I have said about consistent terminology. I become more and more convinced that you are pursuing a own point of view because you persist in ignoring arguments and evidence that challenges what you are saying. --Opbeith 08:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From the history of the article: Live Forever (Revert per Opbeith. If you could please provide a reference that all 8,000 men were indeed adherents of Islam, then this edit might be valid.) -- The source is the court case that is cited -- can you provide a reference that the genocide was not against "Bosnian Muslims" as that is what the court case says. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So now it's up to me to prove that not every single one of these men was a Muslim (in a former socialist country with a large population of agnostics and atheists no less)? I'm sorry, but you're the one making blanket statements about the victims' religious beliefs. Unless you could provide a reference that specifically takes into account the religious orientation of every individual victim, I'm afraid that what you're doing is simply pushing original research. Live Forever 21:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If I didn't know better, I'd say that various editors' negative and confrontational attitude on this talkpage is trolling. If the judges, on whom the bulk of the credibility of the genocide position rests, found that Muslims had suffered genocide, how is it original research to say in the Muslims suffered genocide? One can only say that Bosniaks and Bosnian Muslims are synonyms in order to change the terminology, but now we are told by those supporting altering the main source's words that Bosniaks and Bosnian Muslims are not synonyms; one term referring to the ethnic group and one to a religious group.--Ploutarchos 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
And if I didn't know any better, I'd say that various editors' snide comments and baseless insinuations could be interpreted as trolling themselves. If you feel that trolling is taking place, it's up to you to initiate the appropriate bureaucratic procedure to deal with it - not to leave veiled comments that could be seen as threats on discussion pages. In the meanwhile, I'd like to focus on improving this article, and forcing inaccurate terminology into it is not what I'd consider a positive contribution. For one, the bulk of the "credibility" behind the genocide position does not rest exclusively on the court ruling - although its legal status is certainly important, such comments can only come from either a simplistic interpretation of events or a flagrant attempt to misinterpret such events. The Srebrenica massacre's status as "genocide" has wide-spread acceptance in international academic institutions, human rights organizations, political circles and even public perception - acceptance that has existed since well before the court case in question. "Bosnian Muslims" and "Bosniaks" are indeed synonyms for the same ethnic group, but "Bosnian Muslim" is imprecise because it explicitly refers to a religious affiliation that, in today's modern world, we could not possibly verify for over 8,000 people. "Bosnian Muslim" would work well if we were dealing with a relevant context - historical events (pre 1945), or issues with Bosniak religious organizations are two such examples - but it is misleading and inaccurate for an event such as the Srebrenica massacre. Seeing as the court case in question was quite obviously referring to "Bosnian Muslims" in an ethnic sense (as opposed to explicitly referring to the religious affiliation of all victims), the term Bosniak would be just as fitting in describing the event without the unverifiable implications of a loaded term such as "Bosnian Muslim". Live Forever 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving along, the way the sentence is structured makes it plain to see that the subject is the Srebrenica massacre itself, and not the specific court case. As such, the terminology used in the court decision does not necessarily have any direct bearing on the term this article should use. I would also like to mention that this article originally stated "8,000 Bosniak males", and that insisting on the wording "8,000 Bosnian Muslim males" represents a change from the existing consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my several years of working on wikipedia I've been under the impression that consensus is required before making a controversial change to an article. Instead, what I see here is editors forcing the name "Bosnian Muslim" into the article over the entirely valid objections and concerns of other editors who have worked on this article for months previously. If you (apparently strongly) believe that the article should name "Bosnian Muslims" rather than Bosniaks, please try to cite the appropriate reasons here. Don't, however, simply push these changes over the objections of fellow editors - objections that have yet to be answered properly. For what reason does this article absolutely have to use a demonstratably inaccurate term such as "Bosnian Muslim" over an equally valid and previously accepted one such as "Bosniak"? Live Forever 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a few questions: And all that isn't WP:OR? How do you know that court case in question was quite obviously referring to "Bosnian Muslims" in an ethnic sense (as opposed to explicitly referring to the religious affiliation of all victims)? How do all these academics etc you mention refer to them? As "Bosniaks"?--Ploutarchos 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The term Bosnian Muslim can be interpreted in two ways: either ethnically and synonymous with Bosniak, or religiously as referring to an adherent of Islam within Bosnia. For the second interpretation to hold here, we would have to assume that all 8,000+ victims of the genocide in Srebrenica were practicing Muslims from Bosnia. Does the court judgment ever make or imply such a claim, outside of simply using the term "Bosnian Muslim"? If not, the only possible conclusion is that the court is referring to Bosnian Muslims in an ethnic sense. This is not original research, it is simple logic. And a broad overview of the "academics etc" that I mentioned shows that the terms "Bosniak" and "Bosnian Muslim" are used interchangeably, further clarifying that the group in question is an ethnic one. A simple Google search should be enough for you to uncover numerous references to the Srebrenica genocide as a massacre of "Bosniaks". Unless you can demonstrate that there is some wide-spread debate over the nature of the victim group (i.e. whether is it ethnic or religious) the only logical conclusion here is that the two terms are used interchangeably to refer to an ethnicity. Live Forever 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If used interchangeably, should we not use the Court's usage by default? Hornplease 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I would say no for two reasons. A.) The sentence in question is not specifically referring to the Court's decision, but the massacre itself, and B.) the term "Bosnian Muslim" is considered inaccurate because of its implied religious affiliation. Live Forever 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Live Forever, you have summed up the situation precisely. --Opbeith 08:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The term can be interpreted more than one way that is why we should stick with the term used by the "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia", because you (Live Forever) are drawing your own conclusions over what the ICTFY meant that can be side-steped by using the term they used which is "Bosnian Muslim". As I pointed out above this is precisly what the UK Foreign Office does on their Country Profile: Bosnia and Herzegovina webpage. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's review. A.) The term "Bosnian Muslim" can be interpreted in two ways: religiously or ethnically. B.) In the context of the Srebrenica massacre, the term is interpreted ethnically. This is clear not only from the court ruling itself which does not treat it as religious term (not "original research", not "drawing [my own] conclusions", but observable fact), but from the wealth of other information on the Srebrenica massacre. C.) As we are not referring to the court ruling but the massacre itself, we are in no way binded to use the term "Bosnian Muslim", and should use the word that best describes the targeted group in the Srebrenica massacre without any religious implications. D.) That word is Bosniak. Live Forever 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Live Forever that you are drawing your own conclusions. It is not clear to me from the court ruling because paragraph 560 says:

The Chamber concludes that the protected group, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Statute, must be defined, in the present case, as the Bosnian Muslims. The Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica or the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia constitute a part of the protected group under Article 4. The question of whether an intent to destroy a part of the protected group falls under the definition of genocide is a separate issue that will be discussed below.

Article 4 of the Statute says "whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"[10] and AFAICT the court did not define which of the four they were talking about (or if it encompased more than one of the four). What is your source that identifies the specific criteria the court was using was ethnical? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with the three revert rule, but thank you for reverting without consensus simply because I was not able to immediately respond. Until the morning then. Live Forever 01:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there are clearly arguments for both, from reliable sources but with a dispute over which came first and which has proper authority, isn't it best to refrain from taking a stance, but rather let the reader consult the references and draw their own conclusion? At the very least, until this discussion is over? I've offered up a compromise wording to this end. – Kieran T (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Kieran, please don't take this the wrong way because I do sympathize with your efforts at compromise, but the new wording is equally absurd because it hits at the crux of the problem: "Bosniak" and "Bosnian Muslim", in this context, are exactly the same. The only difference is that "Bosnian Muslim" is an imprecise and antiquated term that implies a religious affiliation, whereas Bosniak is a modern national name that does not. The only problem here is that various editors with (in all due respect) an obviously limited familiarity with Bosnian culture, history and society keep forcefuly inserting a term that they are personally more familiar with through western media over one that is not only widely-accepted in english but preferred by surviving relatives of the genocide victims as well[11]. Add to this the fact that the article originally used the word "Bosniak" (whose article clearly explains the relationship between the two terms) without any problems, and this debate begins to border on the absurd. Live Forever 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In my exchanges with Philip Baird Shearer I tried to set out the case why we should respect the use by the ICJ and the ICTY of the wording "Bosnian Muslims" when we quote directly from court proceedings while otherwise acknowledging that use of the term is anachronistic. The term "Bosnian Muslims" was common usage (based on the FRY designation) to describe the ethnic group at the time when the events to which those proceedings relate began. The courts involved in proceedings relating to the genocide have continued to use the historic term. I am unaware of any court finding that refers to current usage. The international community is now better informed as to the distinction between the ethnic group and the faith community and the voice of the members of the group and the community (and as Live Forever has pointed out the survivors themselves) is clearly in favour of the use of the designation "Bosniaks". Accordingly, when we are outside the context of direct quotation it is appropriate for us to use the term "Bosniaks". If we are referring to ICJ/ICTY usage without quoting directly it is legitimate to use the term "Bosnian Muslims" within inverted commas to indicate that it is court usage that is being referred to.
I gave Philip Baird Shearer the "magazine" reference that he asked for (the Vulliamy article). Then I gave him an official source with a clear signpost of when the change was acknowledged by the international community (the Secretary General's Report). I cited the CIA World Fact Book as a current authority, controverting his reference to the CIA World Fact Book. The UK Foreign Office reference endorses the use of the term "Bosniak" and I have pointed out that PBS's citation of the FO text as an endorsement of his use of the term "Bosnian Muslims" is not supported by the text itself, which only mentions the term in quoting from the ICJ. I have tried to discuss why the term "Bosnian Muslims" continues to be used in court proceedings dating from and relating to a time when usage derived from the FRY convention for the designation of the "national community". Live Forever has pointed out with reference to Ploutarchos's hypothesis that the victims of the genocide were targeted on the basis of their religious affiliation that there is no evidence of this in court findings. In fact interpretations of the application of the Genocide Convention clearly refer to the ethnic identity of the group rather than its religious identity. These points are not challenged or refuted, PBS simply states and restates his conviction that the term used in the ICTY and ICJ findings should be used generally. It's hard not to conclude along with Live Forever that "this debate begins to border on the absurd". --Opbeith 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You write The UK Foreign Office reference endorses the use of the term "Bosniak" and I have pointed out that PBS's citation of the FO text as an endorsement of his use of the term "Bosnian Muslims" is not supported by the text itself, . Here is the relevent UKFO text:
The ICJ found that Serbia had not committed genocide through its organs or persons and had not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide. However the court ruled that Serbia did not use its influence to prevent the genocide of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in July 1995, and that Serbia's leaders had failed to comply with their international obligations to punish those who carried out the massacre - calling for the immediate transfer of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Members of the international community called upon both countries to respect the judgment and react constructively.
It is not a quote. That they use "Bosniak" through the rest of the page, but only here use the term "Bosnian Muslims" illistrates the case I am putting forward. I am not suggesting using Bosnian Muslims anywhere but in a paragraph relating to the Srebrenica massacre just as the UKFO do on that page.--Philip Baird Shearer 10:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
But surely common sense tells us that this is an indirect quote, set as it is in the context established by the introductory statements "The ICJ found that" and "The court ruled that"? --Opbeith 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The sentence on the article page also includes ICTY in a similar manner: "ruled as a case of genocide at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)." If you like we can make that more explicit in the sentence by moving mention of the ICTY from the end of the sentence to the start. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we're not talking about reconstructing the sentence in order to be able to keep "Bosnian Muslims", we're discussing whether in the sentence as it stands "Bosniaks" is more appropriate than "Bosnian Muslims" - you seem absolutely determined not to concede the legitimacy of the term "Bosniaks". --Opbeith 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Opbeith. To me it seems more and more like you have some agenda here, because you're starting to go against fundemental logic and reason to avoid saying "Bosniaks". Live Forever 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the judges also had an agenda.--Ploutarchos 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps they're making judgements on cases initiated at a previous time, as we've already discussed in length. Live Forever 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And you're here to update their judgements, how nice. Based on what exactly are you updating them though and how doesn't that breach WP:OR?--Ploutarchos 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Just read the discussion and then if you're going to come up with more speculative hypotheses of your own bring some evidence to support them - either that or start examining your own position with regard to original research. --Opbeith 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
--Opbeith I think that you have it the wrong way around. It is you who is speculating. The trial names the group as "Bosnian Muslims". It is up to you to come up with a verifiable reliable source (a legal analysis) that specifically says that the court meant Bosniak not Bosnian Muslim when they wrote their judgement. To date all you have done is speculate that the judges meant Bosniak when they wrote Bosnian Muslim.--Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

National group or religious group?: Philip Baird Shearer cites paragraph 560 of the Krstic ruling, "The Chamber concludes that the protected group, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Statute, must be defined, in the present case, as the Bosnian Muslims. The Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica or the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia constitute a part of the protected group under Article 4." and proceeds to say that "AFAICT the court did not define which of the four they were talking about (or if it encompased more than one of the four)."

And yet in the preceding paragraph, paragraph 559 the Chamber sets out quite clearly the premise on which it bases its conclusion as to the identity of the protected group: "Originally viewed as a religious group, the Bosnian Muslims were recognised as a “nation” by the Yugoslav Constitution of 1963. The evidence tendered at trial also shows very clearly that the highest Bosnian Serb political authorities and the Bosnian Serb forces operating in Srebrenica in July 1995 viewed the Bosnian Muslims as a specific national group [my emphasis]. Conversely, no national, ethnical, racial or religious characteristic makes it possible to differentiate the Bosnian Muslims residing in Srebrenica, at the time of the 1995 offensive, from the other Bosnian Muslims. The only distinctive criterion would be their geographical location, not a criterion contemplated by the Convention. In addition, it is doubtful that the Bosnian Muslims residing in the enclave at the time of the offensive considered themselves a distinct national, ethnical, racial or religious group among the Bosnian Muslims. Indeed, most of the Bosnian Muslims residing in Srebrenica at the time of the attack were not originally from Srebrenica but from all around the central Podrinje region. Evidence shows that they rather viewed themselves as members of the Bosnian Muslim group."

Although it is not stated explicitly that the court itself is considering the group as a national group, that is where the emphasis lies and the court certainly does not identify the subject group in specifically religious terms.

In paragraph 593 it is apparent that Krstic's Defence believed that the charge of genocide concerned the destruction of an ethnic group: "The Defence concludes that “there is no proof and evidence upon which this Trial Chamber could conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that the killings were carried out with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Bosnian Muslims as an ethnic group”." [I have not examined the Defence's arguments], and in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment the group is identified as one of the ethnic groups living in the area, without reference to the group's religious affiliation - paragraph 7 "From 1945 until 1990, Yugoslavia was composed of six Republics – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. Certain Republics were populated predominantly by one ethnic group: for example, Serbs in Serbia and Croats in Croatia. The region under consideration, in the present case, formed part of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Bosnia”), which was the most multi-ethnic of all the Republics, with a pre-war population of 44 percent Muslim, 31 percent Serb, and 17 percent Croat." and paragraph 11 "The town of Srebrenica is nestled in a valley in eastern Bosnia, about fifteen kilometres from the Serbian border. ... In 1991, the population of the municipality was 37,000, of which 73 percent were Muslim and 25 percent were Serb.6 Prior to the war, the standard of living was high and members of the different ethnic groups, for the most part, lived comfortably together."

There is not a single reference in the Krstic judgment to the Bosnian Muslims being treated for the purposes of the genocide finding or for any other purpose as a religious group other than that one reference cited above mentioning that they had been "originally viewed as a religious group". --Opbeith 09:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that your analysis proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they meant just an ethnical and not religious Genocide. I think that the Serbs also targeted mosques suggests that there was a strong religious motive to their genocide, but that is just my opinion. The trouble with your analysis, is that it is your analysis. To add Bosniak to the text you will need to find a verifiable reliable source (a legal analysis) that does the same analysis. BTW using the failed Defence arguments as an explanation for the wording of the Judgement is not the usual way that one would go about such an analysis. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Opbeith has demonstrated clearly that the ICTY was refering to Bosnian Muslims as an ethnic group. It is obvious to anyone familiar with the massacre in Srebrenica that the RS forces were targeting Bosnian Muslims as an ethnic group. The RS forces did not give a damn whether the men and boys they murdered were praying on a regular basis or not, whether those killed were atheists or people of faith. People were murdered because they had last names like Hasanovic, Bajramovic, and Halilovic and first names like Enver, Fikret, and Muhamed which identified them as being members of an ethnic group. It is absurd to say that Opbeith has to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest legal standard, before using the term Bosniak.
In this statement issued by the UN Security Council dated May 16, 2007, not once does it use the term "Bosnian Muslim" but rather Bosniak to refer to this ethnic group. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9018.doc.htm
In this report posted on the unhcr website, the ICG does not once use the term Bosnian Muslim but rather Bosniak to refer to this ethnic group. http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/43bd274c4.pdf
The US State Department uses the term Bosniak to refer to this ethnic group. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm
Fairview360 03:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am here from a request at Requests for Comment. Because of the lack of an appropriate section, I will write here. Based on utility only, rather than NPOV, Bosnian Muslims is preferable. Bosniak is a term bordering jargon, and some (me, for example) will not know what is meant by it before reading the article Bosniak. If Bosniak is indeed the scientifically correct term to use, it would be preferable to first introduce the term, then use it throughout the article. For example (this is horribly POV, and serves only the purpose of explaining how the term Bosniak could be introduced):

“ Bosnian Genocide is a term frequently applied to the Bosnian war between Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and the armed forces of the Republika Srpska. [...] ”

--User:Krator (t c) 21:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see what's so horribly POV with that last line of yours - it's completely correct without going into the legal intricacies of the issue. As for the Bosniak/Bosnian Muslim debate, introducing the term is fine but I think it'd make more sense if it went: "8,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) males" Live Forever 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the other way around is better "8,000 Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) males" as the term is sourced in the court ruling, but it does allow people to realise that there is now an alternative word that can be used. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It should read the "between the Army of BiH and the RS Army." It is not accurate to describe the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina as the "Muslims" since there were Serbs, Croats, Jews, Roma, and people of mixed heritage in Armija BiH. Fairview360 03:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Live Forever, surely it is a POV description of the Bosnian War. The legitimate Bosnian government was the government not just of the Bosniaks but also of the Bosnian Croats and the loyal Bosnian Serbs resisting Serbian territorial expansion and the actions of Serbia's Bosnian Serb proxies in Republika Srpska. You're surely not saying that the war should be described as simply an ethnic conflict.

Krator, you are being quite reasonable as someone coming new to the subject to ask for an explanation of the terms in order to resolve the confusion promoted here and elsewhere. The article should explain that "Bosnian Muslims" is the historic term for the national group and has now been superseded in contemporary usage. I have described above how the ICTY and ICJ treat the "Bosnian Muslims" as a national/ethnic group for the purposes of the Genocide Convention and not as a religious group. They continue to use the term in proceedings that was valid at the time the proceedings were initiated. Where the context requires the correct contemporary usage (ie other than in quotation from court proceedings or reference to official sources such as the 1991 census, the term "Bosniak", which distinguishes the national/ethnic group from the faith community is sanctioned by the CIA World Fact Book and UK Foreign Office usage. The term "Bosnian Muslims" for the national/ethnic group is anachronistic and except in quotations or references to the religious group should not be used unless the intention is to perpetuate confusion. Philip Baird Shearer, how much of what I have said is speculation? --Opbeith 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We are going back over the same ground. The UK FO source uses the term "Bosnian Muslim" when referring to the victims of the genocide. We have not presented any evidence that in common English usage "Bosnian Muslims" is an historical term -- we have found some sites which use the term "Bosniak" ,but that does not make the other usages historical eg here is a source from 2007 that uses the term Bosnian Muslim (BBC 27 Feb 07). Also we have not produced a souce that states that the court meant Bosniak when they said "Bosnian Muslim". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Philip Baird Shearer, you are misrepresenting the discussion of the FO usage. That was clearly a quote from the ICJ judgment. You're determined to stick it out until everyone gives in. I feel that point may be getting near as far as I'm concerned, I don't appreciate having to repeat everything I've already said for someone who pays no attention to what anyone else says. You've been told numerous times why "Bosnian Muslims" is an accurate name for the national/ethnic group as opposed to the faith community. I referred you to the UN Secretary General's report citing the use of Bosniacs after 1993 - that was a clear and unequivocal statement. You choose not to try to read the FO text as a reader applying common sense would. You simply ignore the CIA World Fact Book and for some reason of your own give a rendering of its content that is simply incorrect. You disregard the near unanimous opinion of Bosniaks including survivors and relatives of the victims of the atrocities that we are referring to, many of them English-speaking members of the diaspora community. And yet without hesitation you assert "We have not presented any evidence that in common English usage "Bosnian Muslims" is an historical term". Absolutely and utterly determined to get your way. --Opbeith 23:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Above you (Opbeith) wrote But surely common sense tells us that this is an indirect quote, set as it is in the context established by the introductory statements "The ICJ found that" and "The court ruled that"? But now you write "That was clearly a quote from the ICJ" have you changed you mind? The UK FO usage is exactly the same as it should be in this article. We are also indirectly quoting the ICTY, because to date no expert source has been presented that says that the ICTY mean Bosniak when they said Bosnian Muslim. The CIA World Fact Book that points out that the two terms are not synonymous, and the UK FO usage if Bosnian Muslims only when referring to the genocide, supports the use by Wikipedia of the use of the term "Bosnian Muslim" when referring to the genocide not the other way around. But I have said all this higher up this talk page, so like you I am not sure why say "You simply ignore the CIA World Fact Book" and "You choose not to try to read the FO text as a reader applying common sense would" and AFAICT you are not addressing the specific points that I have raised before. I have presented more than one recent verifiable reliable source that uses the term "Bosnian Muslim" when referring to the genocide, and you have not produced one verifiable source to back up you claim that the court meant "Bosniak" when saying "Bosnian Muslim" or a source that states that "Bosnian Muslim" is an antiquated name. I think you need to produce some sources to back up you claims. If you do then the sources can be included in the text. Otherwise I suggest we change it closer to the FO wording so that you will be comfortable with the concept that it is an indirect quote from the ICTY -- which given the source (of the trial) I think already clear.--Philip Baird Shearer 09:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
In this statement issued by the UN Security Council dated May 16, 2007, not once does it use the term "Bosnian Muslim" but rather Bosniak to refer to this ethnic group. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9018.doc.htm
In this report posted on the unhcr website, the ICG does not once use the term Bosnian Muslim but rather Bosniak to refer to this ethnic group. http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/43bd274c4.pdf
The US State Department uses the term Bosniak to refer to this ethnic group. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm
It is clear from ICTY statements provided by Opbeith that the ICTY was refering to Bosnian Muslims as an ethnic group.
Fairview360 12:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


"Above you (Opbeith) wrote But surely common sense tells us that this is an indirect quote, set as it is in the context established by the introductory statements "The ICJ found that" and "The court ruled that"? But now you write "That was clearly a quote from the ICJ" have you changed you mind?"

When I wrote "This was clearly a quote" I didn't think it would be incumbent on me to make the whole point again that it was the FO quoting the ICJ, hence an indirect quote. Surely I can describe an indirect quote as a quote without most people assuming I have changed my mind and mean a direct quote? So again, you're misrepresenting the FO text, which confirms the use of the term Bosniak as the current term.

The quote doesn't change the basic principle of the FO's current usage. You don't say why you don't accept the current text and usage of the CIA World Fact Book. Both the FO and CIA texts in using the term Bosniak indicate that "Bosnian Muslim" is not the current accepted term. If these sources are not authoritative please a more authoritative reference that confirms that them to be incorrect. Please tell me why you ignore the UN Secretary General's comment in the Report on the Fall of Srebrenica.

I don't have a reference to the Court specifically stating that it means "Bosniak" when it refers to "Bosnian Muslims" but I have cited the ICTY's own deliberations in which it makes it clear that the subject of its deliberations is the national/ethnic group, not the religious group and I have provided a detailed explanation why when it is not the religious group that is being used but the national/ethnic group the correct current term is "Bosniaks" rather than "Bosnian Muslims".

I do not argue with you that the term is used in the context of ICTY and ICJ deliberations so I am not disregarding that specific point of yours. I have given you the evidence of what the ICTY considers itself to be meaning when it uses the term "Bosnian Muslims" and I have offered an explanation for the continued use of the term in its judgments, which you do not refute but simply deny.

You do not give a moment's consideration to the argument that current use of the incorrect term propagates misinformation, misunderstanding and offence. The most authoritative sources and members of the group themselves support the use of "Bosniaks" to refer to that group. The use of Bosnian Muslims outside quotations from ICTY and ICJ findings perpetuates a misapprehension that has significant consequences for current debate.

I do not argue with you that the term is used in the context of ICTY and ICJ deliberations so I am not disregarding that specific point of yours. I have pointed out that we should continue to use the term "Bosnian Muslims" when quoting, directly or indirectly, from court findings. But when we are referring to the genocide outside of that context it is a grave error to continue misrepresenting the victim group and perpetuating the use of ill-informed terminology.

I think that an explanation which cites the Secretary General's report and refers to the current authoritative usage would be helpful at a very early point in the article, but it is wrong - WRONG - to continue to use the term "Bosnian Muslim" with reference to the genocide outside the context of the legal texts as the article's own descriptor.

I'm not advocating a decision by majority vote but what I do suggest to you is that both Live Forever and Fairview360 are knowledgeable and informed commentators and you might pay heed to the points they've made too.

Nevertheless I'm happy to repeat all this again for you tomorrow.--Opbeith 13:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK we are nearly in agreement. My point is that the paragraph that is in dispute is similar to the UK FO usage, what you call an indirect quote. For that reason I think that unless a specific reliable source can be found stating that the court mean Bosniak when they used Bosnian Muslim we should use the same wording for the group as the court used. But I have absoulutly no objection to "Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak)" with the link is on the work Bosniak. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, I'm not clear why suddenly you declare us to be nearly in agreement when you and I are clearly still in disagreement and you have given no explanation for this sudden change of view. You and I read the paragraph completely differently. I see it as a statement giving a description from the location of the article, you see it as a statement in the form of a quotation from the ICJ/ICTY. Nothing has bridged the difference between our positions and I have absolutely no objection to "Bosniak ({{Bosniak Muslim]]). --Opbeith 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "Bosniak Muslim" or was that a typo? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
you're right, typo, should have been "Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim)" --Opbeith 18:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-constructing the article

Since I see that several constructive editors are here, I think it might be the right time to start re-structuring this article - it's an important topic and deserves a far broader and more informative text than this. In particular, I think we have to revise the introduction as soon as possible. As it stands, the introduction makes it seem as if the ICJ's split ruling somehow conclusively proves once and for all that genocide did not occur. This is incredibly misleading because it implies that the existence of a genocide rests solely on the legal opinion of several judges. In fact, that finding was opposed by several members of the court (including the vice-president) and was widely criticized by academics worldwide as being conservative and setting an incredibly high standard of proof. Furthermore, the Bosnian genocide is not only recognized but widely recognized among academic institutions, human rights organizations, and genocide historians. Let us also not forget that several court cases remain pending, in which the accused have been indicted on charges of genocide. All of this should be taken into account in discussing genocide in bosnia, with the ICJ ruling being incorporated as a very significant development that illustrates ongoing academic debate over the scope and meaning of the crime. Instead, what we have here is an article that completely ignores all of this and rushes head over heels to represent the controversial ruling as some "end-all" event. Live Forever 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better that the article is moved to "Bosnian atrocities", then crimes against humanity and other serious crimes that happened in the time and place that this article discusses can be discussed. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Why? Genocide happened in Bosnia - this has, by now, been established. The only questions are the nature and scope. Live Forever 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
...and the article, for, what, 3 years of its existence, has been wiggingly revolving on the moot issues of definition, nature, and scope, hiding around court decisions, giving too much weight to empty U.S. Congress, Bosniak-Serb debates and quoting Bosnian Serb officials, and failing to demonstrate the amount and scope of the atrocities. For the life of me, I can't figure out what is the intended scope of this article; it's a mishmash dangerously bordering against WP:SYN. Sorry, I still think this is hand-waving, not an encyclopedic article. I'll repeat for the n-th time, and in the best possible faith: demonstrate, don't assert. Why is there not an Atrocities in Bosnian War article in summary style instead of those apples and oranges mixed together? Duja► 14:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Duja, there should be an Atrocities in the Bosnian War (or similar title) article serving as an honest review of crimes committed on all sides, subject to due respect for accuracy and proportionality. That would of course be a different article from Bosnian Genocide, which is a different subject. --Opbeith 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Duja, now that I have some free time I will certainly try to "demonstrate". I have good faith in my edits to this article; I am not trying to use wikipedia as a soapbox or to prove a point, I merely think that this is an important topic and the current article doesn't due it justice. I will make my contribution to it over the next several weeks. Live Forever 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Philip Baird Shearer is once again completely ignoring what other people have said on the issue. Genocide happened in Bosnia. That doesn't stop the issue of the crimes against humanity and other serious crimes being discussed here. --Opbeith 13:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion has to be about whether or not there was 'general' Genocide in Bosnia during the war or if it is just constrained to the Srebrenica massacre. The only thing which the article needs to demonstrate is that there is such a term as the "Bosnian genocide" and what those who use it mean by it (there are approx. 788 answers when Googling "Bosnian Genocide" -trial -wikipedia -answers -ruling[12]). A section can be added at the end about the legal findings and the further debate. Osli73 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

One has to restrict the pages to English and for the use of the term since the ICJ ruled on February 26, 2007. Then one has to look at the pages returned and screen out those which are not reliable sources:
  • Those who state that the ICJ does not know what is was doing --in so doing so dtill claim that a general genocide was committed -- but are not qualified legal experts.
  • Those who have a political axe to grind "He would say that wouldn't he?".
  • Those who use the term for the Srebrenica massacre (which are arguments for merging the pages)
once that is done which is the most reliable source returned by Google for the use of the term "Bosnian Genocide"?
--Philip Baird Shearer 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Philip, my understanding is that the term "Bosnian Genocide", when not referring to the Srebrenica massacre or to the recently completed ICJ trial (as in "the Bosnian Genocide trial"), is used primarily by those who believe that the entire war in Bosnia constituted genocide against the Bosnian Muslim population. So, in my opinion, the article should say precisely that - that "Bosnian Genocide" is "a term used by some who believe that the Bosnian War constituted Genocide against the Bosnian Muslim population of that country." It should then go on to mention the ICJ case and its outcome.Osli73 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi all, here's suggestion for changing the intro-text:

The term "Bosnian Genocide" is used by those who believe that the killing of Bosniaks during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995 constituted genocide. It is sometimes used to refer to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, which was declared to be an act of genocide by the ICTY in its 2001 ruling against General Krstic.[3] In 1993 the Bosnian government brought a case against Yugoslavia (now Serbia) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, charging, amongst other things, that it was responsible for genocide against the Bosniak people. On February 27 2007 the court confirmed that the Srebrenica massacre constituted an act of genocide but dismissed Bosnian claims that genocide has been committed on the whole territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[4] The term Bosnian Genocide has also been used by some academics,[5] and human rights officials[6] Some national courts have also made ruling pertaining to specific acts of genocide committed in Bosnia during the war, though none have found that there was wide-scale genocide in the whole of Bosnia. A German court, in 1997, handed down a genocide conviction agaist Nikola Jorgic, a Serb soldier, who was sentenced to four terms of life imprisonment for his involvement in genocidal actions that took place in regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, other than Srebrenica; [7] and in a judgement against Novislav Djajic on 23 May 1997, the Bavarian Appeals Chamber found that acts of genocide were committed in June 1992, confined within the administrative district of Foca.[8]

CheersOsli73 14:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a step backwards, if it is only a belief then it does not make it true (which could be seen as a POV). If there is no source to support the assertion "The term "Bosnian Genocide is used by those who believe..." then it is OR. The current start has verifiable sources and can be modified when new souces show that the term has been used since the ICJ judgement by academics, and/or human rights officials. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


PBS, the article presents Bosnian Genocide as referring to wider 'genocide' in Bosnia during the 92-95 war, ie including but greater than the Srebrenica genocide. However, while the Srebrenica massacre has actually been declared an act of genocide by both the ICTY and the ICJ there is no such judgement regarding wider Bosnian genocide. In fact, the ICJ specifically stated that there was no wider pattern of genocide in Bosnia. The AP article used as a source in the article states "...the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide were met only in Srebrenica.". That the ICJ believes thate there was no genocide outside of the Srebrenica massacre, ie no "Bosnian genocide" in the wider sense, does come accross clearly in the intro text (nor anywhere else in the article). However, obviously there are many people who disagree with the ICJ's findings and believe that there was a wider Bosnian genocide. I just believe that the article should be clear about what the ICJ/ICTY has found and what people who use the term "Bosnian genocide" mean. Pls see how it is described in this article as a pointer as to how I would like it described. CheersOsli73 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

From the page sourcd above:
In spite of this judgement, some argue that the killing of Bosniaks during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina did constitute genocide and the term Bosnian genocide is used by some (University of California Riverside, Bosnian Genocide In the Historical Perspective, [13]), and human rights officials (Human Rights Watch, Milosevic to Face Bosnian Genocide Charges, 11 December 2001 [14]).
The problem with the last sentence from the Genocides in history#Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995 is that the sources do not support the sentence. Unlike this article the sentence does not make clear that: "Before this ruling the term Bosnian Genocide had been used by some academics, and human rights officials". If you wish to use the sentence as it is currently used in the "G-i-h" then you need to find reliable souces (none POV sources like those found for usage before the ICJ ruling) since the ICJ ruling that still use the term Bosnian Genocide. The first source does not make clear what they mean by "Bosnian Genocide" and although it is not dated the text contains a line which shows that it was written before the ICJ ruling ."Important Note: This syllabus is from a past course, ... I suggest that you pay attention to the following schedule: February 1st. One-page statement of topic and thesis" (my emphasis) So it was written before the ICJ judgement. This is confirmed] by looking at the history of this article, the reference was in this article before the ICJ ruling. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

PBS, a couple of comments:

  1. I think it's quite clear that the term "Bosnian genocide" is well established
  2. I simply feel that the article should specify that the term Bosnian Genocide is used by those who believe that there was genocide against the Bosniak population during the Bosnian war 92-95. There are several examples of this view.
  3. I believe the article should state that both the ICTY and the ICJ have judged the 1995 Srebrenica massacre to be an act of Genocide
  4. However, I also believe that the article should clearly state that the ICJ did not agree with the Bosnian govt that there was any wider genocide outside of the Srebrenica massacre during the war.
  5. I don't understand why you think it's important if the term was used before or after the ICJ judgement.

CheersOsli73 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not historic usage that is the primary concern of this article it is current usage. If it was only used as a propaganda term before the ICJ ruling then it is now archaic. If it is still a current term then it will be easy to find a reliable academic source that uses the term to after the ICJ ruling. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Serbs on English Wikipedia are funny...

We have article Bosnian Genocide. But we don't have Anti-Bosniak sentiment. Lol, because of the complexed users that are frustrated with position of their country. Just pathetic. --HarisM 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)And not only this one article, I could just imagine what are they doing, let's say, on Kosovo related article. Funny, just funny, just to watch you. Big Hello anywayz, don't be offended by my short observation,  :)

Aren't hasty generalizations great? Isn't it "funny" what an ass people make of themselves by making such sweeping statements? "I could just imagine" what other similar statements you are making... *Tee hee* oh but, dont be offended, that was just a "short observation" ;) Maîtresse 22:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Great Succes. *Tee hee* Best is yet to come... ;) --HarisM 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction July 2007

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the Srebrenica massacre or, by some, to the killing of Bosniaks during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

What is the reliable souces (not POV unreliable sources) that since the ICJ ruling on February 26, 2007, that the above is true? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a BBC source that uses the "Bosnian genocide" for the Srebrenica massacre. But note the lower case "g" perhapse this article should be move? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
After looking through various uses, the term "Bosnian genocide" seems to be used in the following ways:

So, it seems that there are a lot of people who use the term "Bosnian genocide" to refer to a wider genocide on the territory of the Bosnia during the 92-95 war. That's what I wanted to get accross in my revised intro text. CheersOsli73 16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First one has to take out all those sources which are not verifiable reliable sources. You and I are not in dissagreement about the Srebrenica massacre, and Bosnian genocide trial. I am happy to include the third one providing that there are reliable sources post the ICJ ruling in Feb 2007. Of those that are presented AFAICT only one might fit this description:

That leaves:

  • Jaskirt Dhaliwal BBC feature: Building Bridges I'm not sure that it is enough to argue that the term Bosnian genocide is still in general use by people for anything other than the Srebrenica massacre. Lets discuss it further. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Philip, a couple of comments on the above:

  • I'm not sure why it matters whether or not the reference was before or after the ICJ ruling. A lot of people believe that there was a wider genocide in Bosnia. They believed this before the ICJ ruling in 2007 (though the process was initated in 1992) and they continue to believe this after the ruling. That fact that the Bosnian government contested the findings (that there wasn't wider genocide in Bosnia) is a very concrete example that there are those who believe the term is applicable to more than just the Srbrenica massacre. The Srebrenica genocide blog and the blog of Martin Shaw are examples of individuals who use the term. Finally, I'm not sure why we should require examples post the ICJ judgement - the term is an expression of opinion, not of fact.
  • in my opinion, the ICJ case/ruling are not at the center of the term "Bosnian genocide" - a belief that there was a wider genocide in Bosnia (ie apart from the Srebrenica massacre) is. Starting off with a description of the ICJ ruling is, in my opinion, applying too narrow a focus.

CheersOsli73 18:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are explicitly ruled out in WP:V: "... and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." A couple of days ago I put together an article called "genocide definitions". Before the ICJ ruling there was scope to present both sides of the argument ie it was a genocide because of abc or it was not a genocide because of xtz. But since the ICJ ruling, if anyone is going to argue in a reliable source, they are going to have to construct the criticism using one or more of those academic sources that define a genocide outside the body of international law originating from the CPPCG, if it is to have some chance of being taken seriously in the literature on genocides. Simply writing "I think the ICJ is wrong because whatever an international court rules I know better" is not a credible source. See Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for how a person can construct an argument (in this case a whole book) for the genocide of a population using one of the many academic genocide definitions that have been published over the years. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I see that we have a couple of options:

  1. if "Bosnian genocide" is synonymous with the Srebrenica massacre, then we should simply redirect to that article
  2. if "Bosnian genocide" is synonymous with the Bosnia vs Serbia case at the ICJ, then we should redirect to that article
  3. if "Bosnian genocide" is to describe the view held by some that there was a wider genocide in Bosnia (outside of the Srebrenica massacre) then we have to base this on views expressed in blogs, which is apparently not acceptable.

So, in conclusion it seems we should delete the article and redirect to #1 and #2 above. What do you think? CheersOsli73 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It could perhaps become a {{disambiguation}} page because the usage of the term could be to either the Srebrenica massacre or the ICJ case Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro). But what to do with the German court cases mentioned in the introduction? --Philip Baird Shearer 06:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi, then I vote for turning it into a disambiguation page. The German court cases (and any other court cases about individual genocide trials relating to Bosnia) could either be deleted (as being marginal cases, at least in relation to the ICTY&ICJ cases) or turned into their own articles if someone cares to. CheersOsli73 09:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Philip, how about removing the "Opinion" section? The US statement about the Srebrenica massacre doesn't really add that much (and the reader can find it in the Srebenica massacre article) and the other sub-sections seem to be examples of WP:OR. CheersOsli73 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been looking into this issue. The link on the German section includes
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001), The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, paragraph 589. citing Bavarian Appeals Court, Novislav Djajic case, 23 May 1997, 3 St 20/96, section VI, p. 24 of the English translation.
Paragraph 589 to do with Genocide#In part:
Several other sources confirm that the intent to eradicate a group within a limited geographical area such as the region of a country or even a municipality may be characterised as genocide. The United Nations General Assembly characterised as an act of genocide the murder of approximately 800 Palestinians[1306] detained at Sabra and Shatila, most of whom were women, children and elderly.[1307] The Jelisic Judgement held that genocide could target a limited geographic zone.[1308] Two Judgements recently rendered by German courts took the view that genocide could be perpetrated within a limited geographical area. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, in the Nikola Jorgic case, upheld the Judgement of the Düsseldorf Supreme Court,[1309] interpreting the intent to destroy the group “in part” as including the intention to destroy a group within a limited geographical area.[1310] In a Judgement against Novislav Djajic on 23 May 1997, the Bavarian Appeals Chamber similarly found that acts of genocide were committed in June 1992 though confined within the administrative district of Foca.[1311]
Which gives us an excuse to include these cases in a new article Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic which I think needs writing before this one becomes a disambiguation page. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Philip, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the Jorgic and Djajic cases are mentioned in the Krstic case at the ICTY these there is no need to write separate article about them as long as there is a specific Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic article which mentions them? This sounds like a good solution to me. RegardsOsli73 11:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes --Philip Baird Shearer 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to join the discussion so late, but I suppose I'll have to disagree with some of the earlier points and ask that the article not be torn to pieces just yet. Mainly, I'll refer to the crux of the discussion from earlier, where Osli stated "if 'Bosnian genocide is to describe the view held by some that there was a wider genocide in Bosnia (outside of the Srebrenica massacre) then we have to base this on views expressed in blogs, which is apparently not acceptable." Well, in fact, Martin Shaw's blog perfectly illustrates the problem with this statement. If we refer to WP:V and read the entire sentence regarding blogs, we'll see that the reason blogs are "largely not acceptable as sources" (emphasis by me) is because "Anyone can create a webssite or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." The obvious implication here is that blogs may sometimes serve as valid sources if the person behind thim actually is an expert in a certain field. This brings us back to Martin Shaw - as a published academic and scholar of genocide, I would argue that this is one such case where a blog would be an acceptable source. Even if not, I hope we can all agree that the blog would at least demonstrate off the record that Martin Shaw uses the term "Bosnian genocide"; in that case, for further referencing we could simply look at Shaw's other articles on the topic published on more typical source sites (if you look, some are even linked to from his blog). I would also like to point out that there are other sources which demonstrate that the "bosnian genocide" view is still held by academics and others: among the first that come to mind are articles by Marko Attila Hoare (Oxford professor), Ed Vulliamy (noted journalist), the dissenting opinion of the vice president of the ICJ, recent statements by human rights organizations in the Balkans (although these might be harder for me to dig up), and even a conference on genocide held in Bosnia a week ago that included noted genocide scholars from around the world and focused on events from throughout the country (I might still have newspapers from the time). With all this in mind, I'd strongly oppose any attempt to dismantle this article and merely make it a disambiguation page for Srebrenica and the ICJ. Rather, I would go with Osli's suggestion and focus this article on the belief that there was a country-wide genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In my view, the article would then combine a historical overview of the RS campaign against civilians during the Bosnian war (i.e. war crimes judged to be "acts of genocide" by the ICJ) with a summary of academic opinions, political developments and (most critically) legal views. Live Forever 23:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we should use the Martin Shaw's blog (If his have been published then that is another matter). But even if we did the place for those views would be in the Bosnian Genocide Case as should the descenting view of Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (prgrphs 30-34).
In the ECHR Jorgic v. Germany 12 July 2007, the ECHR makes the point in Paragrah 47:
Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that ethnic cleansing, in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide (see, amongst many others, William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law: the crime of crimes, Cambridge 2000, pp. 199 et seq.). However, there are also a considerable number of scholars who have suggested that these acts did amount to genocide (see, inter alia, M. Lippman, Genocide: The Crime of the Century, HOUJIL 23 (2001), p. 526, and J. Hübner, Das Verbrechen des Völkermordes im internationalen und nationalen Recht, Frankfurt a.M. 2004, pp. 208-17; G. Werle, differentiating in Völkerstrafrecht, 1st edition, Tübingen 2003, pp. 205, 218 et seq., pointed out that it depended on the circumstances of the case, in particular on the scope of the crimes committed, whether an intent to destroy the group as a social unit, as opposed to a mere intent to expel the group, could be proved).
(Note the phrase "social unit" in the Hübner reference, it was accepted by the German courts in the late 1990s but rejected by the ICJ)
These views were all published before the ICJ judgement on February 2007 has Marko Attila Hoare published views since the judgement? If they are like Shaw and Al-Khasawneh they are probably better off in the Bosnian Genocide Case article.
Live Forever, you wrote war crimes judged to be "acts of genocide" by the ICJ which paragraph of their text is that in? Because I noted in the descenting view of Al-Khasawneh in paragraph 30 "In stating this, I am not oblivious to the fact that the ICTY has not, so far, established that the crime of genocide or the other ancillary crimes enumerated in the Genocide Convention have taken place in Bosnia and Herzegovina (apart from Srebrenica) and consequently that genocide is more difficult, though not impossible, to prove."
I disagreee with your statement of "I would go with Osli's suggestion and focus this article on the belief that there was a country-wide genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina." This is an encyclopaedia not a blog site and if International law says there was no genocide then that must be the dominant position that this encyclopeadia represents. It is summed up in WP:NOR#Undue weight "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". --Philip Baird Shearer 14:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To adress your major points: yes, Marko Attila Hoare has published views since the judgement; I once again disagree with your assesment of Martin Shaw's blog, partly because you hardly responded to my argument and partly because Mr. Shaw has in fact been published; and the term "acts of genocide" refers to characterizations of certain aspects of ethnic cleansing as such in previous ICTY rulings (Krajisnik and Blagojevic), by which said courts meant that the VRS actions amounted to acts outlined in the genocide convention (i.e. causing serious mental harm under article 4.2.b) and, depending on genocidal intent, would amount to genocide (Blagojevic was convicted, Krajisnik was not) - while the ICJ judgement (iirc) did not re-iterate the ICTY's conclusions, it too stated that actions other than killing could constitute genocide and that these types of actions had been committed in Bosnia. So by "acts of genocide", then, I mean one component of the crime of genocide that has in fact been adressed by international courts - the term Bosnian genocide, as demonstrated by Martin Shaw and others, is used by those who believe that there was a country-wide genocide because these acts of genocide (VRS actions that meet the descriptions of acts from the genocide convention) were complimented with genocidal intent. Due to all this I further reject your "undue weight" argument, as WP:NPOV#Undue weight is quite clear. According to the policy, "significant minority" viewpoints do belong on Wikipedia and "can recieve attention on pages specifically devoted them" provided that "it... make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must no reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". The policy then goes on to cite Jimbo Wales, who defined "significant minority" viewpoints as follows: "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". With all this in mind, I think my proposal for this article fits all criteria: "Bosnian genocide" should adress the significant minority viewpoint that country-wide genocide was committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina (as held by various experts [academic, legal, human rights, etc.] mentioned above) while being careful to appropriately reference the majority viewpoint through a review of related and legal developments and to not attempt to rewrite the majority-view's content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". Live Forever 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier for me to consider your arguments can you please add additional information to what you have written. For example what has Marko Attila Hoare published on this article since the ruling. Which cases and which paragraphs are you referring to in the ICTY conclusions and which paragraphs in the ICJ judgement? etc. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Philip, so, if we were to be able to find a source of some knowledgeable person/organization using the term "Bosnian genocide" after the ICJ judgement, and that that this ("Bosnian genocide") clearly refers a wider genocide in Bosnia and not the ICJ/ICTY case or the Srebrenica massacre, then you believe this is sufficient to keep the article and describe the "Bosnian genocide" as a view held by some that there was a wider genocide in Bosnia during the war?Osli73 23:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Most likely the article will be a criticism of the ICJ trial in some form or another, because I can not see how a knowledgeable source could ignore the ICJ findings (or for that matter the ECHR summary of the ICJ judgement). That would suggest that a better place for such criticism is in the ICJ trial. But I do not want to prejudge any hypothetical source and given the current state of this article (which at the moment I think is not too bad), I do not think that we have to be in a hurry to make this decision. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not happy with the current version of Momčilo Krajišnik article (which I read for the first time today, because the "Acquittal of genocide" section is larger than "ICTY Conviction" section. I would not want to see the same thing developing on this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.