User talk:Opbeith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Owen,

I am glad you are active with Wikipedia, and particularly with Srebrenica massacre article.

Welcome Aboard!

Bosniak 23:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bosniak and Srebenica

Hello. I can take a look at the Srebenica massacre article for you, but keep in mind that the block was due to a legal threat under WP:LEGAL and not anything related to article editing behaviour of Bosniak or anybody else on Balkan topics. Feel free to ask questions about the matter. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] check Srebrenica article

KarlXII who might be a reincarnation of Osli73 and Jitse are deleting the intro to the Srebrenica article. I believe the intro -- the way it was before these latest deletions -- very accurately communicates a clear and comprehensive picture of what actually happened. To stop the Srebrenica article from spinning out of control again, I am writing notes to all the editors who have an interest in the article and asking that you visit the site more often. Thank you. Fairview360 04:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

I never said what happened at Srebrenica was justified (whatever it was, since we will never know the truth, as it keeps getting covered up). What I do claim is that the Srebrenica Massacre article is extremely biased and not worthy of being on Wikipedia, but on a personal biased POV page.

The article is outright ignoring the lead-up to Srebrenica (and that is that over 50 Serbian villages were attacked in the area surrounding Srebrenica prior to the incident at Srebrenica and that Srebrenica was a base for Bosniak soldiers) and that this is what led Serbian forces to retaliate. However, the Bosniak soldiers did NOT attempt to weed out Serbian soldiers (as the Serbian soldiers did in Srebrenica) but killed civilians.

What happened in Srebrenica is the following and it is what is ignored: it was an attempt to weed out soldiers and armed supporters of the Alija regime in order to END THE ATTACKS ON NEIGHBOURING SERBIAN VILLAGES and in that case it was successful, the attacks stopped, because the Bosniak base at Srebrenica was stopped. However, one must understand that during this war, soldiers were dressed as normal people, therefore, it was necessary to detain all males in order to question them and determine which are soldiers and which are not. However, during the process of unarming Bosniak males (during which the Dutch forces left, because what they saw was perfectly legal and acceptable) the Bosniaks attacked Serb forces and tried to run away. Now, since it is not reasonable at this point to peacefully attempt to detain the Bosniaks once again, gunfire broke out between the two sides, leading to the deaths of Bosniak males. (And most CERTAINLY not 8000, but 2000, ANOTHER fact which is completely fabricated, but that is another argument related to false reporting with a hidden political agenda.)

THAT is what is ignored. And THAT is why this article is completely POV. I do NOT support war, I do NOT think any killing is justified, so do not attempt to make it seem as if I do. I think that the entire Bosnian war was a direct cause of media bias and direct propaganda enforced by political leaders of the Yugoslav republics and Western political leaders. I am of mixed Slavic ancestry and have NO reason to wish for the deaths of ANY of the Slavic entities in former Yugoslavia. I love my people and I hate anyone who tries to turn them against each other, like THIS ARTICLE AND ITS PERPETRATORS (for whatever messed up reason) ARE TRYING TO DO!

I do not want people to walk away from this article thinking "Oh those Bosniaks are evil, the Serbs were just defending themselves" NO. I want people to walk away from this article thinking "Oh both sides committed atrocities and both sides are victims, there is never a good side and a bad side in the war, like the media tries to make us believe".

Don't be a fool.... the wars that broke up Yugoslavia fucked up many future generations of Southern Slavs... I'm just trying to shorten the number of generations. I am not trying to defend what any side did... and I am not trying to lessen what any side did, or make any victim more important than the next... but this article is doing just that....

All sides were guilty, all sides were victims... and this article is hiding that... It's hiding the truth. Stop The Lies 05:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Thank you for your input. However, it is precisely those who neglect to apply critical judgement to their sources who fail to realize simple truths about this war... which I have stated above. And no, please read more carefully, I did not state that only soldiers were killed. All males were detained, therefore, it is very unlikely that all of them were soldiers, although a large percentage of them (due to the guerilla nature of this war) probably were. My own personal view (which is, as any view of the incident in Srebrenica, subject to fault) was shaped by exactly the process which you prescribe: using my "analytical capabilities to decide which is more credible" etc and doing my best to leave personal passions/bias behind. You must understand that a great part of my dissatisfaction about the article comes from the fact that it is largely based on one source. Yes, it may appear that there are citations, however, the facts were drawn from one source (a movie depicting one side of the story) and then sources were found which support these facts. However, the other side of the story was not depicted in the movie, and thereby, also not depiced in the article. Therefore, sources which support these unstated facts were not found.
I did not engage in any revert/edit wars with anyone, I did not try to impose my views on anyone, or try to adjust the article to depict a pro-Serb version of the incident. The great majority of my contributions to Srebrenica can be found on the talk page. Where I openly discussed my take on the article. I find it really sad that someone like yourself, who seems to have a decent noggin on their shoulders, failed to interpret what I said, and came to the conclusion that I was justifying what happened. I despise what happened. I think it was a horrible incident, much like every other incident that occurred in the wars of the breakup of Yugoslavia against innocent Croats, Bosniaks, and Serbs.
Those people who find it hard to realize that their side was not innocent (and believe me, there are people editing this article believe that) and who are not able to say it's in the past, and it gives me no reason to have anything against you personally because you were not involved (this is also very common unfortunately, another view I will spend a good portion of my life trying to eliminate between the Balkan peoples), and who are not able to see that the wars were begun by self-interested politicians who did NOT have the citizens' best interests in mind... and who as a result, will not be able to enjoy a burek with a Balkan person of a previously 'enemy' ethnicity, have a major problem. And no, I'm sorry, but that is not as acceptable/justifiable as you seem to think it is... And THAT train of thought is what is propelled by this article, and its perpetrators. People who I hold very dear to me were shelled daily in Sarajevo by 'enemy' forces, but I will never hold it against a person of that ethniciy, and I will always be able to enjoy a fresh burek with them.
If you want to claim that the balance of responsibilities is not equal, then I have another bone to pick with the specifics of that claim. Firstly, saying the responsibilities are not equal due to the number of soldiers killed would be silly, and that is not what I think you claim. Secondly, saying the responsibilities are not equal due to the number of civilians killed is an equally absurd comparison. The reason being, the numbers of civilians killed on all three sides will never be known, and not even CLOSE, due to reasons that I have stated (inflating/deflating numbers, using bodies of other ethnicities to account for one's own ethnicity count etc.). And thirdly, the war occurred in Croatia and Bosnia, against Croatian/Bosnian Serbs, who were a minority for the most part. Had the war occurred between Croats, Bosnians, and Serbian Serbs in the country of Serbia, this would be different, and the Serbian death count would be bigger (although again, it and other counts would then be adjusted to suit personal/political agendas).
MY TAKE on responsibilities is yes, just like yours, and unequal balance, but however, between different players: the Western politicians and the politicians of the Balkans. In short, the Western politicians are more to blame, due to their Yugo-distructive hidden agenda and lets-see-how-we-can-benefit-from-Balkan-ethnic-tension idea (if it had to do with rights of minorities, Herzegovina and RS would be independent entities by now) and the Balkan politicians are less to blame, because they are simply self-interested, money-seeking, own-selfish-agenda-(on a smaller scale than the West)-perpetrating (such as buying that nice yacht and bling bling) with no real purpose in life, but to fuck over their own people. The Bosnians were fucked over by Alija, the Croats were fucked over by Tudjman, and the Serbs were fucked over by Milosevic/Karadjic. I forgot to mention, that they are all morons who could not give you the definition of "politika" if their lives depended on it (This is true to this day).
Sigh.... I am terribly sorry about the mile-long reply. I am very interested in this topic (I am of mixed Yugo ethnicity and it can trouble me when people think I have a biased view, people usually tell me I am very open minded when it comes to the topic). Feel free to reply with a simple "STOP LEAVING ME MESSAGES YOU FREAK" or as long of a reply as you want. I feel drained :( lol. Have a good day Stop The Lies 18:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I have a feeling this will simply be a back and forth game of toss on the topic, since I feel we are both confident in our opinions. You have said that you disagree fundamentaly with what I say, not only partially or slightly, so it's ok, you don't need to reply. I respect your opinion, and your reasoning seems valid and thorough, however, if you disagree that much with what I say, then I see no agreement between us in the future on the issue, unfortunately, and I would rather us spend our wiki-time contributing to articles. And that's ok. But thanks a lot for your time, keep contributing to Wikipedia :) Bye bye for now Stop The Lies 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] de:Massaker von Srebrenica

The hed's the title, pasted right from the article. If you can't get to it via the link, go to the German Wikipedia, click on Weitere Ekzellent Artikeln, and it's right there as a fairly new one. Daniel Case 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want, go to my page and email me. I will print a copy as a PDF and mail it back to you. Daniel Case 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please comment on content not contributors

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. // Laughing Man 16:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed your comments since your it was strictly about a contributor in an attempt to discredit there views, as well exposing an editor inappropriately. Let's discuss the content of the articles instead please. Please refer to the policy link I gave originally, and you will see that your comment is in violation of the policy (specifically two points)
  • Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
  • Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. // Laughing Man 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste any more time with explaining things to you if you fail to even attempt to understand the policy. Hopefully a more patient editor can explain things to you because I don't have the time for this nonsense. // Laughing Man 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laughing Man, Stop Harrassing Opbeith

Laughing man Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. I have also posted this courtesy warning at your talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Laughing_Man#Courtesy_Warning Bosniak 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foca rapes

I started an article, so I guess you'd like to write it. --HanzoHattori 12:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hanzo Hatori, last night I invited you to come and help us with Srebrenica Massacre article, and I still don't see you there. Srebrenica genocide is more important than any other crime in Bosnia. I know that Foca suffered greatly with respect to rapes of women and children (there was recently a judgement for some piece of garbage who raped children and women), but for now, we need to keep an eye on Srebrenica. Bosniak 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My motives

Opbeith,

With regard to your comments on User talk:Jitse Niesen#The usual!, I'd be happy to explain my motives.

"I have just had posts deleted by someone called Laughing Man who claims at his User page to be a member of something called the Counter -Vandalism Unit on the grounds of them being personal attacks."

I don't know anything about User:Laughing Man, but I can tell you that his actions were quite uncontroversial. Article talk pages exist for editors to discuss work on an article. It's perfectly acceptable to delete threads like this, which do absolutely nothing to advance the article.

"Bosniak is being wound up again,"

Bosniak appears to be self-winding. I didn't seek out that article; I have no particular interest in the subject. Bosniak took it upon himself to send me this unprovoked message a few days ago. When he sent me that, I hadn't looked at or thought about the Anti-Bosniak sentiment article since November. I only noticed it in November as a spillover from the deletion debate for Bosniakophobia. Bosniak's current message confused me, so I reviewed his recent history to try to understand where this was coming from. In doing that, I stumbled on the Srebrenica massacre article. And I was, frankly, shocked to find such a blatant violation of our biographies of living persons policy with regard to a respected Canadian general.

"not to mention myself, and we are being threatened with action by people (laughing Man and Jim Douglas) who give the impression of acting with authority"

I haven't claimed to have any authority whatsoever. Nor have I threatened anyone. I did, however, remind Bosniak on his talk page that his uncil behaviour is not acceptable, and given the numerous warnings on his talk page and his history of blocks, appears to reflect an ongoing pattern.

"but in fact seem to have an agenda of their own."

Can I ask you to assume good faith, please? I've been utterly straightforward about my motives. This assumption that I have some hidden agenda is insulting and untrue, but more importantly, it's completely unconstructive. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Describing saying that the massacre at Srebrenica didn't happen as a "critical view"

I'm sure this is simply a miscommunication, but you still appear to misunderstand my motives and my comments. Here are MacKenzie's words:

What happened next is only debatable in scale. The Bosnian Muslim men and older boys were singled out and the elderly, women and children were moved out or pushed in the direction of Tuzla and safety.

"Only debatable in scale." MacKenzie does not dispute the basic facts: Men and boys of fighting age were singled out and slaughtered. It was a horrendous crime.

It's a distasteful point, but it has to be said that, if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women go since they are key to perpetuating the very group you are trying to eliminate. Many of the men and boys were executed and buried in mass graves.

MacKenzie personally defines "genocide" in a very specific and limited sense. If I can extrapolate a definition from what he said in that article, I would say his definition would be something like a systematic and premeditated effort to exterminate an entire ethnic group. In this sense, The Holocaust was obviously an attempted genocide, as is the Darfur conflict. The word "genocide" is not a legal term, nor does it mean precisely the same thing to all observers, nor does the United Nations have the exclusive authority to define the term. Honorable men of good will can disagree about whether the term applies to a particular situation. And MacKenzie, as a 30-year veteran who served on eight separate peacekeeping mission, and as the UNPROFOR commander in Sarajevo for six months in 1992, is certainly entitled to express his informed opinion.

Evidence given at The Hague war crimes tribunal casts serious doubt on the figure of "up to" 8,000 Bosnian Muslims massacred. That figure includes "up to" 5,000 who have been classified as missing. More than 2,000 bodies have been recovered in and around Srebrenica, and they include victims of the three years of intense fighting in the area. The math just doesn't support the scale of 8,000 killed.

As I've said, MacKenzie has the right to take a narrower view of the term "genocide", and he is arguing that the body count includes men who are missing, and men who were killed in battle over a period of three years. I want to be very clear here: I am not making a case for MacKenzie's statements. I am simply saying that he is not an uninformed and ignorant commentator. Given all of that, I believe it's legitimate to classify MacKenzie's views of the event as "Critical views". It is not legitimate to call him a "Denier".

Regarding those rape allegations...there's nothing new there, and including them can only be interpreted as an attempt to smear his reputation in order to call into question his comments about Srebrenica. No legal charges were filed last October; a county prosecutor in Sarajevo told an AFP reporter that he was "investigating" those old allegations. He declined to provide details, including the number of women allegedly involved. MacKenzie hasn't been charged with any crime, and it's a violation of Wikipedia's very strict WP:BLP standards to continue to insert those allegations into the article like this. And, to be honest, my opinion is that Bosniak has taken those prosecutor's comments in October and used them as simply the latest justification for including the rape allegation. He's been attempting to insert that comment into the article, with limited success, since at least last August.

I'd like to ask you to have a word with "Bosniak" about his behaviour in that article. It's not in my interest to push to have him blocked again, but his actions are making it very difficult for me. He continues to ignore legitimate concerns on the article talk page, instead preferring to just come back to the article every 24 hours or so and indiscriminately revert all changes back to the most recent version he agrees with -- while accusing legitimate editors of being either "Serb provocateurs" or "vandals". In doing this, he has repeatedly reverted spelling and grammatical corrections and most recently, a new link added by User:Elaragirl. He takes the position that this is his article to defend, and he will protect it from all attackers. That approach is frowned on here. The thing is, I'm not an attacker; I'm simply trying, in a very limited way, to adhere to some core Wikipedia policies. I have no interest in rewriting that article; in fact, I would have never noticed it if Bosniak hadn't forced it to my attention this week. I don't suppose it would surprise me if most people who edit that article have a partisan POV, either pro-Bosnian or pro-Serb. Do I really need to point out that Bosniak, in particular, carries his POV around with him, not only in his choice of user name, but in the soapbox that is his user page? The (sad, perhaps) reality is that most of us in North America give very little thought to a war that ended a decade ago. I don't intend for that to sound callous; it's a simple fact. It's logical to expect that most of the people who continue to have a strong and passionate interest in the subject are from the former Yugoslavia. And very few of those people -- Serbs, Croats, or Bosniaks -- are likely to have anything approaching a neutral point of view.

I respect the fact that you think I'm a racist and a genocide denier and God only knows what else, but you're still prepared at some level to discuss my concerns and not get into a pointless edit war. Please, for everyone's sake, can you find a way to explain to Bosniak that he needs to moderate his behaviour? He's really got to stop labeling every edit he disagrees with as "vandalism", and he's got to stop the indiscriminate mass reverts. There's no point in me trying to make these points to him anymore -- he's not listening to me at all. He's even maintaining the pretense that he doesn't read his talk page. Maybe you can explain to him that it's in his interest to relax, assume good faith, and believe that most editors are sincerely trying to improve the article. Anyway, thanks for reading all of this...I hope it helps. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I have to presume that you're speaking as an innocent but you're wanting me to go over ground I've already covered, in a way that suggests you are either skimming over the issues or ignoring them, so I'll be brief.

(1) You say " The word "genocide" is not a legal term, nor does it mean precisely the same thing to all observers, nor does the United Nations have the authority to define the term." This is simply not true and you haven't done your homework. It's easy enough to check, at the very minimum by going to the Wikipedia article on genocide. And the point has been covered umpteen times on the Discussion page where I and others have quoted the relevant legal wording and sources.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was approved by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948. Look it up. But I'll give you the key wording of Articles I and II:

"Article I

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The convention's definition of genocide is in fact narrower than it might be, in that it confines itself simply to a definition that is limited to the physical aspects of genocide but what's key is "in whole or in part". That is the wording that Raphael Lemkin was determined it should have and which the UN General Assembly adopted.

So this is a treaty forming part of the body of international law. Please don't tell me it is not legal.

(2) The problem has been prosecuting genocide. Article III defines the acts that shall be punishable under the convention. Intent has to be shown. In the case of genocide many of the witnesses and the evidence will simply have been removed. (The evidence at Srebrenica has been hard to assemble because of the deliberate disturbance of the mass graves and subsequent reburials. Perhaps you don't accept that happened, but the work of the International Commission for Missing Persons has gone a long way towards remedying that). The criminals also need to be caught - the matter might have been put further beyond argument had Milosevic's trial been completed and Mladic and Karadzic brought to justice.

Nevertheless the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia have both found charges of genocide proven before them. In the Krstić case the proven intent to destroy approximately 40,000 Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was the grounds on which intent to achieve destruction “in part” was found proven and the perpetration of genocide at Srebrenica confirmed. I suggest you consult the original Krstic Judgment and the findings of the Appeals Chamber http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf - paras 539-599 (summed up in 597-599) http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/krs-aj040419e.pdf - paras 5-58 The Krajisnik Judgment looks at the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia - http://www.un.org/icty/krajisnik/trialc/judgement/kra-jud060927e.pdf

(2) Section II Para. of the Appeal Court's findings confirm that at that date "... between 7,000 – 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men were systematically murdered."

(3) You may have been entitled to plead ignorance about the legal definition of genocide and the number of the dead at Srebrenica. MacKenzie is not.

(4) I don't always agree with the way Bosniak goes about things but basically he is fighting to preserve respect for established fact in the face of generally malevolent attempts to obscure the reality of what happened. He is also acting from personal distress. I am not going to side with ignorance or ill-intent against him on this issue. I'm pretty sure that part of the reason for so many destructive interventions at the article is to wear down the will of the people fighting to defend the established truth. It certainly does take its toll and other people have given up in exhaustion and discouragement. But I'm glad to know that thanks to the determination of people like Bosniak the deniers, apologists, revisionists and ignorant won't be allowed to get their way.

I don't know whether you're a member of the concert party or an innocent outsider but the outcome is the same. That may sound harsh. In most things I'm not as intransigent as this. But on the one hand I have been through this game so many times before and on the other this is too serious an issue to beat around the bush. If you're not aware of the basic status of "genocide" as a crime in international law you shouldn't be making changes to parts of a text dealing with the subject. --Opbeith 22:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Opbeith, I think I understand your position now in regards to "genocide denial". I followed up on Talk:Srebrenica massacre.

With regards to Bosniak, I see that User:Jitse Niesen has sent him a gentle reminder to stop the blind reverts and personal attacks. I hope it helps. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milan Lukic

I thought so! But I wasn't too sure. Lukic is the one frequently seen in photographs wearing a Serbian blue police uniform, usually the presentation costume. Living in the UK, we are not so well informed; I'll see what I can do to help once you do revise it, thanks for enlisting my help Opbeith. Regards. Evlekis 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers killed in Srebrenica

Opbeith, I took the time to read through your long and very well written comment regarding the Mackenzie rape allegations on the Srebrenica talk page. They are/were one of the most obvious examples of the biased presentation of facts found in this article. Another such issue is the numbers killed. Most agree that it is unclear exactly how many were killed in the massacre(s). The ICTY, in its judgement against Krstic, writes as much, concluding that between 7-8000 were killed and most likely >7500. Today, the article reads "at least 8300", but that is based on the total numbers missing in the region, ie including those killed in fighting while marching towards Tuzla and those who have just not been accounted for. Do you agree?Osli73 21:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, you raise issues that you ask me to respond to without ever bothering to deal with points that I have raised and in particular you ignore some information I posted at the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page specifically relating to a topic that appeared to be of considerable concern to you previously.

I posted the information about the ICTY's position on copyright after investigating the issue when you made a fuss about possible "plagiarism" and copyright infringement if quotes from ICTY judgments were used. You might have investigated the matter yourself but for whatever reason did not, you preferred simply to raise controversy.

Now in your post to my User Talk page you mention having read what you call my "very well written comment" regarding the Mackenzie rape allegations and then without challenging the point I was making about the legitimacy of mentioning the allegations you sum them up as "one of the most obvious examples of the biased presentation of facts found in this article".

You move on to interrogate me over the issue of the number of victims. As usual, the apparent reasonableness of some of the points you raise is belied by the way you carry them forward. You seem to be calling the figure of 8300 into question "as it refers to total numbers missing in the region, ie including those killed in fighting while marching towards Tuzla and those who have just not been accounted for". You are implying that those "killed in fighting" on the march and those "not accounted for" should not be counted towards the Federal Commission for Missing Persons's list of 8373 names of the dead and missing of Srebrenica.

The majority of those in the column led by members of the 28th Division that set out for Tuzla rather than rely on the protection of Dutchbat at Potocari were unarmed civilians who anticipated the fate that befell those who remained in the enclave. Even the 28th Division soldiers were carrying fairly basic weaponry. The column was ambushed by a well-armed military force as part of an action that was part of an operation with genocidal intent. So the description "killed in fighting" does not

You are obviously aware there was a deliberate and carefully planned plan to conceal the evidence of the massacre by excavating the mass graves, mixing the bodies and reburying elsewhere. The missing not "just not accounted for". They are those whose identities and fate have not been confirmed. You don't factor in your thoughts on the underestimation of numbers that might arise because some of those who died for one reason or another, including the extermination of their families and friends, had no-one to report their disappearance to the authorities making lists and counts.

I'd also argue that it would be legitimate to expand the number of victims of the Massacre to include those who committed suicide or died as a result of the inhumane conditions they endured in the context of the fall of Srebrenica, since these deaths were directly attributable to the genocidal project of imposing conditions that would made the survival of the Bosniaks of Srebrenica impossible. --Opbeith 15:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lukić

Not a problem about writing on the user page. Let's face it, it looks like a heap of junk anyhow; I wanted it to be different, more encyclopaedic so to speak, to make people stare at it for longer! Besides, it is clear when someone vandalises and what you did was a clear mistake, your edits prove that you are genuine so don't even worry about that!
The diacritics and transliterations and slight changes I usually do when there is little else! I'll be happy to go straight to the Lukic page and tidy it as best as possible. In the meantime, my knowledge isn't fantastic where he is concerned, but that is all right because it gives me the insentive to learn a little. Let's be honest, we all like to learn as much as we give back! :) Keep it up! Evlekis 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foča camp

(copied from my talk page) For the record, I deleted an article called Foča rape camp that was a redirect to an empty article. The article Foča camp consisted of only "See also" and External Links, making it subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A3 ("No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and 'see also' sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages."). So, neither Mike 7 nor I deleted an article about a Bosnian camp, we deleted redirects and empty pages per the criteria set forth in WP:CSD. Please remember to assume good faith and be civil when addressing these kinds of concerns. I'm more than happy to help editors contribute to the project, but I'm much more likely to address concerns that aren't attacks. -- Merope 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replied in more detail on my talk page, but the article has been restored to HH's userspace at User:HanzoHattori/Foča camp. -- Merope 15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic tone

Hello. Your tone toward other users seems needlessly hostile and confrontational. Please aim at greater moderation and civil expression. Thx. El_C 04:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milan Lukić again

Hello again Opbeith. I have cleaned the page a little on Milan Lukić, mostly by adding the diacritics. Feel free to go over it as you wish. It will need work done on it though, as it is, it looks like it comes straight out of a Bosniak political broadcast or CNN report and anyone who reads it is left to think that "Milan and his boys" carried out hate crimes for no readily apparent reason against unsuspecting souls which couldn't be further from the facts. Finding sources will not be a problem. I don't wish to change the statements on the page but I would eventually like to install paragraphs inbetween the events so that it is clear precisely which event led to which; like a game of tennis - you serve, I return, you hit, I hit and so on. Just out of plain curiousity, do you originate from the Balkans? If not, how did you become interested in our affairs? Evlekis 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit difficult, I'll grant you. I doubt the Milan Lukic page is the correct one in which to give a chronologocial version of events which led to his actions, but it does seem to give a full account of the joint Global Elite & Bosnian saga (ie. what the agressor did to me, but me? I'm just plain innocent). My objective is to be fair, and even though I don't condone atrocities, people who carry out such acts for political purposes shouldn't be described in the same manner as one who murders for his own reasons (the common criminal). The truth is that in this world, every nation and every movement within each nation is guilty of having people who have commited evil at regular intervals, as and when it has been necessary for them. Now even though I don't personally like the idea of any form of international court, least of all, the Hague building which humiliates people from the Balkans; I don't ignore the fact taht it exists and that events inside it take place, and when of course, someone is sentenced, I do acknolwedge it. As for the linksm, Amnesty International is a rather delicate source, in that they have at some point critisised everyone and everything of having done everything incorrectly. By this I mean that through Amnesty, it is easy to find examples of the events not mentioned in Lukic's article, that is those which would upset the Bosnian/Global Elite standing. I've known Amnesty Int. to attack the UK and the US administration, who perpetually decline to repsond to the allegations made against them, yet when the wind blows in their direction, they are the first to site Amnesty as proof that what they claim is true. By the way, how did you become interested in Balkan affairs? Evlekis 10:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments regarding NPOV

Opbeith,

  1. I categorized edits to make the discussion more organized
  2. I suggest that you take charge of setting out the arguments of Group no. 1 in greater detail in section (b). I will then refer to those arguments in the text in section (a).

Regards Osli73 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I'll be brief. If the International Court of Justice determines in 6 hours time that a genocide did in fact occur throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992-1995 (regardless of whether Serbia and Montenegro are found directly responsible), then great efforts will have to be undertaken to improve the current Bosnian genocide article and prevent the inevitable wave of deniers and revisionists from utalizing it to their own ends. I believe that this responsibility will rest largely on those few of us who have defended the Srebrenica massacre article from similar assaults in the past. That is all. Live Forever 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the findings of the ICJ with respect to proving genocide in Bosnia as a whole, genocide of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was proved in Krstic. Whether or not the ICJ finds genocide proven in the case before it, unless the judgment specifically refutes the Krstic judgment and finds that genocide did not occur at Srebrenica the ICTY's finding stands. --Opbeith 09:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica massacre

My apologies if my recent edits seemed arbitrary. The density of the article is frustrating to me, however. I always picture a school child trying to learn about this event, then turning away b/c the article is too involved.

Everyone seems to agree that sub-articles would be a good idea, but no one seems willing to take up the (admittedly gargantuan) task of actually doing it. Would you be willing to work with me on this?

Best regards,
Djma12 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


I've posted a response to your query on the discussion page. Cheers, Djma12 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] proposed edit to Section 2.4 of the Srebrenica Massacre article

Opbeith,

I just posted the following on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page and am now, as a courtesy, posting this on the talk pages of frequent editors of the article. Best Regards, Fairview360 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uppen_balkan

Hi Opbeith,

I replied to Upenn_balkan's question here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bosniak#question

All the best,

Bosniak 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Opbeith

Hi Opbeith,

My internet is still not connected. I am writing from the library. They were supposed to connect new phone line on Monday - they didn't do it. Now, they said they would do it on Saturday but would charge me $150. Oh man, they are insane, big headache. I was able to catch wireless connection yesterday for about 5-10 minutes and today for about 20 minutes. Few moments ago I updated my blog, you can check it out, there are two important documents from Milosevic trial http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com . I can't check my inspiron account from library, as the email is delivered to outlook, but will try to catch wireless connection and check your email. I am having a big headache with a local phone company who simply forgot to connect everything properly. And my DSL internet connection can't work without it so... big headache. All the best. Bosniak 22:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

The block was made on March 13th and the edits he was blocked for were all made by his account. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]--Jersey Devil 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? He made legitimate edits. Why was he banned? This is just ridicolous. Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serbia's Darkest Pages Hidden from Genocide Court

In a majorfront-page lead article for IHT, Marlise Simons reports on how the failure of the International Court of Justice to seek crucial documents from Belgrade may have decisively affected its judgement in the lawsuit brought against Serbia by Bosnia-Herzegovina

http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2259 Please comment.

Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Top Editor's Award Star Recipient

The Top Editor's Award Star Recipient
To Opbeith, for his long time positive contribution to the Srebrenica massacre article from User Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang . (talk) Congratulations!

[edit] Momir Nikolic

Hi Owen,

I started this article - Momir Nikolic - because I thought it's relevant to the Srebrenica massacre. You may check it out. Bosniak 01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No worries

I was not referring to you on Talk:Bosnian Genocide. I just happened to notice the page move by MaGioZal as I was checking his recent contribution history, after logging his recent block on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Log of blocks and bans. In all honesty, I have not followed the article for a while, as I am "semi-inactive" right now because my workload. Best regards, --Asteriontalk 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp

The second paragraph of your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp, which suggests that I lack an understanding of the subject matter and am disruptively pursuing another editor, has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. The deletion question should be settled on the basis of the relevant deletion policies, and not the state of mind of the nominator. May I suggest that you remove this paragraph and instead bring up the matter in a more appropriate venue, such as my talk page, WP:RFC, WP:ANI, or WP:RfAr? —Psychonaut 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnian Muslim or Bosniak

Please see Talk:Bosnian Genocide#Bosnian Muslim or Bosniak --Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey, still alive? :) I'm looking forward to your response to my comment on the Bosnian genocide article talk page, for I feel we really need to move that article forward. Live Forever 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, I perfectly understand. I will try to start making changes in the near future, so we'll see how it goes. I didn't know about the plans for the Srebrenica massacre article, but I'd be glad to help out with that as well. Live Forever 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, Opbeith

Do you have any other form of contact (IM, e-mail, whatever) outside Wikipedia? I didn’t want to talk about some questions here anymore.--MaGioZal 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The exact problem with MaGioZal is that he expresses such a hard sentiment against the Serbs. For example, he has quite often called users "Chetniks" (a word muttered only by Croatian and Bosniak nationalists, and only those who have really a large stereotype towards the Serbs) just because of their Serbian ethnicity.
For example, let me quote one comment written by MaGioZal: "'EQUALLY GUILTY?. JUST LOOK INTO ICTY AND SEE THAT MOST OF THE CRIMINALS WERE THE SERBS UNDER THE COMMAND OF BUTCHERS ARKAN, MLADIC AND MILOSEVIC. SO SHUT UP, YOU IDIOT CHETNIK!"
Do you see now what I meant? It's quite sad, I really feel sorry for MaGioZal to tell the truth - for after meeting so many people like this in former Yugoslavia, you no longer know whether to despise or feel sorry for them. ;( Cheers, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the best of us refrains from using intemperate expressions when pushed beyond patience. --Opbeith 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well my friend, show me a single post like that written by you or me... or any normal user. Please, just one. :S The problem is this kind behavior is strictly not allowed in Wikipedia. And this is not the first time MaGioZal expressed it.
The problem is he constantly uses such wording. Also note that "Sorry, I was off-temper" cannot always be an excuse for me to curse your mother. If MaGioZal is all the time pushed beyond patience by meager things - including absolutely non-sense things (like me, I have absolutely no idea how I pissed him off by placing that one Ottoman was of Serbian origin - or that very fact is that annoyed him?) - he should not edit the Wikipedia. For such a psychologically unstable person could (although I'd dare not call MaGioZal that; if you ask me personally, I think he just simply hates Serbs), as seen, can only further damage our already enough jeopardized community... *sigh* Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's important to develop an awareness of the effect we have on our fellow-beings. --Opbeith 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm afraid MaGioZal will hardly develop... --PaxEquilibrium 10:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good example

MaGioZal had supported a Greater Serbian nationalist and criminal, just because he opposed the general opinion of Serbs!

Let me quote: "HolyRomanEmperor, like Estavitsi, God of Justice, Panonian and many other Serb nationalists, simply does not swallow the fact that Djukanovic was successful in separtaing Montenegro from Serbia, letting Serbia alone during Kosovo War and after that bringing independence and separating the Serbs from the Adriatic Sea." (here he even calls me a Serb nationalist!)

So this criminal, that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Croats and Bosnian Muslims, and for the theft and destruction of countless millions of Euro (he was, but in the meantime stopped being a "GreaterSerb nationalist"), is actually supported by MaGioZal - for being against the Serbs???

So I suppose, that if Radovan Karadzic came and annexed Republika Srpska to a unitary Bosnia and Herzegovina, and started to spit at the Serbs calling himself "Bosnian Orthodox" (and found a Bosnian Orthodox Church), MaGioZal would support him just because he's against the Serbs?

This is undeniable evidence, and you can clearly see it yourself... or are you going to say that MaGioZal was frustrated here too? Perhaps he was frustrated too when he called User:Laughing Man a Chetnik? --PaxEquilibrium 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

calm down, Chetniks, I've just kept the link to the Serb Orthodox Church He wrote this after changing "Serbian" at one historical person to "Bosnian". There was absolutely no reason for him to get frustrated that time, except by the very fact that that dude was an ethnic Serb (sic!). The "Chetniks" was directed against several people, including me.

There are numerous other examples. I just don't understand why doesn't he answer me directly, instead of avoiding (he could at least apologize)... --PaxEquilibrium 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


God grant us the gift to see ourselves as others see us. --Opbeith 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand - especially the summary "Academy of Sciences and Arts". What are you talking about? --PaxEquilibrium 14:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I get it, it's a prank on my account. ;( And a very naughty one. --PaxEquilibrium 11:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)