Talk:Srebrenica massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Srebrenica massacre article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views. Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.

WikiProject Echo has identified Srebrenica massacre as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German or Bosnian language Wikipedias.

Archives
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Archives: Discussions from 2004 The Drina Corps US resolution January – July 2005 August – December 2005 January – July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October & November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007

Contents 1 I just have to say... 2 Srebrenica Genocide 3 Sarajevo/Tuzla's "insane tactic" 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.1.1 Notice 4.1.2 Survey - in support of the move 4.1.3 Survey - in opposition to the move 4.2 Discussion 4.2.1 First examples of usage 4.2.2 On basing the request on the ICJ judgment 4.2.3 Examples of usage 4.2.4 Massacre & Genocide 4.2.5 Announcement on bs:wiki 4.2.6 To the Bosnian people 4.2.7 Summary 4.3 On closing the move request 4.3.1 Srebrenica Massacre, rename to Srebrenica Genocide (problem) 4.3.2 Redirect 5 A picture request 6 IMPORTANT: Can you answer this question? 7 Dr Mitov's response 7.1 Dr Mitov and Jasenovac (his off topic rumbling) - my response 8 David Rohde 9 Picture regarding Orthodox Church priest 10 Legally, those killed under the age of 18 are Children 11 Article lenght > 130 KB 12 Do we need the full ICTY Statement in the Intro? 13 My edits (Djma12) 14 Osli73, KarlXII, Djma12 15 Sub-article format 16 Planning of massacre 17 Scorpions footnote 18 proposed replacement for section 2.3 "A plan to kill the men of Srebrenica" 19 Sub-articling implemented 20 invitation for feedback regarding editing section 2.4 and the creation of sub-article 21 Revision of text 22 Srebrenica - the ONLY legally established genocide in Europe 23 role of Bosniak forces 24 Dispute regarding Serb casualties around Srebrenica 25 International Court of Justice 26 Important things, please read - what article is lacking 27 Potential Srebrenica Info Box/Sub-articles(?) 28 Children of Genocide 29 Suspicious quotations 30 aljazeera, updates 31 serb troops vs. serb forces? 32 Category/sub-articles 33 Legally Established Genocide in Europe 34 New (Revised) Proposition 35 Srebrenica WAS NOT military battle, but a GENOCIDE 36 3000-5000 dead not 8000 37 Srebernica Genocide Horror 38 Consistency 39 “Battle of Srebrenica” redirect 40 Broken link 41 Answer to OSLI 42 "Srebrenica Genocide Memorial" 43 editing down 44 My latest edit 45 Interesting... 46 editing - Tuzla column 47 a couple quick questions 48 oh, and one more thing 49 message to Dragon re background section 50 time to archive? 51 note on Jonathan v Dragon reverts 52 ICTY conclusion 53 terminology 54 Reply about Osli73-Johnatanmills sockpuppet suspicion 55 Ethnic cleansing 56 Disgusting Example of Srebrenica Genocide Justification at Italian Wikipedia 57 links to 'critical views' 58 Sub-articling? 59 Wrong information from the judgment 60 Likely more than 8,000 victims of Srebrenica genocide 61 Srebrenica Memorial Quilt 62 Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg 62.1 Alternative views uncorrect 63 Srebrenica Genocide Children and Elderly 64 External links for 'Alternative views' 65 Diana Johnstone is a Serb apologist 66 Alternative Views, aka... 67 ^ Byzantine Sacred Art Blog: Srebrenica: Genocide or a Major Hoax? 68 dolus specialis 69 The body count 70 Buried children 71 Slobodan Milo's 'controlled media' 72 Further reading 73 Biographical details of living persons 73.1 Living Marxism 73.2 Diana Johnstone 74 final paragraph - result..? 75 Genocide and war crimes denial campaign 76 user Jonathanmills claims Srebrenica article or ICTY statements are "propaganda screed" 77 sentence regarding Dutch forces at Srebrenica 78 POV pruning of ICTY judgement? 79 Bosnian place names 80 This is taken out of context

[edit] I just have to say...

...that I think this is a very informative and detailed page. I am not well-versed in the history of eastern Europe and following this link from the ITN page today I read the whole thing from top to bottom. I'd just like to give warm fuzzies to people by saying that, while a brief review of mine is not professional or academic nor any sort of prognosis, despite what edit warring may have gone on here (and I'm sure there was/is plenty of it) this article was useful for me to learn this snippet of history. I was only 5-6 at the time and can only remember 'Bosnia' being in the news a lot; learning finally of the events which transpired during this period in this country was a good half-hour spent. Thank you. Lady BlahDeBlah 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why it is still massacre? it is GENOCIDE...officially..

Bilal

Bilal, Srebrenica massacre has been ruled Genocide several times. First with Krstic judgment, then again for the second time when Krstic apealed, and then again for the third time with Blagojevic, and if I am correct, again for the fourth time when Blagojevic apealed, and again for the fifth time with ICJ ruling... So we had 5 judgments in favor of Srebrenica Genocide. Bosniak 01:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica Genocide

In the rulling of Internatinal court of justice, it is said that the Srebrenica massacre is regonized as a genocide. I think we should move the article to the Srebrenica Genocide.--Kahriman 15:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kahriman, Bilal, I suggest we don't complicate the situation. It was genocide, that's now legally established beyond the reach of the deniers. But it's known much more widely as the Srebrenica Massacre, a crime of genocide. What we need to concentrate on is filling in the details that are still missing, and in particular following all the lines of responsibility. --Opbeith 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Opbeith here, the "Srebrenica massacre" is by far the more well known of the two. Regards Osli73 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While not wanting to complicate things further, I agree with Kahriman and believe this should be moved to Srebrenica Genocide. There is Armenian Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, etc, and obviously this is Srebrenica Genocide, and not simply a massacre; it's a genocide. Let's not make a big fuss about this and let's just rename the article to Srebrenica Genocide and move on. Let's not waste time on endless discussions and disagreements. It's clearly a genocide. This is the fifth judgment confirming it (krstic + krstic appeak, blagojevic + blagojevic apeal, and Bosnia vs Serbia case)Bosniak 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that ICJ didn't actually ruled anything, but just restated ICTY's ruling. And ICTY's ruling suffers from known problems. Nikola 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, the reason the article is called "Srebrenica massacre" and not "Srebrenica genocide" is because the former is by far the most commonly used term. Googling the former return 203,000 hits[1] while the latter returns 53,000 hits excluding your own blog[2] and 55,000 including your blog.[3] I'm sorry, you may want it to be known as the Srebrenica genocide, but, despite the ICTY ruling, it is most commonly referred to as the Srebrenica massacre. Cheers Osli73 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"" Osli73, you said that Srebrenica Genocide term returns 53,000 hits excluding my blog, a nd 55,000 including my blog. That is inaccurate and easily verifiable. The term Srebrenica Genocide returns 297 results with my blog click to verify. Otherwise, the term Srebrenica Genocide returns around 56,000 results click to ve3rify. Since when is Google indicative of anything? One can search for the term Bosniakophobia and that term will yield 330 results click to verify, the term Servophobia returns around 600 results click to verify. Of course, you all voted against the article Bosniakophobia on wikipedia. You need to understand that Srebrenica massacre is Srebrenica Genocide due to international rullings. Google is not indicative of anything and it is not the one to shape judicial rullings... Your arguments are weak Osli73, but at least you acknowledge Srebrenica Genocide, so I am not going to jump on you too much. Bosniak 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you using Google or International court of justice as source? If you'd use Google than article would be a nonsense. --Emx 09:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, I am mostly known as Kahriman, but I will use my real name when I am signing some papers or describing myself on some official place. --Kahriman 13:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, when you tell us your name, we will tell you ours - providing that you don't lie (heheheh) Bosniak 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear friends, the importing thing is the "legal situation" of event. not what is common in public.Because genocide is an very important act and should be consired alot while writing. And now there are alot of court resolution that it is a "Genocide". This is reality that is why we have to change it. the information will be more accurate for future searches in internet if the reference point is googling. i insist on changing the topic into Srebrenica Genocide.

Bilal

I agree with you Bilal. So, are we going to move it? --Kahriman 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Srebrenice genocide" just sounds awkward. "Bosnian genocide" would be better, but seriously, come on. --HanzoHattori 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Srebrenica genocide" sounds just fine to me. --Kahriman 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am moving an article. Nobody didn't give a good reason for not doing it. --Kahriman 19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't (in the interests of avoiding move wars), a good reason has been given - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). If you badly want to change the title and make it stick, you should follow the guidelines at WP:RM.--Domitius 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Who determes witch of these two names is more in use and how can we be sure witch one, of these two names is more common? Can we know this by googling? Of course not. Many websites are taking wikipedia content and putting it on their webpages. So, I think we should choose the official name. --Kahriman 20:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who decides? Wikipedians decide, there has to be a vote. The section you created below should look like what is prescribed here. To be honest, I'm not really bothered either way what the title is, but you need at least 60% to succeed. Somehow though I don't see that happening.--Domitius 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Looking through the ICJ document, I see many references describing the massacre as an act of genocide; that is not in question. However, as to the proposed move, I don't see any indication that the court officially refers to the event as the "Srebrenica Genocide". In fact, the words "Srebrenica" and "Genocide" are not paired anywhere in the document in that fashion, either as "Srebrenica Genocide" or as "Srebrenica genocide". There are three occurences of the term "Srebrenica massacres", and numerous uses of the phrase "genocide at Srebrenica" (small-g "genocide"). It is accurate to say the the ICJ declared the events at Srebrenica to be acts of genocide. Hoever, I think it is inaccurate to claim that "this case is officially called Srebrenica Genocide", contrary to what is stated in the move request. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarajevo/Tuzla's "insane tactic"

An interesting accoun is given in a book published by in association with The Bosnian Institute in London last year. In “How Bosnia Armed”, Marko Attila Hoare writes as follows:

“The counterpart to the Sarajevo offensive was the abandonment of the besieged enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa in East Bosnia to Serb forces in July. Izetbegovic, Ganic and other SDA leaders had discussed handing over Srebrenica and Zepa to the VRS on several occasions, in exchange for Serb abandonment of the occupied Sarajevo suburbs of Vogosca and Ilijas that separated the capital from the rest of government-held territory. In March 1995 Naser Oric, commander of the 28th Division in Srebrenica, and fifteen of his officers were withdrawn from the enclave for ‘retraining’ and never returned; yet in June the defenders of Srebrenica were required to launch diversionary attacks on the VRS in support of the offensive around Sarajevo, a tactic General Divjak condemned as ‘insane’ since it provided justification for the Serb counter-offensive and occupation of the ‘safe area’. The order to launch diversionary attacks was for this reason resisted by the commander of the ARBiH’s 28th Division in the enclave. While insisting on diversionary attacks from Srebrenica, the Staff of the 2nd Corps moved its elite units away from Srebrenica and towards Sarajevo, a mere four days before the enclave fell. 2nd Corps commander Sead Delic resisted all calls from his officers for a military push to link up with soldiers and civilians fleeing from Srebrenica. On 11 July, the day VRS occupied the town, Rasim Delic devoted only five minutes of his twenty-five minute military report to this imminent military catastrophe. The SDA leadership also ignored the latter, preoccupied as it was with finding a replacement for ‘Vice-President’ Ganic who had been injured in a road accident. This was despite the fact that the VRS’s conquest of Srebrenica was followed by the cold-blooded massacre of at least 7 000 Muslim men and boys. The ARBiH General Staff made no military effort whatsoever to assist Srebrenica, for whose survival the regime chose to rely solely on the international community. Delic subsequently blamed Srebrenica’s fall on the incompetence of its defenders. Izetbegovic admitted that the town could have been held out for a further month had it received the support of the Army. Naser Oric accuses the Bosnian regime of having deliberately sacrificed the enclave; his own prior power struggle with the SDA for control of the town might help to explain the failure of coordination between him and the commanders of the General Staff and the 2nd Corps. The fall of Srebrenica was followed by the VRS’s conquest of Zepa on July 25, an event that received even less attention from the Bosnian leadership and from Western powers.”[4]

I'd like to recall the article mentions the angry soldiers of the 28th were even trying to kill the 2nd Corps leadership later. --HanzoHattori 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A picture request

Hello, does anyone have the picture of the Dutch soldier crying after kid and men were deported. It was on this article before, but now removed, please add a link here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.46.183 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean this one? http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3b/180px-Sreb8.JPG Bosniak 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMPORTANT: Can you answer this question?

During International Court's Judgment, Serbia appointed ad hoc Judge Mr. Kreća, while Bosnia-Herzegovina appointed British ad hoc Judge Prof. Elihu Lauterpacht. Now, when judges voted FOR or AGAINST certain notions (example here) we could notice votes from Serbian ad hoc judge Mr Kreca, but there were no votes from British ad hoc Judge representing Bosnia-Herzegovina. The question is why? How come Serbian judge voted, and British Judge who was appointed by the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not vote? Bosniak 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the actual Bosnian ad hoc Judge was Mahiou. Live Forever 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ICJ February 27, 2006 Public sitting (.pdf) (page 10): BiH originally nominated Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, who acted as ad hoc Judge of the ICJ in the Bosnia v.Yugoslavia case during 1993-2001. After his resignation, BiH chose Mr. Ahmed Mahiou. - Regards, Evv 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Mitov's response

Dr Mitov's response to everybody who reads this: What if I tell you that I know how aproximately there were killed muslims after serbian attacked Srebrenica and why they attacked that city? Dr. Mitov 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I would ask for you to provide citations, otherwise this would simply violate WP:NOR. Djma12 02:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Bosniak, 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC), removed. Please keep in mind Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Djma12 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Mitov's response:

Well, I just heard several stories from the people who were there at this time. Even they don't know the right number of murdered men, but they claim that 8.000 is too much even for their counts. Some of them said that they would like to be even more counted, more then 8.000, more then 10.000 men, but in reality, by their count is about 2000-3000. The reason why they did that is simple - revenge. Why revenge? Because, in earlier years, 1992-1995., muslims from Srebrenica killed about 1500-2000 people from surrounding villages, around Srebrenica, example village Kravica, just to clear what ever is serbian, to become clean muslim land. And they killed, men, women, children, even cows and pigs.

You also have to know that in II World war, there were lot of masacres from all sides, but mostly from Croats, Ustashas, which killed in Jasenovac http://www.jasenovac.org/ more then 500.000 people.

Image: [15] Children in Jasenovac

Image: [16] Read some books.

[Jasenovac] http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/007.shtml by Carl Savich

Dedijer, Vladimir. The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican: The Croatian Massacre of the Serbs during World War II. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1992.

Fotich, Konstantin. The War We Lost:Ý Yugoslavia's Tragedy and the Failure of theÝWest. New York: Viking Press, 1948.

Gutman, Israel,ed. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. 4 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Markovic, Marko S. Half a Century of the Serbian Calvary (1941-l99l). Birmingham, England: Lazarica Press, 1992.

Paris, Edmond. Genocide in Satellite Croatia, 1941-1945: A Record of Racial and Religious Persecutions and Massacres. Chicago: The American Institute for Balkan Affairs, 1961.

Wiesel, Elie. Letter to the Author, October 31, 1995.

So, at the end. If you can not accept what I heard from people. Fine, do what you got to do, but the only one who will judge to all murderers will be God, history and their own conscience. Dr. Mitov 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Mitov, this article is concerned with genocide during the Bosnian war of 1992-1995 and specifically at Srebrenica. The ground has been covered extensively. What you say you have been told has a core of truth, insofar as there were innocent Serb victims, but that core of truth has been inflated and exaggerated to the point where the suffering of those real victims is overlooked precisely because of individuals like yourself who deny the reality of the suffering endured by thousands of others in the course of the systematic campaign of genocide undertaken by the people you seem to be defending. Whatever second-hand evidence you have would presumably have been submitted as direct testimony to the defence teams of individuals such as Krstic and Blagojevic. Their defence did not hold up when it was put to the test in court proceedings. Until as you say God eventually judges those involved we will have to make do with the findings of the ICTY, the ICJ and the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian courts.

Please check the references in the article to the subject of villages around Srebrenica and if, you can make the effort, look at the discussions on this talk page, now in the Archive files, that led to the inclusion of those references. --Opbeith 13:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the relevance of selectively quoting WW2 history here other than to assume that Dr Mitov is mistakenly justifying the Srebrenica Genocide as revenge for WW2. But he ignores that WW2 was as much an idealogical conflict within national groups as it was an ethnic conflict between national groups. The selective reference is to Jasenovac, but there is no mention of Sajmiste, Bleiburg, the treatment of Bosnjiaks during WW2, or the Moljevic plan etc. And I don't think these issues can be looked on as an accounting ledger. There is scope for an section on how such events affect subsequent political programs, and how national mythology can be based on them. But I think it would need to be a separate article and does not fit in this article. iruka 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Mitov and Jasenovac (his off topic rumbling) - my response

Dr Mitov was influenced by Serbian mythology which claims that half a million people died in Jasenovac Concentration Camp, which is just another example of unprovable allegation. No international court has rulled that so many people died in Jasenovac, and I hate to say it, but I am sick of Serbian lies and propaganda regarding historic events that took place in the Balkans. Dr Mitov failed to acknowledge mass scale massacres committed by Serbian Christian Orthodox terrorists and butchers who slaughtered over 100,000 Bosniaks during World War II. Dr Mitov also failed to acknowledge that Serbian Christian Orthodox Terrorist Gavrilo Princip was responsible for starting World War I, and World War I pretty much pulled World War II. Of course - Dr Mitov, like most Serbs - are brainwashed by Serbian historiography and lies about alleged genocides against Serbs that never happened (no international court confirmed them - they are just plain allegations). If there was genocide against Serbs in the World War II, then there was certainly a genocide against Bosniaks in the World War II also - however, none of these allegations were proven, they are just allegations and one can use any number one sees fit. Bosniak Institute published documentation that Yugoslav/Serbian government kept secret and it involves the number of dead at Jasenovac Camp, which was well under 50,000 read here . Of course, Serbians are known to exagerate things, so they claimed 10 times more dead, and their allegations were never proved in the court of law, however Bosniak allegations of Genocide in Srebrenica were proven in the international courtroom at least 5 times so far!Bosniak 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep... being this civil, choosing this kind of wording, and calling users and whole nationalities "brainwashed" is exactly what our policy on personal attacks encourages us to do. - Ev 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, you sound exactly like the people you despise. Fairview360 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He must be related to them ;) Nikola 11:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The ones who are truly despicable are the ones who try to rehabilitate mass murderers such as Radovan Karadzic. But really this entire section should be deleted since it does nothing to inform this article. It belongs on some irrelevant chat page. Fairview360 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

True, because I am sick of genocide deniers. I am sick of these monsters. Bosniak 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"True, because I am sick of genocide deniers. I am sick of these monsters" well what are you bosniak when you say "Of course - Dr Mitov, like most Serbs - are brainwashed by Serbian historiography and lies about alleged genocides against Serbs that never happened" Are you saying that the killing of AT LEAST 70 000 never happened and it wasnt genocide? Paulcicero 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Legally established genocides include Srebrenica, Rwanda, Holocaust. I have yet to see one internation court's rullinig handing down judgment that genocide was committed against serbs. Of course, in serbian propaganda historiography, you will find all kinds of garbage - according to them, they survived 100 genocides. However, not even one international judicial judgment confirms anything they say. The point is - no matter what serbs do to deny Srebrenica genocide in which over 8,000 Bosniaks died - the fact is that Srebrenica genocide is undeniable at this point and confirmed in at least 5 judgments of both ICTY and ICJ. So, serbs can continue to live in their dreams and propaganda, but the fact is - we won, we proved your propaganda wrong at International Courts, and we will keep exposing your lies at ICTY and other corts, including state court of Bosnia Herzegovina where dozens of serbs are currently on trial. Bosniak 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This kind of talk is exactly the kind of talk that preceded every major clash between nations, ideologies and religions on Balkans. Hate is a strong motive. The truth is that we were killing each other for centuries and that nothing is changed. Call it what you want, massacre or genocide, the dead would not mind. --Marko M 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Bosniak, it was never established in a court of law that the Holocaust was genocide because the legal crime of genocide did not exist then. Still the Holocaust, Armenia, and Cambodia are accepted within the academic community as instances of genocide in the 20th Century. Who are you to deny genocide in Armenia and Cambodia because it wasn't proven in a court of law? Your standards are arbitrary. Your rhetoric self-defeating. Your rants undermine the credibility of those trying to preserve the truth of what happened in Srebrenica. With comments like yours above, you are satisfying yourself but doing a disservice to those you purportedly want to defend, the victims of Srebrenica. For their sake, I suggest you take an honest look in the mirror and stop using the Srebrenica discussion page as an avenue for your own self-indulgent convulsions.Fairview360 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, i have been reading your ramblings above and i cannot get enought of your self-indulgence. What are you talking about? According to Jewish sources(find them on your own, i have read them, i am not going to search for you), around 600,000 Serbs were murdered in Jasenovac camp during WWII. Those are NOT Serbian sources, they are Jewish. That's enough for me. What you think, i don't care. Or maybee you deny the Holocaust as well? And off course Jasenovac was not declared a genocide because that term was coined in 1948. Second, you keep saying that you are winners. Besides the fact that you constantly mentioning it points to a serious complex, exactly what did you win? Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? To me it seems like you lost because Alija Izmetbegovic wanted to have a clean muslim Bosnia, but he failed because you, and your co-conspirators Croats have 51%. And from the looks of it, if backward minded Muslim government in Sarajevo keeps calling for the abolishment of RS, RS will break away and you can have your Federation. You, next to your muslim Albanian breathren are the biggest cowards in the region, not winners. You start the whole mess and then when you get pounded like you should, you go asking for war reparations from me in Serbia, who along with most of my countrymen has never even seen the Bosnian border. Good thing that i won't have to pay from my pocket so that you can sit on your ass, build mosques, harbour terrorists and be a Muslim. And lastly, you keep alluding to some mythology, genocide denying and whatnot. If that many people were killed(which i doupt), then they were killed. I have not met a single person here in Serbia that denies that. Its a war, and people die in wars. What did you expect, people to tickle each other? It is what it is, and i accept that. But don't go calling every one of us out, because we in Serbia had nothing to do with it. Quite frankly, it's a war that happened in Bosnia, not Serbia, and most of us don't really care. We had and still have our own problems. And lastly, if you have a problem with anything i said, i'll be more then happy to explain a few things to you face to face. Maybee you will get a different perspective.68.9.45.195 23:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Aleksandar V.

As far as I followed what he was saying Bosniak was expressing his exasperation at Dr Mitov's tendentious and undiscussed editing of the article to read "of an estimated ***, still not proved and confirmed, 2,000 to*** 8,000 Bosniak males" (twice), followed by a round of post factum self-justification taking the foorm of anecdotal evidence that took no account of the legal findings previously dealt with here and included in the text of the article. Bosniak expressed his exasperation by pointing out that there is a repeated pattern of unsubstantiated allegations, exaggerations and lies refuting established evidence which is very rarely challenged by the sanctimonious guardians of the truth who are so prompt to weigh in with their condemnations. Yes, Bosniak goes over the top, but I seem to remember him acknowledging Jasenovac in the past so I assume his reaction was not to deny the reality of Jasenovac as such but rather the way Dr Mitov called in a claim of 500,000 dead at Jasenovac to support his denial of the genocide at Srebrenica, without challenge from the fact-police. Bosniak's going over the top pretty much follows a pattern of reaction to the genocide denial that's been a routine feature of this Discussion Page. Given the prevailing atmosphere of complacency in the face of denial and the meddling with established fact that goes on here that seems quite understandable. I note that the outraged comments that follow his angry outbursts are rarely seen in response to the wilful inaccuracies, misrepresentations and downright lies often purveyed here. --Opbeith 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, exasperation is not a valid excuse to infringe the current policies on civility and no personal attacks. It is perfectly possible to express exasperation in a civilized manner, without resorting to the kind of comments User:Bosniak made.

User:Bosniak didn't "point out a certain pattern of behaviour", but instead responded with his own list of "historical truths", well seasoned with what can only be described as inflammatory hate speech. It was bound to be followed by outraged comments.

I haven't read this talk page, nor the article for that matter, but having seen "wilful inaccuracies, misrepresentations and downright lies" in discussions concerning many other articles I do get the idea. Nevertheless, nothing can possibly justify a comment like the one User:Bosniak made – at least not in Wikipedia's talk pages. - Best regards, Ev 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, if we are going to present ourselves as defending the standards of civil society, we must hold our own accountable. There really is no excuse for Bosniak's behavior and I believe your better self knows it. Often the abused become the abusers. That cycle must end. It ends by holding all accountable for their actions, not by making excuses.Fairview360 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, you don't like how I read Bosniak's comments. I suggest you reread them.

Dr Mitov in his response refers to hearing "several stories from the people who were there at this time. Even they don't know the right number of murdered men, but they claim that 8.000 is too much even for their counts. Some of them said that they would like to be even more counted, more then 8.000, more then 10.000 men, but in reality, by their count is about 2000-3000. The reason why they did that is simple - revenge. Why revenge? Because, in earlier years, 1992-1995, muslims from Srebrenica killed about 1500-2000 people from surrounding villages, around Srebrenica, example village Kravica, just to clear what ever is serbian, to become clean muslim land. And they killed, men, women, children, even cows and pigs."

OK, is this business of numbers on one side and the other and the story of revenge not what we've discussed umpteen times and been informed umpteen times about by the ICJ and the UN Secretary General's report? And Dr Mitov still comes along and amends the article without discussion (and acknowledgments to the editors who corrected his revisions).

Dr Mitov goes on to say "You also have to know that in II World war, there were lot of masacres from all sides, but mostly from Croats, Ustashas, which killed in Jasenovac more then 500.000 people."

What's the relevance of Jasenovac except as an attempt to provide justification for Serb actions? Various sources seem to put that the total number of deaths at Jasenovac at somewhere in the very rough region of 80,000, including 40 to 50,000 Serbs, the rest being Roma, Jews, Catholic Croats, Muslims classed as Croats and others. I accept that the numbers may have been greater but there doesn't seem to be substantiated evidence of up to half a million as Mitov alleges.

The figure is terrible enough anyway. It is clear that the Ustase set out to exterminate large numbers of Serbs and other national, religious and ethnic groups at Jasenovac, and did so under conditions of barbaric cruelty and wilful neglect. The regime seems to have been vile beyond belief to normal people (until you stop and consider what was done in Croatia and Bosnia from 1991 to 1995). Jasenovac cannot be excused. But Jasenovac does not excuse Srebrenica or the rest of the atrocities perpetrated in Bosnia and Croatia, not exclusively but very largely by Serbs.

If all the succession of Dr Mitovs won't accept that Srebrenica was really a genocide even after it has been proven several times over under the terms of the Genocide Convention, what does that tell us about the reliability of their version of history? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, the saying goes. If you insist on denying a particular aspect of reality because it suits you to, and you misrepresent another reality to consolidate your evasions and denials, there comes a time when someone is going to point out exactly what what you're doing means.

If you deny that what happened at Srebrenica was genocide, if you minimise the number of victims, if adjust the number of deaths on your own side upwards in order to achieve some sort of parity, if you turn the chain of aggression and reaction back to front, if you claim a historical justification and disregard contemporary motivations and you then magnify the scale of your historical inspiration, and you do all this time after time, then there eventually comes a time when you're going to be offered a reality check, by being shown what it means to have your own source of pain treated in the same way that you treat others'.

Fairview360, that's how I interpreted what Bosniak was saying. A not too precisely thought out reality check. But that's what it was - a long-due reality check. I'm afraid my better self and my ordinary self still happen to be the same person, and they read what Bosniak said in just the same way. Perhaps you might try and read what he said yourself again, a little more slowly.

You might understand why Bosniak makes the point about exaggeration. I do. Certainly not all Serbs/Serbians exaggerate, and honour to the truth-bearers, but I've heard an awful lot of Dr Mitovs minimising in one direction and maximising in another. And I've heard plenty of insistence that Srebrenica wasn't a genocide because it wasn't proven, because the court was wrong or was biased or the wording of the Genocide Convention wasn't right, or because the numbers weren't enough, and now we're even being told that the ICJ verdict isn't conclusive because the US challenged the ICJ's jurisdiction after its US-Nicaragua verdict. Well, if that's the argument, then when the revenge card gets played, that's when it's about time to point out what the implications of that argument are for allegations of past "genocides".

The list of victims at https://cp13.heritagewebdesign.com/~lituchy/victimlist.php deserves my respect and the list of victims at http://www.srebrenica-zepa.ba/srebrenica/spisak.htm deserves equal respect. --Opbeith 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I agree with your assessment of Dr. Mitov. He is what he is. Meanwhile, Bosniak is as dismissive of the crimes against Serbs ("just plain allegations" "lies" "brainwashed") as Serbian ultra-nationalists are of the crimes against Bosniak. Meanwhile, the Serb-bashing by Bosniak is indiscriminate ("Dr Mitov, like most Serbs") and racist. This kind of nationalist rant only empowers Serbian nationalists. It gives the majority of reasonable citizens of Serbia nowhere else to go since according to petulant racist rants like Bosniak's, they don't exist. According to Bosniak, there is no majority, not even a plurality of Serbs who simply want to live normal lives free of nationalism. Bosniak obviously hates Serbs. His hatred blinds him, is divisive, and will only fuel further conflict. Furthermore, it pushes him constantly into behavior that is in violation of numerous wiki rules. The rules exist for a reason. Osli73 is not the only one who ought to be held accountable for his actions.

If Bosniak can not act in a civil manner, he does not belong in wikipedia.

In the political arena, such rants only hurt the cause of creating a lasting just peace in the Balkans.

Bosniak needs to look in the mirror and get past the rage. He is headed down the wrong path. I have many good Bosnian Muslim friends who have suffered abject humiliation and torture at the hands of ultra-nationalist Serbs, who have been raped, beaten, had their loved ones butchered before their very eyes. They seek justice against those who are responsible for these crimes but with maturity, having gotten past the cesspool of rage that Bosniak currently stews in. They do not lash out with hatred but rather live in peace with their Serb neighbors. If they can do it, Bosniak can. I have no more tolerance for these destructive rants by Bosniak. He needs to be held accountable just as Osli73 with his sly manipulations must also be. Enough is enough. Fairview360 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There can be no comparison between terrible events in Srebrenica and genocide against Serbs in Independent State of Croatia during World War II. Any licitation with number of victims is irresponsible. But comparing Srebrenica to Jasenovac is nothing more than Holocaust denial. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC[17], the events in Croatia during WW2 were part of the Holocaust. On the official site of this museum there is special chapter dedicated to this events under the name “Holocaust Era in Croatia 1941-1945 Jasenovac”.[18] The research of this museum offers more objective approximation of number of Serb victims killed during Holocaust. Not as high as some other estimated numbers of victims, it’s still terrible high, quote: The Croat authorities murdered between 330,000 and 390,000 ethnic Serb residents of Croatia and Bosnia during the period of Ustaša rule; more than 30,000 Croatian Jews were killed either in Croatia or at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[19] These victims weren’t part of any armed formation or army, they weren’t armed, they didn’t burn croatian villages or slaughter their women and children and they didn’t have protection of UN forces. I believe that Wikipedia shouldn’t be used for making new or changing old history. I do not usually engage in long and fruitless discussions as this one. But people like Bosniaks motivate me to contribute to the truth by offering the sources that are more reliable then someone subjective view of past events. I am sorry that I can’t contribute at the same way to this article. Only time will tell how many people died in Srebrenica and if this was genocide or not. I don’t believe that Wikipedia could cope with responsibility for making judgment on this matter. Wikipedia is a powerful tool and it should not be misused. --Marko M 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Marko, your account of WW2 is well argued but you take a jump off the deep end when you say "Only time will tell how many people died in Srebrenica and if this was genocide or not." Time enough has passed for us to know that at least 8000 lives were lost during the Srebrenica massacre and there is plenty of evidence and several court decisions to decisively conclude that Srebrenica was an act of genocide. Fairview360 22:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was this. All the archives open after 50 year period. All the major actors of events at Srebrenica are free. Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are at large and Naser Oric was sentenced by ICTY to two years in prison and immediately released[20]. Justice is not only slow but it’s blind too (Sorry, couldn’t restrain my self from making this comment). There is still a lot of research to be done in future. --Marko M 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you said,"Only time will tell more clearly how many people died in Srebrenica and to what degree genocide was committed.", then combined with your clarification, we would have no disagreement. I agree that we need to see documentation and hear testimony that is currently unavailable to get a clearer more comprehensive picture. And I agree that it will take about 50 years for more of this to get out in the open. Given that you are ten years younger than me, it is more likely that you will have a chance to see these documents. But then again, given the nature of Balkan politics, I think there will be a pressing political interest to keep things secret for, unfortunately, hundreds of years. My guess is that we agree that the answer to stability is to get the whole truth out in the open. It is a worthy endeavor. Fairview360 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We can agree to some extent that establishing the truth is essential for resolving issues surrounding Srebrenica but only in order to start reconciliation process. If the sole purpose of establishing the truth is to point the finger to one nation and mark it as genocidal, we couldn’t agree less. That kind of approach will lead as nowhere. Having in mind all the reasons that you stated in your reply, I don’t think that even I will live long enough to learn real truth about events in Srebrenica. --Marko M 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, calm down. No international court has ruled that genocide was committed against Serbs in the world war II. They are voluntarily coming up with numbers of their dead, some of them even claim 1.5 million dead, with no valid documentation whatsoever. Srebrenica Genocide list of victims is well documented, with first and last names, birth dates, fathers' names, SSN numbers, etc. Ultra-nationalist Serbs (and their historiography in general) keep pushing their genocide claims onto us in their anti-Srebrenica propaganda. Instead of wasting so much energy to hold me accountable, I suggest you focus that energy to hold Srebrenica Genocide deniers accountable. While I appreciate your work in Bosnia where you help innocent civilians overcome traumas of war, I condemn your unfair criticism towards me. Your energy would be better wasted into holding Srebrenica Genocide deniers accountable for their fascist views. I do not believe that all Serbs are same. There are good and bad people everywhere. Those Serb individuals who recognize genocide in Srebrenica are good people, and those who don't are scums. I have a friend who is from Serbia (and still lives in Serbia), he is Serbian and he condemns Srebrenica genocide denial. He's a good person, I have kept in touch with him for over 3 years. He's a wonderful human being and I might even introduce you to him. You need to calm down and stop throwing your allegations of racism and hate at me. I haven't seen you yet be as rude to Srebrenica Genocide deniers as you were rude to me on this talk page. You know my email. I am not going to argue with you publicly. If you have anything else to say, you know my email. And I hope you start holding fascists accountable more than you hold me accountable for pointing out that no international court confirmed genocide against Serbs in world war 2. If you want to accept voluntary numbers made by Serbian historiography, go ahead. At least Srebrenica is well documented, so we can say without reasonable doubt that the genocide was committed. I condemn your unfair rage on this talk page. Bosniak 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak,

The absence of a court decision does not prove that genocide never occurred. It simply means either a) it was never taken to court or b) there was not enough conclusive evidence according to the judges to prove genocide. You use the absence of such a judgement to deny the occurence outright. If you look at what the Ustasa did during WW2-- putting aside the Serbian ultra-nationalist distortions (I am intimately aware of Serbian ultra-nationalist propaganda) -- it is perfectly legitimate to describe the Ustasa's mass killings as genocidal. but instead you dismiss it outright.

If I am going to spend any of my time holding people accountable, I ought to do it evenly. I am not intent on giving you a free pass or anyone else. And if ever I cross the line, I too ought to be held accountable. One way I deal with Serbian ultra-nationalists on wikipedia is to ignore them. One way I deal with abusive wiki editors is to ignore them. So it goes.

It is good to hear that you have a Serbian friend. Unfortunately, one can be friends with someone from a different group while still being prejudiced. Given your apparent appreciation of your Serbian friend, I suggest you think of him and his family while writing what you write. When I read your caustic dismissive words littered with comments such as "like most Serbs", I think of my Serbian friends. They do not deserve your insults. You can describe the power of propaganda and how it has influenced collective opinion in Serbia but virulent personal attacks are not warranted. Calling members of the Serbian Orthodox Church "scum" is abusive. You can indeed communicate what you want to say in a far more constructive manner.

I do not believe my description of your behavior is inherently rude. Your language is indeed abusive. And your recent entry at the Kosovo article (It's just a great feeling to watch Albanian Kosovo become independent. It's a wonderful, fullfilling, satisfying, feeling. It's like an orgasm, in political sense of the word. Bosniak 20:34, 9 March 2007) shows me that you are not too interested in civil behavior. If you are going to present yourself as someone dedicated to helping the victims of Srebrenica, someone holding the moral high ground, you ought to behave better. Given the subject matter, the mass killing of innocent people, your behavior ought to leave some room for dignity. Instead you descend into behavior more apt to be found on an elementary school playground. It is disappointing to say the least. I do not believe my words now are rude, but rather present a legitimate description of and understandable reaction to your behavior.Fairview360 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Rohde

David Rohde won a Pulitzer prize for exposing the Srebenica massacre and the Serbs jailed him until his release was negotiated. --HanzoHattori 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture regarding Orthodox Church priest

By my opinion this picture gives wrong impression that Serbian Orthodox Church supported Srebrenica massacre, or generally war. Priest couldn't know what will that soldiers do tomorrow, and his duty is to "give a prichest" (i really don't know what is the word for this religious ceremony in english) to any who "demands" it. Not that I'm religious person, quite contrary, but I think that connecting massacre (genocide) with SOC is insult for any Orthodox Christian. Dragoljub Kojadinovic 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy Communion or the eucharist I think is the word you are looking for? iruka 07:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sells is of Serbian origin and in this book he documents the role of the Serbian Orthodox Church in fostering ethnic hatred. You might want to read it.

"Michael Sells' The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia is essential for anyone who wants to understand the forces manipulated by those Balkan leaders who orchestrated the violent assault on the Slavic Muslims of Bosnia. Sells documents the way in which this assault was a religious genocide perpetrated by both Serbian Orthodox and Croatian Roman Catholic Christian extremists. He shows why and how politicians, intellectuals and clergy exploited ancient religious mythologies, ethnic loyalties, and nationalistic ambitions and used them to fuel an unholy fanaticism."

http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Betrayed-Religion-Genocide-Comparative/dp/0520216628 Fairview360 01:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - looks interesting. Particularly that Clinton thought so highly of it - will be reading it. iruka 07:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragoljub Kojadinovic, as already documented, Serbian Orthodox Church was fostering hate. You might to more research before starting to defend those scums. Bosniak 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Serbian Orthodox Church was fostering hate" - Why are you so hateful? You are worse then both Karadzic and Mladic. You were saying that serbs werent victims of genocide during ww2 and now you are saying that the serbian church was fostering hate? Are you stupid or something? Paulcicero 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, if you keep using abusive language, I am going to lodge a request that you be blocked. Paulcicero, it is utterly absurd that you say an abusive wiki editor is worse than two wanted war criminals indicted for crimes against humanity. Please do research on the role of the Serbian Orthodox Church during the war in Bosnia. It is entirely legitimate to describe the Serbian Orthodox Church as fostering inter-ethnic conflict during the war. Fairview360 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that the whole SOC were fostering hate which isnt true, sure som individuals probably were but you cant describe the whole church as such. Regarding Bosniak, he is below my level and I wont sink to his, I just want to say that I think he is a sick indivdual whose main purpose here on Wikipedia is to spread hate. Paulcicero 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. The Serbian Orthodox Church is not a religion but an institution, and as such is a perfectly legitimate target for criticism. It did foster hate - anyone who claims otherwise is simply naive and/or woefully uninformed. Their anti-Bosniak rhetoric was not simply the work of "individuals" (a logical fallacy the size of greater Serbia), but institutionally supported and espoused through official publications, statements, and the highest representatives. They not only "fostered" hate and helped lay the psychological ground for genocide, they actually directly participated in it by organizing, financing, and arming some of the most notorious paramilitary units that ravaged Krajina, Podrinje, and Posavina - Arkan himself personally thanked them "above all" in December '91. Live Forever 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt even deserve a response Paulcicero 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Analogous to what Live Forever is saying... I protested Bush from the day the 2000 Florida fiasco started. Large portions of America have always opposed what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have done. Still, two years from now, no one in the USA can say... oh that was just a few individuals, we are not responsible. America is responsible for what it does. I as a citizen of the USA and every other citizen is responsible for what our country does. An entire country can not hide from its responsibilities by blaming a few individuals. Shirking it off as just a few individuals is irresponsible and inaccurate. Fairview360 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legally, those killed under the age of 18 are Children

There were many individuals killed during Srebrenica Genocide who were under the age of 18. Legally, individuals under the age of 18 are considered Children (in the eyes of law). I propose we incorporate this fact into the article, by stating the following intro:

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as Srebrenica Genocide,[1] was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak males, ranging in age from children (under 18 years old) to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of general Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, you probably remember that after the reference to "including many children" was deleted at the Srebrenica article I found that the Federal Commission for Missing Persons list includes five names of 12- and 13-year-olds, one two months short of his thirteenth birthday, the other four without accurate birth dates/months. There are also 16 dates of birth in 1981 and 53 dates of birth in 1980. For the purposes of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child "a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." I don't know the age of majority in Bosnia in 1995, but even if it was as low as 16 more than 70 children were killed and that's not counting any of the names with dates of birth in 1979, many of whom would still have been under 16 at 11 July 1995. --Opbeith 23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ICMP claimed they found targeted children shot in the head which should void the introduction that men and boys were targeted only, children under the age of 7 should not be labeled as just boys, ICMP was not gender specific with it's findings. http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2007/10/mass-grave-children-shot-in-head.html NeutralBosnian (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article lenght > 130 KB

Wikipedia:Article size has a "strong recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32 KB in size". Given that the article is now over 130 KB long the editors should focus on shortening the article, either by summarizing certain text, moving text to other articles or splitting the article. Your thoughts? Regards Osli73 11:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that I hope you're not going to be taking wilful and arbitrary action again without waiting for general agreement. --Opbeith 00:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that you will use a reduction in article size to proportionally increase emphasis on discredited fringe opinions. Live Forever 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Given his past deceitful behavior, I consider the proposition of good faith discussions with Osli to be patently absurd. Fairview360 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Irregardless of what Osli's motivations may be, the point is still somewhat valid. The article in the current form is difficult to follow as there is no good synopsis of events. Each subsection is long enough to form its own article. Please note that I am not advocating that anything needs to be censored. However, given the expansiveness of this subject, not everything needs to be on one page. For example, the "mass executions" section, though definitely notable and important, takes up 1/3rd of the article and detracts from readability. This could probably be made into its own sub-article. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is a valid point. Osli makes many valid points. It is what he does between and behind the valid points that is a concern. Hence, few are willing to engage in any collaborative effort with him. Fairview360 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Then how about working with me ;-) ? Look, I assume the point of this article is to inform a new reader about the horrendous magnitude of this event. No one is served if the reader is bogged down halfway into Section 1.1. While we wrestle with the proper nuances of the Sandići massacre, perhaps we are missing the larger point of succinctly informing the public about this event. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I try to limit my editing to the introduction given a shortage of time, but there are some level-headed editors here who would work with you. The challenge is to prevent a good faith effort from getting comsumed by edit wars propagated by editors pushing their own agenda, sometimes aggressively, sometimes in an underhanded manner clothed in seemingly legitimate discourse. Given the amount of energy that can get wasted in this environment, as I said, I am strongly inclined to confine my editing to the introduction. But I wish you well if you want to take a shot at it. Fairview360 05:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear coeditors, my motive, which I have stated many times before, is to make this article a good presentation of the massacre in line with Wikipedia recommendations about NPOV, style and, as we are discussing here, article lenght. We may have different opinions about what constitutes NPOV (which, in turn, I believe has something to do with your 'motives'), but there is no reason for disagreeing about following such a clear Wikipedia recommendation as a maximum article lenght limit of 130 KB. Just as an article about WWII doesn't have to include lengthy descriptions of all theaters of war, all battles and all aspects of the war, neither does this article have to include mini-essays on the various parts and aspects of the massacre. Regards Osli73 10:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Osli, which parts do you think could use reduction? Djma12 ^(talk) 20:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we are talking about a reduction by about 75% it would have to include a combination of summarizing existing text and removal of entire sections (and perhaps replacing them with links to separate in-depth articles). A couple of suggestions:

1. Background: could be summarized with a more extensive description in a separate article (perhaps called "Bosnian War 1992-1995: Eastern Bosnia and the Srebrenica Massacre" or something similar. Here, the Serb strategy of ethnic cleansing, the fighting around the Srebrenica enclave 1992-93, the role of the UN safe havens and the final assault on Srebrenica could be described (as well as events after the fall of Srebrenica until the end of the war). Instead, a summary text of about one or, maybe, two, paragraphs could be included.
2. The Massacre: this is of course the main part of the article and would be difficult to include in another article, so this section would just have to be heavily summarized. Perhaps a greater use of references to the appropriate para in the ICTY judgement against Krstic (where most of the text has been taken from) could be used.
3. the remaining sections (3-7) could much more easily be moved to separate articles and replaced by very brief summaries since they are more about the politics of the massacre rather than the massacre itself.

Cheers Osli73 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Um, I think at 75% reduction is a bit extreme. Let's focus on one section at a time, and we should not remove material until the sub-articles are created. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, well Wikipedia strongly recommends 32 KB and we're today above 130 KB. What would your recommended target be - 50 KB?. Cheers Osli73 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, WP:SIZE. Don't ask me how many times I've caught flak for trying to implement that... .Yes, 32 kb, but that's a suggestion only. However, I do think the article could use work for readability. Instead of aiming at a size limit, let's work one section at a time, in increments, and see where we end up. If we're still way over, we can reassess then. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, while WP:Size says that "Though article size is no longer a binding rule, there remain stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues". So, if we are not going to aim at the 32 KB limit outright, I do think it would be helpful to aim at some size limit, if only to contain the article's size in the future. Cheers Osli73 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, same old Osli73 back again. "Since we are talking about a reduction by about 75%" = "I'm going for a reduction of about 75%, so we'll proceed from there". In principle I agree to the idea of using sub-articles to slim down the main article but it's hard to believe that there'll be agreement on the details. I'm not sure about working one section at a time. It's important to have a coherent overall structure. The inclusion of significant content within that overall structure is a more important consideration than achieving an arbitrary target, particularly where there's a need to resolve controversy and misrepresentation. There must be no "heavy summarising" in order to impose an agenda. One advantage of having the source wording included is that it ensures that the practice of misleading summarisation of source texts that certain individuals engage in can be kept under some sort of control. Osli73, please bear in mind that this is one of the reasons why the article has grown to the length that it is. --Opbeith 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I understand your reticence to streamline an article so prone to POV attacks. However, in our efforts to please everyone, we've created an article that is borderline incomprehensible to the article's intended audience: people with no knowledge of these events. Sure, figuring out what to sub-article vs. what to keep will be difficult, but I think its a task we need to undertake if we really want to preserve a clear public record about this event. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith:

• I agree that it will be difficult to agree on the details (which, we are already having problems with). However, that shouldn't stop us from trying
• I agree that we should try to stick to the ICTY (and possibly other sources such as UN reports, NIOD report and IWPR) as a source. However, I don't think we need to use its paraphrase entire sections of the Krstic judgement to avoid controversy. It shouldn't be that difficult to summarize it.
• I agree that we should try to take a comprehensive approach, rather than taking it one section at a time. Outline what the sections should, their approximate length and then apportion responsibility to the various editors for writing these sections.
• I absolutely agree that we should avoid selective or misleading summarization, since that is precisely my fear about your (and certain other persons) edits.
• The main reasons that the article has grown so long is (1) because it was very easy to simply copy entire sections of text from the ICTY judgement against Krstic rather than summarizing it and (2) because have added long texts about their special detail of interest.

Osli73 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need the full ICTY Statement in the Intro?

The intro already describes the atrocity fairly fully, and states that two seperate independent agencies define the event as a genocide. The whole point of the intro is that readers can gain a succinct idea about the event. Adding the quote only detracts from readability. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, this issue has been discussed before. The reason for keeping the full quote is that it resolves the central controversy that bedevils this article. It sums up beyond denial and misrepresentation the legal finding that genocide was perpetrated at Srebrenica, clearly, specifically and forcefully. Isee you have just gone ahead and deleted the text. This is a pattern of arbnitrary action that we're familiar with from Osli73. This is unacceptable. Please revert all your changes until they have been adequately discussed. --Opbeith 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, saying the quote only detracts from readibility is an overstatement. In fact, it very clearly and succinctly states what exactly happened and provides context. Fairview360 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is actually one of the better quotes (there are other, longer quotes of more dubious value to the article). However, it should be quite enough to state that the ICTY found that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide and that the ICJ later confirmed this. The quote really just reinforces that. I would prefer to include info in the intro about where and how the massacre took place. Cheers Osli73 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough! Sorry if I stepped on some toes. Would it make more sense to place the statement about the UN Peacekeepers before the section about the event being qualified as Genocide, though? Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edits (Djma12)

I am currently undertaking a number of ambitious edits to this article. My goal is simple: organize the article so that even a school child researching this atrocity can understand it, but provide enough internal wiki-links so that the dedicated researcher can get more info when needed. I am not trying to hide any information about this atrocity. However, by trying to include everything in one article, I feel that we actually discourage readers from learning about this event.

Please voice your concerns with my edits here.

Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 23:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I object very strongly to your talking arbitrary action before proposed changes have been adequately discussed. This is behaviour that we're only too familiar with here and is unacceptable. --Opbeith 00:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you find the edit unacceptable, please feel free to revert. I am merely following WP:BOLD on something I feel would improve the article. I feel this discussion, even though difficult, should be undertaken. Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please note, I have not removed any information. Information has merely been organized into a sub-article which I feel improves readability. As stated before, I appreciate outside input on whether this is appropriate. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, at first I thought you had simply deleted information and then saw that you added a link under mass executions. What I would suggest is not reducing all of that text to one link, but rather a paragraph with several linked words. Otherwise, it does obscure this description of what happened. One paragraph could refer to the specific locations or dates of the massacres with each word linked to the longer description in the sub-article. Fairview360 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. We could keep the link, and have several linked words. That way, no one gets lost. Any idea where in the paragraph would be good for an internal wiki-link? Djma12 ^(talk) 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I notice that you've added additional information to the sub-article to the effect that an estimated 6000 persons were killed in the mass executions. Can you confirm your source? This is of course the problem with creating sub-articles. It makes it a lot easier for information that was previously part of the main article to be altered without this being apparent to the general body of contributors. This is arbitrary action and I disagree with it. It's not good enough simply to suggest reverting. Reverting of wilful interventions has triggered "edit wars" here in the past. Reverting also tends to lead to confusion when changes in the article that are not the target of the reversion get lost in the process. Please desist. Discussion is the first step. --Opbeith 00:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but do you have any proposals for improving readability? Instead of complaining about an imperfect solution, let's work on making a better one? Djma12 ^(talk) 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Djma12, Opbeith is not complaining. He is rightly asking you to provide a source. Where did you get the number of 6000? If you ad lib the number of innocent people killed, you're are going to lose credibility rather quickly. I strongly suggest that you give Opbeith an explanation, not characterize him as a complainer. In fact, he is one of the few editors here who takes the time to give full explanations for his edits and his opinions. Fairview360 01:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I have removed the statement pending citation. However, does anyone have suggestions for readability? All I get are statements on why it's too hard to do. Surely people don't believe that the article in its current form is well-organized. Please people, I'm trying to work with you but all I get is derision. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not giving you derision, I am asking you a question. Where did you get the number 6000? By the way, thank you for cleaning up the redundant footnote in the introduction and reformatting. Fairview360 01:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

6000 per the exhumed burial number later in the article. But I agree that it should be removed until more definitive citations can be arrived at. I don't feign to have as much expertise as you guys have on the subject. I merely see my role as someone who cleans up the article for clearer readability. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names. This is very well documented. Hence, there appears to be general agreement among the editors that it is accurate to say an estimated 8000 were killed during the Srebrenica Massacre. Fairview360 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The corresponding article is now being edited to reflect that. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360 put this suggestion on my talk page. Would people prefer this to the single sub-article?

With that said, as you've suggested, each specific massacre could be put in a sub-article, but I believe it must be done in a way that does not obscure them. Hence, I do not agree with taking out 6 to 10 paragraphs and replacing it with just one link. Rather reduce it to a few sentences with reference to each massacre with each reference linked to the sub-article. Fairview360 00:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12 ^(talk) 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick to the "estimated 8000" figure to avoid confusing readers. This will be especially important if certain sections are moved to separate articles. However, since there are different numbers for "identified" and "unidentified" bodies, "estimated killed" and "killed and missing" I think it would be a good idea to include a paragraph on this somwhere in the article instead of spreading out the info in various sections. Osli73 09:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I apologise if you think I was deriding your efforts, that wasn't my intention. But you don't seem to have sufficient awareness of the underlying issues to be proceeding with large scale changes without consulting more widely. For example you need to understand that the number of victims is one of the key areas of dispute between people who accept that the massacre was genocide and the people who in spite of legal findings still seek to minimise and excuse what happened. However well-intentioned efforts to render the article readable by a schoolkid might be, they are liable to fuel controversy and unresolved disputes. Regrettably I have to say that there are many articles in Wikipedia that no-one, let alone a school-child, should be reading without an informed perspective. These are areas where "the truth" is, rightly or wrongly, hotly disputed and unless you know the map of the minefield you risk making the situation worse rather than better. --Opbeith 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 10:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies if the edits were too abrupt -- my intention was simply to encourage a conversation on how to increase the article's readability. Looks like I've not only stirred that up that discussion, but also personal attacks concerning sock-puppetry... Seriously, will some one actually work with me on improving the article's architecture? I'm starting to feel as if an Rfc might be required. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12 and others, considering that the article is so conflict ridden, in my opinion, any revision of the article structure and text would have to be based on some type of consensus/compromise and an acceptance by the majority of editors certain basic rules/principles. I've suggested this before but, unfortunately, none of the 'Bosniak' editors (sorry for the clumsy grouping, but it's the best I could think of at the moment, of course this is not a 100% homogenous group) have shown any interest. I can only see two reasons for this lack of interest: (1) they're happy with the status quoe and/or (2) they fear that rewriting and reducing the lenght of the article will present a view of the massacre not to their liking. I'm sure something could be done to assuage at least point no. 2. Otherwise, I think that Rfc might be the best route forward, though I would prefer A Fresh Start. Regards Osli73 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, you know very well what the third possible explanation is - that the pattern of your previous interventions does not inspire trust. Go back to my previous dealings with you and in particular the results of my checking your misleading use of sources. It's your determination to press ahead with an agenda of your own under cover of that veneer of cooperation that has been the cause of a lot of conflict here. --Opbeith 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osli73, KarlXII, Djma12

I have conducted an analysis of Osli73, KarlXII, and Djma12's edit histories, and unfortunately, they could all be the same person. (We already know that Osli73 and KarlXII are one person.)

It was a little strange that someone allegedly entirely new to the article would be so bold in making wholesale edits without any attempt to create consensus first.

I have reverted the article back to before Djma12's edits and hereby call upon Djma12 to at least attempt establishing general agreement before making significant edits. Fairview360 13:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, kindly take the time to actually examine edit histories before making serious allegations. Defaming editors simply because they disagree with you violates WP:CIVIL, and is quite frankly beneath you.

• Djma12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Osli73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• KarlXII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Djma12 ^(talk) 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I did. And rather than seeing any understanding from you about past experiences at this article which would naturally spawn such suspicions, I see the same self-righteous posturing exhibited by KarlXII. In any case, you are not be rejected outright. Rather you are being asked to attempt general agreement before engaging in wholesale edits. Fairview360 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that discussion is invaluable before making edits, but let's be clear. I started entertaining the concept of a sub-article in the discussion page a full day before I edited. The consensus I received was that it was a good idea but difficult, therefore no one was willing to work with me on it (except Osli.) If you'll recall, I even requested your help before editing. Fairview, you do not have ownership of this article. I am willing to discuss and work with you out of respect and professionalism, but I do not need your approval for edits, especially if you will simply be abusive. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making the observation that no one editor has ownership of this article. Fairview360 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One full day? You waited one full day and then declared an alleged consensus for you to move forward with wholesale edits? An alternative way for you to establish consensus would be to state exactly what you are proposing and then solicit the feedback of the most engaged editors of this article. That might take a little bit more than one full day. Fairview360 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently abusive about stating the possibility that you are a sockpuppet of Osli73. When it was stated the KarlXII might be a sockpuppet of Osli73, was that inherently abusive? How could it be abusive when it turned out to be a simple statement of fact? Presuming that you are not a sockpuppet, rather than self-righteous posturing and presenting yourself as the victim of alleged abuse -- something rather Osli-esque -- why not just take it in stride and keep moving forward? The invitation to attempt genuine consensus building is still there. You might also want to spend some time looking at KarlXII's behavior (Osli73's behavior) and then you might see why some here are understandably skeptical. Fairview360 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be offended if people went around claiming that you and Opbeith were sock-puppets just b/c you share similar edits? I've been called many a strange name in wiki before, but this accusation is a first. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I have been accused of being a sockpuppet before. I found it amusing. I was waiting to find out who the editor thought I really was, but he/she never followed through with the specifics. Given the amount of sockpuppetry in wikipedia, I don't think anyone should be surprised by people having their suspicions. For the record, I am still not convinced that you are not Osli73, but will continue dialoguing with you. You may notice that I no longer address Osli directly since I believe good faith discussions with him are not possible. Hence, I am implicitly giving you (Djma12) the benefit of the doubt. Fairview360 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, For somebody who turns up with little knowledge of the subject but simply expressing a well-intentioned desire to help make the article more accessible, you seem to have a rather pressing need to make large scale changes without much concern for the views of other people who've been involved here over time and have some knowledge of the issues. You say "I agree that discussion is invaluable before making edits, but let's be clear. I started entertaining the concept of a sub-article in the discussion page a full day before I edited. The consensus I received was that it was a good idea but difficult, therefore no one was willing to work with me on it (except Osli.) If you'll recall, I even requested your help before editing. Fairview, you do not have ownership of this article. I am willing to discuss and work with you out of respect and professionalism, but I do not need your approval for edits, especially if you will simply be abusive." You decided a full day was long enough to allow everyone here the time they needed to agree or disagree with you. You didn't secure a consensus, you had a few cautious comments.

If you really are interested in this article you must have looked back over previous discussions on this page and seen that quite a few other people might have wanted to have an input before you embarked on drastic action. Didn't that give you cause to think that you should act with a little less haste and a little more restraint? Instead you decided that other people's hesitation about working with you was reason enough to proceed without delay.

You comment on my edits and Fairview360's edits as if you're familiar with them. One moment you seem quite innocent and the next you come across as knowing rather more than might be expected of a well-meaning ingenu. You must surely be familiar with the controversy aroused by Osli73's precipitate and wilful interventions. But you follow in his footsteps. So, a simple question Djma12 - is Fairview360 mistaken or is there a relationship between you and Osli73? --Opbeith 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My first interaction with Osli was when he wrote me on my discussion page back in Feb. 27, 07, during my first attempts to edit on the page. I have had minimal contact with him since. If you still feel suspicious about my identity, I urge you to have an admin perform an IP check -- I would have no objection.

As for my suggestions and edits, please note that I started a similar discussion thread concerning sub-articling on the Iran page. Similarly, I was accused of pushing "american imperialism" at the time by some of those editors. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To your question "Is there something inherently controversial about sub-articling that's landing me in such hot water?", the answer is no. It was hot before you stepped into it. In principle, I believe there are a number of editors who would agree to sub-articles. Fairview360 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, Djma12, thanks for clarifying your position with regard to Osli73. I hope you're now a bit more aware why people reacted so strongly when you came along and started imposing changes in the same way he's done in the past. What Osli73 does causes controversy but it's also the way he does what he does that makes people angry. I think you'll find people more willing to work with you if you start by working with them. Perhaps your experience with the Iran page could have led you to be a bit more cautious. --Opbeith 09:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. If nothing else, this experience has taught me to modify WP:BOLD for controversial articles like this one. I am still willing to work with you guys, and would appreciate your input on how this article's structure could use improvement. Djma12 ^(talk) 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What I believe you will find is that editing and discussion here is disrupted by both guile and overt sheer aggression. Fairview360 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, it is unusual for me to have this much time for wikipedia and in a matter of days, I will have drastically less time available, but in addition to seeing the sub-article on the executions, I would like to see an attempt to synchronize the terminology in the article. I believe "Bosnian Serb forces" or "Serb soldiers" is better than "the Serbs". That is more consistent with ICTY terminology. Plus, in the article, the defenders of Srebrenica are alternatively refered to as Bosnian and Bosniak. Of course, they are both, but we should use one word for consistency sake. The word Bosniak is far more prevalent, hence I would say that gets the nod. Fairview360 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've glanced over the edit history of the page and have noticed the warring that occurs over terminology, so I'm not going to touch that with a ten-foot pole ;-) My expertise is in formatting, and I will stay within my niche, if you don't mind. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Playing it safe definitely has its advantages. Fairview360 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-article format

(Takes deep breath...) Alright, would anyone like to suggest how/if sub-articles might improve the architechture of this article? Djma12 ^(talk) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest going with the initiative of creating a sub-article about the specific massacres but not reduce the entire section to just one link. Rather, write a paragraph that clearly describes the locations and dates with links to the sub-article. Then the reader would see the sequence of events, but the details of said events would be in a sub-article thereby reducing the overall length of the article without obscuring the events themselves. Fairview360 01:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to have some type of rough draft ready in the next couple of days, and will post it in my user sandbox. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, here's a rough draft of what I have in mind. Notice that I have only completed July 13th so far. The process for re-writing and internal linking is fairly time-intensive, so I don't want to complete it all if this turns out to be controversial. Let me know what you think. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To give editors here an example, here is a sentence from your proposed draft: "The executions began on July 13th, when seventeen men were transported by bus to the banks of the Jadar river and shot. By the afternoon of the 13th, large scale executions had begun near the River Cerska (150 men), Tisca (22 men), and the Agricultural Cooperative in Kravica (1000-1500 men.)"

I think it is very well done. It explicitly refers to each massacre and gives the reader a chance to learn more of the details if they so wish. It does not detract or obscure the events. And it makes the article more concise. If the rest of the proposed text is this effective, I would support reducing the text of the main article along these lines as long as the sub-article is of good quality. Fairview360 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, then I'll proceed from here and will update the discussion page when a new Sandbox version is available. Of note:

• Keep in mind that I may need help with some of the text in the "Chronology" section, so let me know if I've glossed over too much.
• Likewise, I think the text for the "Preparation for executions" section could use some tightening, but am under-qualified to do so. Help in streamlining would be appreciated.

Djma12 ^(talk) 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Other than the executions section, are there any other sections that are readily amenable to sub-articling? Djma12 ^(talk) 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article is to succeed in being more concise I think it should focus on the actual massacre. If so, I think it would be a good idea to summarize the current sections 3 through 7 (which deal what happened after the massacre in particular the political repercussions of it) and move some of the material to sep

Don't see any at the moment. I suggest going with this attempt and see if it can be handled in such a way that it does not provoke an edit war. My guess is that if it does not appear to be an attempt to obscure the events, it could be accepted. Fairview360 21:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are. If the article is to succeed in being more concise I think it should focus on the actual massacre. If so, I think it would be a good idea to summarize the current sections 3 through 7 (which deal what happened after the massacre in particular the political repercussions of it) and move some of the material to separate sub-articles. I would be willing to rework the text, either alone or with someone else. Any comments? Regards Osli73 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• To all editors: Kindly take a look at this proposed replacement to the "Mass executions" section. Input, especially on tightening the "preparations" section and expanding the "chronology" section would be appreciated. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I have not contributed to the article enough to earn to qualification of being an "editor"; (although I have "followed" this article since around January; and I'm familiar with the events as well); so this response is only my own personal response and nothing more. But, I have to agree with Fairview 360; I think you have done a very good job with the sub-article. It both clearly explains the magnitude of the event (as well as the logistics and operational aspects of the massacre; without being so "wordy" that we lose focus on the main factors.)

If no one minds me offering a bit of a suggestion however, I think that there should also be a reference to the reburial of the bodies in secondary grave sites; because 1. the "cover-up" aspect was a part of the crime; and 2. it deals directly with finding the remains of the victims. Unless others have a difference of opinion; perhaps it can have its own seperate mini-paragraph between the chronology section and the forensic paragraph? Or, perhaps it should be included with the forensic paragraph? Again, just a suggestion. (And I'm sorry if there is a reference to the reburials; and I missed it!) As someone who has followed this article; but hasn't contributed much; I really appreciate the sub-article contribution you've made.

BTW: This may or may not be of use to the article. A collection of comments by Adam Boys of the ICMP on the forensic and recovery aspects. http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0703&L=justwatch-l&D=1&O=D&P=37095

Gardenfli 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gardenfli, Thank you for the feedback. Would you be willing to write a paragraph on the reburials as you have suggested and insert it into the proposed sub-article as it appears in Djma12's sandbox? Also, if you have time, the sub-article would benefit from a brief introductory paragraph. Fairview360 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've just noticed that the sub-article itself also needs help with citations. Can somebody help me out with that? Djma12 ^(talk) 19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not have any part in writing that section of the article, but I believe most of it is based upon ICTY Findings of Fact. Perhaps one of the original editors will help us out here. (?) Fairview360 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to sort through the article history and see if I can find the original editor. Until then, it might be helpful to add a link to the ICTY Findings of Fact as a "See also" in the bottom. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fairview. I've put together a VERY rough draft copy of a paragraph under Djma12's sandbox page. Obviously this paragraph needs to be better formated grammatically and stylistically (i.e. using the same tense; punctuation, etc.). I've tried to cite references within the paragraph, but it doesn't look as if they showed up properly. (If you couldn't tell, I've really never edited anything for Wiki before ;-) ). And the last sentence also needs to have citation too.

Nevertheless, hopefully the paragraph will provide at least a base to build a better paragraph; or at the very least provide some sources and links regarding the reburials for the other editors to build upon.

Gardenfli 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Gardenfli, I'll take a look at it. Fairview360 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gardenfli, take a look. I believe my edits were an improvement. Let me know what you think. Fairview360 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Gardenfli 22:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Added some additional ref. sources.

The statement about the reburials being evidence of the organized nature of the killings has been cited back to the Durnford article. Bone and Blood (gray paragraph) The statement about the reburials being evidence of the status of the victims has been cited back to a [ BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3640788.stm]. In particular, this sentence: " Bosnian war criminals tried disguising their acts of genocide by exhuming mass graves and reburying bodies in smaller graves, claiming they were the result of minor battles." Gardenfli 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To Gardenfli: Thanks a bunch for the edits, they have really improved the article! (err, my sandbox, but eventually...)

To the editors: Though the sandbox version could still use fine tuning, are we nearing something that would be ready for presentation? Djma12 ^(talk) 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except for one sentence in the introduction which Fairview360 insist on despite ICTY findings to the contrary (see Sandbox Talk page). Cheers Osli73 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planning of massacre

To state that "The vast amount of planning and high-level coordination invested in killing thousands of men in a few days is apparent from the scale and the methodical nature in which the executions were carried out." contradicts what the ICTY states in its press release following the conviction of Krstic. About 2/3 down in the section "II - Which are the crimes that were committed?" the ICTY states:

• The Trial Chamber points out that the decision to kill all the Bosnian Muslim men of fighting age was taken after the decision to transfer the women, children and old people. [21]

• The Trial Chamber is not stating, nor does it wish to suggest, that a plan to commit genocide existed prior to the attack on Srebrenica or even right before the city fell. [22]

Thus, the ICTY is quite clear in that neither the decision to kill the Bosnian Muslim men or the plan to commit genocide existed prior to the attack. I'm not sure how this could be interpreted in any othe way. Neither am I aware of any other opinion offered by the ICTY on this issue.

Fairview360, your statement that this is "obviously" is a perfect example of WP:OR. Regards Osli73 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

More sophistry.

The ICTY statement is specifically referring to the intent to commit genocide. It in no way refutes the statement that the killing of 8000 people in the manner the VRS did it requires a high level of planning and coordination.

Here is wording directly from the ICTY describing the massacre:

-"carefully orchestrated mass executions"

-"mass executions followed a well-established pattern." "Immediately afterwards, and sometimes even during the executions, earth moving equipment arrived and the bodies were buried, either in the spot where they were killed or in another nearby

location.

- The operation to capture and detain the Bosnian Muslim men was "well organised and comprehensive"

- [23] "evidence demonstrates a concerted campaign"

Review the reports from the ICTY and the Bosnian Serbs themselves. Thousands of VRS soldiers and support staff, using buses, trucks, tanks, guns, fuel, warehouses, communications, burial selection, and bulldozers, conducted multiple executions and burials killing over 8000 people. Looking at the details as established by ICTY and corroborated by the ICTY's description of event, that obviously took a high degree of planning.

Fairview360 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360,

1. your examples do indeed state that the massacre was "organized", "comprehensive" and "followed a well-established pattern". I agree with that. However, here the ICTY is commenting on the nature of the massacre, not when it was planned/when the decision was taken.
2. The "concerted campaign" you cite above refers to the attempts to conceal the massacre, not to the massacre "The reburial evidence demonstrates a concerted campaign to conceal the bodies of the men in these primary gravesites, which was undoubtedly prompted by increasing international scrutiny of the events following the take-over of Srebrenica." (para 78 [24])
3. However, if the ICTY states, in the ICTY source that I refer to above, that "the decision to kill all the Bosnian Muslim men of fighting age was taken after the decision to transfer the women, children and old people." then I don't see how we can claim that there was a "vast amount of planning and high-level coordination invested in killing thousands of men" since this implies that the massacre was planned beforehand.
4. I don't know why they had trucks. I guess they were used to transport soldiers or had been intended to be used to transport the population out of town as was done with the women and children. However, the point of WP:OR is that we don't need to solve this problem and we definately shouldn't draw our own conclusions. Instead, we should rely on the sources.
5. I'm more than willing to ask for an external opinion on this issue if you insist.

Regards Osli73 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What more does one need to say? Look at text from the ICTY judgement: (my emphasis)

"Radislav Krstić aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of genocide against the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica."

"The international attention focused on Srebrenica, combined with the presence of the UN troops in the area, prevented those members of the VRS Main Staff who devised the genocidal plan from putting it into action in the most direct and efficient way. Constrained by the circumstances, they adopted the method which would allow them to implement the genocidal design while minimizing the risk of retribution."

http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/krs-aj040419e.pdf Fairview360 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, in para 572 of the judgement the Court discusses what "planned" is:

Article 4 of the Statute does not require that the genocidal acts be premeditated over a long period. It is conceivable that, although the intention at the outset of an operation was not the destruction of a group, it may become the goal at some later point during the implementation of the operation.[25]

So, when the Court says that the massacre was "planned" and that Krstic participated in this planning it is not necessarily saying that this was planned long in advance. Regards Osli73 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to comment here? I do not see how one can coordinate mass executions and primary burials at this level without planning. Are we to accept that it just happened spontaneously? At some point, someone had to sit down and make a plan for exterminating this many people in this manner. Fairview360 00:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, since you insist I'll repeat what I said above:

• Yes, the ICTY source tells us that the massacre was planned. Krstic was convicted of aiding in planning this. No one is denying this.
• However, as I point out in point 3, the ICTY source is also quite clear that the decision to kill the Bosnian Mulsim men (ie the massacre) was taken after the decision to transfer the women (ie after the town was taken). Therefore it would be incorrect for us to imply that the massacre had been planned (ie decided) before the attack on Srebrenica.
• Pls read WP:OR. The idea is to use the sources not draw your own conclusions. We don't need to figure out how or when the massacre was planned. We should stick to what the sources tell us.

Regards Osli73 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to comment here? Osli73 has deleted a statement that the mass executions required planning but states that he is not denying that the executions required planning. He is arguing against the assertion that the executions were planned long in advance while no one is claiming the executions were planned long in advance. And then sights the wiki rule to not use original sources when this is based on ICTY findings of fact, not original sources. Oy. It seems only Opbeith has shown the patience to engage these contortions. Opbeith? Comment? Fairview360 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A relevant statement from a member of the RS Srebrenica Commission (my emphasis):

"When we talk about the documentation required by the Commission, I must say that the VRS and RS Defence Ministry made original documentation available to us, especially useful was the VRS HQ documentation covering the month of July." To the question of whether crimes in Srebrenica were planned or just happened, Cekic says: "The crux of the matter is that crimes were, unfortunately, planned with morbid perfection. The Krivaja-95 Operation, which was actually the taking of Srebrenica, was composed of three phases: taking the town, deportation of civilians from Potocari, and killing of men and boys fit for military service. Cekic calls the fact that the Serb members of the Commission signed the report a turning point, and says it is extremely important to him as a historian, because, Bosnian Serbs have now accepted and confirmed the fact that genocide was committed in Srebrenica. There was no dilemma about this among the Serb members; they signed the report and said that they wanted to make a distinction with Serbs who did not take part in the events in Srebrenica and who have no blood on their hands now".

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:1Z9S5OoxNEQJ:www.nato.int/sfor/media/2004/ms040618.htm+%22Srebrenica+Commission%22+rs+final+report%22+planned&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us

Fairview360 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, the source you site is a comment by Smail Cekic, a historian and Director of the Institute for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law, was the only Bosniac member of the RS Commission on Srebrenica. If you read the text you will see that he states that it was planned and wasn't a spontaneous act. This is also confirmed by the ICTY and NIOD reports (as I wrote in my proposed text). He says nothing about when the massacre was planned, by whom or why. However, it is not clear what the text you are referring to is (though it appears to be on the SFOR site). Certainly, the findings of the ICTY and the NIOD report are far more weighty sourcces. Regards Osli73 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual trying to create doubt and controversy where it does not exist. The text is quite clearly the words of Smail Cekic presented by a reliable source.

The other concerns raised above belong in the discussion below about section 2.3

Section 2.4 simply states that the executions were well planned and then describes what exactly happened. If anyone wants to continue this discussion of when and why the decision to commit mass murder was made, they can join the discussion below. Despite attempts to make it so, the fact that the executions were well planned is not controversial. In order to supply and direct thousands of personel and equipment engaged in the liquidation and burial of approximately 8000 people, there must be a high degree of coordination and therefore yes planning. I really have no interest in spending more time arguing this point. Again, if anyone else wants to engage this user, so be it. Fairview360 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, I will ignore your uncivil behavior and reply to the questions only:

1. what I am opposing is the wording that the massacre involved a "vast amount of planning and high-level coordination". Not only is this statement unsourced, it also implies that the massacre was planned prior to the attack. The ICTY source is quite clear that the plan to kill the Bosnian Muslim men took place after the attack on the town.
2. if you insist on keeping such an ambigous sentence I will have to insist on including at statement that the massacre was not planned prior to the attack but only after the decision to transfer the women and children, based on the ICTY source referred to above. I'll make the edit and then you can see what you think.
3. since the preceeding section ("A plan to execute the men of Srebrenica") already deals with the massacre I suggest that whatever the decision the sentence be moved to the previous section.

Regards Osli73 09:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Following up on this discussion I have rewritten the section on the plan to kill the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica and published it on Djma12's sandbox. Comments welcome. Regards Osli73 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The objective of this endeavor is to make the main article more concise. If one wants to write a sub-article on the nuances of exactly when the decision to commit genocide was made as opposed to "ethnically cleanse" Srebrenica, perhaps that can be the subject of another sub-article. Fairview360 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview,

1. pls don't delete text from the sandbox
2. I state quite clearly that the intention is that the text would replace the current section dealing with this (which, by the way, completely lacks sources)
3. a lengthier subarticle on the reasons could certainly be written, this is a summary.

Osli73 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One may want to note that this all started when Osli deleted text from the sandbox. Furthermore, regarding the second statement, I see no evidence of that.

Lastly, rather than a long drawn out saga, to counter the potential implication that Osli apparently fears,

all that is required is one parenthetical statement in the "A plan to execute the men of Srebrenica" paragraph indicating the timing of the actual decision to commit genocide. Fairview360 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, not only do you not 'own' the Srebrenica massacre article, you also don't 'own' the sandbox in question. The text I wrote is meant to replace the current section which does not cover the 'plan' nor cite any sources. Osli73 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is really rather simple. The sandbox is for replacing section 2.4 mass executions, not section 2.3. See below. Fairview360 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scorpions footnote

There introduction of the article includes the sentence "In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre" A dispute has now arisen between Fairview360 and myself about how this statement should be references.

Fairview's proposed footnotes:

1. "Serbia: Mladic “Recruited” Infamous Scorpions". Institute for War and Peace Reporting. [26]
2. Srebrenica Video Vindicates Long Pursuit by Serb Activist; [27]
3. National Public Radio programme "All Things Considered, June 3, 2005" - Dejan Anastasijevic of Vreme Magazine tells Melissa Block "... This specific paramilitary unit is not a Bosnian Serb unit, it is a unit which comes from Serbia and the people from the Unit were actually members of the Serbian police force, so this is the first hard evidence that Serbian troops from Serbia were involved in the Srebrenica massacre. So far Serbian authorities were always claiming that troops from Serbia were not involved in the Bosnian War, just Bosnian Serb units. ..."; [28]
4. [http://www.ex-yupress.com/vreme/vreme126.html Scorpions'Trail by Dejan Anastasjevic, Vreme, Belgrade, 9 June 2006

Osli73's proposed footnote

Although the unit originated from Serbia it has not been proved that it was under the control of the Serbian government. The Bosnian government has long alleged that the Scorpions were a part of the Serbian military police (MUP). There has also been circumstantial evidence to support this.[29][30][31] In the court case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague the alleged link between Serbia and the Scorpions was one of the key issues. In its judgement in the case on 26 February 2007 the ICJ could not find that the Scorpions were under Serbian control or influence, de-jure or de-facto. In para. 389 it writes:

Judging on the basis of these materials, the Court is unable to find that the Scorpions were, in mid-1995, de jure organs of the Respondent. Furthermore, the Court notes that in any event the act of an organ placed by a State at the disposal of another public authority shall not be considered an act of that State if the organ was acting on behalf of the public authority at whose disposal it had been placed.[32]

In para 413 it concludes:

As for the killings committed by the “Scorpions” paramilitary militias, notably at Trnovo (paragraph 289 above), even if it were accepted that they were an element of the genocide committed in the Srebrenica area, which is not clearly established by the decisions thus far rendered by the ICTY (see, in particular, the Trial Chamber’s decision of 12 April 2006 in the Stanišić and Simatović case, IT-03-69), it has not been proved that they took place either on the instructions or under the control of organs of the FRY.[33]

Why do I wish to change the reference?

• Fairview's reference does not mention the recent ICJ ruling on the issue of Serbia's culpability for genocide in Bosnia/Srebrenica where the nature of the Scorpion's connection with Serbia was a central point. The ICJ did not find evidence of an alleged link to the Serbian government.
• While my proposal does state that there is circumstancial evidence linking the Scorpions to the Serbian government, where I cite three of the sources Fairview uses, it clearly states what the ICJ has found.
• The ICJ should be a much more reliable source than interviews with journalists and commentators.

To avoid an edit war on this topic I would appreciate some comments from uninvolved editors. Regards Osli73 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What is being characterized as "Fairview's" sentence and footnotes is rather the product of ample prior discussion and contributions from many editors.Fairview360 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you are the one arguing that it should not be replaced.Osli73 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, what we have is several editors having contributed to the sentence and footnotes as they are now with Osli73, along with his sockpuppetry, doing everything he can to either delete it or change it. Fairview360 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who these editors are. All I know is that I believe the current footnote is not complete and therefore I am proposing a more complete footnote (which includes three of the previous four) based on the findings of the ICJ, which considered the Scorpion's connection with Serbia closely. I believe the reason you do not want to mention the ICJ finding is that it does not find that the Scorpions were controlled by Belgrade.Osli73 20:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All one needs to do to learn who contributed to the sentence and footnotes is do some homework. The footnote as proposed by the above editor reads like a rebuttal to a statement that is not made. The sentence in the intro makes no claim that the Scorpions were under direct command of Belgrade. Furthermore, footnotes are not a place for writing ad nauseum rebuttals to possible implications but rather should direct the reader to the relevant source material. The reason there is an abundance of footnotes to that one statement added by a number of editors is that Osli and his sockpuppet KarlXII have been so aggressive in trying to get the sentence deleted. Fairview360 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the original footnotes, the intro sentence refering to the Scorpions now has an additional footnote directing the reader to the ICJ judgement with the relevant paragraphs cited. Fairview360 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed replacement for section 2.3 "A plan to kill the men of Srebrenica"

Given that the current text in section 2.3 does not cite any sources nor, in my opinion, deals with the issues of who planned the massacre, when and why I have proposed a new text (see below), based on the findings of the ICTY and the NIOD report on this matter (sourced). I have attempted to put this in Djma12's sandbox but the text was deleted by Fairview360. I'm not sure why. However, to avoid conflict I am putting it up here for discussion before editing the article. Regards Osli73 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Responsibility and motives for the massacre

Although General Krstic of the Drina Corps was convicted by the ICTY for aiding and abetting the massacre it has not been established who took the decision to kill the men of Srebrenica, when the decision was made or why. In its judgement against Radislav Krstic the ICTY found that the decision to kill the Bosnian Muslim men of military age and thereby commit Genocide was taken only after the town had been taken and the women and children sent away on buses:

The Trial Chamber points out that the decision to kill all the Bosnian Muslim men of fighting age was taken after the decision to transfer the women, children and old people… The Trial Chamber is not stating, nor does it wish to suggest, that a plan to commit genocide existed prior to the attack on Srebrenica or even right before the city fell. ^[1]

The ICTY believes that the initial intention was to carry out the “ethnic cleansing” of the enclave. However, it is unable to determine why the decision to kill the men was finally taken. ^[2] The 2002 report by the Netherland’s Institute for War Documentation (NIOD), commissioned by the Dutch government, confirmed the ICTY’s picture:

These factors suggest that there was no proof that the mass murder of the men may have formed part of the plans for the capture of Srebrenica before the operation itself.^[3] It is therefore plausible that the decision to execute all Muslim men of combatant age was taken some time after 11 July 1995.^[4]

It states that the “The question of why the executions took place at all is not easy to answer.” Although it suggests that revenge most likely played a role in some of the massacres it rules it out as the driving factor of the massacre. In line with the ICTY, the NIOD report concludes that the decision to kill the men of Srebrenica was the result of the general policy of "ethnic cleansing", revenge and unforeseen circumstances. Although it is unable to determine who made the ultimate decision, it lays most of the blame on General Mladic.^{[5] [6]}

It is really rather simple. The sandbox is being proposed to replace 2.4 mass executions. If Osli73 wants to open up a discussion of 2.3 "A plan to kill the men of Srebrenica", which is seperate from the sandbox text, so be it. With that said, his suggested replacement for 2.4 seems more inclined to create doubt than describe what actually happened. For comparison, here is the existing text:

Although Bosnian Serb forces have long been blamed for the massacre, it was not until June 2004 — following the Srebrenica commission's preliminary report — that Serb officials acknowledged that their security forces planned and carried out the slaughter. A Serb commission's final report on the 1995 Srebrenica massacre acknowledged that the mass murder of the men and boys was planned. The commission found that more than 7,800 were killed after it compiled thirty-four lists of victims.

The question of why the executions took place at all is not easy to answer. During the Radislav Krstić's trial before the ICTY, the prosecution's military advisor, Richard Butler, pointed out in taking this course of action, the Bosnian Serb Army deprived themselves of an extremely valuable bargaining counter. Butler suggested that they would have had far more to gain had they taken the men in Potočari as prisoners of war, under the supervision of the International Red Cross (IRC) and the UN troops still in the area. It might then have been possible to enter into some sort of exchange deal or they might have been able to force political concessions. Based on this reasoning, the ensuing mass murder defied rational explanation.

Although a number of women and children were murdered, together with a relatively large number of older men, the main focus of the VRS was on able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60. The buses which transported the women and children were systematically searched for men. Although very few, some exceptions were made; they included the casualties in Bratunac hospital who had previously been treated in the Dutchbat compound at Potočari. Thus, a concerted effort was made to capture and kill almost all Bosniak men of military age. All of them were targeted regardless of whether they chose to flee to Potočari or to join the Bosniak column.

Fairview,

• the text neither deals with who made the decision to kill the men, when that decision was taken or why
• the text does not cite any sources

Osli73 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The ICTY Krstic decision indicates the decision came from the VRS Main Staff.

Indeed the section could benefit from footnotes. Perhaps, there is an editor who would like to use of their time constructively and find the relevant source material. Fairview360 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, I know you are an intelligent person. Could you please comment on my proposed text. It is sourced and based on the ICTY and the NIOD findings on this matter. Regards Osli73 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Osli73 is currently attempting to re-invent himself as an intellectually honest editor who is only acting in good faith. Perhaps, there is an editor here who would like to engage Osli in direct dialogue. Given his past track record of making patently false statements that he knows are not true, his use of sockpuppets, his apparent agenda to create controversy, his constant posturing, I have neither the patience nor time -- in the long run -- to continue this exchange.

I would like to see Djma12's initiative with section 2.4 succeed. He deserves that. And then I hope to return to focusing only on the intro as I so decided months ago. Fairview360 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-articling implemented

Per the above discussion, I have implemented the sub-article format for section 2.4 I would like to extend my thanks for all the editors involved for helping to improve the article. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] invitation for feedback regarding editing section 2.4 and the creation of sub-article

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)

I want to thank Djma12 for having the gumption, goodwill, and endurance for seeing this initiative through. Fairview360 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second the appreciation; as well as my support for the new text.Gardenfli 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I look forward to working with you all again in the future. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of text

I've been pretty much knocked out for the last three days. So I'd like to express my admiration for all the hard work that's been done on the text. And I'd also like to express my appreciation for the advance warning that the changes will be made on Sunday. I haven't been up to reading anything as yet and would like the chance to do so and to be able to comment as well. That's why it's important to have a reasonable period of warning before significant changes are made. --Opbeith 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

glad to have you back

Gardenfli 03:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gardenfli. Building on all the hard work everyone else has been doing I've had a go at revising the version at Djma12's Sandbox0. I've tried to rework the text into a more easy-to-follow sequence that will hopefully also make it easier to provide references (and revise). I've also rewritten some of the text and broken it down into shorter and easier to read but hopefully still coherent paragraphs. I've completed the first half but still have to go over Chronology of events, Reburials and Forensic evidence, hopefully tomorrow. The suggested revised version is added at the end of Djma12's version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Djma12/Sandbox0. Comments awaited. --Opbeith 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I'll have time tomorrow to take a look at this. When you are done, could you insert all of your edits to the existing version? Then we can compare the versions and see the actual changes highlighted in red. When I read one version on top of the other, it is hard to see what the differences are. Fairview360 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I suggest we hold off on making the major edit to the article until after Opbeith completes his suggested edits. We can then take a look at them and see what the general consensus is. Our target is Sunday for making the major edit. We may still achieve that goal but it looks like Sunday evening by the earliest. Any thoughts? Thank you again for initiating this constructive positive atmosphere. Fairview360 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I don't have much time right now, but a cursory look gives me the impression that most of the changes are in formatting. Are there prose that you are suggesting we delete? Is there any that is reduntant? My concern is that all the essential information from the earlier version is preserved in this new suggested version. From past experience, I know some editors are concerned that major edits are a ways of confusing things and eliminating relevant information. I want to keep track of things very closely so that we can explain or show what was changed. I know you share that concern so I do realize this is singing to the choir, but what the heck. Fairview360 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, if I inserted the edits it would be quite hard to compare versions as there'd be a mess of red that would be difficult to read. So what I've done is to break doen the first version and my suggested reworking into smaller sections that can be compared with one another and added my explanation of significant changes in bold. I hope that's acceptable. It's taken a lot of the time I was planning to use for finishing the rest and I have to go out now - I'll try and finish the rest this evening, but can't promise I'll manage it. --Opbeith 11:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In advance I'd say that my inclination is to give a much fuller version of the events detailed in the Chronology, removing most of the individual witness testimony but nevertheless keeping some detailed information about what happened at the different sites. Djma12, my view is that since the article is about the Massacre it's important to restore some of the detail that will provide a more informative narrative of the core events, particularly given the level of attention we are paying to the preliminaries of capture, assembly and transport. Anyhow I'll go ahead and other people can tell me whether my suggested version includes too much of the original information. --Opbeith 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, thank you for investing your time in this effort.

A few comments. In the suggested version it describes the pattern of mass executions in two different ways. In one, it says they usually held the men in warehouses for a few hours and then killed them. In another, it says that they usually held them for one or two days and then killed them. That needs to be reconciled.

It is not a big deal, but I like this sentence more: "The vast amount of planning and high-level coordination invested in killing thousands of men in a few days is apparent from the scale and the methodical nature in which the executions were carried out." It is difficult to argue with that sentence. It says the amount of planning is comensurate with the actual complexity of the mass executions. Just from a writing perspective, I like the cadence of that sentence more than the offered alternative. Do you have a strong opinion about this? Is there a significant difference in meaning that I am missing?

"Most of the prisoners were captured by the VRS on 13 July," vs. "The VRS took the largest number of prisoners on 13 July,". I do not see the advantage of using the passive voice. Hence, I prefer the latter.

There will no doubt at some time be a request for a citation on the aerial photographs sentence. Do you have one? I assume you are refering to the documents provided to the ICTY from the US government.

Adding more detail to the chronology of the massacres makes sense since the title of the article is Srebrenica Massacre. With that said, the objective here is to make the overall article more concise. It stands now at 132K which is more than the Holocaust article. There are other parts of the article that suffer from redundancy and long-windedness (if that is a word), so I would support a few more sentences in the chronology of events with a mind towards shortening other parts of the article in a subsequent editing effort. Fairview360 19:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview 360, re your specific points: (1) If something is apparent it begs the question - to who? (2) "Took the largest number of prisoners" is ambiguous - it could be that the reference is to the number captured by the VRS compared with the MUP or another group whereas in the context the reference (not sourced yet) has to be to the date on which most of the prisoners were taken (of significance in relation to what was going on in the outside world) (3) I haven't referenced the aerial photos yet (or anything else - although the Chronology is pretty verified by the Beara indictment); my assumption is similar to yours. (4) I've come up with an abbreviated Chronology based on the text placed into the sub-article with revisions based on the Beara indictment, but I should be able to cut it down further - I need to be able to take a fresh look to decide how much burial/reburial material is worth retaining here for the information it gives about the killings. I'll post my temporary version at Djma12's Sandbox0 but will come back with a rather more concise version. Also (1) The reburials section could perhaps be slightly rewritten but as it is it seems to contain the most important information. (2) The Forensic evidence section needs updating, not done yet. --Opbeith 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith,

Thank you again for seeing this through.

1. OK. Let's work with your suggested sentence. It needs to be tightened up. As it reads now, "The scale of these executions and the methodical way in which thousands of men required a vast amount of planning and high-level coordination.", I think you meant to say something more about the "thousands of men". How about this: The scale and methodical nature of the executions required a high degree of planning and coordination. 2. OK. Got it. 3,4,also 1, and also 2, OK

Lastly, how do we reconcile a few hours verses a day or two? One way is to simply say people were held in warehouses and not say how long. What do you think? Fairview360 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview 360, I lost your query. Can you repeat it - it didn't seem a problem as far as I remember but I need the details again. --Opbeith 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised Chronology and updated Forensic evidence sections now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Djma12/Sandbox0 around Reburials section with a couple of minor changes. --Opbeith 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, one part says: "The mass executions followed a well-established pattern. The men were first taken to empty schools or warehouses. After being detained there for some hours, they were loaded onto buses or trucks and taken to another site for execution. Usually, the execution sites were fields in isolated locations." Another part says, "The killings generally involved a pattern of separating men and boys and assembling prisoners for transport to temporary detention facilities, including schools and warehouses, where they were held for one or two nights before being taken to open fields for execution and mass burial." The pattern is that they were held in schools and warehouses and then killed. What we need to do is reconcile the two statements in regards to how long they were held. Any suggestions? Fairview360 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll sort that out tomorrow, it's a matter of differences in different situations - but almost all were held for one or two nights (generally in or around Bratunac before being taken to other facilities near the execution sites for a few hours before being taken to be killed. I'll sort out the wording tomorrow. --Opbeith 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked the three paras of the "The mass executions" intro as follows:

"Following the detention of prisoners on 13 July and subsequently [some referred to later in the Chronology were detained after 13 July], the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) conducted a number of mass executions between 13 and 22 July. The scale of the executions and the methodical way in which thousands of men were killed and buried required a vast amount of planning and high-level coordination. [I've revised my suggested wording - this version omits the word "apparent" - so may be contentious, but I think it sticks to the sense of the original].

The killings generally involved separating the men and boys from the women, young children and the elderly, moving prisoners to the Bratunac area where they were detained for one or two nights, and then transporting them to temporary holding centres (including schools and warehouses) near the execution sites where they were kept for a few hours before being taken out to open fields for execution and mass burial. [Rewritten for consistency with the detailed content]

As of 2007, the remains of more than 6500 individuals have been exhumed from the Srebrenica region and identified or DNA-profiled. [My summary of Adam Boys comment on Scotsman article - reference given in Forensic evidence section] The number of people missing or killed as compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons includes 8,373 names so far." --Opbeith 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, are we ready now? If all of your suggested edits are now in order. How about changing the main sandbox version and we'll ask Djma12 for feedback. If Djma12 accepts, then we can go ahead with it. If not, we are still probably rather close. User:Fairview360 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll change the main sandbox version. Referencing still needs to be completed. I'll do as much as I can manage now and I'll complete the rest when I can. --Opbeith 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just lost all I'd done to the sandbox version when I clicked on the wrong part of the browser tab. Very annoying as I'd been incorporating some changes based on the Popovic et al consolidated indictment, which is dated June 2006 and so presumably provides the best resolution available of a number of areas of doubt. Will have another go tomorrow. --Opbeith 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Best laid plans of mice and men... sorry to hear of your misfortune. Wish you better luck tomorrow. Fairview360 02:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have put revised version up at Djma12 sandbox. Not thoroughly checked through and still needs referencing but that can be sorted. Perhaps I've taken it back to being a bit too wordy but a lot has been cut out and personally I'm happier to have reasonable coverage of the core events making up the actual massacre.

edit choices

I've made edits to the sandbox version according to the following.

Mass Executions: Suggested version "Following the separation of men and boys at Potocari and the taking prisoner of members of the break-out column," verses my edit "Following the detention of prisoners,". I strongly prefer the latter. The former is cumbersome and redundant. By that time in the article the reader has been repeatedly hit over the head with reems of information that these were not your average prisoners. The reader has already been told that the prisoners came from Potocari and the column. The reader does not need to be reminded of that again. They got it.

Preparations: I reverted the preparations section back to the original except minor changes. The suggested version has less details and leaves the reader wondering how one knows that 6000 people were captured in one day. The one thing I changed is the first sentence according to earlier discussions. Also, the new suggested first sentence is cumbersome and redundant yet again. "The execution of the plan to murder the able-bodied men of Srebrenica began" verses "the executions began". Why does the reader need to be told of the plan to murder able-bodied men from Srebrenica? They have already been told that. Do we need to explain that every single time? The reader gets it. And if someone wants to communicate the morbidity and gravity of what was happening, I believe "The executions began" is more effective than the overly wordy repetitive convoluted alternative.

Pattern of Executions: "Almost all of the thousands of Bosniak prisoners..." Does the reader need to be told again that there were thousands of prisoners and they were Bosniak? Don't they already know that? How many times do they need to be told that? "Almost all of the prisoners..." communicates clearly what happened with the reader having been completely informed as to what exactly that means. "Commencing on July 13." That piece of information is given repeatedly? Why? And why add that to the patterns section? The pattern is what it is without being told again and again that date. "After being detained for one or two nights, mostly in or around Bratunac, the men were taken to empty schools"... no, they were detained in the schools during those one or two nights.

Chronology: I reverted the entire chronology section since the longer version defeats the purpose of this enterprise and repeats information already detailed in prior sections. If the Holocaust can be described in less words than the Srebrenica Massacre, then why can't we do it? The idea is that if the reader wants more details, they can get it by clicking on the sub-article. Furthermore, when the reader has already read in prior sections the specific details about opportunistic killings, why do they need to read the exact same information again and again? Give the reader a choice. If they want more details, they can click on the sub-article.

Djma12, Opbeith, Gardenfli: I am running out of time. I will have virtually no time in April. It has been about 2 weeks since we started this effort which included quite a bit of effort establishing trust with Djma12 and going in tortuous circles with Osli73. I want to see this through to success, but I am pretty close to walking away from this since it does not feel like we are moving forward and I just do not have much time left.

PLEASE stop and, before we do any more edits, look at these comparisons:

Djma12's compared to the latest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADjma12%2FSandbox0&diff=118811440&oldid=117060942

Opbeith's compared to the latest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADjma12%2FSandbox0&diff=118811440&oldid=118746923

Please ask yourselves if you have major objections to going with the latest (save some minor editing). If there are major objections and this needs to go another round of major discussions and major edits, I simply do not have time to do that. Also, if the underlying issue is the length of the sandbox section, then there is a greater issue to be addressed which is the overall length of the article and what is appropriate. Does the reader need to be stabbed with each and every detail so they know just how bad it was? Do they need to be told the same thing again and again? I think they get it. And, given what I thought was the basis of this initiative, those details can be made available in a sub-article. I see no reason why the Holocaust which involved millions of people can be summarized in less words than Srebrenica. Hello?

I would like to see success with this initiative before I need to step back, but if that is not going to happen so be it. Thank you for your efforts. Best of luck. Fairview360 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Djma12, Opbeith and Fairview360 for working on this section.

About the terminology for the mass execution. What about "following the detention of the men and boys?" That seems a bit less cumbersome than the first description; while at the sametime, states clearly that these weren't "typical" prisoners. Perhaps in follow up references in the paragraph,we can use the terminology "prisoners." Perhaps that would be the best option? In the first sentence, mention the men and boys being held in detention/prison/captive; and then in subsequent mentions, use the term "prisoners" when describing them? (I realize that I'm probably going into too much detail here, especially when we have broader range issues to work on as well.)

My own preference would be to cut down on the Chron. section. Especially when the mass killings are described in detail in the sub-article. It is kind of redundant to have a sub-article, if the details are explained in chronology. My own preference would be to keep the sub-article on specific massacres and use the older version of the chronology with the dates and numbers of dead from each massacre. That way, the information is presented more clearly. We aren't obscuring what happened either, the details, including eyewitness/survivor statements, further details, descriptions of the massacres is clearly displayed in the sub-article. I think the chronology just with the numbers of those murdered also speaks volume as to the human loss. So, to make my rambling short(er); my preference would be to have the Chronology section like it was in the older version, with the dates and the locations, and approx. numbers killed in each massacre; and perhaps one or two other sentences related to the chronology if needed; and have each massacre linked to a paragraph on the sub-article about the massacres; and if the reader wants more specific details, she can click on the sub-article.

I do think however that the new forensic paragraph does add important details to the article; and I'd like to see that version included.

I also think that it is important to make the article concise without obscuring what happened. I don't think that it is impossible. I think that we can give a clear idea of the magnitude of the event; without being overly verbose. I certainly understand that some editors in the past have edited the article in order to seemingly downplay the event; or obscure the massacres. That's why it's so important to obviously have discussions before editing, etc. The tragedy or importance of Srebrenica is not diminished in anyway by making this article more concise and not including *every* specfic detail. If need be, for sections other than the massacres section, we can use sub-articles. I do think that the article is too wordy as it is. I think that we can work on making it more concise; to give a clear picture of what happened; without having a 17 page article.

So, in the end, my own personal preference would be to keep Djma12's version of the chron (with perhaps a few minor changes if need be.) Have it linked to the sub-article on the specific massacres; and use Opbeith's version of the forensic. I honestly think that this way the magnitude and the organization and the logistics of the massacre is clearly stated; in a concise way.

P.S. I realze the irony of mentioning that we should be concise, when I've repeated myself constantly writing these past paragraphs. ;-)

Gardenfli 05:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand people not appreciating my lengthy version. In justification I'd like to emphasise that I believed the details of the killings which are after all at the core of the article warrant inclusion in the main article, even if my version could be shortened. I don't feel they should simply be relegated to a sub-article. Also I was attempting to bring the details and organisation of the account of events up to date in the light of the most recent ICTY source document I have found, the Popovic et al consolidated indictment of 2006. This corrects some of the information given in the article/subarticle. If I hadn't, the incorrect information would have remained in place.

It took some effort to reconcile the two texts and as part of this I included some wording from the indictment, causing Fairview360 to assume I was simply replacing concise text with clumsy redundancy. Properly revised that clumsiness could have been dealt with. However as Fairview360 wanted something in place quickly I proceeded from his suggestion that I replace the original version at the "sandbox" with my own previous "suggested reworking" (which had not attempted a thorough updating of the information).

I know that my latest version still required some further editing for readability purposes (in updating I'd incorporated some , and I needed to incorporate the references, but that was the best I could manage at that time. I'm sorry that it's considered so unhelpful. But that's the problem with trying to do something properly - interim solutions that are part of the process may not be vey elegant. My version may be lengthy and inelegant (although I'd point out that it still represents a substantial curtailment of the original chronology of events). But I don't agree with the minimal version of the chronology and I don't think that the original text should be parked in the sub-article without any form of correction.

I don't think contrasts with the Holocaust article are appropriate. In the first place there are numerous articles on Wikipedia relating to detailed aspects of the Holocaust. But also Srebrenica is a topic of immediate concern and considerable dispute and it is only to be expected that there will be more attention to detail than to a more thoroughly reviewed and generally consensualised historical topic. --Opbeith 11:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read that again. "In the first place there are numerous articles on Wikipedia relating to detailed aspects of the Holocaust." Exactly. That is what we were trying to do with the sub-article. Create one of the first of many detailed accounts of one aspect of the Srebrenica Massacre. Fairview360 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have run out of time.

Here is my main advice. 1) Do not repeat information. 2) Remember that the purpose of this endeavor is to make the article more concise.

If one side insists on stuffing every detail in the main article to prove a point, then the other side can say that every other relevant detail must also be included to prove the potential validity of their alternative point of view and then, the article is no longer an encyclopedia (in other words a SUMMARY of what happened) but rather an arena of endless arguing and bickering along with the excessive repetitive sloppy text that comes with it.

Best of Luck. I'll check in from time to time. I am returning to my previous stance of focusing what little time I have on the intro. Fairview360 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I'm SO sorry if I gave you the impression that your hardwork and revision of the chron. section was not appreciated or not important. I think that the information you provided is very important. I think that perhaps a Srebrenica Massacre Infobox and category might be a good way to go. That way we can devote several articles to specific details, i.e. the legal proceedings, the role of international actors. I discussed the potential aspect of a Srebrenica related infobox down on this discussion page. Feel free to add any feedback.

Gardenfli 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica - the ONLY legally established genocide in Europe

I am very surprised to learn there was not even one single judgment confirming genocide against the Jews during Nuremberg trials,

Here are sentences handed down to 22 accused:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/nurembg/NuremJudgement.htm

This confirms that the Srebrenica Genocide is the only legally established genocide in Europe.

Bosniak 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The International Criminal Tribunal which tried 24 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which for the first time defined genocide as a specific crime was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948.

There is nothing surprising about the conclusion one can draw from these two facts which have been refered to repeatedly in these discussion pages. Fairview360 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the observation that Srebrenica is currently "the only legally established genocide in Europe" should not be presented such in the introduction. It gives the first time reader the impression that all potential cases of genocide in Europe were reviewed and only Srebrenica passed muster. It gives the impression that the Holocaust and Armenia are being rejected as cases of genocide. It could be argued that the Holocaust and Armenia have been acknowledged as cases of genocide since European courts have made it illegal to deny these cases of genocide. In any case, this observation, I believe, belongs in the "Legal Proceedings" section with better explanation of what exactly is being asserted. Fairview360 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the first conviction of genocide under the 1948 convention was against a perpetrator of the Rwandan genocide. Fairview360 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fairview on this one. The Srebrenica genocide verdict is extremely important. However, to characterize it as the 'first and only' legal qualification of genocide in Europe in the introduction without any explanation of the genocide convention, or anything like that is somewhat misleading.

It makes it sound as if the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide were tried in a court of law and legally found to be not genocides. Which is not the case at all.

The word genocide did not even come into existence into Raphael Lemkin created it during WWII. The Nuremberg trials took place BEFORE genocide had a legal meaning. So, the Nazis were not even tried with genocide; and therefore, couldn't be convicted of it. I think the issue would be much better fully fleshed out in a section on legal proceedings; where we can more fully explain the importance of the genocide convention; and the specific importance and legal precedence of Srebrenica case in the realm of international humanitarian law; and prevention of genocide convention. Gardenfli 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it was adopted in 1948 the Genocide Convention didn't come into effect until 12 January 1951. The Akeyasu conviction was the crucial first conviction. Krstic's aiding and abetting conviction was the confirmation that genocide had taken place during the Bosnian War at Srebrenica. But neither of those convictions means that the crime that we now refer to as genocide had not taken place earlier or elsewhere. Murder becomes a crime as soon as a community develops a moral framework that condemns the wilful taking of life. The legal framework of control and sanction follows on after that. Using the principles of the Genocide Convention and the reasoning of case law we can form a judgment whether an event or process constituted genocide. What we can't do is say that that judgment has formal legal status. I think it was important for the statement that Srebrenica was the first legally established case of genocide in Europe to appear in the article when the genocide was still being denied. Now that the ICJ ruling has confirmed the ICTY findings I think too much emphasis on Srebrenica's unique status as a legally established genocide risks comforting those individuals who insist that because there has been no legal finding of guilt there was no genocide elsewhere in Bosnia, not just ignoring the evidential issues but disregarding the fact that charges are still outstanding. --Opbeith 10:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And the findings of facts and the judgement from the Nuremburg trials did in effect confirm genocide against the Jews. It is strange that someone would want to argue otherwise. Fairview360 13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comment. In the above, I don't know why only is presented as "ONLY" nor do I fully understand the emphatic nature of this assertion when comparing Srebrenica to the Holocaust. Given the subject matter -- thousands of Bosniaks and millions of Jews, innocent people being slaughtered just because they have the wrong last name -- I do not see any place for what could appear to be triumphalism or one-up-manship. How does the statement "the ONLY legally established genocide in Europe" make a moral distinction between Srebrenica and the Holocaust? How does it make any distinction in what actually happened? What is the point of emphatically asserting this in this context? If there were a discussion of international law in regards to genocide, the first instances of the law leading to convictions would be relevant (whether in Europe or Africa), but given the way this has been presented here, especially with direct reference to the slaughter of 6 million Jewish men, women, and children, and given the context, the comment that initiated this section is either utterly meaningless, rather bizarre, or deeply offensive.

I believe it would be beneficial if there were a clear assertion by the editor posting the above comment that the facts established and the judgements handed down during the Nuremburg trials affirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that genocide was committed against the Jews.

To said editor, I pose this yes or no question. Did the facts established and judgements rendered from the Nuremburg trials confirm that genocide was committed against the Jews? Yes or no? Fairview360 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: Although I do not talk to Fairview, nor do I pay attention to what he writes (however I appreciate his genuine efforts and activism with regards to this article), I feel obliged to come here and state my position about Holocaust more clearly (so other people can understand it). Why? Because my friend asked me to do it and I do care about what my friends think. Neverthless. Srebrenica genocide is the only legally established genocide in Europe. Yes, that is still my position. It is the only legally established case of genocide in Europe. Nobody can deny that and nobody can dispute it. However, this does not mean that Holocaust did not constitute genocide. As Gardenfli pointed out: "Genocide as a legal term did not exist until AFTER the Nuremberg trial. Therefore, there was no law against genocide during the Nuremberg trial and therefore, they [war criminals] couldn't be charged or convicted of a law that didn't even exist yet.... Secondly; the law about genocide did not come into existence until 1948. That law itself came into being largely because of the Holocaust. The Nuremberg trials took place in 1946. The Nazis couldn't be convicted, much less charged with genocide; when the legal term genocide didn't even exist in 1946." In other words, and unquestionably, Holocaust did constitute genocide and trying to prove anything else would be waste of time. I only wish there is a better documented resource about the Holocaust victims (first/last names, date of birth, addresses, fathers names, etc). Why do I think so? It's because the world demanded from us (Bosniaks) to produce these records about our (Srebrenica) victims. I wish these records also exist for Holocaust victims - as each victim deserves dignity of having their name somewhere in the books of history. Being just a number is certainly not what any victim would wish. And there can never be "credible" numbers without documents proving each victim died (or at least, that's what the world told us about Srebrenica victims). Now I will jump off topic a bit: When it comes to Bosniaks, I have became unpleasantly furious with Bosniak victimhood politics mostly mirrored in local news sources. I do not believe Bosniaks can achieve any healthy future if they continue living in the past. Bosniaks need to accept that Serb entity (Republika Srpska) will be eternal part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, while Bosnian Serbs need to accept that Republika Srpska will be eternally part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosniaks are constitutive people of Republika Srpska with a power of a veto. Republika Srpska is not a "Federal" unit in a state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's simply political entity with broad autonomy. Having said that, they cannot hold a referendum to secede from Bosnia (aka: they cannot make state-level decisions). Even if they do so, Bosniaks have a power of veto. As a result - Republika Srpska will never be able to secede from Bosnia, and it will stay eternal part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Period.

[edit] role of Bosniak forces

The previous version of this section raised speculative questions that the subsequent text did not answer, presented quotes that had been edited, and presented the text as being the position of the General Assembly of the United Nations which is not true. The text came from a UN-sanctioned report presented to the General Assembly. If one reads paragraphs 4 and 501 for example, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/ , one can easily see that the report is presented in the first person. The report is based on extensive interviews and has the credibility of being sanctioned by the UN. However, it is not the official position of the General Assembly nor should it be presented as such. Fairview360 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that, I'm afraid the link doesn't go to a specific document. --Opbeith 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For whatever reason it sends you back to the home page instead of the document. I'll need to put instructions into the footnotes. (Forgot to sign the above comments.)Fairview360 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is easier, linkwise, Domovina.net has a copy of the report located here: UN report it might be easier for visitors to access that link. Gardenfli 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better!! Thank you Gardenfli. Fairview360 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of the UN safe haven, how it became corrupted and unworkable. Particularly why a supposedly disarmed populace had thousands of troops in their midst. 124.181.120.201 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute regarding Serb casualties around Srebrenica

Opbeith, Gardenfli, Djma12, any editor,

Please look at the changes I made to the "Dispute regarding Serb casualties around Srebrenica" section. There were three long-winded paragraphs making a point that is well argued and documented in the same section already. Those three paragraphs might have been part of previous edit wars for it seems to be a rebuttal to something not currently asserted in the article. If there is a strong desire to include this information, maybe it could be a part of a new sub-article or included in the existing article about Naser Oric.

If one wants to re-insert these paragraphs, would there be a way to make the same point with less text? The edit I made saves 4KB on article length. Fairview360 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, you're correct, those paragraphs were inserted as evidence rebutting claims in an exchange about the nature and the scope of culpability of operations under Oric's command as represented in the article, and they're not essential outside that dispute. I for one am happy with your summary I've done a bit of further revision myself to cut out some redundancy and improve the flow a bit, as follows, which you're free to incorporate if you want, otherwise keep your version. I've also deleted commas from single thousand figures and used the European date convention DD MM YY, which avoids the need for some superfluous commas.

<<Dispute regarding Serb casualties around Srebrenica

It is agreed by all sides that Serbs suffered a number of casualties during military forays led by Naser Orić. The controversy over the nature and number of the casualties came to a head in 2005, the 10th anniversary of the massacre. According to Human Rights Watch, the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party "launched an aggressive campaign to prove that Muslims had committed crimes against thousands of Serbs in the area" which "was intended to diminish the significance of the July 1995 crime."[67] An ICTY press briefing dated 6 July 2005 noted that the number of Serb deaths in the region alleged by the Serbian authorities had increased from 1400 to 3500, a figure the ICTY stated "just does not reflect the reality."[68] The briefing cited previous accounts:

- The Republika Srpska's Commission for War Crimes gave the number of Serb victims in the municipalities of Bratunac, Srebrenica and Skelani as 995, 520 in Bratunac and 475 in Srebrenica.

- The book "The Chronicle of Our Graves" by Milivoje Ivanisevic (president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbs) estimates the number of people killed at around 1200.

- "For the Honorable Cross and Golden Freedom", a book published by the RS Ministry of Interior, referred to 641 Serb victims in the Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region.

The accuracy of these numbers is also challenged. The ICTY noted that although Ivanisevic's book estimated around that 1,200 Serbs were killed, personal details were only available for 624 victims.[68] And the validity of labeling some of the casualties as "victims" is contested:[68] studies that have examined the relative numbers of civilian and military casualties have found a significant majority of the latter.[69] This is in line with the nature of the conflict - Serb casualties died in raids by Bosniak forces on outlying villages used as military outposts for attacks on Srebrenica[70] (many of which had been ethnically cleansed of their Bosniak majority population in 1992).[71] For example the village of Kravica was attacked by Bosniak forces on Orthodox Christmas Day, 7 January 1993. Some Serb sources such as Ivanisevic allege that the village's 353 inhabitants were "virtually completely destroyed".[68] In fact, the VRS' own internal records state that 46 Serbs died in the Kravica attack: 35 soldiers and 11 civilians.[72] Nevertheless the event continues to be cited by Serb sources as the key example of heinous crimes committed by Bosniak forces around Srebrenica.[67] [?add "and justification for the argument that the massacre at Srebrenica was an act of revenge rather than a planned genocide"].

The most up-to-date analysis of Serb casualties in the region comes from the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center, a non-partisan institution with a multiethnic staff.[69] The RDC's extensive review of casualty data found that Serb casualties in the Bratunac municipality amounted to 119 civilians and 424 soldiers.[69] It also established that although the 383 Serb victims buried in the Bratunac military cemetery are presented as casualties of ARBiH units from Srebrenica, 139 (more than one third of the total) had fought and died elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[69]

Serb sources maintain that casualties and losses during the period prior to the creation of the safe area gave rise to Serb demands for revenge against the Bosniaks based in Srebrenica. The ARBiH raids are presented as a key motivating factor for the July 1995 genocide.[73] This view is echoed by international sources including the 2002 report commissioned by the Dutch government on events leading to the fall of Srebrenica (the NIOD report).[74] However these sources also cite misleading figures for the number of Serb casualties in the region. The NIOD report, for instance, repeats the erroneous claim that the raid on Kravica resulted in the total annihilation of its population. Many consider these efforts to explain the motivation behind the Srebrenica massacre are merely revisionist attempts to justify the genocide. To quote the report to the UN Secretary-General on the Fall of Srebrenica:[75]

"Even though this accusation is often repeated by international sources, there is no credible evidence to support it… The Serbs repeatedly exaggerated the extent of the raids out of Srebrenica as a pretext for the prosecution of a central war aim: to create a geographically contiguous and ethnically pure territory along the Drina, while freeing their troops to fight in other parts of the country. The extent to which this pretext was accepted at face value by international actors and observers reflected the prism of 'moral equivalency' through which the conflict in Bosnia was viewed by too many for too long.">>

--Opbeith 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I think your version is better written. Could you go ahead and change it? Better you since you know exactly what changes there were.

Note: I wish this article -- and the rest of media, academia, etc. -- used more specific terminology. Almost everytime I hear Serbs in this article, I wish it said "nationalist Serbs". Many Serbs fought against Milosevic both in Bosnia militarily and in Serbia politically. I wish our terminology distinguished between ultra-nationalist Serbs and the everyday Serbs. (e.g. We refer to Nazi propaganda, not German propaganda.) I understand the simplified terminology in this article mirrors what is commonly used, even in UN reports so I doubt we are going to solve it here. But still, I do prefer, whenever possible, to avoid expressions like "the Serbs". In this section, it is from a direct quote so there is no changing it. So it goes... Fairview360 01:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, to be consistent with my own philosophy of "do as you would be done by", I'll wait a couple of days (it's not a major edit and much of the stuff that's being deleted was my own insertion) until other interested parties have had a chance to comment. --Opbeith 07:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment; whenever possible we should not generalize or demonize an entire ethnic group. (and I'm certainly NOT saying that we've done so in the article at all; I'm pointing out that we shouldn't do so.) I certainly don't think that the writers of the UN report intended to mean the entire Serb people when they wrote "the Serbs" just as I'm sure when they used the term "the Bosniacs" when refering to crimes committed by *some* Bosniak soldiers in the area; they didn't intend to generalize or mean to refer to all Bosniaks from Srebrenica. I mean, when I read the quote I certainly did not think that they meant the entire Serb people; and I hope (and assume) that most wikipedia readers would be able to understand that "the Serbs" does not refer to all Serbs just as "the Bosniaks" does not refer to all Bosniaks.

But, I certainly understand the sentiment behind your feelings and statement; and I think that whenever possible we should be careful to specific, and not use blanket or generalize terms against any ethnic group etc.

Gardenfli 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(Gardenfli, I think you've missed an indent)

The other point worth stressing is that whatever is said about the controversy, nothing in what has been said about it should be understood as minimising the tragedy of the deaths of indidividuals. The matter at issue is the deliberate attempts to misrepresent the circumstances and scale of Serb casualties in the area and use them to justify the genocide.--Opbeith 07:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(added indent. Gardenfli, each time one hits the return key, one needs to add the colons again to get it to indent)

I believe that we are all in agreement. I do believe that in the UN report people understand that when the report says "the Serbs", it is refering to the VRS troops, the militias, those involved in the massacre. It is just that psychologically and in the political realm that can morph into a general indictment against an entire group. Anyway... it is clear that we are in agreement both about terminology and not minimizing the suffering of those who lost loved ones during the war, simply doing our best to be clear about what actually happened and why. Fairview360 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with both of these sentiments expressed. We should be very clear not the minimize or overlook the suffering of anyone. As you pointed out Opbeith; no one is disputing or trying to minimize the tragedy of indvidual deaths; but rather the focus is on the deliberate attemps by Serb nationalists to take the core truth (that war crimes occured) and exaggerate the numbers and the circumstances in order to justify, or at least minimize genocide. I think the first line (of both versions) express this purpose: That war crimes and deaths occured. But that the numbers and circumstances have also been exaggerated to fit a political purpose. Gardenfli 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ICTY stance about allegations of Serb victims is very clear, and I will repeat it from ICTY sources: Asked to comment on the different number of Serb victims in the Srebrenica region published in Belgrade. Hartmann replied that:

"First of all, the OTP is always very careful in the use of the word "victim". Military or Police casualties from combat should not be considered victims in a criminal investigation context, in the same way people are victims from war crimes, such as summary executions.

Before speaking about the whole area of Podrinja, including at least the municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica and Skelani, I would comment on the various figures circulating around the Kravica attack of January 1993. The figures circulating of hundreds of victims or claiming that all 353 inhabitants were "virtually completely destroyed" do not reflect the reality.

During the attack by the BH army on Kravica, Jezestica, Opravdici, Mandici and the surrounding villages (the larger area of Kravica), on the 7th & 8th January 1993, 43 people were killed, according to our information. Our investigation shows that 13 of the 43 were obviously civilians. Our findings are matching with the Bratunac Brigade military reports of battle casualties which are believed in the OTP to be very reliable because they are internal VRS reports.

For the whole region, i.e the municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica and Skelani, the Serb authorities claimed previously that about 1400 people were killed due to attacks committed by the BH Army forces for the period of May 1992 to March 1995, when Srebrenica was under the control of Naser Oric. Now the figure has become 3,500 Serbs killed. This figure may have been inflated. Taking the term "victims" as defined previously, these figures just does not reflect the reality.

I wish to name various Serb sources on Serb victims which has circulated until recently. They are maybe not detailed but as they were presented. According to the RS Commission for War Crimes, the number of Serb victims for the Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region was until recently 995 victims (520 Bratunac area and 475 Srebernica area), of which Kravica, 43 victims.

According to "The Chronicle of Our Graves"; a book by Milivoje Ivanisevic, the president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbian People, claimed that the number of Serb victims for Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region was 1,200 victims but presented personal details available for only 624 victims. The author claimed that all 353 Kravica inhabitants were "virtually completely destroyed" which is not accurate.

Another book, "For the Honourable Cross and Golden Freedom"; a book (1,508 pages) by unknown authors from RS and in collaboration with the RS Ministry of Interior, claimed that the No. of Serb victims for the Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region is 641 victims, all war-related".

http://www.un.org/icty/briefing/2005/PB050706.htm Bosniak 05:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I believe that those specific points and general sentiments of the ICTY on the politicalization and misepresentation on the list of Bosnian Serb casualties in the area is expressed in the section.

Do you see any spots for cosmetic changes or the like?

Gardenfli 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Gardenfli, the one significant additional point that I have seen in Bosniak's post is Florence Hartmann's reference to 13 "obviously civilian" victims (rather than the 11 cited from VRS internal - presumably Bratunac Brigade - sources) out of 43 deaths in the Kravica area. I'll incorporate that into the amended version as follows:

"For example the village of Kravica was attacked by Bosniak forces on Orthodox Christmas Day, 7 January 1993. Some Serb sources such as Ivanisevic allege that the village's 353 inhabitants were "virtually completely destroyed".[68] In fact, the VRS' own internal records state that 46 Serbs died in the Kravica attack: 35 soldiers and 11 civilians[72] while the ICTY Prosecutor's Office's investigation of casualties on 7 and 8 January in Kravica and the surrounding villages found that 43 people were killed, of whom 13 were obviously civilians. [reference http://www.un.org/icty/briefing/2005/PB050706.htm Florence Hartmann, Spokesperson for the Office of the Prosecutor, ICTY Weekly Press Briefing, 6.7.2005] Nevertheless ... "

and unless there are objections I'll replace the existing text tomorrow. --Opbeith 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Court of Justice

Regarding today's edits by Bosniak: I see no reason why to repeat the ICJ case and judgement, which is already mentioned in the "Legal proceedings" section. Furthermore, I think the new text is no improvement on the text in the "Legal proceedings" section, so I'm inclined to revert this block of edits. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jitse. The ICJ judgement is in the intro and the Legal Proceedings section. The Legal Proceedings entry could be improved slightly, but there is no need to create a third entry for the ICJ judgement. Also, before getting too far along with more edits and comments, I would like to see Bosniak explain his comment about genocide against the Jews. Fairview360 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the legal proceedings could be cleaned up a bit; perhaps with a specific emphesis on the Krstic trial judgment and in particular, the genocide ruling? What does everyone else think? I know the statement of Judge Meron is used in the introduction; and we don't have to repeat the exact statement of course; but we could perhaps, work on that section a bit. I'll try to think of some preliminary changes. I don't know how much time I'll have to work on wikipedia though since I have some other stuff coming up this week; and my time may be somewhat limited; but I'll *try* see what I can do.

ETA of course I won't make any drastic changes w/out input from the other editors!

Second point, the first person referenced in the Legal Proceedings section, the man who was convicted of genocide in a German national court; was he convicted for crimes related to Srebrenica; or for crimes related to other atrocities in Bosnia? If it was related to Srebrenica of course it is important to the article, however it was related to crimes in Foca (for a hypothetical example) than that fact would probably fit better in with the Foca article and the Bosnian genocide or Bosnian War articles.

Third point; and I don't mean to sound dense or ignorant; but could someone please explain to me the significance of the fact that the courts have ruled that the war between Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia was an international conflict to the Srebrenica massacre? I'm NOT saying that it is no significant; just that I think that the article would be better if that significance and link between the decision of the courts regarding the international aspect of the conflict; and the specific aspect of the Srebrenica Massacre, which is the subject of this article, be explained. Because right now the fact is sort of dangling, without any explanation of the importance of this fact. If there is no link; perhaps that specific fact might work better in an article about the Bosnian Genocide, Bosnian wars, wars in the former Yugoslavia, ICTY etc. etc.

Gardenfli 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Gardenfli, the war was an international conflict, governed by international law, and not a civil war as often claimed. Srebrenica was not an incident in a civil war. If it had been I presume Serbia would not have been found to have failed to prevent genocide. This may be set out more authoritatively somewhere else. --Opbeith 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Gardenfli 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important things, please read - what article is lacking

As you are warrying on the details, you lose some important things completely uncovered - with execption of the lost survivors, it's fast forward to after the war. It wasn't like that.

The story emerged gradually (the original US claim was some 2,400 were killed), and quite a lot happened. For example David Rohde of the Christian Science Monitor got Pulitzer for his discovery ([34] to see for what he was awarded) and Tadeusz Mazowiecki (the Bosnia UN official) resigned in protest. Of course, the magnitude of the massacre propelled the NATO intervention on part of Sarajevo. Someone should sit and write this and more down.

Rohde's reporting (all articles are on the linked website), including the witnesses' accounts, might be also used to improve the existing article.

Another thing, is the alleged governemnt responsibility. I signalled it there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Sarajevo.2FTuzla.27s_.22insane_tactic.22 Many people allege this, including Oric. There is alo the greater UN responibility than it's written. This Youtube video [35] - they did not that much surrender to the Serbs, but they shamelessly collaborated in the genocide, and they did it HAPPILY. When helping to murder Srebrenica, they were smiling, dancing, handshaking and saluting Serbs, drinking with them, and receiving presents from them for goodbye - all recorded by the Serb and their own cameras.

Also, please archive the older talk, because it's going REALLY long. --HanzoHattori 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree we need to archive this page, because it is really, really long!!! Do we need an admin to archive it? (I'm not really familiar with various aspects of Wiki like that).

I also think that we can perhaps write a bridge paragraph between the massacre and the current day. Including, the investigations (including the David Rohde incident etc.) and the impact of Srebrenica on foreign governments policy towards Bosnia, and ultimately, the ending of the war. I think this information is quite essintial because it explains Srebrenica in the greater context of the war, and geo-political sphere; as well as of course, how the evidence of the slaughter was uncovered.

As to your second point; perhaps it would be more desirable to have a sub article on "controversies" (or something like that; that title does doesn't have to be used of course) about various debates that have emerged over the role of various actors. I think that it would probably fit much better in a sub-article than as part of a main article though. Because of course, the primary blame for the genocide lies with Gen. Mladic and the VRS officers who organized and carried it out; and we shouldn't lose site of that. However, the role of the other actors, and in particular the actions of the UN hierarchy regarding air strikes; and the various debates and controversies that have emerged over the actions various governments and officials took or didn't take; and whether or not these actions could have stopped the massacres is an important debate.

Gardenfli 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you HanzoHattori, the overall scope and balance of the article is important but we are human - trying to do what we can! --Opbeith 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and also the main article would easily fit on few pages of text (essentional summaries), with a sub-articles with all the details you need. It would also reduce the traffic on this talk page. A Srebrenica-related category and infobox would be created for all this. --HanzoHattori 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hanzoi I think that a section of sub-articles on important aspects of the Massacre is essential. Besides the one that is tentatively being worked on with regards to the specific details of the mass killings; do you see in other potential sub-articles that might be created to make the aticle provide more information, in a more organized fashion?

Gardenfli 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, Gardenfli, I suspect there are risks involved in having discussions going on in a number of places away from this main Discussion page, in the same way that there's a risk of more arbitrary and motivated changes to the text of sub-articles going unchallenged. --Opbeith 16:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem actually. And this talk page I can only describe as: "chaos". --HanzoHattori 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, the probloem is that people have carried out lightning changes to the main article that it has been difficult to follow. It would be even more difficult to keep track of ill-intentioned changes across a lot of sub-articles. --Opbeith 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be easier. I'm so confused what's going on there now I'm not doing anything. --HanzoHattori 08:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Srebrenica Info Box/Sub-articles(?)

HanzoiHattori suggested in the previous paragraph to perhaps have a Srebrenica-related infobox/category with a series of sub-articles that goes into the specific details relating to various aspects of the Massacres; with the main article being used for a summary of what happened. Is anyone interested in perhaps pursuing that idea? I'm really not sure exactly *how* to create an infobox etc, but perhaps it might be something worth working on? That way, the most important basic facts about what happened (the numbers killed, the organization and methodical nature of the killings, etc. the responsibility of the VRS) is stated for the readers; and details such as perhaps (this is just a hypothetical example:) a more detailed article on the various legal aspects and trials related to Srebrenica can be relegated to a sub-article; where we keep the main article as it is, with a basic summary paragraph about the legal proceedings. That way, the most essential info: that Srebrenica was ruled by several international courts to qualify as a legal act of genocide is clearly presented in the main article; and if the reader wants more specific details on these trials; she can just click on the "legal proceedings" sub article.

It is just a suggestion. If anyone has any major objections to creating an infobox with sub-articles please feel free to add to the discussion. I'm sure that there might be some problems that I haven't thought of. But, just for now, I think a Srebrenica related infobox and the use of sub-articles might be helpful.

Gardenfli 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone already mentioned the Holocaust article and category: Holocaust and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:The_Holocaust (of course, it's just an example). --HanzoHattori 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children of Genocide

Opbeith was researching list of genocide victims and he quickly came up with about 100-or-so children (under the age of 18) who died in the massacre. I wonder what is the total number of children who were massacred? I believe WE should explore this issue further. All the best. How can anyone harm children? - click to view - Bosniak 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I found at least 407 underage individuals, including those who were 17 years old but not yet fully 18. Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicious quotations

I find a lot of the references quite suspicious. It seems to me that this article is overly bias. A lot of quotes actually come from websites related to Bosnian side of the conflict, for example in the section on Serbian victims in surrounding areas of Srebrenica. Why are these sources used without the proper explanation where they are coming from and why are there almost no sources from other sides of the conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westtruth (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 April 2007

The references used in that section come from Human Rights Watch, the ICTY, the Research and Development Center in Sarajevo, a Bosnian census from before the conflict, NIOD, and AKI (I don't know what that is and I can't track the last reference). Which of them are biased towards the Bosniak side? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, NIOD Report in itself is Anti-Bosniak, because of moral equivalism in their research. Now, for this person to claim that NIOD is "pro-Bosniak" source is just insane. Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Osli back? It seems to me, based on "User: WestTruth's" style of language, wording, and recent activities that he is Osli! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Westtruth Please investigate. Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone -- I'll leave aside whether HRW, the ICTY etc are biased towards the Bosniak side, but I'd have to ask about the 'Research and Development Center', from which a fair bit of the information on this section appears to be based. How many people here wouldn't question the allegations of a source based in, say, Banja Luka, heavy on Serb imagery (including maps and flags of Republika Srpska and a link to click for the 'Serbian version')? And that's even if they did claim to have a 'multiethnic staff'...

But more concretely (and importantly), the article ('The Myth of Bratunac') contains no referencing -- and the article 'Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade' (again, the title doesn't have the most neutral-sounding tone) which they cite as evidence is nowhere to be found.. (Tried searching for it on Google, but no joy, apart from un-linked citations). One of the footnotes in the Wikipedia article (number 77) actually cites this more-or-less directly (the title is listed, then cited from 'The Myth of Bratunac' article) -- this seems a bit flaky to me. (Of course, this is *not* saying that any of the information is necessarily false, just a question about reliability and verifiability.) What do others think? Jonathanmills 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, while RDC says that it "was established... to continue the decade - long tradition of the War Crimes Commission established by the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on April 28, 1992", reinforced by the Bosnian flags this implies that it identifies itself with the Bosnian government, which, in Bosnia, I guess is a political statement, it also states that it is and "independent, nongovernmental, non - profit, professional and non - partisan institution". However, given that it appears to be an at least semi-official and intl. respected organization (see the list of donors and partners) I think it is fair to include it as a source.

The article doesn't have to take a stand as to whether or not the findings of the RDC are correct or not, just state that "a study by the Sarajevo-based RDC has found that...". That way, the article is just reporting what an apparently widely respected organization has found and published on its website. This must sure comply with W:NPOV. Cheers Osli73 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Osli, for your reply. I may or may not have something more to say on this topic, but don't have time right now. Cheers Jonathanmills 16:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few things; since there seems to a bit of confussion over the "Warpath" document; and maybe I can help clarify a few points.

The document "Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade" is the VRS's(Bosnian Serb Army) own document. From what I've read of ICTY transcripts, "Warpath of the ---- Brigade" is a common title for many military documents. The RDC in their article "Myth of Bratunac" merely cited the VRS' own document, "Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade" with regard to the casualties in Kravica. According to the VRS' internal document ("Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade") the 35 of the victims were military personnel and 11 were civilians. Therefore, the RDC obviously had nothing to do with titeling the document "Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade." because, it is the VRS's document. hope that helped.

Gardenfli 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that Gardenfli; yes, that did answer a big part of my question. I didn't realise about 'Warpath of...' was a common title for military documents -- sounds pretty brutal, but then I suppose you may as well call it what it is!

I'm wondering if there's any way of tracking down the document (appended to the ICTY ruling, for example)? Don't worry, I will check myself, just asking if you happen to know off-hand.

PS, hope you don't mind I reformatted your indents :-) Cheers Jonathanmills 12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aljazeera, updates

guys check this out, i think it could help expand this article, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E1E65CD4-1519-49F8-B4B4-5EBF2E43E69E.htm --Towaru 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Already included under Legal Proceedings. Thanks for pointing out. Bosniak 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] serb troops vs. serb forces?

i'm trying to translate this article into some language, the words troops and forces in the article, make me confuse, does troops and forces has the same meaning? if for example, serb forces... is that mean its also included civilian that joint together to form a forces (not necessary a traine army)?--Towaru 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Towaru, in this article, the phrases "Serb forces" and "Serb troops" are used interchangeably to refer to Serb soldiers. From reading the article, one can see that these soldiers came from the RS army and Serb paramilitary units whose actions were coordinated by the RS Army chief of staff. In this article, "Serb forces" and "Serb troops" does not refer to Serb civilians. Fairview360 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see,thanks, i concluded that it is also applied to Bosniak forces.--Towaru 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category/sub-articles

Srebrenica massacre
Background
Bosnian War Srebrenica 1992-1993 · "Safe Area"
The massacre
Serb attack · Selection at Potočari · Bosnian retreat Mass executions Victims · Survivors · Mass graves
Aftermath
Repercussions · Legal proceedings
Responsibility
Mladić · Karadžić · RS Army Other responsibility

Examplary proposition. I think the Serb offensive and column articles should be treated as a battles (see here). --HanzoHattori 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do that you're accepting the case that this was a military column rather than a combination of soldiers, most of them poorly armed, and a majority group of civilians whose object was to escape the impending prospect of slaughter. You're also implicitly endorsing the claim that the people killed prior to the mass executions were killed in battle. --Opbeith 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just like the mentioned Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article (a combination of insurgents, most of them poorly armed, and a majority group of civilians whose object was to escape the impending prospect of slaughter) endorse the claim that the Jews killed besides the mass executions were killed in battle. It's a huge conspiracy. Now guess what, it was a battle. Germany won. --HanzoHattori 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the parallel is valid and I am puzzled why you're supporting the revisionist claims that for example the people killed by minefields and the people slaughtered in the ambush at Kamenica Hill were engaged in combat (and so don't count as victims of genocide). A battle is a conflict between two sides in which each is trying to secure some sort of victory over the other. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was a desperate resistance struggle to gain control of an area, not an attempt to escape the area. The column trying to get through to Tuzla wasn't attempting to fight the Serb army, they were trying to ensure that as many soldiers and civilians got out of the area as possible. To quote from the article "The young men were afraid they would be killed if they fell into Serb hands in Potočari and believed that they stood a better chance of surviving by trying to escape through the woods to Tuzla." --Opbeith 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course they were engaged in combat (these armed). They were not only just shooting back, but they even overrun some Serbs later, capturing officer and killing dozens. Still later they broke through the frontline even capturing some heavy weapons. (THE REVISIONISM or whatever you call the basic facts no one negates.)

And do you seriously think these Jewish fighters were not "afraid" of being caught by the Germans, or that they thought they would held off whole Germany for more than year? The idea was to resist and possibly escape the last deportation, after it was clear what the deportation really means (hundreds of fighters and civilians indeed escaped outside and then successfully hid, including even several uprising leaders like Icchak Cukierman or Marek Edelman). --HanzoHattori 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Jewish fighters weren't afraid for their lives, the whole point of the uprising was that they had no alternative but to resist - as far as I know mass escape wasn't considered as an option. The leaders of the uprising had decided that they weren't going to die without a fight. So they chose - legitimately - to resist the German forces controlling the ghetto and policing the deportations. So yes, that was a battle and the participants were fighting a battle. I don't understand why you want to call the column - essentially an attempt to avoid engagement with a superior force - a battle. Of course fighting was involved when the route of escape was blocked but does that mean that the column was taking part in a battle? How do you define a battle? And who do you regard as combattants? --Opbeith 09:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how anyone can not say both episodes were the battles in the war. In Warsaw Ghetto the objectives were:

• German: Kill or capture all the Jews
• Jewish: Kill as many Germans as possible, survive

Around Srebrenica, the objectives were:

• ARBiH: Survive, evacuate the civilians
• VRS: Kill or capture everyone in the columns

By combatants, I mean combatants. --HanzoHattori 15:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHatori said: Yeah, just like the mentioned Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article (a combination of insurgents, most of them poorly armed, and a majority group of civilians whose object was to escape the impending prospect of slaughter) endorse the claim that the Jews killed besides the mass executions were killed in battle. It's a huge conspiracy. Now guess what, it was a battle. Germany won. My response: I honestly don't understand what are you trying to prove? This is not a place for conspiracy theories. I am surprised by your comments and slightly offended. Bosniak 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Its a huge conspiracy" was a sarcasm. --HanzoHattori 15:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see your point. The ArBiH were obviously not fighting a battle with the VRS that they would have lost disastrously. They were trying to avoid a battle. The soldiers escaped largely because they managed to avoid any major fighting (the escape corridor contributed to this). Such fighting as there was was largely incidental. --Opbeith 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's refrain from any type of conspiracy theories; they are trully damaging. Bosniak 03:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Like how it was not a battle/operation, and a large-scale to the boot? Let's see...

As the situation in Potočari escalated towards crisis on the evening of 11 July 1995, word spread through the Bosniak community that the able-bodied men should take to the woods, form a column together with members of the 28th Division of the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and attempt a breakthrough towards Bosnian-held territory in the north. (...) The Drina Corps and the various brigades were ordered to devote all available manpower to the task of finding, stopping, disarming and taking prisoner the men of the column. (...) Arriving at Marcici in the evening of July 14, the marchers were again ambushed near Snagovo by Serb forces equipped with anti-aircraft guns, artillery, and tanks. According to Lieutenant Džemail Bećirović, the column managed to break through the ambush and, in so doing, capture a VRS officer, Major Zoran Janković—providing the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a significant bargaining counter. This prompted an attempt at negotiating a cessation in the fighting, but negotiations with local Serb forces failed. Nevertheless, the act of repulsing the ambush had a positive effect on morale of the marchers, who also captured an amount of weapons and supplies. (...) The hillside at Baljkovica formed the last VRS line separating the column from Bosnian-held territory. The VRS cordon actually consisted of two lines, the first of which presented a front on the Tuzla side against the 2nd Corps and the other a front against the approaching 28th Division. At approximately 05.00 hours on 16 July, the 2nd Corps made its first attempt to break through the VRS cordon from the Bosnian side. The objective was to force a breakthrough close to the hamlets of Parlog and Resnik. They were joined by Naser Orić and a number of his men. (...) The column’s advance group took advantage of this to attack the Serb rear lines at Baljkovica. During the fighting, the main body of what remained of the column began to move from Krizevici. It reached the area of fighting at about 3 a.m. on Sunday, July 16, just as the forward groups managed to breach the line of the Zvornik Brigade's 4th Infantry Battalion. Unable to move several captured heavy arms including two Praga self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, they used them to fire into the Serb front line. Thus the column finally succeeded in breaking through to Bosnian government controlled territory and linked up with BiH units which had assaulted the 4th Battalion's front in order to meet the column at between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on July 16.

Not that one-sided. Do you think Ghetto was "not a battle", too? Why it's categorized as such, then? Is it some attempt at Holocaust denial according to you? How do you define the fighting, and why all the "fighting" in the existing article? Do you think practically the anti-partisan operations are "not battles", because the objective of one side is to hide or to get away? How about things like or Falaise pocket, to get this even conventional? --HanzoHattori 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you are seeking to prove. This still wasn't a battle as such, the fighting was incidental to the effort to escape. We don't seem to be speaking the same version of English. --Opbeith 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand YOUR problem. Really. What. --HanzoHattori 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: - okay, so let's waste our time again on "same-old, same-old" tricks and conspiracy theories. Let me name a few: "Srebrenica genocide was an invention of the West", "Bodies number in hundreds, not in thousands", "It was all Western conspiracy against the Serbs", "NATO Colonizers invented Srebrenica", "Kangaroo Courts established Srebrenica genocide", "Bosniaks in Sarajevo bombed themselves", "Muslim Army was armed to the teeth and they died in the battle", "You don't commit genocide by separating women from men" etc, etc.... Oh God, it just makes me wanna puke. HanzoHattori - I don't understand what are you trying to prove brother? Are you trying to make victims of genocide "heroes" who died in the battle? Come on, grow up bro. They died like animals in slaughterhouse thanks to the UN. But, we need to put things into proper perspective. What do you think would happen to thousands of women and children had there not been UN to negotiate their transfer to safety? You really think Mladic cared about "Muslim women"? He couldn't kill them because of UN's presence, but had there not been UN negotiating safe transfer of women, they would all be raped and killed. There was too much media attention pointed at Mladic and he let women go - thanks to the UN negotiations. He even gave candies to the kids in front of camera to make himself "better man", only to humiliate them later and kill their loved ones. So, let's at least give UN personell credit for saving women of Srebrenica. Bosniak 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, what "conspiracy theories" whatosever? I stopped reading by this point, because there is some serious babbling following. Do you think the existing article or the one about Warsaw Ghetto are "conspiracies" of Mladic-Serbs or the Neo-Nazis? I cited the article you wrote, is there anything wrong with these parts? I think you can't acknowledge, for some reason, that you can have a perfectly "good" military campaign to kill everyone. I am yet to hear someone saying Operation Anfal was okay because of the Peshmerga reistance (or someone saying there was no resistance, or maybe that these killed in combat were not killed combat). --HanzoHattori 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I believe you're right to say that Mladic knew that he was not going to get away with eliminating the women and children of Srebrenica under the eyes of the international media. For a long time it looked as if the plan to murder the men and boys might succeed because so many people were prepared to accept the different arguments that obscured what had actually happened - minimising the numbers of deaths (helped by the confusion deliberately engendered by reburials), raising the issue of revenge killings and putting the blame on Naser Oric, and emphasisising that many deaths had occurred "in battle". HanzoHattori, that's why I'm so puzzled by your insistence that the attempted escape of the column was a battle, I didn't have you down as a supporter of those types of explanation.

Having said all that, Bosniak, to return to the issue of the women of Srebrenica, I'd remind you that we know of several women whose deaths can be attributed to Dutchbat's actions or inaction. --Opbeith 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And what, did not many deaths occured in battle? Serb soldiers were killed and wounded in the fighting after the fall of the city or were they not? The officer was captured - by whom? The government soldiers maybe? Who and how broke through the front line? Is it some kind of secret everyone knows? If it is false, why it is in the article? Act of Bosnian villainy to resist, or their soldiers to fight the enemy? Like they were supposed to lie down and die (like the Serbs actually excepted)? Do you think the Jews are to be blamed for the 17,000 deaths in the battle (as opposed to deaths in the camps) because small number of them resisted, or that people would now blame them when they discover their uprising was uprising? I guess people usually rather react in the way "wow, they rose and killed 16 Germans" and not "they killed 16 Germans and so they provoked them to burn down the whole district with flamethrowers" or whatever (I have no idea, the whole concept is quite strange and alien to me, you seems to understand this more or something). --HanzoHattori 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't accept that many people did die "in battle" as you put it. The ArBiH soldiers seem largely to have escaped with a little fighting while it was largely unarmed civilians who were ambushed and killed in the column. I don't know the number of Bosnian Serbs killed fighting the ArBiH soldiers but they don't seem to have been significantly high. So this is rather a different situation to the Warsaw Ghetto battle. As I say, I don't think we've got the same idea of what a battle is and that's where the problem lies, nothing to do with villainy or blame. It's a shame it's just us discussing this. --Opbeith 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When someone dies fighting, I say "he died fighting". From both sides it was a military operation under a military command, which makes it a military operation. In Warsaw Nazi casualties were not really high, probably over 100 dead and wounded (in the war where the Germans lost over 6 million soldiers killed).

The 1998 UN about the final breakthrough was a bit different than the Wiki version (no real 2nd Corps action):

Interviewed in the context of this report, some of the Bosniacs who survived the six day march through the forest explained how, having passed the first Serb cordon, they encountered a second cordon near the village of Krizavi°i. Several hours of intense fighting had taken place, but they had managed to press on. Heavy rain and hail had provided some additional cover as the column passed through the municipality of Zvornik. As the column of Bosniac men approached the main Serb-Federation confrontation line, they had attacked a Serb command post, capturing two tanks and a 20-mm Praga gun. Using the captured tanks and guns, the Bosniacs then crossed the first of three lines of Serb trenches. They then signaled forward to the Federation, hoping that the ARBiH 2nd Corps would launch an operation to hold down or divert Serb forces as they attempted to cross the confrontation line. The 2nd Corps did not mount any such diversionary attacks. However, Srebrenica=s former commander, Naser Ori°, had assembled a company of volunteers on Federation territory. When Ori° and his men ascertained the location at which the Srebrenica men would try to cross the Serb lines, they attacked the area, causing the Serbs to partially evacuate their forward trenches. This left only limited Serb positions between the column of men and Ori°'s fighters. The men in the column were ordered to use all their remaining ammunition on this last line of Serb defense, including rounds which were being held in reserve for suicide in the event of capture. They broke through the Serb lines and reached ARBiH territory.

Also (now listen):

However, the same report indicated that two other members of Dutchbat travelling in the same vehicle saw only a few corpses. No written record has been located indicating that Dutchbat made either account available to the UNPROFOR chain of command on 14 July, or in the days immediately thereafter. Thus, it is not clear how many bodies were there are the time, and if they were those of soldiers who had been in the column and had been killed in battle with the BSA, or those of defenseless individuals who had been summarily executed.

You know, they called it a "battle", and I'm quite sure other called it too.--HanzoHattori 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, you're right that Oric's onslaught on the Serb cordon could be classed as a (small-scale) battle between his group and the Serbs holding the line. But that's a different matteer from describing the progress of the column as a whole as a battle.

Also "in battle" and "in a battle" have different meanings. I could die fighting you with ten thousand of my allies and ten thousand of your allies watching. I would have died in battle with you but I would not have died in a battle unless our conflict led to our two sets of allies joining in and fighting with one another as well. The Dutchbat report did not describe a battle and your excerpt does not even confim that any of the bodies seen died "in battle". You and I have a different understanding of the English terms and it doesn't look as though either of us is going to convince the other. --Opbeith 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you're just over-concerned of the people like [36] (I looked up and found this: only battle with "terrorists", no executions). Who cares? Do you see anyone concerned on the opinions like [37] (only battle, called "German police action" against, yes, "terrorists", and the people captured were simply deported to, uh, not-death camps or something - I have problems to follow this article). But no one cares at all. --HanzoHattori 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're very dismissive, but the argument is out there, and it was here as well not so long ago, when Osli73 was arguing that only those men and boys who were killed after they were taken prisoner should be considered victims of the genocide. --Opbeith 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you care too much. Like if anyone SERIOUS made any difference if the Tutsis defended themselves in this church or on this hill or did they not, or how close/far the RPF forces were. --HanzoHattori 07:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Words and facts have meaning and implications. Certainly we must always be mindful of the wider picture, but to be careful with the details isn't to deny the fact of atrocity, on the contrary being scrupulous in the way we look at the reality of what happened is how we show our genuine respect for the victims. When you say "Who cares?" you seem to be saying that your only interest is in the story as you want to portray it. There's no point continuing this discussion if all we have is our two apparently irreconcilable viewpoints, we need other people's perspectives. --Opbeith 10:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

By "who cares", I mean people and websites declaring things like THERE WERE NO GAS CHAMBERS (or maybe HITLER WAS MY MOTHER or whatever). On the Internet you have just anything, from the fans of Khmer Rouge through Stalinists to the supporters of the Hutu nationalists, and everyone just ignores the poor retards. Do you see people seriously arguing with the Neo-Nazis over the Holocaust? They are either ignored or jailed (in some countries). I see absolutely no reason why I should not ignore the weirdos and just write the better article. --HanzoHattori 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think that given the history of the battles that we've gone through here we shouldn't now be agreeing with the arguments that we've disputed when the revisionists put them up, and that's not because it's agreeing with apparently ill-intentioned "weirdos" as you call them, but because their arguments are wrong. If you say it's a battle, you're saying what Osli73 was saying and to the best of my judgment, based on the evidence of the mainly civilian composition of the column and the limited amount of incidental fighting he was wrong. However I disagree with you not because you're saying what Osli73 was saying but because I believe what you are saying is not correct. --Opbeith 18:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, since you mentioned me I'll take the liberty of replying. If you care to read what I said back then, you'll see that what I argued was that the reason for the difference between the 7000-8000 figure used by the ICTY (at least in the Krstic judgement) and the >8300 "missing and killed" cited by the Federal Commission could be that the ICTY did not include those deemed to have been killed in battle. If you read the judgement against Krstic, you'll see that they refer to those "executed", not those "killed in combat". There is a paragraph in the judgement [www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf] which touches on the subject of the column as a military target:

163. About one third of the Bosnian Muslim column was comprised of soldiers from the 28th Division, and about two-thirds were Bosnian Muslim civilian men from Srebrenica.382 The military experts for both the Prosecution and the Defence agreed that, under VRS regulations, the column qualified as a legitimate military target. Certainly the Indictment in this case does not allege that the combat activities against the column were deliberately or indiscriminately directed against civilians in the column. However, thousands of Bosnian Muslim men were also captured from the column, most of them civilians, transferred to detention sites, and subsequently executed.

In the summary findings of the judgement you'll also see that it refers to "executed".

426. In July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica, Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number of victims is likely to be within the range of 7,000-8,000 men

Again, this in the context of why the ICTY figure for 'victims' might be lower than the federal commission's figures for "missing and killed". Osli73 09:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice: Osli73 is banned from editing this article for a period ending 22 June 2007. You can't ignore him even when he's banned? --HanzoHattori 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Half-a-Cent: Hi Opbeith, As stated in many judgments, including Momir Nikolic (.pdf!), women were forcibly transfered. We are talking about the ethnic cleansing here. Had there not been UN in Srebrenica (who negotiated and ironically participated in the forcible transfer), most (if not all) of those women would be brutally raped and killed. They were lucky. There was a huge hatred of Serbs towards "Muslims" in the predominantly Bosniak Eastern Bosnia, because Serbs mostly lived tribal lifestyle in rural areas, woods, and mountains, while Bosniaks lived in urban areas, such as Foca, Gorazde, Zvornik, Visegrad, etc. Tribal mind does not know civilization, and genocide of people who are "different" came comepletely naturaly. I watched one documentary on Discovery channel about monkeys and chimpanzees in jungles and how they form groups to kill other monkeys and chimpanzees simply because they are not "one of them." It seems that this animal instinct is still present in many tribal minds. In fact, if we turn our head to Darfur, we will notice that Arabs are no different when it comes to extermination of Black Muslims and Black Christians, simply because those Muslims and Christians are "non-Arab." Neverthless, for this session, I recommend you guys read three interesting articles published at the UN's website "ICTY Outreach" @ http://www.un.org/icty/bhs/outreach/articles.htm ==> Articles date back to 2003-2005, but neverthless, it's an interesting read:

1. THE Truth Always Finds a Way to Reveal Itself

2. NOW We Can Colour Bratunac Blue

3. TRIBUNAL Hands Down Second Genocide Conviction

4. HUNDREDS of People Burned Alive in Their Homes (let's also not forget the crimes of late Franjo Tudjman - who prided himself in minimizing Holocaust and whose dream of "Greater Croatia" went debunk).

Bosniak 05:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legally Established Genocide in Europe

User Fairview360 continues to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing. Again, he is deleting important fact "...the only legally established case of genocide in Europe." + notes: "Note: This does not mean that Holocaust was not a genocide. The Nuremberg trials took place before genocide had a legal meaning." <-- these two factual statements deserve to be included in the article because they are facts. Nobody is saying here that Holocaust was not a genocide. In my mind, Holocaust was even worse than genocide, but user Fairview360 will probably attempt to politicize this issue further. The two statements are facts and they should stay intact in the article. Bosniak 04:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They should not be in the article where you put them because it's not that important. It's just a historical coincidence. It can be mentioned in the section on legal proceedings, with the explanation not hidden in a footnote, but not at the start of the second paragraph. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In the table of contents of this discussion page, topic number 22 addresses this issue. Bosniak has not garnered any support for putting this one statement in the intro. The reason is that, without context, it gives the impression that the article is claiming that it has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holocaust was genocide. Bosniak has been invited several times to include this statement with an explanation in the legal proceedings section. Instead, after receiving nothing but opposition to his desire to put this statement in the intro, he has waited a few weeks and then re-inserted this statement in the introduction with no discussion at all.

If anyone wishes to engage in this discussion, some questions one might want to ask: why is it worth distinguishing that this is the first time the 1948 convention has been used to convict someone of genocide in Europe? How is Europe different from Rwanda? Are Rwandan lives and European lives of different value? Is the nature of genocide in Europe different from genocide in Rwanda? Since the first use of 1948 convention against genocide was against a perpetrator of the Rwandan genocide, would it make any sense to put in the intro that Srebrenica was the second time the 1948 convention was used in court to determine the occurence of genocide? Why in the intro? That could be relevant in the legal proceedings section, but why put a statement in the intro that can be misunderstood without more explanation? Bosniak can jump up and down and say his is right!!! and that a fact is a fact. Once clarified and put into context, the statement is indeed a fact, but that does nothing to answer the question as to why this solitary statement belongs in the intro. The intro already very clearly states that Srebrenica was a case of genocide and that was determined by an international court.Fairview360 05:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: Fairview stated, quote: "Once clarified and put into context, the statement is indeed a fact, but that does nothing to answer the question as to why this solitary statement belongs in the intro. The intro already very clearly states that Srebrenica was a case of genocide and that was determined by an international court." Basically, you state that I am correct but you argue I was wrong on a technicality? Well, as per our discussion, I have placed the statement + notes into Legal Proceedings section:

Srebrenica genocide is the first and only legally established case of genocide in Europe. However, this does not mean that the Holocaust was not a genocide, because the Nuremberg trials took place before genocide had a legal meaning.

All the best. Bosniak 01:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that that statement is not true and contradicts the second paragraph in the legal proceedings section. On 26 September 1997, Nikola Jorgic, a soldier in the RS army, was found guilty by a German Higher Regional Court of 11 counts of genocide. The German Supreme Court ruled that under the Genocide Convention of 9 December 1948 (ratified by Germany in 1954) genocide is a crime that all nations have a responsibility 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. These were for crimes not committed during the 1995 Srebrenica massacre but for crimes committed in other regions of Bosnia in 1992.

I believe what Bosniak understandably wants to refute is the false claim that all sides were equally guilty during the Bosnian war. Also, I believe Bosniak wants to emphasize that only the nationalist Serbs have been found to have committed genocide during the Bosnian war. However, these objectives need to be achieved through accurate statements. Fairview360 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have overlooked the facts concerning Nikola Jorgic sentence handed down by a German court in 1997, even though I was the one who originally found about it and placed it into the article and subsequently into wikipedia. Thanks for pointing it out. I do believe there were individual crimes at all sides - on a much smaller scale with respect to Bosniak side - however Bosniak leadership did not have a policy of ethnic cleansing and destruction of non-Muslim cultural objects in place. Having said that, Bosnian Serb leadership carries the biggest burden (in a range of 90%) for spreading inter-ethnic/religious hatred, persecution of non-Serbs and destruction of precious non-Serb cultural objects (e.g. Ferhadija Mosque, Oriental Institute in Sarajevo, 100% of mosques on a territory they controlled) etc. Nobody, for example, can bring back these precious original historic documents from the Oriental Institute in Sarajevo. These types of crimes are trully crimes against humanity and crimes against the whole world. 1000 year old hindu temple is as valuable as 1000 old mosque. Cultural heritage is precious, and once destroyed, it's gone forever. Same with human lives.Bosniak 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New (Revised) Proposition

I propose the following (revised) fact to be inserted:

Srebrenica genocide is the first and only legally established case of genocide that was recognized the International Crimes Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, as well as the International Court of Justice. However, this does not mean that the Holocaust was not a genocide, because the Nuremberg trials took place before genocide had a legal meaning.

Any constructive objections? Bosniak 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica WAS NOT military battle, but a GENOCIDE

I suggest we get rid off that "military operations" map. It gives an impression that Srebrenica was 'military battle' as opposed to genocide. This image is a work of some CIA employee and he can certainly keep his opinion to himself. He was in no position to judge on this issue. The International Crimes Tribunal has already ruled on this issue. This was not a military battle, but a genocide. Therefore, the image in question is simply innapropriate. Overhelming majority of victims were civilians. Collumb of 1,000 unarmed civilians led by 5 or 6 armed soldiers who were protecting them does not constitute "military battle". Bosniak 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bosnian Serb attack on Srebrenica certainly was a "military operation" and the subsequent movements of the Tuzla column and attacks on it. I guess the massacres could be described as "military operations" since they were carried out by the Bosnian Serb military forces under military command. I don't think it qualifies as a "battle".Osli73 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If so, there was no "war" at all either, and I guess all these Serbs killed during the breakout shot each other in their frenzy. All CIA material on the other countries is usually quite an authority, and is free to use when declassified (as it's the US federal govt agency). Which column do you mean? On the map there's only the general direction of the main one. --HanzoHattori 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've discussed this before. The map is misleading because after an initial reference to the Bosnian Muslim column it refers to the ArBiH column and ignores the majority civilian component. However although I disagree with the use of the term "battle" I think "military operations" is legitimate here - the diagram shows the movement of Serb forces and the response from ArBiH who were certainly involved in the column's breakout attempt. The use of "military operations" doesn't exclude the perpetration of genocide by one of the military parties. --Opbeith 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The map is informative and accurate. Fairview360 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. What Serbs were killed? Can you please provide their first and last names, dates of birth, father's names, unique Yugoslav JMBR number, as well as DNA match? Srebrenica victims have all these identification components (except that DNA matches have not completed yet for each and every victim). Do your Serb victims also have these identification components in place or is this another conspiracy theory by Milivoje Ivanisevic, who recently published a book calling a Srebrenica genocide Hoax? Ivanisevic's list of alleged Serb victims around Srebrenica contains only names, no other identifiable information, and some names don't even contain last names. Of course, Ivanisevic's followers were photographing several Serb corpses to show the world how bad Bosniaks are. Unfortunately, we did not have time to photograph our victims as you totally erased them from the face of earth, killing them, burying them, reburying them, and again undigging their graves and burying them in another location to hide the crime of genocide...

Opbeith, you are the most reasonable individual on this planet. Thanks for your opinion.

Fairview, you forgot to explain why do you think that the map is informative and accurate? Am I missing anything here? By the way, thanks for sticking up for me on my Talk Page, I appreciate it. Bosniak 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is being refered to in this statement from Bosniak's entry: "you totally erased them from the face of earth, killing them, burying them,"... who exactly is being accused of cold-blooded mass murder? HanzoHattori? Hello??? Fairview360 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I might be jumping into the middle of an argument, but wouldn't it be more correct to refer to Srebrenica as a massacre that ocurred in the larger context of genocide? That seems to fit more with the definition of genocide, and that seems to be how the BBC (to name one source) is wording it [38]. I guess it just seems like calling Srebrenica an act of genocide belittles what happened in the rest of Bosnia. Just a thought... Dchall1 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dchall1, we are currently waging battles with the international courts which are run by Christians who view Serbia positively. Because Christians keep international courts in their hands, it is extremely hard for us (Bosniaks) to prove what Serbian fascists did to us. They are constantly trying to moraly equate crimes. There were three verdicts confirming Srebrenica as Genocide (Krstic, ICJ, and Vidojevic). Recently, the ICTY, which is based in Netherlands (country complicit in genocide) ruled that Vidojevic is not responsible for his complicity in genocide, etc. So, you got the point. It is very hard for us to get justice in Christian Europe. But of course, Europe is not a Christian continet and it is our right to live on our land. It's extremely hard to prove anything at the International Crimes Tribunal, which is run by Christians in Netherlands - country complicit in Srebrenica genocide - who positively view Serbia. Bosniak 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dschall1, if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing Bosniak, the massacre at Srebrenica has been found to constitute genocide under the terms of the Genocide Convention (a substantial part of the group comprising the "Bosnian Muslims" of Eastern Bosnia) by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and confirmed as such by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The quashing of Vidojevic's appeal does not nullify the findings that genocide was perpetrated. Genocide at Srebrenica does not minimise what happened elsewhere in Bosnia. In fact it's the deniers of genocide at Srebrenica who tend also to be the deniers of genocide elsewhere in Bosnia.

There have been convictions of genocide elsewhere in Bosnia by courts in Germany. The ICTY trial of Momcilo Krajisnik found that even though a finding of "mens rea" (intent to commit genocide) could not be reached, nevertheless the "actus reus" - the facts constituing genocide - were proved. And the missing two big fish, Mladic and Karadzic, both have charges of genocide waiting to be tried when they are caught.

Srebrenica was a crime of genocide but genocide is already a crime proven in Bosnia and hopefully awaiting the conviction of two of its most important perpetrators. --Opbeith 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, after reading the source documents, it makes more sense. I wasn't trying to argue for moral equality; from my perspective, Bosniaks were the primary victims in the conflict. And I'm certainly not denying that genocide occurred. The way I was thinking about the situation, we don't refer to the genocide at Auschwitz and the genocide at Dachau, not because genocide did not occur there, but because they were part of the larger effort to wipe out the Jews.

But since you have legal docs that specifically refer to the "Srebrenica Genocide", I withdraw my point. Anything else would smack of OR. Thanks guys. Dchall1 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Owen and Dchall1 - the third key genocide suspect, Zdravko Tolimir, has been transfered to the Hague yesterday. So, there is a big progress in this regard. Here is a reason why Momcilo Krajisnik avoided Genocide conviction. I have not researched Holocaust enough to make strong points, although millions people did die. Srebrenica genocide is the most extensively documented case of genocide ever. Each Srebrenica victim has its first and last name, fathers name, date of birth, and they are being DNA matched every year (slow process but it's worth it). Jewish database of Jewish victims and survivors of the Holocaust contains 1.1 million names. The program is run by volunteers. Srebrenica genocide project is run by international (UN) experts, archeologists, researches, pathologists, etc. These were some of the points I can draw. There have been cases of double-standard applied against Srebrenica genocide victims in which their statements had been accepted with mean-spirited scepticism. I will be publishing report about this tommorow in my next June 4th-dated article, so please make sure to visit tommorow and comment at Srebrenica genocide blog. Bosniak 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3000-5000 dead not 8000

http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/03/srebrenica.html http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2114/print Three Thousand “Srebrenica Victims” Vote in Elections

Around 3,000 names on a list of Srebrenica victims compiled by the Red Cross matched voters in the Bosnian election in 1996. “I pointed out to the OSCE that there had either been massive election fraud or almost half the people on the ICRC missing list were still alive,” says Rooper. “The OSCE finally responded that the voting lists had been locked away in warehouses and it would not be possible for them to investigate.”

"Approx. 8,000" is the figure most often cited and hence used by this article. Yes, other estimates exist and (some of) these have been mentioned in the article. Osli73 08:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Enought of conspiracy theories please. Get your facts straight (references are included):

1) Facts: 8,106 killed in the Srebrenica genocide and

2) List of Srebrenica genocide victims. Bosniak 23:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I'm not sure how these two documents negate the point raised above. In terms of the article, I'd say this point might be appropriate to put under the 'alternative theories' section (or whatever it's called now! I forget :-) as it fleshes out one of the reasons for the questioning of the 8000 figure etc. Cheers Jonathanmills 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And there's also the small fact that a total of 2000 bodies have been recovered, which includes victims not involved in the massacre itself. The main article is sadly lacking in this area, having been hijacked by a particularly active and highly motivated group unsurprising. The tens of millions spent, the thousands of man hours and we're still at least 6000 short on our body count. 124.181.120.201 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srebernica Genocide Horror

We should also find time to incorporate some of the following into the article:

...The Serbs began to "march girls and young women away from the group of refugees. They were raped." ....A Dutch soldier stood by and watched as the women were raped, even listening to music on his Walkman.... A Serb, says Subasic, "told the mother to make the child stop crying. But when the baby continued to cry, he took it from the mother and slit its throat. Then he laughed. A Dutch soldier also witnessed the murder of the baby, she says, and yet he "didn't react at all"... The Muslim men, some as young as 12, were almost all murdered. The scenes that transpired in the camp are indescribable. The Serbs would pick out girls from groups. "I saw the Bosnian women begging the Dutchbat soldiers to bring the girls back," Kadira Gabeljic, one of the plaintiffs, recalls. But they only responded: "no, no, no." Ramiza Gurdic, another plaintiff, witnessed an incident that she is unlikely to ever forget. She describes a scene in which a 10-year-old boy was placed in his mother's lap and literally slaughtered. "His little head was chopped off, and the body remained in the mother's lap." Source: Republished from Der Spiegel. Bosniak 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I don't think this type of text belongs in an encyclopedic article. This article is not a blog.Osli73 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Osli, I am not proposing the whole paragraph to be entered, just one sentence pointing out survivor testimonies. Bosniak 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I think having a "Survivors testimonies" section would be a good idea. That way, all testimonies could be found in one place.Osli73 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Osli, there are too many testimonies, we can't put all of them. Maybe only few sentences of the most striking ones? I don't know. Whatever you guys figure out. Bosniak 23:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I was thinking more along the lines of an "External links" section but only with links to Survivors testimonies. Of course there would have to be a selection. This to keep the material added to the article to a minimum, considering that it is already exceeding Wikipedia recommendations.Osli73 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

The times of day within the article aren't consistent. For example, under the heading "The Column of Bosnian Men" it says "At around 2200 hours on the evening..." However, under the heading "The breakthrough at Baljkovica" it says "At approximately 05.00 hours on 16 July..." I'm not sure whether to use the first style or the second. I would change it, but I'm not particularly well versed in military style time. Insertclevernamehere 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You realize that both of those are in military time? 05:00 is 5 in the morning and 22:00 is 10 in the afternoon. Live Forever 00:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that some use period and some don't.Insertclevernamehere 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “Battle of Srebrenica” redirect

Recently I created a article-redirect called Battle of Srebrenica, which points to this article, because I thought it was a reasonably logical thing to do. What do you think about this?--MaGioZal 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no term used called "Battle of Srebrenica" refering to the Srebrenica massacre. Link directly to this article as Srebrenica massacre when appropriate, or directly to the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no need for a neologism invented by you to redirect to this article. // laughing man 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man, even though I disagree with you on most points, I would like to thank you for standing up against the latest instanity (aka: neologism) invented by MaGioZal. What Serbs and Bosniaks need is reconciliation, not continuation of genocide denial. Cheers! Bosniak 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

In the Further Reading section, in the main article, the link of the NIOD Report leads nowhere..

[edit] Answer to OSLI

In his latest revert of my legitimate edit, Osli asked: "how do we know that the results have been checked by an 'international team of experts'". This is a far question, here is a source, quote: "The Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center, IDC, conducted the research from 2004-2006, and the study - which claims there were 92,207 casualties - is currently the largest database on Bosnian war victims in existence. An international team of experts evaluated the findings before they were released." IWPR, Bosnia's "Book of the Dead" http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=336566&apc_state=henh Bosniak 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, you're right the Bosnia's Book of Dead report was checked by "international experts". However, there is no mention of them checking the Bratunac figures which you mention. The source for that figure is a separate report, where there is no mention of it being checked. CheersOsli73 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Srebrenica Genocide Memorial"

hi all,

first of all, hope no one objects to my recent spate of edits. Most were minor grammatical edits, but a few were a bit meatier (although if I had thought they would be controversial, I would have raised them here first).

Anyway, I have found that "Srebrenica Genocide Memorial" appears *not* to be the official name for this; 'Srebrenica Memorial' is the title used by all mainstream/ 'reliable sources' from a quick Google check, although I couldn't find any official website for the memorial.

I would have just gone ahead and changed this, but it is now linked to a further page with this title. Can anyone offer advice here -- is it easy to change the title of the other article? (I didn't want to screw up the link). Or anyone know any different vis-a-vis the official name? Cheers Jonathanmills 16:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] editing down

Hi all,

Just an update -- I'm sure you can see by the history page I've been making a few edits! :-) It's just an attempt to make the article more manageable. Would be happy for people to follow along in my footsteps as the article is way too long, filled with much irrelevant detail and often repeats itself, not to mention a lot of basic spelling and grammar errors. Otherwise I will just keep chipping away at it myself :-(

Would be good to maybe just do this for a while and *then* argue about controversial issues (if necessary), as from where I sit, the article at the moment needs some serious editing attention. Genuinely hope I haven't offended anyone -- I fell into the trap myself of discussing the controversial stuff and ignoring the article itself, so I'm just offering my perspective. CheersJonathanmills 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am surprised these edits have not caused an uproar. With that said, I have reviewed almost all of them and my impression at this time is that Jonathanmills is engaged in a good faith effort to preserve the essential meaning of each section while reducing excess verbiage. Fairview360 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, he has made huge chunks deleted and revised without any serious discussion. I am glad you reviewed those edits, but don't you believe that edits should be first discussed (as we have done in the past)? Cheers. Bosniak 01:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. Bosniak posted a comment on my talk page informing me of his revert (hope you don't mind if I re-post it here, Bosniak):

"Hi Jonathan, I have noticed that you deleted rather large chunks of Srebrenica Genocide article. I've reverted those edits, because you haven't discussed any of them. I was expected to discuss each and every edit I made; to avoid grievances with respect to double standard, I would appreciate if you discuss all your edits before you made revisions. It is only fair that you do that, because I had to do it, and everybody else had to do it."

In response -- first of all, I honestly didn't mean to act arrogantly or anything, as I was trying simply to reduce the article in size *without* any significant changes in content (my main employment experience has been in this sort of 'editing down', so I feel fairly competent at doing so).

Secondly, it's a bit of a shame you reverted *all* the edits, as a lot of them were simple grammar and spelling corrections. I tried to note in my edit summaries where and when I made a significant deletion (eg a few sentences to a paragraph) so that these could be checked (and/or changed) by other editors. (Incidentally, apologies again for doing it in such small chunks; it's partly the way my brain works and partly my useless computer crashing every 20 minutes)

Given that, is there any way we could discuss reverting the revert? (ie, can I give notice for discussion *now* of the proposed changes?)

But in any case, what is the way forward here? In practice, it's just too much of a hassle for me to have to raise all these editing changes one by one on this page (as they are very numerous). Does the 'sandbox' feature have anything to offer? (I don't really know anything about this)

Well, will put my editing on hold for now awaiting response (from anyone/everyone). But I will repeat what I said above: for all the activity on this discussion board, the article itself is in real need of attention, and that's what we should be focusing on at the moment (IMHO). Again, I don't want to sound smarmy or like I'm criticising anyone -- it's understandable, particularly if Bosniak's comments are correct that *all* changes are expected to be ratified here, that very little happens -- but it doesn't seem like the best situation. Cheers everyone Jonathanmills 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm not sure why Bosniak reverted all of Jonathan's edits if there was nothing wrong with them, which he didn't mention. Given that it was mainly spelling, grammar and summaries I can't see why he would have anything against it. I'll revert them back. Cheers Osli73 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, quick response! :-) Well, I'll wait a little while before resuming my activities (a couple days at least, and/or until more editors have weighed in) just to make sure everyone's OK with what I'm doing (think I got about a quarter of the way down the article yesterday). I've also let Bosniak know on his talk page that I've responded to his comments here. Jonathanmills 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, thanks for your response at my Talk Page. I am glad we have so many interests in common. I just read your response here. Canada is a beautiful place indeed (tip: come for the Celebration of Fire in Vancouver, as the international firework competition on the open sea is "must sea" event). On another note, I'have noticed 360 degrees improvement in your edits, because you are not playing revisionist tricks. In fact, you have gone a long way with Srebrenica topic, and I am proud of you for finally accepting two separate rulings of the international courts. I am proud of your for being intelligent enought to understand that Srebrenica genocide denial is is not only morally wrong, but it's also factually wrong. I've been studying the case of Srebrenica for 3 years now. Things are more complex than they seem. Revisionists and genocide deniers simplify case of genocide by simply saying that this was 'Western/NATO conspiracy against Serbs and Serbia' etc. Or, in some cases they use discredited sources and present somebody elses opinions as facts (for eg Gen Lewis MacKenzie has never been in Srebrenica, yet he portrays himself as expert who can deny genocide as 'he' sees fit). Or, some revisionists claim that Srebrenica victims were soldiers, and since some of them were soldiers - all of them were soldiers. And this argument does not even count as an opinion; it's a worthless example of denial. In other words and with respect to Srebrenica genocide; a POW, a surrendered soldiers were clearly non-combatants at the time of the deaths (they were transported to execution sites and mass executed with hands tied). Anywyas, if you have any questions about Srebrenica - do not hesitate to ask me. People are sometimes confused, and if I can help them understand things a little bit more - hey, I'll be happy! With respect to the Liberal Party - you might study their policies more closely, they are very progressive on many fronts (so you might drop Conservatives from the ballot on your next voting election, just a thought). Again, I am glad we can have you as an editor which will stand up against vandalism of Srebrenica massacre article, especially when people come and claim that only 2,000 died... Cheers. Bosniak 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is going to revert Jonathanmills' edits, they should only revert substantive changes. Any edits that improved grammar and spelling should remain. There is absolutely no reason to revert back to misspellings or poor grammar. Fairview360 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, guys. BTW, Bosniak -- this is VERY important! :-) -- I realised last night I made a mistake about who the (Canadian) Liberal Party was! It's confusing because in Australia (I'm from New Zealand) the Liberals are the *right-wing* party (Labour being the left-wing party in both NZ and Australia); it's funny how 'liberal' often has a right-wing meaning outside of North America, while in North America it pretty much means left-wing. So to correct myself: I am definitely *not* a supporter of the Conservatives; actually I'd probably support the NDP in Canada (not that I know much about Canadian politics; it hardly ever features in world news!) but I'm certainly on the left-wing side of things. (I think I actually woke up with a bit of a start when I realised my mistake -- I'd rather chew my arm off than call myself a right-winger! :-) No offence to anyone here who may consider themselves on the right.. :-)

As for editing, I will make sure to note in the edit summary any edits where I think people *could* object (ie, significant deletions/ word rearrangement); simple spelling and grammar corrections I'll tick as 'minor edits', (which is pretty much what I have been doing). I'll note here again that I'm not intending to do anything controversial; just that large-ish edits could obviously be objected to, for whatever reason.

Finally, in response to Bosniak's comments re 'I am proud of you for finally accepting two separate rulings of the international courts [and] being intelligent enought to understand that Srebrenica genocide denial is is not only morally wrong, but it's also factually wrong... Revisionists and genocide deniers simplify case of genocide by simply saying that this was 'Western/NATO conspiracy against Serbs and Serbia' etc.' [etc]', (hope you don't mind if I respond to you here, Bosniak, as I think my opinion here should probably be read by everyone):

I don't want to disappoint or offend you, Bosniak, but *after* I'm finished with my non-controversial editing (which could take a while, in any case), there are some points about the facts I'd like to raise for discussion. I don't think questioning and probing the accuracy of facts should be considered 'morally wrong', especially on a Wikipedia discussion page. However, I'm not looking to do anything beyond seek the truth (sorry if that sounds a bit high-and-mighty -- I just mean that that is my real goal, honestly) so hopefully we can have constructive and amicable discussions; you're clearly more well-versed in the facts than I am so I look forward to picking your brain :-)

Also, thanks for the tip about the Vancouver festival; although I grew up (as I mentioned) in Nova Scotia, it seems like most of my old friends have moved out that way so I probably will make it out there some day...

Well, I'll get back to my editing :-) Cheers everyone Jonathanmills 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My latest edit

I inserted one more source from Research and Documentation Center of Norway which has a well written analysis of the Bosnian Book of Dead. You can read the article (and I highly recommend it) here http://www.norveska.ba/press/rdc-bbd.htm . RDC's research has collapsed many myths, including myth that 200,000 people died in Bosnia, as well as myth about 3,000 Serb victims around Srebrenica. Bosniak 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting...

Google Popularity Results:

1. Srebrenica Massacre - 380,000 results!

2. Srebrenica Genocide - 423,000 results!

Bosniak 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with these figures is you obviously haven't put quote marks around your search terms (this means Google actually looks for the words in that specific order, rather than just any mentions of both words).

With quote marks around (ie, instances of 'Srebrenica massacre' versus 'Srebrenica genocide'), you get 126,000 for 'Srebrenica massacre' and only 41,400 for 'Srebrenica genocide'. Jonathanmills 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a strange update -- don't worry, I don't check this regularly or anything! -- I happened to just check the number of Google hits for "Srebrenica genocide" (in quotes, as above) -- and it's only 33,200! I'm sure the original figure was correct when I checked it, as I did it a couple of times to make sure. What's that about -- 10,000 references dropping off in two days? >:| (confused look) Jonathanmills 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] editing - Tuzla column

hi guys,

As I'm working my way through the article, I see there's a huge amount of material related to the movements and activities of the Tuzla column. Is it really necessary to detail everything about this? (I'm just asking because I'd be inclined to try and sum up the whole thing in a fraction of the space, but I don't want to do anything major without raising it, and I can't really be bothered going through it with a fine-tooth comb if what it really needs is a good shearing :-) Cheers; will await people's responses. Jonathanmills 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think: post the link to the version before your edits, so if anyone makes a more specific article about some aspect, he can simply use the old version for this. Also: just don't leave it in the middle (either finish this or revert). --HanzoHattori 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about posting a link; I'm not entirely sure how to do this unfortunately (I'm not that well-versed in all the Wikipedia tricks of the trade). Maybe you could post some links to potential sub-articles?

As for your second point, I'm not quite clear what you mean? If you mean I should edit the whole article down or not do it at all, I can't guarantee that -- it looks like it's going to take forever! :-) Jonathanmills 02:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I guess the others can do it too. (There's quite a couple of people on this article :).) Anyway, the looooooooooong version is HERE [39] Thanks --HanzoHattori 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a couple quick questions

Hi all,

(btw, thanks for your comments & posting of link, Hanzo).

I was just wondering if anyone could clear up an area of confusion (for me, at least) in the article.

If you scroll down to 'Ambush at Kamenica Hill', the paragraph directly above the heading also refers to an ambush -- is this the same one? (There are some place names referred to, but my Bosnian geography is nowhere near good enough to help me there :-) Because it talks about the column being split into two and the crossing of an asphalt road as well.

Speaking of asphalt roads, is the one mentioned in the second sentence of 'The Long Trek to Safety' the same road? I'm a bit confused here.

And re the section 'Sandici massacre' -- and the article generally, really -- would it be possible for someone who knows about Bosnian geography to add some clarification to the place names? (ie, what they are -- towns, regions, etc -- and where they are in relation to Srebrenica and/or Tuzla.) Because most people who aren't from Bosnia (or nearby) won't know what 'Close to Sandici, on the main road from Bratunac to Konjevic Polje' really indicates. (I say that because my geography is better than most -- not boasting, just a statement of fact -- and I don't have a clue :-)

Finally, just a question re referring to the Serb general Milan Gvero as an 'indicted war criminal' -- I was just wondering if the Bosniak general Naser Oric was also an indicted war criminal (I had a feeling he was, but don't know for sure), and if so, do people think this is a bit of a double standard and hence potentially POV? Jonathanmills 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've just realised that the second map (somehow I overlooked that one -- duh) appears to answer my question re whether the column was ambushed twice near Kamenica -- doesn't look like it was, so this was probably just an accidental restatement of the same event. (Correct me if I'm wrong here). Jonathanmills 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first main ambush which cut the main column in pieces. The second was on the next day and failed. See the map for what-where.

Oric was (practically) aquited, I don't know about Gvero. --HanzoHattori 09:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Gvero is still on trial. Oric *was* convicted on some charges of war crimes (I've now looked it up -- although you're right in that he was acquitted on most counts), so I maintain that it's POV to only tag Gvero with this, especially when he hasn't even been found guilty yet... Any thoughts? (I'd rather drop the tag on Gvero than put one on Oric, mind you, as I think it's unnecessary information in this context) Jonathanmills 12:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said "(practically)" - he was released on the same day and sent home. --HanzoHattori 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oh, and one more thing

I raised above the point that 'Srebrenica Genocide Memorial' appears *not* to be the correct name for this; as far as I can tell it is the 'Potocari Memorial Centre' -- although I haven't found an actual website for the memorial site, it seems the most common phraseology and is used in several UN dispatches.

Unless there are objections/ corrections to this, I will change this; the only thing is that there is a Wikipedia page called 'Srebrenica Genocide Memorial'. How does one go about changing the names of actual pages?

Sorry about all these questions! Cheers everyone :-) Jonathanmills 17:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The official name is Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial Centre aka Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial Cemetery. --HanzoHattori 09:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that, Hanzo -- have corrected references on this page and that one; not sure how to correct the actual name of the 'SGM' article though. (Dropped a line on the talk page over there but it looked pretty dead) Jonathanmills 12:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] message to Dragon re background section

hi all, just re-posting a message I wrote to 'Dragon of Bosnia':

Your input on the specifics of the genocide charges is much appreciated (by me, at least). However, I was just wondering if the paragraph you added to the 'background' section is really necessary? No offence at all; it's well written and everything, just that I think the article really needs some serious paring down and I'd suggest the information is pretty much already stated in the next paragraph (and with the hyperlink to both the Bosnian War and ethnic cleansing, it's easy enough for people to find out more on both topics).

Anyway, didn't want to just delete it without consulting you -- any thoughts? (I'll repost this over on the talk page, too, to see what anyone else thinks). Cheers Jonathanmills 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: have received the following message from 'Dragon of Bosnia' on my talk page (I hope you don't mind me reposting it here, Dragon, but it does concern the article and I have thrown the question out to everyone)

"I think, the information I placed in Srebrenica massacre article is very important and valuable because it explains the context of the war in Eastern Bosnia."

Personally, I (respectfully) disagree with this, because a) I think the context is already explained (the Serbs were trying to ethnically cleanse eastern Bosnia to create geographic continuity within Republika Srpska), b) this is only background to the actual topic of the article (the Srebrenica massacre), and c) as I say, the article is already way too long. Anyone else got any opinions/thoughts on the matter? Jonathanmills 12:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] time to archive?

Just wondering if it might be time to archive what's on the discussion page? (I don't know how to do it myself). Most of the threads here appear to have gone cold anyway. Jonathanmills 13:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] note on Jonathan v Dragon reverts

hi all, just to fill you all in on the above, I'm reposting the discussion I've had with Dragon on his user page:

(Jonathan)

hi there,

I don't want to get in an edit war with you over there, but using official names rather than common ones is just good encyclopedia policy (you could put 'also known as the...' if you think that's appropriate). I don't mind so much if you want to refer to the 'victims of the genocide' rather than 'victims of the massacre', but as I mentioned in my edit summary, we already use the term massacre as our first choice, so I think it's tidier to follow this all the way through the article. Cheers Jonathanmills 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(Dragon)

The official name is: "Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery to Genocide Victims", not "Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery". So when you excluded some words, then it is not official any more, so it would be clever to use simple name: Srebrenica Genocide Memorial. If you want to use official names, the first thing should be to change Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica genocide, because it is official now. But I think, that was not your real intention, it looked like an unnecessary camouflage to hide genocide term. I concluded this reading your talk page. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(Jonathan)

Well, even if that was my intention, which I don't think it was (I'm honestly a stickler for accuracy), that shouldn't really be the issue, which is, is it the correct name? I could as easily say that from reading your talk page, it seems to me your intention is to *mention* the word genocide -- it's no different. Also, I didn't realise that was the full name '...to Genocide Victims' -- but if it is, then that is absolutely the name that should be used, in my opinion. As for whether the whole article should be renamed, that's another thing entirely. (It's been hashed out ad nauseum before on the talk pages). But by your logic, because you don't like the name of the article, there's no reason for other things in the article to be accurately named. Jonathanmills 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonathanmills 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICTY conclusion

As for the destruction in the villages of Kravica, Siljkovići, Bjelovac, Fakovići and Sikiric, the judgment states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Bosnian forces were responsible for them, because the Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in those villages. In the case of the village of Bjelovac, Serbs even used the warplanes.[40] The Dragon of Bosnia 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Osli73 included this part which is false according to the above ICTY conclusion: At least forty-six Serbs were killed in the attack and over five hundred houses were burned down. The Bosnian offensive continued and on 16 January 1993 Bosnian forces attacked the village of Skelani. It resulted in at least forty-eight Serb deaths died, including those of some civilians trying to escape over the bridge to the other side of the Drina.. I think such propagada should not be placed in the article, we have good sources, the verdicts, because that would open another non-verdict sources from Bosnian side to talk about hundreds of massacres that took place in villages and towns prior to Srebrenica genocide committed by Serbs. Let me repeat the conclusion by the courte: "As for the destruction in the villages of Kravica (...) the judgment states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Bosnian forces were responsible for them..." The Dragon of Bosnia 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragon, as far as I can tell almost all of your recent additions are simply the recording of random Serbian atrocities, when this article is supposed to be about the Srebrenica Massacre, and it's already way too long. Jonathanmills 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DoB, a reply to your comment above:

1. the ICTY only found that it could not be certain about which side caused the destruction of the village of Kravica. It is not contradicting that the village was destroyed or the numbers killed
2. you prefer to call Kravica a "military base" when the ICTY clearly calls it a "village"
3. why do you call the NIOD report "propaganda"?
4. why do you say that this background info. (and it's not that much) should be put in the "Serb casualties" section while the background information about other civilian casualties does not? It seems very POV selective.

Osli73 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. They couldn't prove anything about people killed there, the numbers etc. (soldier or civilians), the way they died (the conclusion is that there was a battle, not intention to go in the village and kill Serb soldiers or civilians, so you cannot use: "43 Serbs were killed" thesis). The Dragon of Bosnia 07:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I said you are playing propaganda game, because you and Johnatann are the same user. On the other hand, all reports were analysed by the courte, including your claims, and the conclusion was as I stated. The Dragon of Bosnia 07:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And you have already writen your claims in "Serb casualties" article, so why do you insist to include it again, when this article is about Srebrenica genocide based on ICTY and ICJ conclusions (the only thing about Kravica in the verdict about srebrenica genocide is that kravica was attacked by bosnian side, because people were starving, not about speculation about Serb casualties). It is called revisionism. The Dragon of Bosnia 07:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragon, perhaps if you weren't including lots of random, irrelevant (to the topic of this article) info which is clearly designed solely to demonize the Serbs, Osli wouldn't be bothering to include stuff about Bosnian-government crimes? Just a thought. Jonathanmills 08:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first you (if you and Osli are the same user) have to have verdicts to confirm "Bosnian governmet crimes" and to write it in other article with different topic. This article is about genocide committed in Srebrenica. Second, "demonizing Serbs" is silly, because if I demonize Serbs, then ICTY and ICJ, and other courtes demonize the Serbs in more than 200 cases, because I just use courtes as my primary sources. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's my point, Dragon -- this article is about genocide committed *in Srebrenica*. The article is already *way* too long, so I don't think all this extra info is necessary -- and the fact that it's all describing atrocities committed by one side only makes it POV. (Are you saying no crimes were committed by the Bosnian government forces?) Jonathanmills 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

According to ICTY statistic, 96%-97% of war crimes were committed by Serbs and Croats (mostly Serbs). The crimes were planned, systematiclly implemented (200 cases in international courtes and thousands of cases in local courtes). Regarding Bosnian government forces, 7 Bosniaks were suspected, not for crimes against humanity, not for genocide (those are different criminal actions), but for indirect geneva violation. 2 of them were released, completely cleared. 3 of them got very small sentences (2-3 years), for failing to prevent some incidents. Just one, Bosniak who was guard in a prison, not soldier, was convicted for 15 years. So that is the courte statistic. As I like to read the verdicts, I have great knowledge about propaganda and Serb claims which were rejected by the verdicts. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for your reply, Dragon. I still make the point, though, that this article is simply too long to include lots of random stuff not directly related to what happened at Srebrenica. Jonathanmills 09:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DoB, further answer to your comments above:

1. the ICTY and the ICJ aren't the only sources. This is not an article about the ICTYs findings regarding the Srebrenica massacre, it's an article about the Srebrenica massacre. Other sources than the ICTY and ICJ findings are used throughout the article, why not in this instance?

Information should be acurate as much as possible because this is still genocide article. Srebrenica facts are many times confirmed. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Osli wrote 'This is not an article about the ICTYs findings regarding the Srebrenica massacre, it's an article about the Srebrenica massacre. I couldn't agree more (that's not surprising, I guess, if we are the same person :-) -- much of the time I've checked the ICTY transcripts footnoted in the article, they are simply verbatim (ie exact) copies of what is in the article; or rather, what is in the article is a verbatim copy of the ICTY findings. Jonathanmills 09:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with that? Remember that Bosnians didn't include Bosnian sources about the genocide. Serbs did their own sources. So it is important to have neutral sources as primary source, on the other hand you will just open another Bosnian source of information which were not included earlier, and then you will really see what it means to "demonize Serbs". I can write by heart now here, ten very relevant Bosnian sources, which were not included earlier in article. The Dragon of Bosnia 10:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you to quite a large extent, Dragon -- opening it up to sources clearly biased towards either side would open a huge can of worms, so to speak -- but I'm just endorsing Osli's point that the ICTY isn't (and shouldn't be) the only acceptable source for information. If the ICTY findings conflict with the NIOD report, for example, the disagreement should simply be *presented*, as per Wikipedia style. Jonathanmills 10:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia is quite clear about using good sources. If good sources conflict, then we should simply state that. It's not so difficult.Osli73 10:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't believe the ICTY said no-one was killed. It simply stated that it couldn't determine for certain that the destruction had been caused by Naser Oric's forces or by the Bosnian Serb forces.

The courte didn't confirm Serb claims. The only confirm thing is that there was a battle, Bosnians attacked Kravica, because people didn't have any other choice, they were under the siege, starving. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DoB, if you actually read the ICTY findings regarding Naser Oric's responsibility for Wanton Destruction you'll see that the Chamber did find that the village of Kravica was destroyed/burned. However, it could not with certainty determine how much of the destruction had been caused by the two sides. The NIOD report, which is a Netherlands govt institute and hence has nothing to do with Serbia, noted the number of civilians killed.Osli73 10:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Trial Chamber concludes that the destruction of property in Kravica between 7 and 8 December 1992 does not fulfil the elements of wanton destruction. The claims are just not proven. There were claims about people killed etc, but there is nothing there in the deposit of the verdict. The Dragon of Bosnia 10:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragon of Bosnia: Again, if you read the ICTY findings you'll see that the Chamber it concludes that it is satisfied that property was destroyed on a large scale in Kravica but that it's not satisfied that it can be attributed solely to Bosnian Muslims. This is why it doesn't feel that it has enough evidence to convict him of Wanton Destruction (perhaps it may also be because it doesn't feel that it can prove that he was in command of the forces at the time). The point is that the Chamber is clear that the village was destroyed, it just can't determine how much of the destruction was caused by the two parties.Osli73 10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Why mention this in the article? I agree, the article is far too long and should/could be considerably shortened. I have suggested this. However, there doesn't seem to be any willingness among the 'Bosniak' editors of the article to do this. So, in that spirit I think it is appropriate to include this information.
2. Yes, some of this information is in the "Serb casualties" part. However, if we are going to be 100% consistent about not repeating information in the article (as you seem to be suggesting) then this should apply to all information and data. Somehow, I don't think this is your intention. So, it is hypocritical to selectively apply such a 'rule' here.

Osli73 09:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DoB, you claim that the ICTY judgement in the Oric case doesn't support the statement that there was destruction of the village of Kravica. However, if you look at the actual ICTY judgement you will see that it does. This is what it find in relation to the charge of Wanton Destruction:

669. As to the extent of destruction caused to Ježestica, Kravica and Šiljkovići, the Trial Chamber finds the following. In Ježestica, on 7 January 1993, more than 60 houses1904 were burned.1905 In Kajici, a hamlet of Kravica, six houses out of 15 were burned on 7 January 1993.1906 By 8 January 1993, an indeterminate number of houses in Kravica were burned.1907 According to one witness, on 12 January 1993, the extent of destruction in Kravica was “roughly about 50 per cent.”1908 Witnesses arriving in the Kravica area by mid-March 1993 found most of the houses and out-buildings burned down.1909 There was no evidence presented with respect to the extent of destruction caused to Šiljkovići.

(b) Legal Findings: 670. Based on the evidence presented, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that property was destroyed on a large scale in Kravica and Ježestica on 7 and 8 January 1993. However, in regard to Šiljkovići there is no sufficient evidence to establish that destruction on a large scale occurred there.1910 671. Regarding Kravica, while there is evidence that large scale destruction occurred on 7 and 8 January 1993, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that it can be attributed solely to Bosnian Muslims. The evidence is unclear as to the number of houses destroyed by Bosnian Muslims as opposed to those destroyed by Bosnian Serbs.1911 In light of this uncertainty, the Trial Chamber concludes that the destruction of property in Kravica between 7 and 8 December 1992 does not fulfil the elements of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages not justified by military necessity.

So, it's quite clear that the village was destroyed. However, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that all of the destruction was caused by the Bosnian govt. side (ie it's not saying that it's not sure if the the destruction was caused by the arbih forces, it's saying that it doesn't know exactly if all of it was caused by them). RegardsOsli73 09:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read well. It says: Trial Chamber concludes that the destruction of property in Kravica between 7 and 8 December 1992 does not fulfil the elements of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages not justified by military necessity. But read the rest of the verdict. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragon of Bosnia: Again, if you read the ICTY findings you'll see that the Chamber it concludes that it is satisfied that property was destroyed on a large scale in Kravica but that it's not satisfied that it can be attributed solely to Bosnian Muslims. This is why it doesn't feel that it has enough evidence to convict him of Wanton Destruction (perhaps it may also be because it doesn't feel that it can prove that he was in command of the forces at the time). The point is that the Chamber is clear that the village was destroyed, it just can't determine how much of the destruction was caused by the two parties.Osli73 10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So this fact is already in the article: "As for the destruction in Kravica village the judgment in Naser Orić case states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Bosnian forces were responsible for them, because the Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in the villages surrounding Srebrenica. For instance, in the case of the village of Bjelovac, Serbs even used the warplanes." Then we agreed. Next time read more carefully. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The other speculation that you are trying to include about at least 43 allegedly killed Serbs is not proven. And it is already in the article in separate section, should be removed also, as there is no courte confirmation. The Dragon of Bosnia 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Dragon, the word is 'court', not 'courte'. Not trying to be annoying, just thought you might like to know. Cheers Jonathanmills 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Please, correct my mistakes, because I don't speak English fluently. Thank you again! The Dragon of Bosnia 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. My English is pretty good, so I should be able to help you out a bit there. (I mean, I'm a native speaker, but it seems like a lot of English native speakers these days have appalling English! :-) Jonathanmills 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] terminology

I do not support refering to the perpetrators of genocide as "the Serbs". When describing in exacting detail such a horrific crime, one ought to use equally accurate and precise language when describing those who committed the crime. In fact, thousands of Serbs either lost or risked their lives fighting against the ultra-nationalist Serbs who instigated and perpetrated this genocidal aggression. Furthermore, it is hypocritical to describe the forces from Srebrenica as BiH Army while identifying the VRS forces by ethnicity only. (If one insists on calling VRS forces and the militias from Serbia as "Serbs", then out of consistency one would refer to those from Srebrenica as "Bosniaks".) I do not believe it is accurate to call this an ethnic war. The greater conflict was a conflict between those who supported a multi-ethnic democracy and ultra-nationalists who wanted to engage in ethnic cleansing.

I agree that as exact a language as possible should be used without burdening the text too much. However, I'm not sure what the relevance of your opinion of the nature of the war has on any of it. Really, it's not a discussion forum.Osli73 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian army was the only legal army in Bosnia, recognized by UN (the common name was Bosnian government forces or just Government forces). VRS and other Serb forces were not recognized until Deyton agreemenat (even in Deyton the Serbs from Bosnia were represented by Slobodan Milosević, president of Serbia, because they couldn't sign the agreement, because they were ilegal side in the conflict, the same thing was for Croats which were represented by president of Croatia), before that they were just unrecognized illegal Serb troops in Bosnia burning towns and committing massacres on civilians. The other thing is that Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina don't accept the term Bosnian Serbs, because of Bosnian adjective in front of Serbs, and the name of their army and their units never mentioned Bosnia. So we have Bosnian Army (a legal one) and Serb formations (illegal one) fighting against Bosnia and its Constitution. The Dragon of Bosnia 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? The Bosnian Serb troops were organised into an army called the VRS -- by your logic an article about Irish history could never refer to the IRA because it wasn't a 'legal' army. I'm going to put a 'neutrality disputed' tag on the article (although I'm sure it won't last very long) because this is just getting ridiculously POV. Jonathanmills 06:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I said, that the common name for the army was "Serb forces". Anyway, I think that you two, or better to say you one, Osli73 and Johnatanmills, should stop this sockpuppet game. The Dragon of Bosnia 07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, someone has suggested Osli and I were sockpuppets before. Go ahead and look into it, because I used to live in New Zealand and am now in England, while Osli is apparently from Sweden. Jonathanmills 08:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, that's not your bussines, they will found the truth. The Dragon of Bosnia 08:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not my business that you're reporting me? That seems a little odd. I don't care at all, though, because they will 'found' the truth and the truth is what I just told you. Jonathanmills 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, as I said, don't worry and be happy. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet as, bro -- seriously, I am. I don't mind that you're reporting it, either -- nothing wrong with following your suspicions. Cheers Jonathanmills 09:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the nostalgia of listening to Osli's twisted "logic". He writes on a discussion page that this is not a discussion forum. (?!)

In any case, refering to the war in eastern Bosnia as simply Bosniaks fighting Serbs implies that it was simply an ethnic war and ignores the fact that there were Serbs in Armija BiH fighting for a multi-ethnic Bosnia and against the ultra-naitonalism of people like Mladic and Karadzic.

In regards to Dragon's comments below and above, the term VRS is used by the ICTY. See this link for an example: http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm

As far as the suggestion that Osli and Mills are one in the same, yes, Osli does have a record of sockpuppetry, however the style and disposition of Mills' writing is quite different from Osli's. Furthermore, Mills has not even come close to the revisionist tendencies of Osli. Hence, I seriously doubt Osli and Mills are the same user and, as Mills has suggested, if Dragon wants that checked, then it is his perogative to ask for such. Fairview360 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fview360, a reply to your comments above:

• again, I think appropriate terms in this case are Bosnian government/Bosnian Serbs or ARBiH/VRS though I think the former is less technical (which there is little reason to be in most instances in this article) and hence preferable.
• wether the war was an ethnic war, an intra-state war, a civil war or a an ideological war (multiculturalism vs fascism/racism) or a combination of any of these is a matter of opinion. As a Bosniak nationalist you prefer to see it as an aggression and an ideological war. However, clearly this is a matter of opinion.
• I'm note sure what these "revisionist tendencies" you refer to are. I will assume it is your pejorative term for views which are not in line with your own.

Osli73 08:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I also want to respond to Fairview's post, if I may: how many non-Bosniaks (particularly Serbs) would you say were fighting in the ARBiH? (I don't mean that to sound like a challenge; I'm honestly interested, and don't know about it).

Also (this is not specifically in response to Fairview; possibly more in regards to Dragon's post below calling the Yugoslav People's Army, VRS, etc etc 'Serb forces') -- surely there were some non-Serbs in the Yugoslav Army at least, right? (I'm not necessarily objecting to using 'Serb forces' as a shorthand term, just saying if we're going to go down the road Fairview's suggesting, we should be even-handed about it). Jonathanmills 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

DoB,

1. I agree that we should try to use a precise language
2. "Serb formations" is silly. Let's stick to either "ARBiH" and "VRS" or "Bosnian" and "Bosnian Serb"
3. Legal or illegal has nothing to do with it. However, I have no problem calling the sides "Bosnian government" and "Bosnian Serb"
4. Remember, we should use the terminology used by the majority of sources, not make our own conclusions (see W:OR)

Osli73 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't, because your motive is something else, my motive is to contribute and to write article based on verified information. The Dragon of Bosnia 07:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're sure it's not just to include anything and everything, relevant or not to the topic of the article, to demonise the Serbs? Because that's what it looks like. Jonathanmills 08:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, demonising Serbs is the term used by Serb war criminals, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, Milosevic and Seselj, as well as by Serb media during and after the war. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If I demonize Serbs, then ICTY and ICJ, and other courtes demonize the Serbs in more than 200 cases. Remember you asked me to come here and help. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, but just because they said it doesn't mean you can't be guilty of it. As for asking you to come and help, I just meant it would be good for you to at least participate in the discussions instead of just making edits, which you're doing (and I appreciate that, btw). Jonathanmills 09:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and just re the description of Naser Oric: I'd be more than happy to leave out the descriptions on *both* Oric and the Serb general, as I think they're clunky and needless -- if people want to find out more about them, they can do so separately; again, this article is way too long as it is -- but I was just making a point about POV. Jonathanmills 09:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Osli, I saw, that you already removed it, I agree with Naser Oric removal, because there is Naser Orić article, as you said, but I left info about Milan Gvero, because there isn't article about him. So if you write an article about Milan Gvero, I will be happy to remove info about war crimes indictment. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. How about if I just do a quick stub saying he's on trial for war crimes (or whatever the exact description of the charges are; I'll find out if I do it.) Or perhaps you could dash it off, Dragon, as you seem to know this stuff backwards? Cheers Jonathanmills 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

According to ICJ judgement, Serb forces consisted of Yugoslav People's Army (later Army of Serbia and Montenegro), Army of Republika Srpska, Serbian Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska and Serb Territorial Defence Forces. So it is not silly. The Dragon of Bosnia 07:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply about Osli73-Johnatanmills sockpuppet suspicion

Osli73 said: "I can't see that you are sincerely "sorry" about an insult of sockpuppetry if you then go on to repeat it."

Well, suspicion is not an insalt. I still think you two are the same user. I hope administrator will check digital traces of your two accounts and compare it. Regarding sorry thing, I said I was sorry if you felt that I "demonised Serbs" whatever that means. The Dragon of Bosnia 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic cleansing

Johnatan, you removed the paragraph about ethnic cleansing in Eastern Bosnia, and you say this is irrelevant?! Are you serious. This is very good information, first because Srebrenica was the last site of ethnic cleansing which started in 1992 in Eastern Bosnia in 20 towns. Second, this is information confirm in Kunarac case one of the most important cases in general in ICTY. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragon, apologies for not explaining myself on the discussion page earlier (although I did make a mention of that particular paragraph a few days back, just a few topics above where we are now ('Dragon re background section', I think it's called).

I say that paragraph is 'irrelevant' because the next piece of text reads:

The predominantly Bosniak area of Central Podrinje (the region around Srebrenica) had a primary strategic importance to Serbs, as without it there would be no territorial integrity within their new political entity of Republika Srpska.[15] They thus proceeded with the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks from Bosniak ethnic territories in Eastern Bosnia and Central Podrinje. In neighbouring Bratunac, Bosniaks were either killed or forced to flee to Srebrenica, resulting in 1,156 deaths, according to Bosnian government data.[16] Thousands of Bosniaks were also killed in Foča, Zvornik, Cerska and Snagovo.[17] (my emphasis)

Given this, and given that the article is about the Srebrenica Massacre (not everything that happened before it, or about important ICTY cases/rulings), and given that it is just way too long! (as I've said ad nauseum), I'd argue that it's an irrelevant addition to the article. Notice, too, that I also deleted the reference to the Bosnian-government activities in Kravica or wherever it was, because I thought it was equally irrelevant (*to the article*; I'm not arguing that the events are irrelevant in a wider sense) and also because I thought that stuff was perhaps a sort of response to the perceived POV of extensively detailing Serb atrocities. (Just because something is sourced and accurate doesn't mean it can't be POV).

Anyway, I hope you see my point here. Again, apologies for not posting this explanation before I made my edit; I'll give you a chance to respond before I do anything else with this. Jonathanmills 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragon is on right side here. You can't be more right than ICTY. Osli and Jonathan, be reasonable. Do you think that some third party sources would be more valuable than ICTY? No. Dragon's primary source is ICTY, if you can prove that ICTY is wrong, than prove it. Prove it to administrators. Using Wikipedia as tool to publish your points of view is pathetic, open a blog, do something. --HarisM 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

HarisM, *you* are the pathetic one here. You're not even reading what Dragon and I are arguing about! It has absolutely *zero* to do with using third party sources or disputing the ICTY. Read what I wrote again, if you need to. As for 'not using Wikipedia to publish your point of view', right back at ya, buddy. Jonathanmills 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing section is an important part of this article.

I think that this article would be better if it were more concise. By "concise" I mean the use of percise language (getting a point across in one sentence as oppose to 4 sentences); and focusing on the most important events and details. With that being said, the ethnic cleansing section is a very important aspect of the article. For one, many of the victims in 1995 were not from Srebrenica but from the surrounding muncipalities, Zvornik, Vlasencia, Visegrad and Bratunac and they found themselves in Srebrenica after those muncipalities were overtaken by VRS, nationalist Serb paramilitary, JNA forces in 1992.

Even more importantly, the ethnic cleansing campaign puts the events in 1995 in perspective within the larger context of the war. It was the aim of the Bosnian Serb government to have control of the two "corridors of life"; one corridor being eastern Bosnia where Srebrenica, Zvornik, Visegrad, Bratunac, etc are located. The 'cleansing' campaign in the spring and summer of 1992, and the mass atrocities and deportations, fleeing that accompanied it were part of the Bosnian Serb government's war aim to have an ethnically homogenous region in eastern Bosnia.

Gardenfli 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you guys re-read my post again, please? All that stuff in the bold text *was already in* the article. Ie, that was sitting there, then *another* para was put on top of it detailing even more about the ethnic cleansing. Why is that necessary? Jonathanmills 22:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if i missunderstood your edit. I just wanted to make sure that the direct relevancy between the ethnic cleansing campaign and the Srebrenica article itself was clear. Gardenfli 03:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The ethnic cleansing campaign in Eastern Bosnia prior to the massacre is relevant if you're writing a >100 kb article about the massacre (which is where this article currently stands). However, it is perhaps less relevant (or deserves much less space) if you're trying to write a ~32 kb article (which is Wikipedia's "strong recommendation", see WP:LENGTH). So:

• if we're writing a >100 kb article, include it
• if we're trying to write a ~32 kb article (or at least 'shorter') then, exclude it

CheersOsli73 07:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Gardenfli, no worries -- apology accepted :-) Actually I think Osli has raised the relevant point here (it's about the relative size of the article). I guess I was/am aiming to trim it down fairly severely (even halving the length would still be way over 32kb, although it's an important topic so I'm not saying it *has* to be under 32kb or anything), so I see essentially restating the fact at hand (the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks by Serbs) as unnecessary. Actually, to be honest, I see it as pretty unnecessary anyway -- that whole paragraph I quoted above was always in (and *should* be in) the article, so why do we really need more about it? (I'm not trying to sound bolshy or anything, I'm genuinely open to an answer to that. Gardenfli?) After all, the article is about the *Srebrenica Massacre*, and this is just background stuff -- I don't mean that it's unimportant, btw; I agree with Gardenfli that it's essential to understanding the context of the events, I'm just arguing that (IMHO) the paragraph above does that already. Jonathanmills 11:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the essence of the ethnic cleansing paragraph as it stands is fine. My entire point, and I agree I didn't articulate myself very well, was *why* the mention of ethnic cleansing was esential for the entire article as a whole. Which I think is a point we can all agree on. Gardenfli 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no disagreement on needing some background material. My only point was that it seemed to me that the new addition was just repeating information already in the next paragraph. Cheers Jonathanmills 14:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Osli, most of articles on Wikipedia are over 32kb, including important articles such as Holocaust. This article is a way to important to be 32kb in length and therefore, I will oppose any significant reduction of this article, because other important articles are also over 100kb in length (as they should be). This is encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Danielus2010 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Only thing I'd say to that, Danielus, is that I reckon it's *needlessly* long, ie the information could be more concisely put and some less important pieces of information dropped. I agree it's an important issue, but I don't think it should be four times the recommended Wiki length, just for ease of reading if nothing else. Jonathanmills 14:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disgusting Example of Srebrenica Genocide Justification at Italian Wikipedia

Has anyone read Italian Wikipedia on this subject? It states that possible causes of Srebrenica genocide is attack of Bosniak forces on Serb village of Kravice in 1993. [b]Nobody is mentioning that long before Bosniaks attacked militarized Serb villages, thousands of Bosniaks have been ethnically cleansed and killed in the area of Podrinje (region around Srebrenica).[/b] In other words, long before Bosniaks started revolting against Serbs, those same Serbs committed horrendous crimes against Bosniaks - and now, Serbs and their propagandists use "Kravica" as an excuse for Srebrenica massacre? [b]Therefore, attack on Kravica in 1993 (Serb Orthodox Christmas) CANNOT be used as a possible cause or an excuse for Srebrenica Genocide, because long before that attack happened, Serbs already committed horrendous massacres against Bosniak civilians in region around Srebrenica (e.g. Glogova massacre).[/b] For example, On 3 September 1991, on the brink of the war, [b]the Eastern Bosnia's first victims of ethnic violence were Bosniak Muslims - killed when a group of Serb Kravica policemen and paramilitary nationalists ambushed their vehicle, killing two out of three people inside.[/b] None of the Serb perpetrators and accomplices in the attack were ever brought to trial. After the Kravica killings, Bosniaks started to organize armed patrols in their villages and settlements with the few arms they had. Danielus2010 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] links to 'critical views'

hey, what now with deleting wholesale the links to the 'critical views'? And not mentioning it on the discussion page, or even in the edit summary?! If there's a discussion to be had about whether or not to include these, it should be had out in the open, at the very least. Cheers Jonathanmills 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-articling?

Before I took a break to get married, I was collaborating with a few editors (specifically Fairview360 and Gardenfli) on sub-articling to improve readability. We went so far as to create the sub-article Mass executions in the Srebrenica massacre, if I remember correctly. Did this just die out? Could someone fill me in on what happened in the interim? Djma12 ^(talk) 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong information from the judgment

Jonathanmills wrote, that: "However, the ICTY appears not to deny that 'the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians'"

Which is false.

The sentece from the judgment goes like this:

"As the Defence was reminded many times during the trial, the fact that the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians, an argument brought up mutatis mutandis by almost every Serb accused and Defence counsel before the Tribunal, is irrelevant in the context of this case."

So this is clear example of revisionism by Serbs accused and convicted in ICTY, and is irrelevant according to the court. The Dragon of Bosnia 10:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dragon. I don't mind leaving the sentence out, and I did have second thoughts about it myself later, but I don't think your conclusion is entirely correct either. Yes, the ICTY is saying it is irrelevant *to the defence of Serbs convicted of the given charges*, but they're not saying it's irrelevant more broadly, or that it's not true. (They're not saying it *is* true, either, of course, but my sentence did read 'the ICTY *appears* not to deny that the Muslim side *may* have commited similar atrocities against Serb civilians' (emphasis added).

But as I say, it's possibly a bit of a stretch to say what I said about it too, so I'm happy to leave it out.

As for your other two changes, though, I'm going to revert them, because a) the 'panicking Bosniak' reference, as I explained when I deleted it originally, comes from *one* clearly POV source and is contradicted by most other sources on the internet (as a quick Google search will reveal) who claim the Bosniak was *angry* rather than panicking (not to mention that it seems a bit of a subjective judgement in any case -- how can anyone really know for sure what was going through his mind?), and b) the 'revisionist' vs 'critical' (or whatever) debate has been had on these talk pages before, and I don't mind having it again, but I don't think it should just be changed on a one-off edit. I might shift it to 'alternative views', if that's acceptable, just because it matches the heading of the relevant section in the body of the article. Cheers Jonathanmills 13:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I correctly understanding this discussion, that it is disputed whether Muslims committed atrocities against Serb civilians? Nikola 21:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No you are not. The argument is over what the ICTY actually said and what is relevant to the Srebrenica massacre. Fairview360 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Likely more than 8,000 victims of Srebrenica genocide

At least 8,000 people died in Srebrenica genocide, and this is as far as we can estimate based on DNA evidence (see here). But my suspicion is that there was likely more than 8,000 victims, because there is no way of recovering bodies who were thrown into Drina river by truckloads. There is also no way of getting information about missing persons whose entire families got wiped off in the war. Just recently, a couple of days ago, we uncovered a new mass grave which included Srebrenica children, 7-11 years of age, beeing shot in the head. Bosniak 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, again, according to WP:OR it is not your interpretation, but the consensus understanding among well informed external sources that counts. The majority of major sources, such as e.g. the BBC, still talk "about" 8,000. Osli73 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Osli, I realize that and I stick to 8,000 figure. But being in constant contact with survivors of Srebrenica, I have became compelled to believe that 8,000 figure is only a minimum estimate, because some families were completely wiped out and there was no way to report these people as either missing or killed. The things are looking worse then they looked in the past, especially with the revelation of Radovan Karadzic's genocidal statements, take a look at Radovan Karadzic and Srebrenica Genocide... He rather strikes me as a calculated cold-blooded killer. Just listen to his words on that page and it will make you sick... at least it made me sick to my stomach and it also made me sad about the state of humanity. If I had an opportunity to committ genocide, I still would NOT do it. What makes people capable of killing? Is it hatred? Who knows. I just don't get it.Bosniak 05:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica Memorial Quilt

I recommend we include link to the Advocacy Project's Srebrenica Memorial Quilt in one of external link sections. I have recently made a symbolic donation to commemorate little 8 year old girl who died in Srebrenica genocide. Over 400 children died during the massacre. The other day, they dug out bodies of children from the grave. They were 7-11 years of age and shot in head. If anyone has objections for this link, please list them here. If not, then thank you all. It's hard to deal with Srebrenica on a daily basis; this is a very sad tragedy. And let me tell you, but mothers of victims are still in pain, 12 years after the massacre. They are still grieving. It's just horrible. We need to make sure that there is never, ever, any wars in the Balkans. There must not be any military conflicts any longer. Never, ever again.

PS: If you go to external link section, the link is to Advocacy Project - How to Commission a Panel. Bosniak 05:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make a small section about Srebrenica Genocide deniers and apologists.((GriffinSB) (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)).

Let's make it now. Here is a opening article: Srebrenica Genocide Denial . Let's build it. Bosniak (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative views uncorrect

In the article about the alternative views(which is something like a Holokaust denying) it says that some Serbs view the Srebrenica Genocide as a retaliation to Operation Storm that ended the wars led by Croatian Forces.Can someone explain to me how can it be a retaliation when Srebrenica Genocide happened in May of 1995,while Opeation Storm (supported by UN,NATO and USA) happened in August of 1995,thus 3 months later?????? And how come the Serb government still hasn't arrest Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic in order to proove their "innocence"???It amazes me,how serbian propagandists get so much space on the internet to spread thier invented misinformation to bring confusion to the uninformed and unpartial reader....--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's something like Holocaust denial, of course. It's a genocide denial. And Srebrenica Genocide did not occur in May. Get your facts straight. Bosniak (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

July is still before August. Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica Genocide Children and Elderly

Hundreds of elderly were killed during Srebrenica genocide. At least 500 children (see compilation from Federal Commissions list of names). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Bosniak (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links for 'Alternative views'

hi guys,

I haven't been on WP for ages, but it appears that a while back Dragon deleted the long-standing links to 'alternative views' with the following edit summary:

"rm also other blogs and similar sites per WP:RS (mostly revisionist views, among them slobodan-milosevic promo site?!"

Of the six links...

One is to the report of the 'Srebrenica Research Group', which was quite a major thing and they presented their findings to the United Nations;

One is to a report of the ISSA, a pretty major organisation by the looks (see http://www.strategicstudies.org);

One is to a story from the Globe & Mail, Canada's biggest daily;

One is to a copy of the Republika Srpska's first report on Srebrenica (this is *hosted* by the 'slobodan-milosevic promo site', but is simply a scanned document);

One is to an article by Diana Johnstone, who is actually mentioned by name in the 'alternative views' section;

One is to a ZNet article (pretty major liberal/left site) by Ed Herman, professor emeritus at the Wharton School of Economics and author of many books.

I'd say the last one, maybe the last two, are *possibly* arguable in terms of deletion, but otherwise I'd have to say the edit summary doesn't match the facts.

As for the term 'revisionist' views versus 'alternative' views, I recall there has been some pretty focussed discussion on this in the past and this ('alternative') appeared to be the conclusion. (I also think, whatever term is used, it should be consistent between the section in the article and the heading over the external links).

So please don't revert my re-inclusion of these links unless you can provide some good reasons to here on the talk page.

Cheers everyone Jonathanmills (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan. Both of us believe in liberal values, but please don't get confused - Ed Herman, Diana Johnstone and similar Srebrenica genocide deniers are not liberals, they are radical (pro-)Serbian ultra-nationalists. There is a difference between liberals and radicals, and you should keep that in mind. Bosniak (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing Jonathan. Opinion is cheap, everybody has it, including Ed Herman, but the Srebrenica Genocide is a fact.You need to keep that in mind. Bosniak (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Edward Herman and Diana Johnstone aren't Serbian. But it doesn't matter. None of what you've said negates the points I was making.

I see there is another round of underhanded censorship going on vis-a-vis the references (I say 'underhanded' because it is not discussed on here despite my invitation, and the principle of not making significant edits on a controversial topic without discussing them -- which is a good one -- is being flagrantly disregarded). This is indefensible. Jonathanmills (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion archives show that this issue has been discussed repeatedly ad nauseum. How can an editor argue that calling the Srebrenica massacre a "hoax", claiming the graves and names of people killed/missing is all a ruse, are simply "alternative views"? Is it not giving too much credibility to those denying what obviously happened, what has been proven in the finding of facts in multiple court cases? The Srebrenica massacre is fully documented. Calling it a hoax is not a legitimate point of view worthy of an encyclopedia. When someone claims the Srebrenica massacre simply did not happen, that it was a hoax, that is denying the massacre took place; it is denying a proven fact. I don't know how many different ways one needs to say this. If anyone wants to delete or recontextualize the section in dispute, I will support that action, but I am not going to waste my time getting into an edit war. I believe most readers will see this disputed section for what it is even if it has the misguided credence-giving title "alternative views". Fairview360 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to side with Fairview360. Even my Serb friends condemn Srebrenica genocide denial. I am not Serb, but let me tell you, some Serb people are fed up with ongoing denial of Srebrenica genocide. Bosniak (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. I want to emphasise that the issue of what the segment is *called* (revisionist, alternative etc) is a separate one that, as I stated in my original post, I'm not trying to weigh in on -- I was just restoring the deleted section of references under its original title because a) I didn't think the reasons for deleting them were sound, and b) they weren't properly discussed.

As to the title, I was under the impression 'alternative' was the end compromise when the issue was debated here properly a while back. I also think the term used for the references should match what the section is called in the body of the article. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Johnstone is a Serb apologist

http://www.tenc.net/analysis/racak.htm Here she tries to whitewash the Racak Massacre in Kosovo.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Views, aka...

Alternative views are also referred by some as "revisionist views" or "genocide denial views," so it's only fair to include this statement.Bosniak (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are the some. Just inserting a statement and saying it is used by some is a violation of WP:AWW. SWik78 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

==I think this revisionist and genocide denial bull...== is a shame,a discrase. There "revisionists" are using the same methods as holocaust deniers. There is no UN report about this propagandic bullshit.

These people are payed by serb ultranationalist interess groups to have "their" say in some TV show,and then the same serbian propagandists are using them as refferences and sources.

Can't you people leave these victims rest in peace???Some people just have no shame at all.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles about serbian denial of Srebrenica Genocide trough these past years. These are just cheap attempts to confuse the reader. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian news agency B92

10 March 2007 NOVI SAD -- Human Rights Center chairman Vojin Dimitrijević says Serbia should legally sanction any denial of the 1995 Srebrenica genocide.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=03&dd=10&nav_id=40059

NUNS reacts to Srebrenica denial 20 March 2007 BELGRADE -- Independent Journalists Association (NUNS) reacted an announced reprint of a Srebrenica massacre denying newspaper supplement.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=03&dd=20&nav_id=40240

SREBRENICA GENOCIDE DENIAL AND REVISIONISM: SHORT DEFINITION

Srebrenica Genocide denial, also called Srebrenica Genocide revisionism, is the belief that the Srebrenica genocide did not occur, or, more specifically: that far fewer than around 8,100 Srebrenica Bosniaks were killed by the Bosnian Serb Army (numbers below 5,000, most often around 2,000 are typically cited); that there never was a centrally-planned Bosnian Serb Army's attempt to exterminate the Bosniaks of Srebrenica; and/or that there were no mass killings at the extermination sites.

Those who hold this position often further claim that Bosniaks and/or Western media know that the Srebrenica genocide never occurred, yet that they are engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain the illusion of a Srebrenica Genocide to further their political agenda. These views are not accepted as credible by objective historians.

Srebrenica genocide deniers almost always prefer to be called Srebrenica Genocide revisionists. Most scholars contend that the latter term is misleading. Historical revisionism is a well-accepted part of the study of history; it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating histories with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information. The implication is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate. The term historical revisionism has a second meaning, the illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes. For example, Srebrenica Genocide deniers (or Srebrenica Genocide revisionists as they like to be called) typically willfully misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions.

While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, Srebrenica Genocide deniers/revisionists have been using it to seek evidence in support of their own preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.

Most Srebrenica Genocide deniers reject the term Genocide and insist that they do not deny the Srebrenica Massacre, prefering to be called "revisionists". They are nevertheless commonly labeled as Srebrenica Genocide deniers to differentiate them from historical revisionists and because their goal is to deny the existance of the Srebrenica Genocide, by omitting substantial facts, rather than honestly using historical evidence and methodology to examine the event.

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Helsinki committee for human rights in Serbia

about Ratko Mladic and serbian efforts to avoid justice

http://www.helsinki.org.yu/infocus_t04.html --(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ^ Byzantine Sacred Art Blog: Srebrenica: Genocide or a Major Hoax?

I'm going to remove the reference from this blog because the blog is known for spreading propaganda and lies. First of all it"s a blog,a opinion of some misguided "intelectual" should not be expressed in a encyclopedia. Second this blog produces information such as this.

This George Gets it Right: Clooney to Organize Protest Against Unilateral Declaration of Kosovo Independence

http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2008/01/this-george-gets-it.html

Hollywood Support for Serbia Grows

http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2008/01/hollywood-support-grows.html

Haven't seen any protests from Hollywood stars yet and Kosovo is independent. anyone seen the protests?

btw. George Clooney denied it on his website.

and this http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/03/srebrenica.html

the blog along with a serbian fascist propaganda website srpska mrza photoshops a picture to "proove" that the burried in Potocari are just some mujahedeens.presenting it like it's written in arabic,while it's not. I'd like if someone who speaks arabian could translate the arabic writings for me,because i doubt they even cared to write a sensible text to make it look more original.

while the actual memorial looks like this. http://realtravel.com/srebrenica-photos-p1829274-2349221.html

should that be included in an encyclopedia?

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Griffin, I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said entirely, but I'm wondering if it's valid in that...

I think they genuinely got taken in by the George Clooney story. I'm pretty sure they got it from somewhere else. Poor editorship, perhaps, but not necessarily proof that they deliberately tell lies.

Could be the same story vis-a-vis photoshopped photo, especially if it appears in other sources. (Mainstream media outlets sometimes get taken in by false stories! It shouldn't necessarily mean the whole source is bunk)

But most of all, it was a section about 'alternative views'. Do all the sources have to be 100% accurate before they can be posted *as examples of alternative views* -- ie, it's not presenting them as the 'true' account? This seems a bit ridiculous to me, and is really not much more than censorship.

Cheers for posting to the discussion board, although I think it would be better practice in future to post your suggested changes here first rather than presenting them as a fait accompli. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan here. Blogs are not OK as sources for information / statements of fact in the article. However, as examples of "Alternative views" they are entirely appropriate. That is the reason they are not used as sources in the main article. CheersOsli73 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So,if i was to write a blog about the Holocaust in which i would deny it, i would be able to spread false info on wikipedia??? I'm sure i would get support for it by you guys to make an alternative section on the Holocaust article!!!....?!?!?! Encyclopedia is not a place for crap and widespread rumours.In this case the rumours are being spread by Serb ultrannationalists themselfs.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there IS stuff on Wikipedia about Holocaust revisionism, so your argument isn't sound to begin with. The point, though, is that we are talking about a section describing 'alternative views' -- ie, it is specifically *not* presented as the 'accepted' account. Jonathanmills (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just imagine if some of those victims were your friends,brother,sister,father...i think that this Genocide denial would upset you if that was the case.Those people aren't just numbers.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia is, for better or worse, not the place to get emotionally involved in that way. There's WP directives on this, not to mention that it is just common sense. Jonathanmills (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dolus specialis

The phrase "with the specific intent (dolus specialis)" is unnecessary and confusing in the lead. All legal genocides mush have intent because it is part of the treaty CPPCG on which the legal term is defined, so there is no need to mention in in the lead. Further "specific intent (dolus specialis)" has a different meaning in different legal systems and under Common Law -- the type of law that most English readers are going to be familiar --it does not have the meaning that the ICJ ascribes to it:

"The dolus specialis concept is particular to a few civil law systems and cannot sweepingly be equated with the notions of ‘special’ or ‘specific intent’ in common law systems. Of course, the same might equally be said of the concept of ‘specific intent,’ a notion used in the common law almost exclusively within the context of the defense of voluntary intoxication."—Genocide scholar William Schabas[41]

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The body count

not to be a prick or anything, and i do feel sorry for the people who died. its just that, there could be 319 dead people TOPS in that picture. since the average person is lets say 6 foot, the first coffin is 60mm in the picture, the second is 15 mm, etc. this gives us an equation of 59.59*X^-1.89. and the last set of coffins is at 1 mm. So there could be 315 dead people tops in that picture. this is even if we count 11 people per row. in some cases its only 10.

sorry if i offended anyone, but i usually speak my mind. sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 15:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible that the photographer was standing somwhere in the middle and that the coffins were set in two parts to make a way through them???Do you have the picture of what was behind the camera???

Write a blog about it.lol--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the picture below states that 505 were killed, while the picture above (of the same event) claims four-hundred something. It was a crap war, i must admit.

Mike Babic (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buried children

Memorial Centre - Potocari

Buried persons: total 2907

Children:

         age 13,5-14:  3
             14 - 15:  9
             15 - 16: 29
             16 - 17: 50
             17 - 18: 71

Kutil 77.240.177.27 (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slobodan Milo's 'controlled media'

Hi guys (probably talking mainly to Griffin and Fairview here):

I guess the main point I wanted to put was that the reference cited by Fairview, in the first instance, did not mention Srebrenica at all, so it doesn't really fit the bill as a source for the statement.

Secondly, it is essentially only a description of testimony given by the prosecution at trial, not (for example) the findings of the tribunal, so I'm not sure it should be used as essentially 'proving' the thesis.

And moreover, it seems fairly obviously slanted -- media occasionally fabricating stories (intentionally or otherwise), war propaganda (use of perjorative terms like 'fascists', 'jihadists' etc), government controlling media licences, especially in a time of war -- those are characteristics of ANY country's media. Saying "Serbian Radio Television created a strange universe in which...the devastated Croatian town of Vukovar had been 'liberated'" -- well, it is standard practice in war to refer to one's own conquests as 'liberation' -- viz the Americans and Brits 'liberating' Iraq. Indeed, to say this is a 'strange universe' merely proves to me that the source is non-objective.

Lastly, the report itself apparently says "The media offensive launched by Belgrade contributed to the appearance of equally detestable propaganda in other Yugoslav republics" -- food for thought for the Bosniak nationalists here, perhaps?

Finally, I'm not intent on reverting anything and everything along the lines of what's been added -- just get some better sources, and put it in less POV language (eg, 'Some have argued [or whatever] that Serbia's state media [not 'Slobodan Milosevic's media'; this is an encyclopaedia] sowed misinformation about the massacre among Serbs'). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I haven't had a response to this, there has been two new references added by Fairview, neither of which, again, mention Srebrenica at all. One of them is simply the list of charges brought by the ICTY, *not* the findings of the judgement. And I thought the courts found that Serbia was *not* responsible for Srebrenica?

The other is an article on the PBS website which talks about "the hate campaign against everything which was not Serb went into overdrive in the media and at Milosevic's now notorious rallies". If anyone can offer any evidence that such rallies existed, they should let Jared Israel (Emperor's Clothes editor) know and he will provide them with $500. (See the Wikipedia page on Slobodan Milosevic, under 'defenders of Milosevic'). The fact that the article states such a clear falsehood makes it an extraordinarily dubious source. Jonathanmills (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I just want to make it clear what I am arguing here. I'm *not* saying none of what Fairview is saying about the Serbian state media is true. I'm just saying that there has as yet been zero evidence *provided* for the statement under discussion -- namely, that the Serbian media 'sowed confusion about Srebrenica' -- which is a very poorly worded statement (and POV) in any case. Jonathanmills (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008

Update: Fairview has again re-inserted the sentence under contention, without any discussion, despite my invitation to the talk page (and starting this thread). Apart from being poor 'Wikiquette', I want to re-emphasise my previous post and make crystal clear that...

..for all I know, Fairview may be 100% correct in his charge. I'm just saying it hasn't been correctly referenced, as far as I can tell. He claims it is "ICTY-backed": maybe it is, but all he has presented are *prosecution charges*, not ICTY findings. The other two references provided don't mention Srebrenica at all, and at least one of them appears to be woefully slanted.

Also, the sentence itself is both poorly worded ('Milosevic's media' rather than 'Serbian state media' is what one expects from a propaganda screed, not an encyclopaedia) and inherently POV -- 'causing confusion' de facto implies that it is incorrect, when this is exactly what is at issue.

It's fairly obvious that the mere existence of the section on 'Alternative views' (despite the fact that it is probably 1% of the entire article) is rankling the Bosniaks on here, hence the attempt to discredit it with POV language, removing of references, etc. All I can say is, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and if you can't live with having a point of view different to your own being presented (after all, there *are* articles on Holocaust revisionism, to take an extreme example), you should basically be doing something else with your time. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jared Israel is one of the main Serb apologists and a moron who denies every single crime Serbs ever did.He is so bold to deny the existance of Bosnian-Serb deathcamps and even denying the Srebrenica Execution Video in which Serbian Scorpions unit(under command of Serbian MUP) killed executed 6 unarmed civilians. The denial of the Srebrenica Genide is his daily routine.So Jared Israel must never be allowed to be refferenced in any encyclopedia.

There are tons of refferences abot Slobodan Milosevic's control of media and that was also part of his inditment in ICTY.The fact that he died just before the end of the trial can't be used as "nothing was proven crap" by Serb apopogists.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Griffin, thanks for joining the discussion.

I didn't cite Jared Israel as such, I was just pointing out that he has offered a reward to anyone who can offer proof that Slobodan Milosevic said anything to incite racial hatred in any of his speeches. So if such proof exists, why not make an easy $500?

As to the point at hand, an indictment isn't the same as a judgement, unless we are going to abandon the 'innocent till proven guilty' principle and assume that anything said by the prosecution in a court case is necessarily true (an extraordinary idea).

Moreover, you still have to provide some evidence that this was the case regarding events at Srebrenica specifically, given that this is what this page is about. If there are 'tons' of references, as you state (and I'm not saying there aren't, necessarily), surely you will be able to find at least one that mentions it? None of the references put forward so far have made any mention of Srebrenica.

Finally, I think the wording of the sentence is extremely POV in its construction and language, as I said before. And I just don't see why it's necessary. Basically you seem to be saying that the Serbian state media was (at least in part) responsible for Serbs believing so-called 'alternative' theories about the massacre. I don't really see how this adds to the article, except to try to discredit those theories, BUT if you find some decent reference/s for it, and word it in a basically neutral way, I'm not going to continue to delete it. Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So because Adolf Hitler never went to trial we should consider him innocent too? Slobodan Milosevic's Gazimestan Speech was very inflamable and other nations in Yugoslavia saw it as threatening. The fact that Slobodan Milosevic was the president means he was responible for the conntacts and PR outside Serbia. That's why he had people under him to spread hatred,violence and fear.Like Seselj,Arkan,Karadzic,Mladic,Krajisnik,Drljaca,Martic,Hadzic,Plavsic etc. Milosevic's involvment in crimes was proven during other trials by ICTY one of them includig Joint Criminal Enterprise with Milan Martic & co in Croatia.

About Srebrenica

Gen. Wesley Clark testified in Milosevic's case against him and said that Milosevic had pre-knowledge about the events in Srebrencia.He asked Milosevic how was it possible that the genocide could happen.Milosevic said "I told him(Mladic) not to do it,but he did it anyway". Srebrenica was covered up Milosevic's contoled media until 2001.Before that there was no mentioning of Srebrenica Genocide in Serb media. Mladic and Karadzic tried to deny it after it happened but they were proven wrong by the satelite images of mass graves arond Srebrenica. So this whole denial of Srebrenica Genocide derives from Slobodan Milosevic's defence team and Serbian propaganda machinery. All that has contributed to denial of Srebrenica Genocide in Serbia.The uninformed citizens of Serbia just started to find things out after 2001.

I don't need to discredit those "theories",those theories are discreditting themselfs because they are not based on the proof but on some stupid "facts" that have a goal to create confusion.The Srebrencia genocide deniers are using the same methods as Holocaust deniers. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A mentioning of Srebrenica from 1999: [42]. Nikola (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathanmills is big fool who drink Milosevic "anti-Western imperilism" kool-aid. No editor defend him because he make such stupid statement here. Everyone know that Milosevic control media and manipulate people. Why we have to talk with such stupid statement? 206.124.150.143 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If I am 'big fool', how much more so are the people who say Milosevic's speech at Gazimestan is 'very inflamable'? Look it up on Wikipedia, it is basically a call for inter-ethnic tolerance and equality.

As for the rest of it, I've said repeatedly that I'm not disputing the charges per se, just saying the references provided aren't adequate (again, an indictment isn't a judgement, and none of the references mention Srebrenica by name.

Rather than calling me names, why not find some decent references and word the statement in a neutral manner, after which (as I said) I will not continue to delete it?

As for the references, I like the reformat in general, but I'm going to include the 'alternative links' in the external reading where they were before rather than buried (and essentially discredited) in the footnotes. After all, this is an enormous article and the 'alternative' section is something like two small paragraphs, so there's no argument because of space. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For Gazimestan Speech look at ICTY documents. You should also read the SANU memorandum which called Serbs to create their own territories in Croatia and Bosnia before the tensions and the war. Milosevic was judged by other ICTY court cases which included people under him.so a lot was proven. I said the fact that Milosevic died ,doesn't give Serb apologists an excuse to say that nothing was proven as much as they would like to.

That's two small paragraphs too many because it insaults the victims of Genocide and their family members who surrvived.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you are reverting everything what we discussed. Like the Byzantine Sacred Crap Propaganda Blog which is known for spreading false information. and you removed refferences about Milosevic's propaganda on many events incl. Srebrenica Genocide.

You are a true Serb apologist with no sence of shame at all.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you do that again i will report you and you will be blocked for abusing wiki rules.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Griffin

Re the Gazimestan speech, rather than look at ICTY documents, why not check out the actual speech itself? (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gazimestan_speech)

You say 'the fact Milosevic died doesn't mean nothing was proven' -- but you're missing the point, which is that an *indictment* cannot possibly be used as proof. Find another reference, if it exists like you say.

As for the Byzantine blog, we didn't really 'discuss' it at all to a conclusion. Rather, you deleted it, saying it was rubbish, I responded that giving it as an *example* of a view is not the same as saying it is true per se, Osli weighed in and agreed with me, then you got emotional and started talking about the victims of the massacre and how I was disrespecting them or something -- which I pointed out was a silly and counterproductive approach to have when writing an encyclopaedia.

I AM going to revert it again, but I don't see how I've violated Wiki rules. I would have thought YOUR behaviour, with the ad-hominem and emotionally bullying tone, and unwillingness to properly address any of my points, was more in conflict with 'Wikiquette' than anything I've done.

As I said before, if you've got so much time and knowledge about the issue, why not find some decent references, word things somewhat neutrally and make this whole dispute go away? Jonathanmills (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11221/gary-j-bass/milosevic-in-the-hague.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/opinion/11Brkic.html

SREBRENICA: FROM DENIAL TO CONFESSION

Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia

few articles about the denial of Srebrenica written by Serb democrats themselfs

http://www.helsinki.org.yu/projects_sre.html

http://www.helsinki.org.yu/projects_sre_t01.html

http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/BiancaJagger1.html

And about Milosevic's inditment..

His guilt was proven in other cases along with his nationalist allies,so his guilt is confirmed. Milan Martic case for example,Plavsic case,and the Serbs still have to deliver Mladic and Kradzic.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Griffin,

Not sure what any of this is intended to prove. This page already accepts as fact the ICTY account of what went on at Srebrenica, and I haven't tried to alter that at all.

As I have now said repeatedly, my problem is/was with incomplete references and clearly loaded wording. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

Today I have tried to arrange the External Links and Further reading into some sort of coherent order. But I think the next step is a vary large culling of the list. See Wikipedia:EXTERNAL#Important points to remember "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This is the reason that I moved the "Alternative views" up to a footnote "use them or lose them". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical details of living persons

See WP:PROVEIT Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

I am going to revert this edit because, unless sources are provided, it is a breach of WP:PROVEIT and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons . --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I see it was reversed, by IP address 66.152.113.44. Please do not reinstate it without sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Philip, I didn't realise what you were talking about and now I've re-reverted it.

I would reverse my edit, except that... aren't the references provided in the footnote? IE, both Edward Herman (as a part of the 'Srebrenica Research Group') and Lewis MacKenzie (in the Globe and Mail article) are there.

I realise you may be arguing that the sentence implies they believe the massacre never occurred, which is probably not the case; I'll wait for your reply, however. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've reversed it back to how it was. I would still appreciate a reply from Philip on this, if he/you have time. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you reversed it because IMHO it was a clear breach of policy. No one ought to edit into Wikipedia allegations about living people that could damage their reputations unless the information is backed up with reliable verifiable sources. Saying someone is a genocide denier for a genocide that is widely recognised as a genocide because of the ICTY and ICJ judgements is IMHO damaging to their reputations and a breach of policy unless they have made such statements and it can be proven that they have. If you think they did, then produce sources that say so and please make sure that the wording in this Wikipdia article is close to the wording used in the sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Currently in the article until I move it to here was:

Among Western observers, critics include the British magazine ... (ITN vs Living Marxism).

[edit] Living Marxism

The sources is not a reliable one for such accusations. Living Marxism went under because it "claim that [ITN] misrepresented an image of an emaciated Muslim, Fikret Alic, at the Serb-run Trnopolje camp in August 1992." and could not pay the libel damages when the could not prove it was true (Staff ITN wins Bosnian war libel case BBC 15 March 2000). They might well have said something about the Srebrenica genocide, but if they did then it should have a better source.

Having read the source on the line moved here: (ITN vs Living Marxism) I was wrong about something, although the publisher is not a reliable source, the author is: David Campbell is "currently Professor of International Politics, and Director of the Newcastle Institute for the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in the UK". Most of his web article is not directly relevant to this Wikipedia article but there is a paragraph in the Second paper: Section "Belittling Bosnia" of the Campbell article: "LM’s intentions are clear from the way they have sought to publicize accounts of contemporary atrocities which suggest they were certainly not genocidal (as in the case of Rwanda), and perhaps did not even occur (as in the case of the murder of nearly 8,000 at Srebrenica).[49]". In footnote 49 Campbell cites Linda Ryan "What’s in a ‘mass grave’?," Living Marxism, Issue 88, March 1996" (the link he provides in the footnote does not exist any more so I have substituted another. Using this quote we can put a line in the article about Living Marxism but AFAICT Campbell does not mention Diana Johnstone. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Johnstone

Diana Johnstone is another case were we need a better source because if your read this article by her The Bosnian war was brutal, but it wasn't a Holocaust in The Guardian, 23 November 2005, she does not say that the massacre at Srebrenica did not happen or that it was not a genocide and she points out that

In apologising to Noam Chomsky (Corrections and clarifications, November 17), the Guardian's readers' editor also had the decency to correct some errors concerning me in Emma Brockes's interview with Chomsky (G2, October 31). Despite this welcome retraction, the impression might linger from Ms Brockes's confused account that my work on the Balkans consists in denying atrocities.

So we need a source to support the statement from after 2005. The Guardian article links to the PDF article [43] (page 5) which has lots of details but without knowing what she wrote about for example "Johnstone’s analysis of the disgraceful behaviour of the International Criminal Tribunal for the ‘former Ygoslavia’ is so incisive for a non-lawyer as to make a lawyer blush. ..." Also see page 16 for what Leif Ericsson says about Johnstone's position but unfortunately not what she says her position is. So we need a reliable source from after November 2005 that explains what Diana Johnstone's position is on Srebrenica --It may well be in the PDF document but I do not have time right now to read it all at the moment. -Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The document linked at the bottom of the Guardian article -- All Quieted on the Word Front by edited Al Burke, Copyright 2005 by Nordic News Network -- is long and contains allegations and counter allegations by a number of people about Diana Johnstone for example on page 15 (PDF page 17):

"Who decides if it confuses us? Zaremba: "I think that is something which every well-read citizen can do. If there is a finding of genocide by the Hague Tribunal which can be read on the Internet, and it says in Ordfront that no one has been found guilty of or even investigated for genocide, then it is a lie that is so blatant and easy to check that one can say that it is intended to confuse— or at least has the effect of confusing. Maybe there was no intent. Maybe it was just ignorance or stupidity, I don’t know." [Note: Here, again, Zaremba distorts Johnstone’s position. What she actually wrote about the Hague Tribunal and the question of genocide can be read in her book, Fools’ Crusade.]

In the appendix there are several articles by people who support Diana Johnstone. The first is written by Noam Chomsky "on criticisms of Johnstone’s book" (pages 62-64 (PDF pages 64-66)) in it he writes on page 63 (PDF 65):

Another document sent to me contains a number of charges:

1) “According to her [Johnstone] it cannot be a matter of genocide when women and children are spared. But to me it is obvious that genocide and crimes against humanity have been committed in Srebrenica. . . .”

Reference is apparently to Johnstone’s statement (p. 117) refuting the claim that the charge of “genocide” is demonstrated by the fact that the Serbs who conquered Srebrenica offered safe passage to women and children. In response to this absurd claim, she writes: “However, one thing should be obvious: one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children.”

I do not see how her entirely appropriate comment justifies the charge in (1).

On pondering it I understand what Chomsky is saying BUT it is a very fine line and (without reading the original) I understand why the author of the "Another document" drew his or her conclusions. As this appears to be a very complicated area of allegation and counter allegation I think any comment should be a quoted comment.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Together with the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications, these are also worth reading The following letter was sent by Chomsky to the editor of The Guardian and Open Letter to The Guardian Noam Chomsky ZNet, November 13, 2005 (Both available on Noam Chomsky's website). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a paper: Marko Attila Hoare, "The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and the Milosevic Lobby], henryjacksonsociety.org 4 February 2006, is critical of Johnstone and Chomsky and the Guardian's apology, but it is not very well sourced (it alleges they said xyz but does not cite where they alleged said it) and it is not from a reliable publication. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I'm just wondering, in light of this discussion (and the WP guidelines you have pointed out), whether the fact that the 'alternative references' having been moved into footnote form 'ties' the authors unfairly to the statement that 'far fewer than 8000 were killed or the massacre never occurred', which is the guts of the sentence which links to them.

I'm not agitating to remove the references from footnote form per se, which I'm happy enough with, but it occurred to me that under the principle you're talking about above (and below), having writings by Ed Herman, Gen. Mackenzie, etc after the sentence suggesting 'outright denial' might be problematic. Any thoughts? Jonathanmills (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished reading the references. The full sentence does not seem unreasonable, and we are not responsible for the reliability of what the sources claim. The publishers of the information seem fairly flaky and someone should attempt to verify the sources against the original publications, but I do not think that the wording of the Wikipedia sentence leaves Wikipedia open to libel. Then I'm not an American lawyer, so my opinion on this is not worth the bandwidth it takes up to read this paragraph! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] final paragraph - result..?

Hi guys,

I'm now happy with the final paragraph now, even with the 'alternative views' links in footnote form, so hopefully we can put this recent argument to bed. (Of course, I'm not trying to pre-empt anyone else NOT being happy with it, I'm just clarifying my own position).

Oh, and thanks to Fairview for finding a relevant reference at last. Jonathanmills (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide and war crimes denial campaign

http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,2763,184815,00.html

"At one point during the trial, LM produced video footage shot by what it called Bosnian-Serb Television, which did indeed have a crew there that day. But these particular images, it emerges, came from a third camera, a camcorder held by a man in military fatigues I remember well; LM was serviced in that instance by Serbian military intelligence. "

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also... a paragraph about Serbia's non-cooperation with the Tribunal shoud stand here. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As it directly relates to Srebrenica, sure. Jonathanmills (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It relates toSrebrenica Genocide because of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic and two more Serb criminals responsible for most of the massacres in Croatia.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Griffin, that makes no sense -- it's related to Srebrenica because it has something to do with massacres in Croatia?

In any event, there's already stuff in the article about the ICTY and how Karadzic and Mladic are currently fugitive. There's no need for more about it.Jonathanmills (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No,I just said that Serbia needs to deliver 4 more guys who are at the top of the list.Mladic and Karadzic and two others who were repponsible for massacres in Croatia.Serbia is not cooperating with The Hague and that paragraph should be written.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned twice in the Legal proceedings, under ICTY and ICJ. But it is worth adding sentence in the lead that the ICJ found that Serbia was not co-operation over this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is because certain things are going on in the internal politics in Serbia that relate to this matter. Bosnia can't put pressure on Serbia because of their non-cooperation with the Hague because the Serbian member of the Bosnian government is blocking this by a veto,while the Croat and the Bosniak member of the presidency are united on this issue. Serbia and Serbs in Bosnia a playing dirty politics and are still involved in this genocide denial and that has to be mentioned here.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that with wanted war criminals running around loose that Serbia was not co-operating, but when I looked on the net that does not seem to be true or do we discount this report: Brammertz says Serbia continues to co-operate with the ICTY Southeast European Times, 23 March 2008 and if we do is there a better source that we can use? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He's just being very careful because the elections are to be held in May.There is a great possibility that Serbian Radical Party(fascists) will win these elections and nobody wants that.That's why he said thet his final rapport wil be in mid-May.Serbia is threatening with political suicide if the EU doesn't ease the pressure.But it sholudn't. Serbia is just waiting that Karadzic and Mladic die.If those two ever come to trial(which i doubt) lot's of dirt will come to the surfacea and Serbian nationalist politicians don't want that. What Brammertz was saying is that the Kosovo independance is not the reason of Serbia not cooperating.There are other reasons...Kosovo is just an excuse to reck time.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic was killed because of his cooperation with The Hague.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user Jonathanmills claims Srebrenica article or ICTY statements are "propaganda screed"

On April 22, 2008, user Jonathanmills deleted from this article text from the findings of facts of an ICTY judgement. The section he deleted is as follows:

As the Bosnian war erupted, Serb forces attacked the Muslim civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, Serb forces—i.e. the military, the police, the paramilitaries and sometimes even Serb villagers—applied the same pattern: Bosniak houses and apartments were systematically ransacked or burnt down while Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured and, sometimes, beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in local camps.

User Jonathanmills made the deletion with the following statement: "I think the reader 'deserves' a concise summary of events, not a propaganda screed which repeats footnoted references."

User Jonathanmills would be well advised to clarify his statement. It seems that he is saying that ICTY findings of facts are a propaganda screed or that this article if it cites the ICTY findings of facts is a propaganda screed. Fairview360 (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph is useful for setting the context and should remain in the article because this was one extreme event in a pattern of similar events, but I also think Fairview360 you should play the ball and not the man. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A player is responsible for what he does with the ball just as a referee is responsible for what he does with his whistle. Fairview360 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairview, to clarify -- I'm not saying the ICTY judgement is a propaganda screed, I'm saying the *article* becomes a propaganda screed when instead of simply summarising the facts in a neutral tone, it (somewhat childishly) repeats verbatim lurid details from such judgements.

I won't keep reverting the paragraph, although I do think it should be put in quote marks (and will probably do this myself), as it is nothing more than a verbatim quote.

As for 'playing the ball and not the man', I don't feel Fairview was really playing the man in this instance, actually. I certainly didn't feel insulted or attacked by his criticisms.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it seems that User Jonathanmills is saying that ICTY findings of facts are not written in a neutral tone, that they are sensational, and that relying on the findings of facts section of ICTY judgements is childish. "Summarising the facts in a neutral tone" is exactly what the findings of facts section of a court judgement is supposed to be. Is User Jonathanmills claiming that the ICTY failed to do so? Perhaps, User Jonathanmills would like to clarify if this is indeed what he is saying.

Earlier in the creation of this article, there were long, drawn out, intense edit wars which were finally resolved by all sides agreeing to accept the ICTY findings of facts as a source of text which was not sensational, was not POV, but was written in a neutral tone. If the ICTY findings of facts are not accepted as part of the foundation of this article, it is not clear what common ground could exist among editors of opposing points of view. Fairview360 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it seems that User Fairview is missing my point.

As I said, "I'm not saying the ICTY judgement is a propaganda screed, I'm saying the *article* becomes a propaganda screed when instead of simply summarising the facts in a neutral tone, it (somewhat childishly) repeats verbatim lurid details from such judgements."

Is that a particularly difficult position to understand? I don't mean to say 'lurid' as in 'incorrect' or 'fanciful' or 'made-up', rather, gory and/or explicit. Perhaps it was not the best adjective to use, but I hope that makes my intented meaning clear.

In terms of the paragraph in question, I think it is a bit childish for the article to, *in addition to* saying that civilians were killed, ethnically cleansed, etc (which the next paragraph does, and which I would not dream of deleting), needlessly quote verbatim from the judgement about the details (particularly in an introductory, background portion). Factual material can still end up being POV, as I'm sure a Wikipedia directive somewhere says. Jonathanmills (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if User Jonathanmills would be willing to give a yes or no answer to the following question. In User Janathanmills opinion, does the following text from the ICTY judgement constitute "summarising the facts in a neutral tone"? Yes or no?

As the Bosnian war erupted, Serb forces attacked the Muslim civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, Serb forces—i.e. the military, the police, the paramilitaries and sometimes even Serb villagers—applied the same pattern: Bosniak houses and apartments were systematically ransacked or burnt down while Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured and, sometimes, beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in local camps.

Fairview360 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if User Faarview would be willing to address my actual point, instead of putting forward silly straw-man arguments. Try reading my last paragraph again, as that's the best summary I can give.

But I don't know what purpose it serves anyway, as I've said I'm not going to try to change the paragraph again. Jonathanmills (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Point? Calling the choices of other editors "childish" does not constitute a substantive statement worthy of a response. Let's see if user Jonathanmills can give a more substantive response that would explain his deleting ICTY text from the article. User Jonathanmills disagrees with one or more of the following:

a) the ICTY text is factual,

b) the ICTY text is written in a neutral tone,

c) the ICTY text is a summary of how the ethnic cleansing campaign was implemented,

d) the ICTY text is relevant to the article.

If all four statements above are true, then the ICTY text belongs in the article. Which of the above does user Jonathanmills want to specifically contest? Or does he plan to continually delete sections of this article with vague arguments calling alternatives to his choices "childish", "silly", or a "propaganda screed"? Fairview360 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else having trouble understanding my argument? It seems pretty clear to me (whether or not it is a correct judgement in this instance is another matter). Jonathanmills (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sentence regarding Dutch forces at Srebrenica

Hi all,

I just removed the following sentence added by editor Mani1 from the introduction:

"Dutch forces watched the massacre happening and showed no reaction to it."

It's referenced to ICTY v Krstic, paras 18 and 26 (although this was simply the existing reference at the end of the previous sentence, and no further reference had been added by Mani1).

I've removed it, because for a start, there is nothing in paras 18 or 26 indicating the validity of the statement. Furthermore, I went through the entire Krstic judgement with the 'Find' function for the word 'Dutch', and the only things mentioned which are on this topic are:

"[para 58] On 13 July 1995, the Dutch Bat troops witnessed definite signs that the Bosnian Serbs were executing some of the Bosnian Muslim men who had been separated. For example, Corporal Vaasen saw two soldiers take a man behind the White House. He then heard a shot and the two soldiers reappeared alone.103 Another Dutch Bat officer, saw Serb soldiers execute an unarmed man with a single gunshot to the head. He also heard gunshots 20-40 times an hour throughout the afternoon.104 When the Dutch Bat soldiers told Colonel Joseph Kingori, a United Nations Military Observer105 (“UNMO”) in the Srebrenica area, that men were being taken behind the White House and not coming back, Colonel Kingori went to investigate. He heard gunshots as he approached, but was stopped by Bosnian Serb soldiers before he could find out what was going on.106"

and...

"[para 153] A Dutch Bat soldier testified that members of the Drina Wolves, a sub-unit of the Zvornik Brigade, went inside houses in the vicinity of the compound and “started to plunder those houses”. He identified the men as belonging to the Drina Wolves because he saw them wearing the Drina Wolves insignia depicting a wolf’s head.343 The witness heard screams from inside one of the houses and a burst of fire from an AK-47. The witness concluded that the Bosnian Muslim refugees inside the house were being killed.344"

Neither of these paragraphs come close to proving the statement added by Mani1. Indeed, paragraph 50 reads:

"When Major Robert Franken, the Deputy Commander of Dutch Bat, was asked, during his testimony, why the Serbs were seising [sic] the UNPROFOR vehicles, he answered: 'Because they didn’t want anybody to be around; that’s obvious…they didn’t want us to witness whatever would happen.92'"

Oh, I realise now I must not have actually saved the article when I removed Mani1's sentence -- however, User Wolbo has done this already. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV pruning of ICTY judgement?

Hi all,

I know this will not make me popular on here, given the apparent sympathies of many editors, but I would like to draw attention to the following:

The article (as it currently stands) states the following regarding the Srebrenica 'safe area':

The 28th Mountain Division of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) remaining in the enclave was neither well organised nor equipped: a firm command structure and communications system was lacking and some soldiers carried old hunting rifles or no weapons at all. Few had proper uniforms.

From the outset, both parties to the conflict violated the “safe area” agreement. Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Karremans (the Dutchbat Commander) testified to the ICTY that his personnel were prevented from returning to the enclave by Serb forces and that equipment and ammunition were also prevented from getting in.[24] Bosniaks in Srebrenica complained of attacks by Serb soldiers, while to the Serbs it appeared that Bosnian government forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch counter-offensives against the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it.[24] General Halilović admitted that ARBiH helicopters had flown in violation of the no-fly zone and that he had personally dispatched eight helicopters with ammunition for the 28th Division.

Now, I've just been reading the ICTY vs Krstic judgement this material was evidently taken from (much of it is in fact verbatim quoting, although I'm not quibbling about that here), and the relevant paragraphs read (emphasis is all mine):

[From para 21] The unit of the ABiH that remained in the enclave – the 28th Division - was not well organised or well equipped. A firm command structure and communications system was lacking,25 some ABiH soldiers carried old hunting rifles or no weapons at all and few had proper uniforms.26 However, the Trial Chamber also heard evidence that the 28th Division was not as weak as they have been portrayed in some quarters.27 Certainly the number of men in the 28th Division outnumbered those in the Drina Corps28 and reconnaissance and sabotage activities were carried out on a regular basis against the VRS forces in the area.29

[para 22] From the outset, both parties to the conflict violated the “safe area” agreement. The Trial Chamber heard evidence of a deliberate Bosnian Serb strategy to limit access by international aid convoys into the enclave.30 Colonel Thomas Karremans (the Dutch Bat Commander) testified that his personnel were prevented from returning to the enclave by Bosnian Serb forces and that equipment and ammunition were also prevented from getting in.31 Essentials, like food, medicine and fuel, became increasingly scarce. Some Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica complained of attacks by Bosnian Serb soldiers.32

[para 24 -- NB para 23 talks about the ARBiH general's refusal to hand over weaponry to UNPROFOR, but it's not relevant to my point here] The Trial Chamber heard credible and largely uncontested evidence of a consistent refusal by the Bosnian Muslims to abide by the agreement to demilitarise the “safe area”.37 Bosnian Muslim helicopters flew in violation of the no-fly zone;38 the ABiH opened fire toward Bosnian Serb lines and moved through the “safe area”;39 the 28th Division was continuously arming itself40; and at least some humanitarian aid coming into the enclave was appropriated by the ABiH.41 To the Bosnian Serbs it appeared that Bosnian Muslim forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch offensives against the VRS and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it.42 General Halilovic admitted that Bosnian Muslim helicopters had flown in violation of the no-fly zone and that he had personally dispatched eight helicopters with ammunition for the 28th Division. [Para ends with final sentence describing Halilovic's justification of his actions]

Now, I would argue that the selective quoting used in the current article amounts to a violation of NPOV, because while it includes virtually everything 'unfavourable' (for want of a better word) to the Bosnian Serbs, it *omits* virtually all of the statements unfavourable to the Bosniak side -- the two exceptions being, a) "[W]hile to the Serbs it appeared that Bosnian government forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch counter-offensives against the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it", and this is preceded by 'to the Serbs it appeared...', hence potentially not actually true; and b) "Both parties to the conflict violated the “safe area” agreement [...] General Halilović admitted that ARBiH helicopters had flown in violation of the no-fly zone and that he had personally dispatched eight helicopters with ammunition for the 28th Division" -- and here I would argue that although (IMHO) the ICTY judgement makes it fairly clear that Bosniak violations were in fact *more* serious than Serbian ones, our article would lead the neutral reader to believe the opposite.

That being the case, I think it needs to be fixed up; I would make some changes myself but I am aware that this is an extremely controversial topic and that most editors on here probably won't like what I'm arguing, so thought I'd throw it out for some discussion first. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnian place names

Hi all,

I'm just doing a bit of tidying up of the article (I'm not doing anything about the paragraphs I mentioned above re the 'safe area' yet, as I haven't had any input from others; also I'll put my suggested change to that up for discussion before posting it) -- anyway, I notice that many mentions are made of other towns and place names without any context (eg, 'The Serbs also attacked Foca, Zvornik, etc' (sorry if I got the names wrong there).

My concern is that to non-Bosnians (and this article should be written with them in mind, the vast majority of English-language Wikipedia readers not being Bosnians!) this means very little, especially without a map where all these are marked (and that map doesn't exist at the moment on the page).

I was wondering if any Bosnians (or those who know the geography) could help in this regard, just by explaining something about the place names mentioned (nothing big, just adding 'the town/village of Foca' (whichever is correct), also their relation to Srebrenica (eg, 'the nearby town of Foca', or 'Foca, to the west of Srebrenica' -- NB, those are simply sample texts, as I don't know where or what Foca is exactly.) Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see that second map (about a quarter of the way down the page) does have the names of most, possibly all, of the places mentioned; however, it's not close to the text I'm talking about (the background to the fall of Srebrenica), also I think it's good practice to have *some* description when mentioning otherwise unknown place names. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is taken out of context

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2008/03/23/nb-04

It means that Serbia will not brake it's ties to the ICTY because of the Kosovo independence. It doesn't mean that Serbia is fully cooperating with the ICTY.

Here are some articles in english about Serbia's current "cooperation". http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=48723 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/9629/

The Brammertz raport of Serbia's "cooperation" will be published any day now now.)After Serbian elections)

Serbia's Hague raport in May

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=22&nav_id=48697

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=18&nav_id=49519

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The two Serbia's Hague raport in May URLs you have provided are dated 48697 (22 March 2008) and 49519 (18 April 2008). In the first it says "The prosecutor dismissed allegations that Serbia had stopped cooperating with the Hague Tribunal because of the situation in Kosovo, and insisted that cooperation still existed." in the second it is difficult to asses exactly what it is saying because it says none of the players were to be willing to talk to journalists, and then seems to cite secondary sources, that says "that Serbia needs to make some headway in its cooperation with the court" but even so it do not say that Serbia is not cooperating. Those two sources reflect what is said in the Southeast European Times ([44], [45]) the first of which was used in the article as a citation. The text with the citation stated "and although Serge Brammertz said in March 2008 that Belgrade was co-operating" it never claimed that Serbia was fully co-operating. Indeed that they are not, is what is implied by the rest of the sentence. The British Foreign Office makes a point of this by stressing the level of co-operation that Serbia has given over the last few years.[46] Perhaps we can find a reliable source that states the current level of co-operation, if not I think the clause should be re-inserted until we get a definitive reply in the next UN report by the prosecutor that is due out in the near future. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As these two BBC reports make clear (New war crimes chief in Belgrade 17 April 2008 and 10 days later Serbia and EU sign pact on ties) this is a very topical and very political issue.[47] --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)