Talk:Srebrenica massacre

• /Archive1: Discussions from 2004
• /Archive2: The Role of the Drina Corps in the Srebrenica Crimes
• /Archive3: US resolution
• /Archive4: Discussions from January – July 2005

Introduction

I believe the intent of this article is to communicate what actually happened in Srebrenica to those who are not fully informed. In conflict with that intent is the exceedingly poor writing in the first paragraph of this article which implicitly communicates to a native speaker of English that the writers of this article are not well educated in English and are too emotionally involved in the subject matter and therefore a first time reader is going to immediately question the legitimacy of what is otherwise one of the most informative accounts of the Srebrenica massacre that I have ever read. (If anyone has other accounts that they would like to recommend, please do.)

So... how about if we work on the introduction.

The Srebrenica massacre was the July 1995 killing of up to an estimated 8,106 Bosniak males, ranging in age from babies to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by a Serb Army of Republika Srpska under general Ratko Mladić including Serbian state special forces "Scorpions".[1] [2] [3] [4] The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II and considered by many as one of the most horrific events in recent European history.[5] It is also the first legally established case of genocide in Europe after the Holocaust.[6]

Refering to those who committed the mass murder as "a Serb Army of RS" is clearly stating that RS had more than one army and therefore only one of the armies committed the mass murder while the others did not. RS did not have more than one army. Why not just "the Bosnian Serb Army"?

"of up to an estimated 8,106" is a strange way of saying something. Using an exact number 8,106 conveys that it is well documented and exact. "Estimated" is stating that it is not exact. I think an editor used "estimated" to convey that there may have been more than 8,106 killed. "Of up to an" does not work well.

Using the word "babies" conveys emotionalism and an attempt to win someone over through rhetoric. "Infants" might be a better way of communicating the truth of what happened without making the first time reader question the objectivity of the writer. If one reads "babies" in the very first sentence, the reader may then believe that the writer is quite eager to communicate that those people murdered babies. Indeed, they did, and that can be communicated quite clearly while not creating questions as to the objectivity of the writer. Describing an horrific heartrending event with systematic methodical accuracy is far more effective than vitriol. "The majority of those killed were males ranging from ages of 16 to 55 (?) while the rest of the male victims included infants, children, and the elderly."

"under general Ratko Mladić including Serbian state special forces "Scorpions" " is trying to say too much at once and saying it poorly. Rather, "under the command of General Ratko Mladic. In addition to the Bosnian Serb Army, special forces from Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre." (General as a title is capitalized.)

"considered by many" is clearly weasle language. Could there be a better way to communicate the horror of what happened? "It is also the first legally established case" makes what follows an add-on -- and this also happened -- which makes it less important than what preceded it yet the verdict is the most compelling evidence one has to communicate the horror of what happened: genocide. Here is where one is letting his or her emotions get in the way of what they want to communicate. It was horrible. The facts alone will communicate that. While the use of the word "horrific" is I believe legitimate, the editors need to find a better way of communicating if the goal is to communicate effectively with the millions of people on this planet who don't really know what happened and don't know who to believe. The best way to establish credibility and communicate the horror of what happened is not by saying "horrific" but by conveying the facts.

Lastly, I am new to wikipedia and realize now that I probably should have entered this at the bottom of the contents list not the top. My apologies if that is the case.

Priest picture

I find the picture of the Orthodox priest on this article to be offensive. What was the person who put it up trying to show by it? Was he trying to insinuate that the Orthodox Church in some way had to do with the massacre? I think the picture should be removed and replaced with something more appropriate.

I think the picture is actually a still frame from the video that was released. The image is relative to the video and no more implicative than the whole video itself which is also linked here --Dado 13:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture is a symbol for one of the base reasons for the massacre of Bosnian muslims, this is a fact, it is not an offense towards Christianity but a direct presentation of Christian ideology involvement in the massacre mentality of Serbs and Greeks.(cantikadam 08:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

Neutrality

The article embraces too much too oftenly the anglo-saxon view

This is your POV

indeed it is and many others' too --Arsenio 02:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

bottomline how does that make the truth different --Dado 14:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

so this article is the truth you say? what was the proof again? --Arsenio 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The estimated number of 8000 victims is not the only estimated number, even the german version on wikipedia was able to contain a less deadlocked presentation.

Sentance was changed to say up to 8000

that is not tolerable, preferably it would specify at least a range. to write it with "up to" only promotes that one number which is currently nothing else but the western mainstream propaganda cry --Arsenio 02:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

try telling that to the families of the missing 10 years after

so they know their relatives were executed? probably each of the 8'106(?) listed? you really don't make a difference between missing and executed do you? by the way don't bother to demonize me, i do care for victims, including the families you mentioned despite of not knowing them and despite of having no relation with their country. they should very well understand what it means to want justice and hopefully without a tooth for a tooth attitude or philosophy. if they would be so arrogant - as you seem to hint at - to claim numbers as they please without being able to prove even half of them then that is their personal problem since they couldn't overcome themselves but it isn't their fate without choice. however i have to admit, demonisation of a person is a great tool of propganda, let's just look at Milosevic and how many people spit at him --Arsenio 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The ICTY is presented as instance of truth whereas its basis and procedures are controversial

This discussion was finished. See Archives or dispute ICTY at its given page.

i will and keep the opinion that it is essential how it is presented on this page --Arsenio 02:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only Serb groups espouse denial of massacre, there are several journalists and military officials doing so as well. But more of them consider the number of executed people exaggerated. (My edit in that matter was reverted)

This can be easily added. It does not justify POV tag.

it does justify POV tag, because my changes get reverted --Arsenio 02:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

make a specific suggestion and we can discuss it--Dado 14:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

my suggestion is to add what i've stated. to let people know that it isn't just Serb groups espousing (why espousing anyway, they actually believe it) denial of massacre. but more importantly to state that a lot don't deny the massacre yet instead don't believe in the common story of it presented by most western media including the number of executed people while lacking the proof for it. --Arsenio 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Which final report acknowledges "that the mass murder of more than 7,800 Bosniak men and boys was planned"?. Certainly not the one by "The Commission for Investigation of the Events in and around Srebrenica between the 10th and 19th July 1995".

ICTY judgements are based on this determination. It is supported by several Human rights organizations that work on this issue

and not supported by several non profit organizations from western countries. true. by the way i doubt icty is a Serbian comission. "A Serb commission's final report on the 1995 Srebrenica massacre acknowledged that the mass murder of more than 7,800 Bosniak men and boys was planned. The commission found that more than 7,800 were killed after it compiled 34 lists of victims." So this is true you say? --Arsenio 02:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not entirely familiar with this report and I have not added this sentance. However, I will not remove it as whoever added it may have already done a research --Dado 14:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Arsenio that this is an unfair summary of the report. It does say that there was some planning, though some of the planning may have been done after the majority of men fled Srebrenica. It also says in the conclusion that several thousands of Bosniaks were executed and that military and police units, including special units of the RS, participated. The addendum lists 7000 - 8000 missing persons, of whom we must assume that they are killed (see Talk:Srebrenica). But I could not find report saying that it was planned to murder more than 7800 people. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

one of the main problems is that people abuse assumptions. just to mention the assumption all of those mentioned 8000 people were executed by Serbs. they are missing, that is what we know and many of them are dead which we can tell by exhumations. some certainly were executed (they were tied up), some certainly died in fights, a few are probably still alive and about the others i don't think most of us have really a clue not based on intuition. i also don't think it's well known yet (if ever) where exactly those people died, many corpses were moved, may that be because of deception or other reasons --Arsenio 00:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

obviously he didn't do a very objective research then and since i highly doubt you would believe me anything you will have to look at it for yourself as the current ruler of this article. you can even use the search tool and tell me if you have found any mentioning of the plan to commit a mass murder. --Arsenio 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

--Arsenio 15:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• It doesn't mention reports of massacres led by Naser Oric in May 1992 which even dutch blue helmets were witnessing (e.g. Jasper Verplanke, Commandotroepen)
• It doesn't mention any videos showing executions of Serbs
• It doesn't mention that many Serbian civilians were expelled in 1993
• It doesn't mention that several towns were burnt down (the number 192 is confirmed by Dutchbat-General Karreman)
• It doesn't mention that Pathologist Zoran Stankovic identified 1'000 murdered Serbs in the surrounding area

--Arsenio 17:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You are not mentioning sources and credibility of same sources. Keep in mind that Oric's case is ongoing and nothing can be proven until it is proven.--Dado 23:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

well just as this whole article doesn't rely only on credible sources. and by the way it simply isn't possible to provide in many cases more than one source and therefore it also shouldn't be presented as truth but as report/opinion. --Arsenio 02:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

and here you go: Oslobodjene (24.08.1996 and later), Nieuwsblad van het Noorden (17.08.1995), Washington Post (16.2.1994), De Groene Amsterdammer (13.03.1996), NRC - Handelsblad, Vecernje Novosti (14.07.1996), http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/, http://www.rs-icty.org/galleryvideo%20eng.htm, http://fotopalomnik.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=55, etc. --Arsenio 03:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Arsenio, you have a point that Oric's deeds should be mentioned, so please make a suggestion, as you apparently have already done some research. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

alright, i will try to form a section. but i also think it has to be made clear first which sources will be allowed, since Dado told me you have made a consensus about only allowing "official state level sources". i'm afraid that limits us in truth finding drastically. now someone could argue all the time for example that a source cited by icty is such and whatever Milosevic uses as his counter argument is nothing else but his personal arsenal. quite delicate and i don't think that is a good final solution, many people are not going to accept this and will create new vandalism without a lot of hesitation. one could argue now it will happen anyway - true, but less frequently --Arsenio 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, all credible sources are allowed (of course, the question becomes which sources are credible). This includes newspaper articles, except when they are contradicted by more credible sources. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• It doesn't mention that Oric's takeover of humanitarian aid followed with selling it on the black market in 1993 starving the population of Srebrenica (Ljiljan)
• Not just to Serbs it appeared "that Bosnian forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch offensives against the VRS". But there is also a report of a Dutch blue helmet.
• It doesn't mention Stankovic's claims that 500 more Serbs were murdered during these offensives.

--Arsenio 17:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sidenote: Your largest complaint here is that most of the material included in the article come from western sources and that is the only reason why they are wrong. You keep stating sources which lack credibility. I could do the same thing on the other end of the spectrum and we could edit war until Timbaktu. The concesus was made previously, due to this being such a sensitive subject, that only official state level sources will be taken in account. ICTY has done a lot in last 10 years and hence it is most important reference. If there was a paralel institutions founded on the state level for Serbian side that would do a separate research and either confirm or deny ICTY findings than you may have a point. Otherwise you cannot prove that information that you are providing is not merely an opinion of a fridge and minority and inherently incorect. ICTY has recently began transfering cases to secondary courts in Bosnia and even Serbian court has began triling some cases. Until their reasearch becomes available as secondary sources ICTY is the most extensive source to write this article.--Dado 14:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

once again you claim without knowing, well it seems to be in your nature, i suggest you to overcome yourself, sincerity is a good start. certainly i did not state that western sources are not credible because they are from the west, or have i missed myself writing secretly? if muslim newspapers from bosnia lack credibility to prove deeds not done by their enemy and you have created a consensus that only official state level sources will be taken in account (which is absolutely in your interest and which i will probably oppose) then please remove the following references and all the information on the page that was taken from it and from other non offical state level sources for now.

1. David Rohde. 1997. Endgame: The Betrayal and Fall of Srebrenica, Europe's Worst massacre Since World War II. WestviewPress. ISBN 0813335337.
2. Van Gennep, 1999. Srebrenica: Het Verhaal van de Overlevenden [Srebrenica: The Story of the Survivors]. Van Gennep, Amsterdam. ISBN 90-5515-224-2. (translation of: Samrtno Srebrenicko Ijeto '95, Udruzenje gradana 'Zene Srebrenice', Tuzla, 1998).

there are several reasons not to limit the article to only "official state level sources":

• obviously nato countries have more power and more money to sponsor more "official state level source" producers
• obviously nato countries have more power and more money to suppress other "official state level sources"
• many important hint giving sources would be blocked out from this article and there is no reason to block them out just because they are not published publicly. they wouldn't be shown as sole truth anyway but as report/hint (or even conspiracy theory if you please) for the user to get a wider perspective of the happenings
• even non profit organizations wouldn't be allowed anymore as sources since they are not run by the state, which dismisses as well more neutral positions

and do you grasp that icty is not only questioned by many because of illegitimacy but also in neutrality by many? who is actually that naive to take everything they say as plain truth when they are sponsored by the ones that "won" the war?

--Arsenio 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits after 28 July 2005

I would hate to see another round of edit wars again. Oldadamml, regarding your last edit, I would ask you to consider your position towards adding material from a court case that is still under way i.e. Naser Oric. I will remind you that in the article Bosnian Genocide you absolutely refused to add any insinuation that people who are indicted for genocide i.e. Karadzic, Mladic and Milosevic were responsible for crimes that were committed. You even refused to admit that crimes did happen and that people died (by adding “may” or “might”). On the other hand in this article you are pushing the POV in the Background section of the article to say that based on Morillion’s statement certain crimes by Naser Oric unequivocally happened (while bodies are still not found and no other evidence is presented). Again I do not wish to excuse Oric (as the person realistically has committed a certain level of crimes which are still to be determined), but simply to ask you to follow the same logic that you are using at other articles for the Serb side. Otherwise, we can revisit those articles as well.--Dado 14:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

When using indictments I add "might" or "may" because those trials are not processed. When using statements of general Morrillion, I clearly write that those are statements by general Morrilion. With there nothing is incorrect, AFAIK. --Oldadamml 07:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User Oldadamml is constantly commiting vandalism, deleting facts from the article, and adding Serbian propaganda which deny genocide. The fact is that ICTY had reached the verdict about the genocide in Srebrenica, considering all opinions (including Serbian and Morrillion's), and made the judgement. So it is not necessary to select some opinions, when the verdict had been already reached. There is at least thousand opinions which will say that Morrllion opinion is wrong and that Serbian propaganda is trying to deny genocide.Emir Arven 14:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You are commiting vandalism. Me or general Morrillion don't deny the genocide. Please give links to some of those thousand opposite opinions of general Morrillion which is spoken by high UN officer. --Oldadamml 07:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

U can find all documents hear: Srebrenica genocide

Cases:

• Erdemovic (IT-96-22)
• Krstic (IT-98-33)
• Obrenovic (IT-02-60/2)
• Milosevic (IT-02-54)
• Blagojevic and Jokic (IT-02-60)
• Momir Nikolic (IT-02-60/1)
• Popovic (IT-02-57)
• Beara (IT-02-58)
• Drago Nikolic (IT-02-63)
• Borovcanin (IT-02-64)
• Miletic and Gvero (IT-04-80)
• Perisic (IT-04-81)
• Pandurevic and Trbic (IT-05-86)
• Karadzic and Mladic (IT-95-5/18)
• Tolimir (IT-04-80)

And it's not just about Morrillion. You removed importan information, about Serbian attacks (murders, and crimes against humanity) before the genocide. There are a lot of documents (international from ICTY) about those event. Do you want me to put it here?

U also deleted those facts (and u didn't say that, u just said that u added Morrillion's opinion):

"This regional campaign was documented by international organizations and thousands of eyewitnesses. Srebrenica was one of the handful of remaining Bosniak enclaves in that area. Its population swelled as thousands of Bosniaks fleeing from cities such as Zvornik and Bijeljina found refuge there.Many Serbs from the outlying areas and the city itself joined the Serbian army at the outset of the conflict, or simply left, or were expelled from the Bosniak-controlled areas for the areas under the control of the Bosnian Serb Army. There is also evidence, such as video footage, that the Serbian population in the region who were not officially part of the Serbian army had taken part in the aggression by providing the Serb forces with arms and ammunition, such as mortar shells. Some even independently participated in the attacks, often looting and destroying Bosniak homes...These attacks (Oric's) were often followed by a wave of desperate, hungry Bosniak civilians, many of whom had been 'cleansed' from their own communities, looting and burning homes and exacting vengeance on the Serbs they caught. Serbian troops continued to attack and bomb Srebrenica. Meny civilians were killed during the Srebrenica siege. In 1994 the government of Serbia itself issued a report to the United Nations with a list of 301 Serbs killed in the area. Carla Del Ponte said that Serbian propaganda manipulates with the numbers and dead Serbian soldiers who were killed in combat as a part of the strategy of denial of Srebrenica genocide."Emir Arven 07:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You gave case numbers and probably 300,000 pages. I knew where I can find it. I read first 20 pages of Erdemovic case (which is the link you provided) and didn't find anything which is opposite of UN general Morrillon's evidence. I envite you to give exact link and information as I did.--Oldadamml 10:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

About some other changes I did i.e. These attacks (Oric's) were often followed by a wave of desperate, hungry Bosniak civilians, many of whom had been 'cleansed' from their own communities, looting and burning homes and exacting vengeance on the Serbs they caught. Serbian troops continued to attack and bomb Srebrenica. Please give relevant link which provide this information. --Oldadamml 10:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, give relevant link which provide information that formation of Republic of Yugoslavia (in the article Republic of Serbia) forces were involved in Srebrenica massacre. --Oldadamml 10:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As you are making fun of genocide, ICTY and their judgements, and as u didn't read any documents (and u want to disscuss) I told u, I am forced to put some facts from the Krstic judgement here. Those events are proven, and we can make article exactly as it is written below.Emir Arven 18:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Judgement about Srebrenica genocide (findings of facts)

text added to the article 3 August 2005

Serbian aggression

Genocide in Srebrenica

In 1996, the International Criminal Tribunal indicted Mladic and Krstic for crimes of humanity committed at Srebrenica. Joining them on the list of indicted war-criminals was Radovan Karadzic, leader of the self-styled "Republika Srpska" or Serb-controlled territories in Bosnia. Karadzic was intimately involved in planning the "endgame" in the Bosnian war, for which Srebrenica was to serve as a centerpiece. In July 1999, the Tribunal found that these mass murderers had been operating under "a direct chain of military command" from Belgrade and the Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic. For the first time, the Tribunal defined the Bosnian war as "an international conflict," recognizing both Bosnian independence and Serbian aggression . As yet, however, Milosevic remains unindicted for the atrocities he directed in Bosnia.

The United Nations must shoulder a large share of responsibility for allowing the massacre to take place under the noses of its troops. In November 1999, the UN released a highly self-critical report on its performance, stating that "Through error, misjudgment and the inability to recognize the scope of evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to save the people of Srebrenica from the Serb campaign of mass murder." (See Barbara Crossette, "U.N. Details Its Failure to Stop '95 Bosnian Massacre", The New York Times, November 16 1999.)

Can you explain us what term "aggresion" means in this case? Serbs lived there for over centuries and were separated by communist's division od former Yugoslavia to the republics that never existed before nor had boundaries they have today. I preffer term civil war rather than agression. Theodosias 21:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

You prefer? Well, the judgement is not based on preferring, but the facts! Do you want me to put here US resolution, about the Serbian role in aggression?Emir Arven 22:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits after 28. jul 2005. again

You gave case numbers and probably 300,000 pages. I knew where I can find it. I read first 20 pages of Erdemovic case (which is the link you provided) and didn't find anything which is opposite of UN general Morrillon's evidence. I envite you to give exact link and information as I did.--Oldadamml 10:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

About some other changes I did i.e. These attacks (Oric's) were often followed by a wave of desperate, hungry Bosniak civilians, many of whom had been 'cleansed' from their own communities, looting and burning homes and exacting vengeance on the Serbs they caught. Serbian troops continued to attack and bomb Srebrenica. Please give relevant link which provide this information. --Oldadamml 10:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, give relevant link which provide information that formation of Republic of Yugoslavia (in the article Republic of Serbia) forces were involved in Srebrenica massacre. --Oldadamml 10:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As you are making fun of genocide, ICTY and their judgements, and as u didn't read any documents (and u want to disscuss) I told u, I am forced to put some facts from the Krstic judgement here. Those events are proven, and we can make article exactly as it is written below.Emir Arven 18:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I asked you to provide exact link (not to provide 150KB long qoutation). In your quotation:

1. I didn't find anything opposite of Morrillon's evidence about Oric's attach (as I asked). One can find this searching "Oric" in talk page.

First, so called Morrillon's evidence is not placed in the judgement (findings the fact). Probably it was not relevant. The judges decided that, not me.Emir Arven 10:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If we agree that only ICTY's judgment is relevant for the article nothing else should be stated. You are free to change the article to the "finding the facts" from the given ICTY's judgment. But, if you said that something is not relevant because it is not in ICTY's "finding the facts" judgment, it is incorrect to include other things which are not in ICTY's "finding the facts". --Oldadamml 11:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Morrillion testified in ICTY. But his statement was not considered as relevat, cause only relevant statements find their place in the Judgement (Findings the fact). So, judges decided, that his statement was not important or relevant. But you want to put it the article. Why? Beacuse, you are the one who wants to minimize the genocide.Emir Arven 13:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

2. I didn't find anything about involvment of Republic of Serbia forces. You can try to find "Serbia" in the article.

The article is called Serbian aggression. I gave the link, but u didnt read.Emir Arven 10:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is not called that way. More, I think it is not reliable source. Also again, nothing about involvement of "Republic of Serbia" forces there. --Oldadamml 11:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Article in the talk page is called that why, because there is an interesting part: In July 1999, the Tribunal found that these mass murderers had been operating under "a direct chain of military command" from Belgrade and the Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic. For the first time, the Tribunal defined the Bosnian war as "an international conflict," recognizing both Bosnian independence and Serbian aggression. As yet, however, Milosevic remains unindicted for the atrocities he directed in Bosnia.Emir Arven 13:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Slobodan Milosevic trial is not finished. Can you provide more information then some souspicious article that ICTY find "a direct chain of military command" from Belgrade and the Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic. Also, if you find it is no still information about army of Republic of Serbia involvment. --Oldadamml 14:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

3. Please don't put any more so long qoutation, rather put the link instead.

I will put every time if u try to make fun of genocide. There are also other wikipedians who will read the judgement.Emir Arven 10:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

They can also read the link. If you think it is good, you can continue, I didn't find that it is --Oldadamml 11:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

4. You suggested to put article as it is written in Krstic judgment, to me so far it seems reasonable because it is officialy ICTY judgment document and it should be neutral. Oldadamml 07:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Plz, read it again. And dont say that the whole world is against Serbs, and that ICTY is inquisition. I will put parts of the "Findings the facts", like Reburial in the article.Emir Arven 10:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is not appropriate. If you said that something is not right because it is not in "Finding the facts" of ICTY judgment (which I agree) we SHOULDN'T have in the article anything except "Finding the facts" from some of the ICTY's judgment. --Oldadamml 11:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There are many judgements, and I will try, to put the most interesting parts here.Emir Arven 13:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Once more about recent rv war

User:Emir_Arven claimed that something is not relevant if it is not in ICTY judgment.

I didnt say that. I said Morrillions opinion is not relevant, he testified in ICTY, it had been considered by ICTY judges, and found not relevant.Emir Arven 13:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree they find it irrelevant, why them had been invited him to give his testimony (and cite some of his testimony) if he is irrelevant?

.::::::The defence who denied genocide during the trial (before the judgement) invited him to testify.Emir Arven 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If you said that something is irrelevant because it is not in ICTY judgment other paragraphs which are not in ICTY's judgments should be excluded, too. --Oldadamml 14:09, 3 August 2005

I think I can agree with them, ICTY judgment should be consider the most neutral source, without influence of Serbian or Bosniaks propaganda. BUT it means that the article about Srebrenica_massacre should contain just material from the relevant ICTY judgments - and nothing else. If he want to delete UN peace commanding general Phillipe Morrillon statement and not to delete other paragraphs which are not in ICTY judgment I think it is unappropriate. --Oldadamml 13:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There is just Serbian propaganda, not Bosniak.

You exclude the UN peacekeeping commander general citation about terror against Serbs in Srebrenica municipaly, and then said that there are no Bosniak propaganda? I found it very pharisaical. --Oldadamml 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Carla del Ponte, said many times, that Serbs manipulate with so called terror against Serbs. Do u remember when Serbian propaganda said that Bosnian army used to give Serbian children to the lions as a food, in Sarajevo, which was under the Serbian sieg. And as u now, there are no lions in Sarajevo. It is the same thing when u try to minimize the genocide. And if u want to talk about so called the terror against the Serbs, who erased many Bosnian towns before (and their ihabitants Bosniaks), like Visegrad, Foca, Bijeljina, Zepa, Bratunac, Zvornik, Gacko, Trebinje, Prijedor, you should show us the ICTY judgement and Findigs the Fact about the terror, as I did.Emir Arven 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember any news about lions. I checked on google and it seems that there were lions in Zoo in Sarajevo. I used ICTY judgment for the facts - in Krstic judgment there are about terror against the Serbs. Bijeljina, Bratunac, Zvornic, Gacko, Trebinje, Prijedor were the towns with primarly Serbian inhabitans as I know.

It is wrong. Just in Prijedor there are more than 50 mass graves for Bosniaks, and not evan one for Serbs.Emir Arven 15:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody are not erased those cities. Maybe you are oppresed with the fact that there Bosniks left those cities? What about Serbs in Tuzla, Zenica, etc? Roots of hateness between Serbians and Bosniaks are quite deeper, I recommend you to read the book "Knife" of Vuk Draskovic.

I would not recommend u anything, not even hospital, but talking about crimes it is enough to see the number of Serbian war criminals in the Hague.

1) Srbs 106 (72,6 %)

2) Croats 31 (21,23%)

3) Bosniaks 9 (6,16%)

1)Serbs received 554 years prison sentence, until now. (76%).

2)Croats received 142 years prison sentence, until now. (19,4%).

3)Bosniaks received 33 years prison sentence, until now. (4,5%).Emir Arven 15:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The clever people wish that hateness to stop. There are christians and muslims living in Arabic countries (Libanon, Oman, Sudan, etc.) and they don't make any wars. In fact, they are unplesently souprised with that hateness. But, all of it don't have anything with Srebrenica_massacre article. My only wish is to make it objective. --Oldadamml 10:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we should considered all Srebrenica judgements from ICTY, not just Krsitc.Emir Arven 13:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, you can consider. But, once more, if you delete paragraph because it is not in ICTY judgment, all other paragraph which are not in the ICTY judgment should be deleted, to. --Oldadamml 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You tell me which paragaph is not in ICTY judgements (and materials)? I think that u dont read anything, and u want to desscuss...Emir Arven 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I provided you with the list. And changed those paragraphs. If you can find some of deleted paragraphs in the ICTY's judgment, put link to ICTY's document here if you want to add it. --Oldadamml 10:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

removed from the article because it is not in ICTY judgment

These are the things which I removed from the article because it is not in ICTY judgments about Srebrenica. I tried to seek it in the cases completed so far: http://www.un.org/icty/erdemovic/trialc/judgement/erd-tsj980305e.htm http://www.un.org/icty/obrenovic/trialc/judgement/index.htm http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/index.htm

1. "Serb army from Serbia in first paragraph." --Oldadamml 08:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

2. "Following the breakup of Yugoslavia and the war that ensued, Bosnian Serbs took control of most of eastern Bosnia, conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims). This regional campaign was documented by international organizations and thousands of eyewitnesses. Srebrenica was one of the handful of remaining Bosniak enclaves in that area. Its population swelled as thousands of Bosniaks fleeing from cities such as Zvornik and Bijeljina found refuge there. any Serbs from the outlying areas and the city itself joined the Serbian army at the outset of the conflict, or simply left, or were expelled from the Bosniak-controlled areas for the areas under the control of the Bosnian Serb Army. There is also evidence, such as video footage, that the Serbian population in the region who were not officially part of the Serbian army had taken part in the aggression by providing the Serb forces with arms and ammunition, such as mortar shells. Some even independently participated in the attacks, often looting and destroying Bosniak homes. Orić used this to his advantage, setting out on numerous night time revenge raids against outlying Serbian villages, including that of Kravica, notoriously raided on January 7th, Orthodox Christmas. These attacks were often followed by a wave of desperate, hungry Bosniak civilians, many of whom had been 'cleansed' from their own communities, looting and burning homes and exacting vengeance on the Serbs they caught. Serbian troops continued to attack and bomb Srebrenica. Meny civilians were killed during the Srebrenica siege. In 1994 the government of Serbia itself issued a report to the United Nations with a list of 301 Serbs killed in the area. Carla Del Ponte said that Serbian propaganda manipulates with the numbers and dead Serbian soldiers who were killed in combat as a part of the strategy of denial of Srebrenica genocide. "

I replaced Background and Massacre sections with the paragraph from Krstic judgment. User:Emir Arvin asked me to remove UN peacekeeping commander general testimony from the article because it is not part of judgment and I agreed to remove that and other parts of the article which are not the part of the judgment. --Oldadamml 08:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not very happy with the decision to use only the Findings of Facts from the ICTY, as they will be restricted to the cases handled by the ICTY. However, on the first sight they do seem to be a good summary of what happened. Of course, the formatting should be improved and it should be mentioned that these come in fact from the ICTY, but at least they contain some badly needed extra information. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jitse Niesen. I never said that other materials shouldt be used, but Oldadamml decided to do very dirty job, saying that I said that. I said this> "... Morrillions opinion is not relevant, he testified in ICTY, it had been considered by ICTY judges, and found not relevant."

I want to point it out that Oldadamml is playing very dirty. For instance he skiped this very importan parts from the Judgement>

Serbs intended to preserve Bosnia and Herzegovina as a component part of the former state. That was indeed their fundamental, long-term, and political objective in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why? I don’t think it is very difficult to understand that. They wanted to live in the same state with other Serbs, and the only state that could guarantee that was the former Yugoslavia… the Serbs realised that the area of Central Podrinje had a huge strategic importance for them. Without the area of Central Podrinje, there would be no Republika Srpska, there would be no territorial integrity of Serb ethnic territories; instead the Serb population would be forced to accept the so-called enclave status in their ethnic territories. The territory would be split in two, the whole area would be disintegrated, and it would be separated from Serbia proper and from areas which are inhabited almost 100 per cent by Serb populations.Emir Arven 15:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That might all be true, but it does not follow that you should have reverted Oldadamml's edits wholesale. It contained a lot of useful information which was not in the article before. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the last edit by Emir Arven and added the paragraph that he noted above that was originally ommited. I would ask you to refrain from too many reverts on this article as it may end up being locked and users banned. I agree that the background section of the article is an improvement and I thank Emir for bringing this information to light and Oldadamml for adding it to the article. Further edits should be concentrated on improving the text and not on revert wars and commentaries about personality of particular users. Thank you --Dado 15:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, Oldadamml said that he agreed to remove other parts of the article which are not the part of the judgment. So I removed Alternative views and rejection of the massacre theses part from the article.Emir Arven 15:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree with it, you say that you don't want us to restrict ourselves to the ICTY judgement, so I don't see why you want to remove that part and the information that it contains. Therefore, I put it back in. As I said, it's not good just to delete something, especially not a large amount of text. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

But, you have already restricted yourselves, when you decided to remove Background and Massacre sections part of the article. So can you explain me that?Emir Arven 16:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not decide to remove the Background and Massacre sections. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, but why didnt u put it back, as u did with "Rejection of the massacre theses"?Emir Arven 17:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Because I've had no time to do that. They can't just be put back, but they need to be combined with the other stuff put in by Oldadamml. On the other hand, the "Rejection of the massacre theses" does not seem to be treated in the stuff added in by Oldadamml, so it can easily be put back. My point is that we should also care that the article is well written: its composition and consistency. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

For God's sake, the denial of genocide is the last stage of genocide. The Srebrenica genocide is regarded to be one of the most horrific events in recent European history. More than 8000 men and children were killed in 3 days. I just cannont believe that, today, 10 years after the genocide, some people write "Rejection of the massacre theses". Every day a new mass grave is found near Srebrenica (until now there are more than 140 mass graves found). I know, that the same thing happened after the World War II, when "Rejection of the holocaust theses" were present, but history condemned those people and their theses. This is really bad for Wikipedia publicity. All users can add whatever they like, but this is really...no comment.Emir Arven 17:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid you have to accept it. We also have a whole page on Holocaust denial. Perhaps it helps to look at it this way: by talking about it and analysing it, we can show how ridiculous their opinions are. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Emir I tend to agree with Jitse on this. The denial being part of the genocide serves to prove the genocide in a same way the reburials and hiding of victims were conducted. It is a reality and it serves to be on a concious of people who believe in it. Holocoust denial is still alive even 60 years after and it is a fact of life. The point is to keep it on the margins and not turn the blind eye on it. Perhaps the name of the section should be rephrased --Dado 18:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I want to say that I was shocked when I saw that Oldadamml had skipped the most importan part from the Judgement (killing civilians in Potocari). Actually, he switched two parts from the Judgement. First, he put the second part "The Column of Bosniank Men" trying to imply that the men who were killed from the Column were soldiers, connecting civilians with the 28th devision od Bosnian army. ("... word spread through the Bosnian Muslim community that the able-bodied men should take to the woods, form a column together with members of the 28th Division of the ABiH and attempt a breakthrough towards Bosnian territory ...") After that he put the first part od the Judgement "12-13 July: Crimes Committed in Potocari">"In the late morning of 12 July 1995, a witness saw a pile of 20 to 30 bodies heaped up behind the Transport Building in Potocari, alongside a tractor-like machine." This is sad! I corrected that, according to the hronology from the Judgement.Emir Arven 19:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't lie that I skip killing civilians in Potocari. You can check my version once more at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=20249856 . --Oldadamml 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I switched two parts from the judgment to make it chronological : I put first things which happend on July 11 and later on 12 and 13 July. Krstic Judgment is not chronological, you can check it by yourself. Actually, as long as I could see things happend like this (shortly resume):

1. most of civilians and soldiers left to Potocari seeking UN protection

- UN weren't able to help them all

- soldiers from 28th division (33%) and some male civilians(66%) (some of soldiers and male civilians were armed) were afraid that Serbs will kill them, and on July 11 22:00 they made the collumn and left Potocari trying to reach Tuzla (10.000-15.000 people)

- Serbs attacked them with the artillery in the morning 12 July. They were "easy" target and it were very bloody. Then they continued to "hunt them" by rifles. They cought some of them. Approx. 5000 escaped and succesfully reached Tuzla

- In the afternoon 12 July Serbs separated rest male population (mostly from 14-65 years) of others in Potocari (approx 1000 of them)and move them and killed them and the people who were cougth from the column.

- Serbs commited some crimes during the night of 12 July in Potocari, at least 50-60 dead bodies had been seen and one rape --Oldadamml 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That was chronological short overview using Krstic judgment. I just did put the things chronological. Now you spoil it :( --Oldadamml 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I skiped some paragraphs because the document was very large, but not to try to minimize the genocide.

Really. Well, I dont believe u, and I will try to present your "edit job" in the article, here in the talk page. All versions of the article are availabe. I will show exectly the parts that u switched, and those that u skipped. You also deleted the fact that mass graves (for Bosniaks) are found every day.Emir Arven 08:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just go agead - as I said I put the parts chronologicaly and skiped some parts because the judgment was so lengty - but I included all most important I had seen - attack to the column, crimes in Potocari, separation and killings after separation. Mass graves are not founf every day - because it seems that so far from December 1998 till today they had been found 5*365 mass graves it is at least 1825 mass graves. It is much larger then the list of mass graves you provided. I invite you to think about things you write and think why somebody might have right - not just to think that "people try to deny genocide". --Oldadamml 11:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You skipped the most important part (I put it in the article and u removed it, typically Serbian wayEmir Arven 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You also said "mass graves are not found every day", and then you showed your irony. Aren't you ashamed?Emir Arven 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In this part that you removed you will find enough information about mass graves.Emir Arven 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

see article as text was added 3 August 2005

In example, I was very shocked with the description of raping (monstruosly) and put that scene in spite in is description of raping one of women. I think it is very shocked and desided to put it. I put data about most of deads - in column, in Potocari and separated men from Potocari. I didn't say that I put the WHOLE "finding the facts" instead of previous sections. I said that I removed sections with the data from finding the facts AFA I remember. If you can see important paragraphs which I didn't include you were able to put it in the talk page and others can judge about it. --Oldadamml 07:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This information is about rejecting some charges against Orić; I will translate this in English, or find the news in English (dont u read ICTY press news?) This is from Agency SENSE:

Postupak protiv Nasera Orića će, umesto po dosadašnjih šest, biti nastavljen po samo četiri tačke optužnice za zločine koje su snage pod njegovom komandom počinile u području Srebrenice krajem 1992. i početkom. Naser Orić nije odgovoran za pljačku javne i privatne imovine, ocenilo je Pretresno veće na kraju dokaznog postupka optužbe i donelo oslobađajuću presudu po tačkama 4 i 6 optužnice.Emir Arven 08:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Write in English only, please, for the rest of people who don't understand Serbian. Theodosias 10:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Scorpions from Serbia

The Hague/SENSE

The prosecutor claims the killers were members of the Skorpioni unit, a paramilitary group linked with the Serbian MUP (Ministry of Interior). Their base was in Djeletovci, in Baranja. Police general Obrad Stevanovic, Milosevic's defense witness, saw them there in 1995 on several occasions.

Republika Srpska MUP documents seized by the prosecution show that in late June 1995, the Skorpioni took part in the fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina, together with some other units of the Serbian MUP and local police. The video footage shows their trip from Djeletovci, via Pale, to the command in Trnovo and the front line on the Treskavica mountain. According to the prosecutor, in the second half of July, the Skorpioni moved to the Srebrenica area and participated in the massacre of Bosniak prisoners of war.

The prosecutor claims that this group could not have entered Bosnia-Herzegovina from Serbia without the "complicity of those who controlled the border area". In his view, General Stevanovic "had to have known about it," because at that time he was in charge of security in the border area there. General Stevanovic denies the allegations. He claims there were no links between the Skorpioni and the Serbian MUP. Milosevic's defense witness "absolutely" rules out the possibility that the Skorpioni could have been under the control of the Public Security Sector in the Serbian MUP, where he was an official at the time. As for the State Security Sector, he says he has "no knowledge of that."

---

As it is written here, engagement of "Skorpioni unit" is under Milosevic trial. Trial is not finished, so we cannot include prosecutor's opion because by the law we don't know who have right - Milosevic or prosecutor. --Oldadamml 10:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree to exclude articles just because they will make article too lengthy. I think at this point it makes no difference while I find several (like the one about Erdemovic statement) particulary interesting. With good formating we can resolve this issue. Also the introduction should be placed back in. I will not revert this as there may be more changes comming. Also a common sense question for Oldadamml: if Scorpions were not from Serbia where were they from to your opinion? Based on deductive reasoning what options do you have , Republika Srpska or Serbia. Also weren't 8 of them (citizans of SCG) arrested in Serbia shortly after the tape was played at the Haag --Dado 13:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

---

At least one of them might be a citizen of Croatia : http://www.radios.co.yu/arhivavesti.html <quote in serbian> U HRVATSKOJ UHAPSEN OSUMNJICENI PRIPADNIK 'SKORPIONA'

Vukovarsko-sremska policija uhapsila je sinoc u Banovcima hrvatskog drzavljanina Slobodana D. za koga se sumnja da je, kao pripadnik specijalne jedinice Skorpioni, ubijao ili ucestvovao u ubistvu sedmoro Bosnjaka iz Srebrenice.

To je agenciji Hina potvrdio nacelnik Operativno-komunikacijskog centra Policijske uprave vukovarsko-sremske Tomislav Iljic </quote> You asked my about my personal opinion. I pesonaly think that they were special force (hireling) which were in used for "dirty jobs" in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, etc. Who was in change for commanding them at the moment - I don't know - probably Ratko Mladic. Also, probably most of them had the Serbian passport. --Oldadamml 14:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Once more, I agree and even encourage others to put some other parts of judgments in the article, but Emir changed my chronological arrangment (by time). See, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=20262666 It might be good to have chronological arragment. --Oldadamml 14:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Dont say that. Aren't you ashamed? You switched two parts from two different thematical parts. And you skipped the most important part: The Mass Executions! This is really, really sad. When I put it in the article, you removed it. Do you have any conscience?!! I dont think so! Now, you are trying to destroy the structure of the article, cause it is based on thematical parts, not hronology, cause mass executions took place in the different parts of the country.Emir Arven 17:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There are no The Mass Executions part in Krstic judgment (and appeal). See [[1]]. It seems that you use different judgment. --Oldadamml 06:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ouh, I find it now, there are those paragraphs, but not with that name. It is in the other part of article I didn't pay attention. Anyway, in the ICTY judgment there are unconsistences as long as I see. Becose the column of Bosniak Muslim men LEFT the Potocari before Serbs did the separation of males and females in Potocari, but in the ICTY judgment first is mention about separation and later column of men. See it yourself. --Oldadamml 07:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Scorpions are from Serbia

The Scorpions are from Serbia, and noone denies that. The question is, were they under Milosevic's controll or not? According to the official indictment by Belgrade's court, the Scorpions were mobilized in March 1999 as a “reserve unit of the anti-terrorist forces of the Serbian Ministry of Interior.”Read the article:

Who were Scorpions?

[2]

While the perpetrators and the victims of the crime shown on the tape have been identified, it remains unclear under whose command the unit was in July 1995. The ICTY prosecution wants to prove that it was receiving orders from the Serbian interior ministry, which would for the first time establish a clear link between Milosevic and the crimes committed in Bosnia.

Obrad Stevanovic, a former police general and senior official of Serbia’s interior ministry during whose testimony at the ICTY the footage was shown, rejected charges of involvement. He said the Scorpions were not part of the official Serbian security forces operating in the border region between Bosnia and Serbia at the time.

Some answers may come from a new trial set to start in Belgrade on 6 June. The defendant, a member of the Scorpions called Sasa Cvjetan, stands accused of atrocities in Kosovo in 1999. According to the official indictment, the Scorpions were mobilized in March 1999 as a “reserve unit of the anti-terrorist forces of the Serbian Ministry of Interior.”

Cvjetan was sentenced by a Serbian court to 20 years in prison for the execution of 14 Albanian civilians in the northern Kosovo town of Podujevo during the 1999 conflict. During that trial, the court also heard testimony that the unit had been involved in the Srebrenica massacre.

The Supreme Court lifted the sentence for procedural reasons and ordered a new trial, which has now assumed new poignancy.

The tape was given to the ICTY prosecution by Natasa Kandic, a prominent Serbian human-rights lawyer who has consistently called on Serbs to face up to the truth about the wars that tore Yugoslavia apart during the 1990s. One of the people who cooperated with her – reportedly a former member of the unit – is understood to have sought protection abroad.

First link you provided is Croatian loby in America and it is heavily disputed. Once more, Slobodan Milosevic claimed that they weren't Serbian state unit until 1999. The documents you presented show it also. --Oldadamml 06:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you are wrong! Scorpions were just mobilized once more in 1999. to do war crimes in Kosovo as they did in Srebrenica. Before that, they were reserve unit of the anti-terrorist forces of the Serbian Ministry of Interior, because you cannot mobilize someone who is not in reserve unit. This is also very important: Cvjetan was sentenced by a Serbian court to 20 years in prison for the execution of 14 Albanian civilians in the northern Kosovo town of Podujevo during the 1999 conflict. During that trial, the court also heard testimony that the unit had been involved in the Srebrenica massacre.Emir Arven 08:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing parts that are not proven

I removed this part, because you didn't show us any official court document, that support this:

1)It was also stressed later on by the Bosnian Serbs that the killings have occurred largely as a retaliation for the crimes previously committed by Orić's troops on the Serbian civilians who lived in villages surrounding Srebrenica.

Give us any Findings of Fact from any court judgement, as I did showing Krstic's judgement!Emir Arven 17:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

2)A few Serb-inhabited villages and hamlets had been attacked by raids from Srebrenica between May 1992 and February 1993, led by its Bosniak commander Naser Orić of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was trying to break the siege around Srebrenica. Orić is presently awaiting trial at the ICTY on charges including his torturing of Serb prisoners of war and commanding Bosnian troups which killed Serbian soldiers and civilians in the surrounding villages. Recently two of overall six charges by ICTY against Oric has been rejected. It is accepted by all sides that some of these acts happened and that there is a number of Serb people from those villages who are still unaccounted for. The Serbian government submitted a report to the United Nations in May 1994 explaining two dozen incidents of ethnic cleansing in the region of Srebrenica, Bratunac and Skelani, naming 301 Serbian civilians killed by Orić's troops.

I also removed those parts, cause you didn't give us any court decision or official document that will affirm this! I just use your logic, when you removed the fact that Scorpions were from Serbia, "cause Milosevic's trial has not been finished yet", as you said. Naser Orić's trial has not been finished also.Emir Arven 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There is quite a big difference here. For the Scorpions, the prosecutor says one thing, the defence says another thing; this is not enough information to decide whether they are from Serbia or not. Indeed Dado gave some more evidence and added it again. In contrast, you have given no evidence that the parts that you removed are not correct, so they should stay. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

So, I can write anything, and if no one can give evidenece that those parts are not correct, my writing can stay. Did I understand u well? (So can I put those information that Oldammal removed from the Background and Massacre back, because he didnt provide any evidence that they are not correct like ethnic cleansing?)Emir Arven 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC) 20:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Or first I have to give evidence if I want to write something? Can you explain me this, because obviously you are using double standars for my edits and for Serbian users' edits.Emir Arven 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

When Serbs removed some paragraphs they said that they needed evidence (according to the judgement), but they didnt give any evidence that those removed paragraphs are not correct. Still you didnt put it back (not even tried; you said you had had no time).Emir Arven 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

When I removed some paragraphs using the same logic, you put it back.Emir Arven 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

For instance this part, that Oldadammal removed (and he provided no evidence that those information are not correct):Emir Arven 20:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

2. "Following the breakup of Yugoslavia and the war that ensued, Bosnian Serbs took control of most of eastern Bosnia, conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Bosniaks. This regional campaign was documented by international organizations and thousands of eyewitnesses. Srebrenica was one of the handful of remaining Bosniak enclaves in that area. Its population swelled as thousands of Bosniaks fleeing from cities such as Zvornik and Bijeljina found refuge there. Any Serbs from the outlying areas and the city itself joined the Serbian army at the outset of the conflict, or simply left, or were expelled from the Bosniak-controlled areas for the areas under the control of the Bosnian Serb Army. There is also evidence, such as video footage, that the Serbian population in the region who were not officially part of the Serbian army had taken part in the aggression by providing the Serb forces with arms and ammunition, such as mortar shells. Some even independently participated in the attacks, often looting and destroying Bosniak homes.

Can I put this back, as introduction of Background (like it was, before he removed it)?Emir Arven 20:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I just cant understand what are the rules that you follow? Plz tell me, explain me what rules are for me, and what rules are for others? Because I really dont see correct approach to everyone.Emir Arven 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The basic rule is that anyone can add and remove anything from the article, in the hope that something useful results in the end. If you include evidence (usually by adding references to reports, books, and other documents), the chance that others remove your material decreases.

Why do you want to add the paragraph "Following the breakup ... destroying Bosniak homes." back in? It seems that these event are already described in the new "Background" section. However, if there is anything in the paragraph that is not yet in the article, then you may add it in, but you should integrate it with the rest of the text. Incidentally, it will help you if you are more concise on this talk page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Move to finalize discussion

This another round of discussions is again becoming absurdly long and I cannot understand what the issue is. I don't see what else is left here to negotiate. If there is anything wrong with the article please correct it and use the discussion page efficiently and when necessary as it is becoming unusable for other users. At some point when the article is finalized I will start translating it for into Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian languages for respective Wikipedia's. Let's get this over with. Thanks --Dado 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Revisionism/Alternate view section

It's clear that the article you wrote is biased. I did some minor changes and you can find facts either at this disscusion page or at my talk page. I'll write a completely new article as I promised, but I have very little time to do that in these days... I think that naming that part of article "revisionism" is not appropriate because it's not just Serbs who doubt in ITCY and Bosniak side of the story.Theodosias 12:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Your changes are not minor. You added that "many independent international groups espouse denial of massacre," for which I'd like to see some evidence, you talk about the list of 3000 victims of Oric which is (as I understand it) not quite accepted, you removed "The Bosnian Serb side has, under the heavy authority of Governor Ashdown, officially admitted the number of killed Muslims and expressed regrets for the massacre in 2004" which seems to be a plain fact, and your removals make it unclear what "All nations and international organizations involved consider it to have been a massacre, and most consider it to be a case of genocide." refers to. I do agree that it is better to use a more neutral formulation than "revisionism" in the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I would accept the notion that some international individuals espouse denial. I don't see that you can prove that they are independent as most of them are under heavy lobbying hand of Serbian dispora (such as Serbian Unity Congress just to name a few). Others are located in France and Greece and some in England however most of them are merely individuals of some influence. I have not yet heard of independent international organizations that support these theses. Again this is a clear case of revisionism and denial as in one part of the article states facts and another tends to triviliaze those facts. Term revisionism is not POV but Alternative views may be --Dado 14:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.srebrenica-report.com/ Bosnian Serb side has NEVER admitted the genocide, they just apologized for the incident that happened and that's different. I have a list of 3,287 names but if you think that I'm going to type all these names by myself you're wrong. The least I can do is to scan these pages and put it at my talk page. Do you think that Herman's group can't be considered independent/international/neutral. Why?

Proposal

Here's my proposal. Let's include facts from Herman's research into the section about "revisionism", change its name into something more appropriate (but not something like "denial of genocide") and help Wikipedia to stay neutral. What you do is propaganda. Else we can exclude this section and make new article about it (what actually I started to do amost month ago, but, hey, it's not so easy to write a good article for a little time) and include link on Srebrenica massacre page. What do you all think about that? Theodosias

I don't understand why do you keep pushing these sources (Herman and so called Srebrenica Research Group) both of which have dubious credibility. I have never before heard of Srebrenica Research Group and they look to me as some group that spent $5 to register a domain that sounds plausible and than tries to push thru the Serbian agenda. Their research looks as a conglomeration of opinion pieces and conspiracy theories by a group of renagade academics and journalists who wish to make a name for themselves by arousing the public. You have people doing it on both ends of the spectrum (I can name at least 5 individuals involved in similar exaggaration doctrine on the Bosniak side of the propaganda spectrum). All of them have their agenda and I have not cared to take it in consideration because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Also their finding are not generally accepted by public (there are obviously reasons for it) which makes it unacceptable as Wikipedia is based on providing information that are generally accepted by known sources.

I have no problem in changing the statement that Serbian side has not admitted to a genocide unless it was proven otherwise. It makes no difference anyway.

In respect to the article I have not wrote 95% of the article. It is taken from the sources that have more credibility than both you and I (ICTY) so I don't need to reinvent the wheel and I don't know how you can accuse me of spreading propaganda.

I refuse to be dragged into another round of discussions which is more of the same while you have not answered most critical questions such as about people from a list of 3,287 what number are military, how many bodies have been discovered and identified and which credible institutions have certified the list. Keep in mind that this number is mentioned in the article but if you don't provide sufficient information it will be removed as its source don't appear to be credible. --Dado 23:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dado. As he said, you have not answered about the names from the list of 3,287 (we still dont know which credible institutions have certified the list?!), what number are military, where are the mass graves (not even one mass grave have been found yet). Carla del Ponte said that this is just a cheap propaganda, but hey we didn't remove the sentence, because we will wait that you provide us with those information that we mentioned above. in respect to the article it is almost completely based on official documents and judgements.Emir Arven 06:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that they gave some opposite view for what happend there, but some claimed that they cannot be consider the neutral source. User:Jitze_Nielsen proposed (as long as I remember) that non neutral oppinions could be included in alternative view section. So, I think some of them research can be included there. Maybe that former alternative view section should be splitted in several sections - some of them which provide pro-Serbian point of view, ans some of them which provide pro-Bosniaks point of view. --Oldadamml 07:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have never before heard of Srebrenica Research Group and they look to me as some group that spent $5 to register a domain that sounds plausible and than tries to push thru the Serbian agenda. Who cares about your oppinion about Srebrenica Research Group? And what do we deal here with? If something is widely accepted in public it must be truth, right? Nonsence. Let's deal with facts. The fact is that there are no eyewitnesses to executions, no executions spots, no bodies, but I do not erase that part of the article as you do with my edits. Else the fact is that there were about 35,000 people registred by World Health Organizations in August 1995, as survivors from Srebrenica, right? The fact is that Srebrenica was not demilitarized but it should had been. And you Arven, can you say anything else than "Carla Del Ponte said..."? Is the list of 7,778 names of Muslim victims "certified"? Have you seen that list? Will you type here, name by name, as you expect me to do that with the list of Serbian victims? Herman found about 3,000 names from the list of missing on the last elections lists Bosnia. Also, there are lot of duplicate names. Can you prove this wrong by anything else than "Carla Del Ponte said"? Theodosias

Please read the judgement enclosed here before making ridiculus requests. No one expects you to write the names of victims from the list that you are claiming but to provide sufficient information requested above. As of now the statement about the Theodosias list should be removed as he refuses to provide information requested. --Dado 15:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Casandra has provided you that information before but you refuse to see it: The list of 3287 Serbs killed in the region of Srebrenica is well documented, according to all the rules of scientific method. For each victim there is the last name, middle name and first name, year of birth, place of death, name(s) of individuals and/or organizations responsible for the crime, witnesses, forensic and foto/video documentation. This year was published a book Zlocini nad Srbima B-H 1992-1995, Cigoja Stampa, ISBN 86/7558/342/7 containing documentation on Serbs killed beside Srebrenica region also in other regions of B&H.

The list of 3,287 victims is list of CIVILIAN casualties, and their bodies were found and buried. And, yes, you do spread propaganda by suggesting people that what Serbian and other non-ITCY sources claim is nothing but lie. Read that part of the article again and think about it. Have you ever thought how many people from the list of 7,778 names were soldiers, same question you ask me? You never brought this up to question because it's not in your interest. And you haven't said anything about the duplicate names and the names that appeared on electoral lists. Do you have anything to say anyway?

The Srebrenica Research Group is a self-financed group of journalists and academic researchers who have been working as a group over a three-year period to review evidence related to the capture of Srebrenica and how the actual facts compare with widely publicized portrayal of events. The study makes comparisons with other military operations such as Operation Flash and Operation Storm against the UN Protected Serb enclaves in Croatia. The study also traces how the official portrayal of events affected the outcome of the conflict in Bosnia, the actions of the war crimes tribunal and the public perception of Serbia and Republika Srpska.

The Srebrenica Research Group is led by author Ed Herman of the University of Pennsylvania; Herman has written several books on media coverage of wartime events. He is co-editor with Phil Hammond of a series of essays called Degraded Capability: The Media and Kosovo Crisis and co-author with Noam Chomsky of Manufacturing Consent a classic study of the role of press coverage in the Vietnam War and other conflicts. Also active in the group, BBC Journalist Jonathan Rooper, who currently works as a publicist in London and former New York Press columnist George Szamuely, who has written for US and UK publications currently works for the National Law Journal in New York. George Bogdanich, who is also based in New York, has written for various publications including The Chicago Tribune, the Nation, the Progressive and others. He was director and co-producer, along with Martin Lettmayer, of the documentary film “Yugoslavia The Avoidable War,” which has been broadcast in Europe and Canada.

Michael Mandel, Professor of International Law at York University in Toronto has written extensively on the War Crimes Tribunal. Another commentator on media coverage of conflict, is Dr. Philip Hammond of London South Bank University. Tim Fenton is a London-based researcher and archivist. David Peterson based in the Chicago area, writes on foreign policy for several publications and websites. Dr Milan Bulajic, of the Fund for Genocide Research and has been involved in the research of war crimes over a fifty-year career. An attorney in international law, he was former head of the Yugoslav State Commission on War Crimes, director of the Museum of Genocide and the author of sixty books on the subject of genocide and war crimes.

Advisors and contributors to the work of the Srebrenica Research Group include Phillip Corwin former UN Civilian Affairs Coordinator in Bosnia and former speechwriter for UN Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar. Corwin is the author of Dubious Mandate: A Memoir of the UN in Bosnia and Doomed in Afghanistan. Another former UN official Carlos Martins Branco, served as Deputy Director of UNMO (UN monitors in Bosnia) and debriefed UN observers from Srebrenica. He is currently a colonel in the Portugese Amry. Also providing advice was Diana Johnstone, author of Fool's Crusade: Yugoslavia NATO and Western Delusions, Belgrade Professor Vera Vratusa, German-based researcher George Pumphrey, Milivoje Ivanisevic, a Belgrade-based writer who has done extensive research into war crimes in Bosnia and internationally respected military forensic expert Dr. Zoran Stankovic of Belgrade and Dr. Srboljub Zivanovic, a forensic archeologist and London based Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Theodosias

Theodosias, theodosias, theodosias?! You havent read the article at all! Dont be redicilous! You said this stupidity "The fact is that there are no eyewitnesses to executions, no executions spots, no bodies, but I do not erase that part of the article as you do with my edits." Go and read the article again! And archives in the talk page. We presented very detailed information, about locations of mass graves (secondary and primary, and reburials), Erdemovic testimony, who was killer himself, ICTY judgements, US resolution, all official documents! You give us nothing, except cheap propaganda.You also said: And you Arven, can you say anything else than "Carla Del Ponte said..."? Is the list of 7,778 names of Muslim victims "certified"? Have you seen that list? Will you type here, name by name, as you expect me to do that with the list of Serbian victims?I have already give u the link to the preliminary list of 8106 civilians killed in Srebrenica. Prelimninary list] This list is official document, with every name checked from more independent sources (including forensic evidence) about missing and killed people in Srebrenica during the genocide. This document is the official document made by Federal commision for missing people of Govrnemant in Sarajevo. I hope that u provide us with the similar documet!Emir Arven 18:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it my turn now to say that it is a cheap propaganda? How many bodies are exumated yet? What do you have to say on Herman's research? List I have counts 3,287 bodies of civilians killed in regions surrounding Srebrenica but unfortunately there's no html form on the Internet. And what does forensic evidence proves? Analyzes cannot tell us whether the victim died in the combat or was executed. Check the facts given by WHO, and compare them to civilian count before the begining of the war and you'll find impossibe that Serbs had executed 8,000 people! Theodosias

Give us evidence, official documents, forensic analysis, judgements and findings the fact of any court on the planet not just icty. You still deny the genocide, so I have nothing to discuss with you!Emir Arven 19:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Arven what problem exactly do you have? I wrote a lot of text at this discussion page as did the others. I gave a lot of links to the articles wrote by Herman's group and if you need more evidences don't really know what to say. I'm dealing with alternative section views and what you, Dado, and the rest of you do is "cheap propaganda" because you suggest people that anything than ITCY truth is lie. Well, the fact is that Srebrenica Research Group made a report on that topic and and I'm going to include it into the article whether you like it or not. Something that's alternative cannot be official at the same time but that doesn't mean it isn't build on solid evidences. Purpose of the alternative section is to present alternative opinions and not to confirm theses given in previous parts of the article!Theodosias

Give us evidence, official documents, forensic analysis, resolutions, judgements and findings the fact of any court on the planet not just icty. Do you understand? We need something official which is supported by forensic evidence or judgements by any international court. You said this: "...and I'm going to include it into the article whether you like it or not." I will report u to the administrators, because you cannot act like some kind of bully. We are not in Srebrenica and this is not july 1995.!!!Emir Arven 21:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I erased Revisionism and denial of the massacre part from the article because I found it inadequate enough and untrue. There are also many fallacies which I leaved intacted for example number of people that safely reached Muslim territories. Else, you mention just one village destroyed by Oric's troops and there were many of them. There, you mention some witnesses with no names. And, you Arven, want me to give you evidence? Can you read what I wrote? Purpose of the part of the article I've just erased is not to confirm your propaganda as it is not purpose of Wikipedia project and I won't let you do this.Theodosias

Theodosias, just to answer your question. If you cared to read the article which obviously you did not you would notice that the article states that of 10000 Bosniaks who attemted to walk to Bosnian held teritory about 1/3 were members of the 28th Division of ABiH. It continues to say that they were poorly or not armed at all and they were not in the combat but in retreat mode. That explains so many surrenders which as we know ended up with executions.--Dado 23:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I will correct a bit your statements : the article says that those men where in movement mode, and some of them were armed, some not. To me it is dubious can they might be consider as a military unit or not. It is correct that surrenders after the artillery and rifle attach ended up with executions. --Oldadamml 07:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Dado, what you say has nothing with the part of the text I removed. Please do not include it again in the article unless we write something more appropriate. Report of Srebrenica Research Group exists, it is not just my fiction or fiction of the people who "dennies genocide" and cocnclusions they made should be included as different oppinions and not as revisionsm or dennial of genocide. Do not use it for your propaganda, please. Theodosias

By changing the caption of the text from "Revisionism and dennial of genocide" to "Controversy" you do nothing good Ktoto, suggestion of the text still remains the same: anything else than text written above is lie and that's why I can't let this text to be published in Wikipedia. Theodosias 12:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, it was you who insisted on changing the name in the first place. I wanted the name change to be the first move in your desired direction. But since you've changed your mind, "Revisionism and denial of genocide" seems perfectly reasonable as well, so I'm happy to revert it. Ktoto 14:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding NPOV tag to just one section of the text is unacceptable so I removed it. A also removed part of the text I had removed before. I think that it ought stay this way until I (or anyone of good will) write article more accurate on this topic. Theodosias

Again, you cannot remove content just because it does not fit your theories. The disputed tag is there only to mark that you are contesting this text. Although you are not being clear as to what are you questioning, specifically. Ktoto 06:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Theodosias you have been disputing this article or some parts of them for nearly a month now while you have not provided a single workable solution or a specific recommendation for a change other than deleting whole segments of the article and promising that you will write a new one (which I don’t know what good will that do). You have spent more time here philibustering than actually contributing to the article. I will remove the NPOV tag from the section of the article as there are no specific workable proposals on how to specifically change it while most of the items stated on it are factually correct. Also revisionism is not a “bad” word. In fact it fits exactly what the so called “Srebrenica Research Group” is trying to do. Now the quality and credibility of their research I will leave to others to judge for themselves.--Dado 17:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ktoto, it's not my theory for God sake! Dado, what you think Srebrenica Research Group do is irrelevant. Even you if are right, they offer alternative scenario of what happened in Srebrenica and because of that we should consider to include their research (for which you can't say isn't credible just because you disagree with their theory). Once again, stop suggesting people your "supreme thruth". You spoil Wikipedia project with that kind of propaganda. Theodosias

So what I think of Srebrenica Research Group is irrelevant but what you think is relevant. Thank god that you are "balanced and objective".--Dado 19:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Dado, what I think is irrelevant too, but it's denniable that report exists and that represent another point of view. Theodosias

It is undeniable that the report exists and the link to it is included in the article. regarding your latest deletion of the article I would ask you to see following links Bosnian Serbs finally admit truth of Srebrenica deaths Press Personally I don't care much about the findings of this commission and if the Serbs admitted to the massacre or not as it makes little difference. You have to admit that some level of admission did happen unless you are going to claim now that all of these news agencies (from Associated press to Agence France-Presse) are liers "(they are all lies, lies I tell you!!)" --Dado 13:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Use original reports and you will see that it differ from those links. --Oldadamml 06:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I had a look to the original report and it says that the massacre is planned, that between 7000 and 8000 people are missing, and that several thousands are killed. I put a reference in the article. So, please tell me how the official reports differ, and why you insist on removing the section "The Bosnian Serb side has, under the pressure of the authority of Governor Ashdown, officially admitted the number of killed Muslims and expressed regrets for the massacre in 2004. Still the number of killed is presently disputed by some. All nations and international organizations involved consider it to have been a massacre, and most consider it to be a case of genocide." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dado, what is your goal here? What do you want to achieve: to write a neutral article that presents real situation and oppinions or to write article that would confirm your beliefs? Explain yourself please! ¬¬¬

Text editing question

Can someone (whoever added this) clarify "Citation needed" note that was added after the Morillion's statement in section that talks about how Srebrenica was declared the Safe zone. Thanks --Dado 23:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this section mentions a UN Security Council resolution but no reference to source is given. Is this a direct quote from the resolution or editor's interpretation ? Ktoto 00:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Ktoto 06:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

New Canadian article about Srebrenica

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050728&articleId=750 --Oldadamml 06:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It is also worth to notice http://www.srebrenica-report.com/sacrificed.htm, translation of from Slobodna Bosna newspaper (Sarajevo pro Bosniaks paper). --Oldadamml 06:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Western bias

What is this sentence supposed to mean please:

"Paddy Ashdown relieved and replaced the examining commission of Republika Srpska which reported that the initial explanation was correct."

What was the "examining commission" and what was this "initial explanation" ? It's not clear at all. Also a reference to a source would be helpful here. Ktoto 08:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To Niesen

Niesen wrote: "All nations and international organizations involved consider it to have been a massacre, and most consider it to be a case of genocide"

_________

What Niesen means by "All nations" is merely "Western governments", and by "international organizations" the proxy organizations of these governments.

While governments do have power over their subjects, they rarely reflect opinions and wants of those who are governed. Such is the case in capitalist plutocracies euphemistically called Western Democracies.

Aside from the alleged help to Croats and Muslim governments throughout the war, these plutocracies happen to have conducted a war of outright aggression against Serbs in Yugoslavia (1995 against Bosnian Serbs and in 1999 against Serbia. So much for the relevance of the opinions and judgment of these plutocrats. Taking their judgment on what happened in Srebrenica is tantamount to asking a slaveholder to comment on slavery.

But for the sake of argument, lets say that the governed subjects in these plutocracies shared the view of their ruling elites and governmental proxies. Can they then be considered "most of the world", as Niesen likes to put it? Not a chance: The account for less than 30% of the world's population.

Aside from committing an Appeal to Widespread Belief fallacy, Mr. Niesen has been misleading us here by giving us false facts. He has a blind spot for the existence of nations such as the Russians, Chinese, Indians etc, all those who stood in firm apposition to Western hegemony and who supported the Serbian cause. Are they not part of the world Mr. Niesen?

Yes, they make up the majority of the world.

Please check your facts:

• I did not write this.
• Give some evidence that the Russians, Chinese, Indians etc. do not consider it a massacre.

Thank you. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

About links

About ISSA article link. Just at the first glance here are the problematic issues about the article:

• The article calls the war in Bosnia a “civil war” which is either a beginner’s mistake or a concerted effort to disassociate involvement of Serbia in the conflict. In either case it is one sided and biased.

• It denies the massacre by stating “What happened in Srebrenica was not a single large massacre of Muslims by Serbs” and goes on to explain that ridiculous statement. While attacks on both sides did happen so did the massacre.

• It gives bits an pieces of information usually one-sided and probably out of context.

• It barrages unclear, unproven or unrelated statements about islamists and Al-Quaida connections leaving readers to make paranoid conclusions.

• Points our moral equivalencies such as killing of Serbs while not providing any proof of that or playing with numbers

• It further plays with numbers as a weird-out mathematician using unparallel and incompatible sources.

One article (“Srebrenica Research Group”) is already included in the text. Both are simply pushing the POV with already sensitive topic while politically playing to a crowd that is looking for meaning and closure. It serves only to promote the political or other private interests of those who write this garbage.--Dado 14:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I read a bit about ISSA and Gregory R. Copley an author of the text in question and certified islamophobiac and a nutcase who still pushes theses and tries to find relations between Oklahoma City Bombing and Al Quaida (eventhough McVeigh admitted it and is rotting in the grave). His “research” only serves to push partisan issues of a radical right wing of the US Republican party. I would not let him write for tabloid magazine and far less mistake him for a respectable source. It serves him good to make a controversial name for himself just to be invited to spread bullshit at discussion panels and conferences for honoraria. No way in hell that this is a neutral source. --Dado 14:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

About ISSA article link. Just at the first glance here are several problematic issues about the article:

• The article calls the war in Bosnia a “civil war” which is either a beginner’s mistake or a concerted effort to disassociate involvement of Germany and the U.S. in the conflict. In either case it is one sided and biased. We know all too well that the war was caused by those who later openly helped the Muslim/Croat government. We know that it was not a civil war but a war of aggression – a war against the defenders of Yugoslavia, the Serbs. It was not a civil war, it was a joint criminal enterprise comprised of the Empire as the war initiator and it’s proxies, Bosnian Croats and Muslims.

• It takes the Srebrenica events out of the context, calling the fall of Srebrenica a “massacre”, which is misleading. The text downplays the importance of the Serbian civilian victims in in the region prior to the fall of Srebrenica, as well as it fails to mentian hundreds serbian casualties during the takeover of the city.

• It gives bits and pieces of information that are out of context. Understanding what happened in Srebrenica requires a more elaborate historical and political analysis. For example, the historical criminal record of the U.S. must be taken into account every time the U.S. is implicated in some affair. The atomic genocide and its denial by the contemporary U.S. must never be left out (after all hundreds of thousands civilians were designedly murdered in Japan). The same goes for culprits such as Germany and the Vatican, which has traditionally waged wars of aggression against Serbs in Bosnia and elswhere.

To Niesen

Mr Niensen, need I remind you that the burden of proof is always on those making the claim? You have made the claim - that most of the world consider the fall of Srebrenica as a case of genocide - and you are supposed to prove it . You must show that the Russian people and the Chinese people believe that the events in and around Srebrenica in 1995 had to do with designedly killing the Muslim population there. Asking me to prove otherwise, you are committing another logical fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting).

I just wanted to point out yet another fallacy when it comes to understanding who is responsible for what happened both in Srebrenica and in Bosnia 1992-1995. People seem to be gullible when fed corporate-owned media stories about the so called “joint criminal enterprise” – the likening of Serbian leaders to the Nazi regime during WW II in order to explain the violence in Yugoslavia, particularly 1992-1995 Bosnia . It’s curious how people easily get absorbed by these kinds of conspiracy theories. What happened to Occam’s Razor and the Principle of Parsimony? http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html Why seek complicated, logically unsustainable theories such that of “joined criminal enterprise” - the bloodthirsty, inherently evil Serbs - when quite a simple explanation would be sufficient: The former Yugoslavia was in the way of the advancing, nation-swallowing Empire, and it had to be dismantled and occupied. But why was Yugoslavia in the way of the U.S. corporate powers? Quite simply, with its developed human services sector and an economy that was over 75 percent publicly owned, Yugoslavia was socialist enough that it had to be destroyed. First the former Yugoslavia and then Yugoslavia. Bosnia cannot be taken out of context, nor can Srebrenica. http://www.michaelparenti.org/Milosevic.html Is it really just a coincidence that the Serbs were the only nation in the region that defended Yugoslavia against the West and that they are the only once being crucified? Why do we need any more explanation than this?

You seem to hugely overestimate Yugoslavia on the world scale. Buy yourself a world map, see what tiny speck Yugoslavia is. Countries of US, China, Russia scale could care less about "swallowing" economies of such dwarfs. In fact, in today's world armed conflicts hurt everyone's economy and trade, so US lost ecomomically.

Oh, but why would the U.S. ever want to do something as nefarious as that? Probably because ruthlessness is apparently what the powerful do and what they have always done. Why did the U.S. cold-bloodedly kill over 300 000 Japanese woman and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What a strange coincidence: The perpetrators of this real genocide are now the occupiers of Bosnia. While still denying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were genocide, they scavenge the skeletons in Bosnia trying to find evidence for one. And yet people still fail to realize what’s behind these strange coincidences! Conspiracy theories seem easier to swallow. Seeing reality for what it is can be discomforting.

And atomic bombing of Japan justifies massacres done by Serbian forces exactly how?

Damn, I think I just found my soulmate ;) You are one of this rare species that understands. Thanks a lot for the effort to write here - it can be straining, I know. --Arsenio 01:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Beautifull. In one paragraph you have expressed nearly every doctrine of denial and revisionism, stating appologetic reasons, moral equivalencies, conspiracy theories. Let me remind you that non of that excuses the fact that Serbs or Serbian Soldiers (which ever way you like) have tortured, raped, pillaged and murdered nearly 8000 people of Srebrenica. Your problem is that you don't know how to deny the detailed facts and instead come up with complex general attitudes that serve no merit on this article. You can continue to swallow conspiracy theories as drugs to make you feeel better. We on the other hand will deal with reality here --Dado 14:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr Whatever-your-name-is, need I remind you that I did not make the claim that most of the world consider the fall of Srebrenica as a case of genocide. That sentence was written by somebody else. This is called the straw man fallacy http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman (yes, I also know elementary logic).

The ultimate responsibility for the Bosnian war should be discussed in the article on the Bosnian war, in my opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

true, it shouldn't have been referred to Mr. Niesen, he is one of the few ones to be willing to make advances here and for that i respect him a lot. --Arsenio 00:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Dream on Dado --Arsenio 00:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There is so much writing on this topic in newspapers and other media and so many different, contradicting, and revisionist sources that it would be absolutely impossible to sort through all of it as nearly all of them contradict each other. ICTY was selected as the most credible as it relied on a direct scientific research done in field. Their research relies on non-governmental organizations (Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch) and many others as well as they are directly supported by the United Nations (where Serbia and Montenegro is the member as well btw). Of course, secondary sources can and should be taken in account as I pointed out earlier but only if they are parallel and compatible sources (you cannot reject findings of the ICTY by newspaper opinion pieces from renegade conspiracy theorists). A parallel source would be a commission finding in question or a court system set up to do a parallel research (such as was set up in Bosnia recently). I have asked that the link to the commission findings be presented here so that we can review it and generate a proper summary.

For the hundredth time, if you have a problem with ICTY, Milosevic trial, Bosnian war and all other semi-related topics being thrown around here than express it at their appropriate discussion pages. These topics only tangle up the discussion.--Dado 14:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Falsification of the US resolution 199

In our article is written:

"the policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing as implemented by Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 and 1995 with the direct support of authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) ultimately led to the displacement of more than 2,000,000 people, an estimated 200,000 killed, tens of thousands raped or otherwise tortured and abused, and the innocent civilians of Sarajevo and other urban centers repeatedly subjected to shelling and sniper attacks; meet the terms defining the crime of genocide in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, created in Paris on December 9, 1948, and entered into force on Janua--Dado 03:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)ry 12, 1951."

Yet, actual resolution says:

the policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing pursued by Bosnian Serb forces with the direct support of the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic and its followers ultimately led to the displacement of more than 2,000,000 people, an estimated 200,000 killed, tens of thousands raped or otherwise tortured and abused, and the innocent civilians of Sarajevo and other urban centers repeatedly subjected to shelling and sniper attacks;

Whereas Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (done at Paris on December 9, 1948, and entered into force with respect to the United States on February 23, 1989)

the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic and its followers was replaced with authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Just to mention that this falsification is a part of broader agenda to make Serbia and Montenegro pay n billions of dollars to Bosnia and Herzegovina as a war reparation! Wikipedia should avoid being caught in such a traps.

If this kind of falsification was done in non-ciber world, someone could be in jail by now! -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 23:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction was already made on the article. This could have been an honost mistake as there were two proposals sent to the US House of Representatives. Chill. You'll go nuts when the trial of Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Serbia and Montenegro starts in February next year. --Dado 03:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this the trial in front of the court which dismissed case of Yugoslavia vs NATO on the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a UN member, yet later accepted case of B&H vs Yugoslavia on the grounds that Yugoslavia was a UN member? Don't know for Goran, I doubt that I'll go nuts, but I may die of laughing. Nikola 21:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-governmental? Gimme a break!

Somone mentioned non-governmental organizations? Easier said than done. The astute reader will buckle down and acutally read about who is behind those organizations: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=8613&sectionID=1

Vandalism

Warning to 210.124.188.139. You will be sanctioned if you continue vandalising the article.--Dado 04:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Talking about vandalism (or censorship?) in case of this article, what was wrong with that short note related to Erdemovic's nationality and interesting military record, which you had erased so promptly few days ago?

First, there is no proof that Erdemovic is in fact Croat (unless you can present one). Also is there verifiable proof that he was part of the military units that you are claiming. Besides all that it is irrelevant to point out his nationality. Nationalities of Karadzic and Mladic are not pointed out either (although they are quite clear I will admit). The only purpose I see is to support the legends that conspiracy theorists are revolving around the issues of revisionism and denial. Or perhaps for some it is a code to signify that since one person is of different nationality that makes him not credible. In either case it brings no quality to the article--Dado 18:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Links

There is a person who is persistantly trying to eliminate links that deal with the denial of the massacre. While I understand why were these links placed originally his point to make a note that these links are "genocide denial links" makes sense to me. Jitse I appreciate your persistance on this article but I think this is a good compromise. --Dado 04:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for taking this to the talk page. I agree with labelling the links and that's why I included short quotations indicating that they do not represent mainstream opinion. I think this is more informative than using a loaded label like "genocide denial", don't you? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We can do both: "These links do not represent mainstream opinion and some consider them genocide denial" But I am not the one who is disputing it so I would ask the person who was involved in this reverting to state his opinion. Thanks --Dado 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Denial of Srebrenica massacre

Apparently, not enough proofs have been given on historical revisionism page about the reality of denial of Srebrenica. If some think it's an important subject to place on the revisionist page, have a look. Lapaz 23:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Srebrenica massacre denial exists. There are also descriptions of events and analyses which differ/diverge from the commonly accepted version. This deserves to be pointed out. However, adding a second, equally long, paragraph about how these people are wrong seems rather partisan. Better to let the reader decide for himself. Thus, I have eliminated the second paragraph.Osli73 17:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Denial does exist but so does the debate about this particular type of revisionism. It does not fit the whole picture that revisionists have a last word when there is an equally strong force counterarguing the revisionist's claims [3] . For the sake of presenting the entire picture of the debate the paragraph deserves to placed back. --Dado 17:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think most people realize that the views presented in the "revisionism" and "denial" section are alternate versions not supported by the mainstream (and typically for good reasons). That should be enough. Adding the long harangue about how this is not 'real' revisionism gives a POV feel to it and just seems a bit contrived.Osli73 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dutch government

I think some additional information is needed about the resignation of the Dutch government after the release of the report about the utter failure of the peacekeeping efforts. Up to now the article does not say anything why they resigned and what where the results of the report. What were the failures of the Dutch soldiers or NATO? 84.59.109.206 14:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack of refenence to religion of Bosniaks

I'm a little worried the religion of the Bosniaks was not mentioned very much at all in the article. The article introduction should include a phrase refering to the largely Sunni Islam following Bosniaks. Can someone integrate that in there? 24.7.141.159 16:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The article at Bosnian Genocide appears to be a WP:POVFORK with little or no info unrelated with the topic of this subject. It should be merged into this one. See Talk:Bosnian Genocide#POV Fork; merge. Duja 00:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(Previous discussion from here moved to Talk:Bosnian Genocide#POV Fork; merge) by Duja 17:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC).)

Improving the article

After reading the article it comes accross as having a lot of good information but being a bit too heavy on words like "slaughter" and "innocent" etc. I realize this is an emotional issue but letting this seep into the wording of the text reduces the general impression of the article. Especially section "The Massacre" feels more like a text from an engaged journalist rather than something you would expect from a dictionary.Osli73 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now done a small clean-up of the article with the primary aim of making it a more concise and the the wording less emotional.Osli73 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Hardly a small clean-up but rather a extensive effort to change the word and spirit of the article. These things need to be discussed first.

The article is for the most part exact public transcript of the ICTY case prosecutor vs Krstic. In addition to that it is a compromise reached after some 6 months of edit waring and debating on this article (see archived discussions). Being a legal document it can hardly be taken as overtly emotional piece of literature and it is well suited and balanced for Wikipedia.--Dado 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the previous article was the result of a lot of work. I'm not saying all of it was bad, just that it was (1) way too long, (2) had a lot of emotional language in it ("slaughter" etc, perhaps fitting for the prosecutor, but not in a dictionary) and (3) was came accross as quite partisan. Sometimes it's good to kill your darlings and then remotivate why things should be put back into the article....Osli73 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In your edits you have conclusevly and deliberatelly done the following:

1. Eliminated mention that the massacre was a genocide
2. Eliminated mention that the takeover of the enclave was part of the plan to reconnect the teritory with Serbia in order to conceal the involvement of Serbia in the massacre.
3. Eliminated mention of ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks
4. Changed the name of Bosnian forces into Bosniak forces to allude that the army was monoethnic in its ideology as part of the theory that the war was ethnic civil war and not an act of aggression.
5. Eliminated mention of Serb attacks on Srebrenica prior to takeover as alluding to the takeover and the massacre as somehow being a retaliation for alleged attacks by Bosnian army
6. Attempted to allude to a conspiracy from Sarajevo to trade off Srebrenica for other military gains
7. Eliminated references to the failed responsibility of UN forces to protect the enclave
8. Completely eliminated a section that talks about the plan to execute the population as a way to conceal the intent as a primary element of genocide
9. Deleted resolution 199 to conceal the widely acceptable nature of the event
10. And to top it all off eliminated good part of denial and revisionism section as you have quite successfully implemented all elements of denial and revisionism into the article itself, all noted in points 1-9.

I assume you have done this (item 10) to justify your, what is clear now, heavily biased edits disguised as legitimate contribution. I would ask you kindly not to resort to such tactics and contribute to this difficult and controversial issue with much more care.--Dado 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that I'm trying to produce a balanced and concise article. I'm not trying to push any agenda at all (if I had been, wouldn't I have edited out quite a lot more). However, the previous article was, in my opinion (but obviously not yours), too polemic and emotional to fit in a encyclopedia. Comments like "and one of the most horrific events in recent European history" are example of this. However, I'll be happy to discuss your constructive comments:

1. You are correct, it should be added that the ICTY has ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide. I suggest including this in a separate section "War Crimes", "ICTY rulings" or similar.

2. It seems to be widely agreed that the strategic reason for capturing the enclace was to eliminate what was seen as a dangerous Bosniak pocket in Bosnian Serb territory and to ensure a contiguous territory i E Bosnia. However, I've never before heard that the strategic reasoning was to conceal the involvement of Serbia/Yugoslavia in the massacre. Do you have any referencec?

3. I'm fine with including a mention of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and of Bosniaks in E. Bosnia prior to the massacre. Let's put it in a Background section including a link to the Bosnian War article.

4. Civil war vs. act of aggression is a political statement which the article shouldn't take sides on. However, I'm fine with calling it the ARBiH.

5. The strategic reasoning for attacking the Srebrenica pocket is disucssed in no. 2 above. Though, since the ARBiH and irregular Bosniak forces (Oric) were active in the region, retaliation does seem like one likely motive.

6. There are speculations that this might have been part of the strategy/tactics of the Bosnian government in Sarajevo. I'll try to find some kind of sources for this.

7. Isn't it quite obvious that they UN forces were unable to defend the enclave?

8. The intent was very obviously to kill the military aged males of the enclave and to conceal this. The intent wasn't to try to kill the entire population, in which case also the women and children would have been killed.

9. The massacre is a widely accepted event. Including long references to US Congress resolutions doesn't seem like the way to prove it (or anything for that matter). Better to do this in the External links section.

10. The denial/revisionism section was more about attacking the revisionists than about presenting their opposing views. Remember, Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to push your own political agenda. Osli73 07:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not say anywhere that encyclopedia needs to be removed from the sense of humanity when trying to portray certain events as horrific. It is quite valid and completely sensible and morally correct to describe this event as horrible. I am quite certain that you would agree. You keep insisting that this article is somehow unbalanced yet you justify it as it being your own POV. If you have something against particularities in the article please state them here and we can debate them one by one. Now for your responses

2. You may be correct that RS leadership has seen Srebrenica as a dangerous pocket. Hitler has also seen Jews as being dangerous so he acted in preemption (aside from his clouded judgment). Let's look at this objectively. What is more dangerous. 40000 almost completely unarmed civilians, being starved to death and shelled for 3 years, or army armed to the teeth that completely surrounded the town of Srebrenica with almost complete freedom to do just about anything they wanted to the population. Let's think about that. SCG did have a strategy to conceal their involvement in the conflict given that they were faced with the genocide and aggression charge before the ICJ. I would suggest you read up on it (Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ)

3. Yet you keep reverting to the term Bosniak army.

4. You are right it is a point of contention and while the article did not take a side on the issue you certainly have in you edits

5. Oric's forces were not irregular. They were part of ARBiH. There was a certain degree of fighting and property plundering in fighting between Oric and VRS where plundering did take place in the context of the siege conditions that persisted over Srebrenica for 3 years

7. Yet it is important to note that they did not even attempt to take action.

8. The ICTY also noted that given the patriarchic structure of the Bosnian family it was know to the perpetrators that by eliminating the male population it would be impossible for its female population to reconstitute the community, effectively rendering the Bosniak community of Srebrenica destroyed. This falls under intent to destroy in whole or in part a population on a particular territory regardless that the actual direct physical destruction only pertained to military ready part of population. The entire population was by this act destroyed.

9. Unanimous bipartisan decisions on such controversial subject by US congress are very uncommon while the US congress represents some 350 million Americans. I would say that is significant enough number to consider this as a "generally acceptable opinion"

10. I deal with facts not agendas.

Please present specific problems about the original version of the article before you keep pushing what is clearly and what you have admited to be your POV.--Dado 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I havent heard anything new from Osli73...The article was based on relevant international court decisions...So if you, Osli73, have some neutral court decisions which will support your thesis, then provide those...--Emir Arven 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have noticed, that the above user is trying to put false information, when he is writing about regular Bosnian forces, Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina...He wants to present it as Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) army, which is not true, as well as Government of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, which was the only legal and recognized by UN, during war in Bosnia. So, what I see here, is not improving the article, but nationalistic game, which starts and finishes from time to time when the date of genocide (July 11th) is coming closer...Read the earlier discussions...--Emir Arven 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you are the nationalists - using the Srebrenica massacre to beat your opponents over the head. Calling me a Serb nationalist just because I disagree with your wording is a sign of your own paranoia. It's even more strange since I'm Swedish (and yes, my both of my parents are Swedish, I live in Sweden and I was born in Sweden, as was my wife and my children). Why do you think anyone who disagrees with you has to be a Serb?

I don't want to deny that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide or that the ARBiH was the "Bosnian army" (my mistake, I was trying improve the clarity of the article by calling people either Bosniaks or Bosnian Serbs, and mistakenly applied this to the ARBiH as well, so, please do not see this as part of some conspiracy). I agree that Mladic committed war crimes and that the UN failed to defend the enclave.

However, I do not like the very partisan/emotional tone of the article. Let's just take a look at the introduction, as an example: "and one of the most horrific events in recent European history." This is a statement of opinion. The text already says that it was the largest massacre in Europe since WWII, what's the use of the "horrible" comment?

The issue of the Scorpions - the US legal journal JURIST [4] , the Guardian [5], CNN [6], the Institute for War and Peace Reporting [7], the Washington Post [8] and the Times [9] all call them "paramilitaries" or "paramilitary". Why do you insist on saying they are "state" forces of Serbia?

This kind of tone carries on throughout the text of the article. I'm sure it's mostly factually correct, however, it is very selective use of facts spiced up by emotional language which gives the article a tone which I believe does not belong in an encyclopedia. I realize it will be difficult to convince Bosniaks of this so I will let you continue to use the article for your own political purposes.Osli73 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont know who you are and I dont care, but I have seen your contribution and motive in Serb related articles. I have also pointed out that changes made by you had nothnig to do with the improvement.Here is comparison which clearely shows what kind of "improvement" is this all about. For instance, you removed the fact about the age structure of the people killed in Srebrenica: Srebrenica genocide was killing of up to an estimated 8,106 Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly. Also, you put speculation made by Serb revesionists: "It has also been argued that the government in Sarajevo saw the presence of the refugees as a tool for keeping their claim on the area." Then you deleted very important information: Although Serbs were attacking and killing Bosniaks civilians in and around Srebrenica daily and left the second part of the sentence: "To the Bosnian Serb forces it appeared that Bosniak forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch offensives against them and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it.". But hey, you are Swidish...Sure you are...--Emir Arven 10:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a source that quotes the actual indictment of the Scorpion members that is as clear as a day about the relation of those forces to the Serbian state. All others that you have presented are op-ed pieces or reports that probably have echoed someone elses incorect statement, something that journalists often do as they get on a particular bandwagon. That is the only arguement that you had so far that merited a response. Everything else is your own POV. Emir's emotional retort may had been a bit too personal but I don't think this issue should be taken any more personally than that.--Dado 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Osli73, you made a lot of changes in the article in your effort to make it more concise. Many of them dissociate Serbia from the conflict. You cannot expect your changes to stay. However, that does not mean that you don't have a point, and perhaps some of your changes would improve the article.

On the issue of the Scorpions: It is not clear to me that the indictment of a prosecutor should be more reliable than many citations in various media.

Furthermore, I'm not at all happy with the section "Serbs Never Demilitarized, but Continued to Criticize Bosniaks". The section is too detailed and badly incorporated in the remaining text. It is already clear from the article that the Serb did not demilitarize. Finally, Wikipedia is not a collection of other texts. I'm reluctantly making an exception for the ICTY judgment, because it stopped the edit war. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some other massacre-articles (eg Katyn) on Wikipedia and find them to be more concise and less emotional. But, I realize this is a touchy subject and that a lot of those active on this article might have personal experiences of the massacre. So, I'll leave it at saying that I feel this article isn't as good (especially in the sense of concise and balanced) as I think it could be.

Regarding the Scorpions, I'm not sure that the prosecutor is necessarily the final word on this. Also, the Scorpions were not part of the state forces of Serbia (which were the JNA) or under the direct command of Serbia. As far as I have understood, they included persons from Serbia (though not exclusively).Osli73 09:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jitse I am not sure to which section you are referring. Could you paste it here and we can review it.

I would agree with you that Wikipedia should not be a collection of various texts but for this subject ICTY remains most reliable and most comprehensive to date. Article is not 100% verbatim copy of the text issued by ICTY and I think in time it is getting to be even less so, but as you have correctly pointed out the large presence of that document in this article it is an only thing that makes this article sustainable and not a subject of an edit war, at least for now.

Osli73, if you can provide information that the prosecutor's establishment of the facts regarding the relation of Scorpions with the Serbian State has been refuted in the court than we can discuss the issue again. Also I don't think that prosecution has claimed that Scorpions were part of JNA but part of the Serbia DB [state security] which is probably equivalent of State Police or a National Guard.--Dado 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about Srebrenica massacre#Serbs Never Demilitarized, but Continued to Criticize Bosniaks, which starts with "From: UN General Assembly, Fifty-fourth session, Agenda item 42: The Fall of Srebrenica - Role of Bosniak Forces on the Ground". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never noticed that section. It was probably added later and as you have said quite poorly incorporated and not wikified. I don't have time at this point to go over it so if you want to remove it I am OK with that. --Dado 00:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The section was indeed recently added, at 07:02, 29 May 2006 to be precise. I have removed it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Scorpions were paramilitary commandos (like all of Serbian Special Police) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary#Paramilitary_commandos - it's state forces. --HanzoHattori 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Raped female child source provided

"We saw two Serb soldiers, one of them was standing guard and the other one was lying on the girl, with his pants off. And we saw a girl lying on the ground, on some kind of mattress. There was blood on the mattress, even she was covered with blood. She had bruises on her legs. There was even blood coming down her legs. She was in total shock. She went totally crazy." source http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf

Thank you. I formatted the reference as customary. I also don't see why it is necessary to have the same story, in the same words, twice, so I removed the second instance. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Article length (too long)

I realize this is a very important topic for a lot of people. However, at 105 k the article is waaaay too long. See MediaWiki:Longpagewarning and Wikipedia:Article size. Any suggestions for shortening the article and making it more concise? The very long and detailed "The massacre" section could perhaps be shortened?KarlXII 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the September 11, 2001 attacks has 60 kb main and LOTS of related articles. Maybe it should be done in similiar structure?

This article is so one-sided. It does not show anything about the christmas day massacre of 500 serbian civilians commited by Oric. This article is a serious p.o.s!!!!! -Lazar

The "christmas day massacre of 500 serbian civilians" that you mention was actually the christmas day raid that resulted in the death and injury of around 70 Serb soldiers and 13 civilians. Live Forever 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, I agree that the article would benefit if some of the material was put in related/specific articles. Can you propose this to the powers that be on this article? I would suggest keeping a more concise version of the article and then putting the specifics and eye-witness stuff in related articles.Osli73 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Lazar, yes, I too feel the article is a bit partisan. However, given the nature of the event it describes, that can be forgiven. Especially since it is a very well sourced and documented article. As for the Christmans Day massacres and other background stuff, I think that could go in a specific background section (but with careful review of sources).Osli73 12:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that creating a daughter article or a Wikiquote article Witness accounts to Srebrenica Massacre containing well sourced and relevant quotes is rather good idea although it will probably not reduce the article significantly. --Dado 17:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dado, I also think that would be a very good idea. Other possible 'daughter' articles could be the whole Srebrenica massacre denial section, Background on the war in and around Srebrenica prior to the massacre, Political fallout from the massacre in the Netherlands and Western reactions to the massacre.

But, I think you are right when you say that these will not necessarily shorten the article by that much.Osli73 11:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So, if we agree that the article should be made shorter (more concise) then how do we go about this? I would suggest taking a section by section approach, where the person responsible proposes:

• suggestions for rewriting the text to make it shorter
• text to delete alltogether
• text to be moved to a daughter article

Could that be a good approach?Osli73 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts about alleged Serb casualties around Srebrenica

A couple of comments on this section:

• Using the "Facts about..." isn't quite accurate. What the researchers have arrived at is an estimate. I think it would be wise to change this.
• The IDC study only focuses on Bratunac, not on Srebrenica
• Others have contested this estimate. Most seem to cite that between 1,000-1,500 Serbs were killed in Srebrenica and Bratunac during 1992-1993 by Bosniak forces. Please see the Dutch govt report on the Srebrenica safe haven from 2002 (see external links). Of course, various Serb war-time sources cite higher figures (above 3,000).

Please let me know your thoughts before I go ahead and edit this section. Osli73 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bosniak" versus "Bosnian Muslim"

(The first two paragraphs are copied from User talk:Rigobert Song.)

Could you please give an explanation why you want to change "Bosniak" to "Bosnian Muslim" in Srebrenica massacre? Of course, this question would not have been necessary if you had used the edit summary box; please do this in the future, it is there for a reason! Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it disgusting for an entire article about the [[Srebrenica massacre[[ to not mention the unified religious background of the victims and an example of Islamophobia and a part of a collective effort by European historical revisionaries to make it appear as if Muslims, in the history of the world, have never suffered because of their relgious background and are always violent aggressors. Can you imagine an article on the Holocaust ommiting the fact that the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish?

As I understand it, the people themselves prefer the term "Bosniaks". Surely, you are not arguing that they are islamophobic? I'm not opposed to mentioning their predominant religion somewhere, but the way you are doing it suggests wrongly that all the people killed were Muslim. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak and "Bosnian Muslim" are virtually synonymous. And no, I'm not claiming that ALL civilian victims of the Bosnian-Serb war in general were Muslim but we are talking about the Srebrenica massacre here. I doubt the Serbs would be killing their Othrodox friends and I don't know about any Bosnian Croatians being involved, and "Bosniak" is not a term used as a reference to them. The fact that all of the 8,000 victims of this incident has names like Mustafic or Bajramovic, and that in many articles in the Western (BBC, etc.) refer to them as "Bosnian Muslims" must make it obvious? Also, note the way in which Milosevic would urge Serbs against the Bosniaks by equating them with the Turks? Also, note the involvement of other Orthodox groups such as Greeks and Russians in aiding the Serbs. Also, evangelical Christian groups here in the US had the audacity to try and claim that this event never happened and that that the Bosniaks were "Islamic terrorists" carrying out attacks on Christian Serbs.

I'm not asking that every mention of Bosniak be replaced by Bosnian Muslim, just that the first mention should be left or at least there should be some mention in the article of the religious motivation behind the killings.

I don't quite understand your logic. While on one end you correctly point out to Milosevic and probably more correctly Mladic calling Bosnian Serbs to take revenge on "Turks" (which is an ethnic connotation and in Bosnia a historical reference to Ottomans, not necessarily religious) on the other hand you are trying to point out that these were crimes against religion. While you are right that religion of Bosniaks played a large part, it is not the only deciding factor in the massacre. Furthermore, the Srebrenica massacre is not necessarily an exception to what happened in rest of BiH during the Bosnian War, the war that was primarily waged against Bosnian citizens en masse, loyal to the BiH government or the country. While I agree with Jitse's statement above that predominant religion of victims should be pointed out it is not the only factor in the massacre.

I think you should familiarize yourself with articles Bosniaks and maybe Anti-Bosniak sentiment--Dado 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak vs Bosnian vs Bosnian Muslim - brief explanation

Simplified explanation of terms:

Bosniak ===> ethnic group (see CIA World FactBook for Bosnia-Herzegovina).

Bosnian ===> nation (includes all people who live in Bosnia)

Bosnian Muslim ===> highly offensive for some locals in Bosnia, because Bosniaks are not "religious group", they are ethnic group who lived in Bosnia for centuries. In other words, Bosniaks are autochtone people of Bosnia.

Formating sources

As I mentioned in the edit summary the article is 95% based on the Prosecutor vs Krstic judgement which is a primary source so the tag is unjustified. I do however think that sources in this article should be formated to follow one of the source citing stiles such as MLA_style_manual. Article The Holocaust is a good example of how to properly format sources for an article and it is a good reference how to use codes (such as <ref name=sourcename> etc.). I can start on this if there is an agreement. --Dado 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the size of the article I would also ask anyone who wants to add aditional items on this article to provide specific sources formated per MLA Style manual or as per current source formating, as it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep track of all information that are being added. Also please read the article before the addition as some things are being added and repeated that further unnecessarily increase the size of the article and make it more difficult to read.--Dado 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre Anniversary

... is coming July 11th. We should ready ourselves to defend Srebrenica Massacre page from possible vandalism. In the coming days, I will be checking the page frequently, more often during the day. Please do the same and thank you all.- Bosniak

Bosniak bias

This article is so bias toward one side that it's unbelievable. I posted a link to the Bosniak atrosites and it was taken off yet there is a link to the execution of a Bosniak (The uncensored version of the Bosnian execution video Warning: shocking content!). And there are five more links that are pro-Bosniak (The Association Women of Srebrenica - Official Website, Srebrenica Genocide - Independent Blog, Myth about Serb Civilian Casualties Around Srebrenica - Facts compiled by State Sponsored Research & Documentation Center in Sarajevo, July 12, 1995 Through My Eyes, the Fall of Srebrenica account of a Bosniak soldier in Tuzla, Bosnian Genocide - Independent Web Site, BOSFAM - Non-Governmental group supporting displaced women in Bosnia). All articles need to be accurate and truthful.--Red Titan 12:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of sources and biased word choices

This article needs a cleanup in terms of word choice. There are also unverified claims about rapes of children and women that need to be sourced and original research regarding the lack of documented sources for certain instances.

Guy Montag 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead... - FrancisTyers · 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For someone who has been editing this article for so long, I don't know why you haven't caught on the bombastic language used and the uncited stories completely devoid of the Serbian account. Guy Montag 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been editing the article for about as long as you have and haven't been a serious editor of it. - FrancisTyers · 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I apologize. I've just noticed on the Dier Yassin talk page that you just started. Guy Montag 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

np :) I'm glad of your work here. Getting this to FA status would be quite a feat. - FrancisTyers · 23:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is going to take alot of work. Here is what I am thinking, I hope you are ready to get into deletionist mode. Erase anything that can be construed as an unverifiable opinion, even if it is made by a source. Keep those sources that cite something akin to "I saw XXX shoot 25 civilians in a ditch" and delete stuff like " I heard gunshots behind the barn, so I think they were buried in the general area." Make sure that others back up those claims. The UN has found that a massacre happened here, but it doesn't mean that clearly vicious unverified one sided claims need to be prominantly seen in this article without a counter claim. Guy Montag 23:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest we move such claims to the talk page rather than delete entirely. This way if someone has a better source they can provide it. - FrancisTyers · 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending citation or re-wording

Below is listed stuff that either needs to be cited, or both cited and re-worded. - FrancisTyers · 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Remarkably, a group of ABiH soldiers managed to reach Medjedja in a captured jeep bearing Yugoslav National Army identification marks, having killed the five original occupants of the vehicle (this was the only indication that the Yugoslav army may have been involved in any action against the column)."

File:Srebr5.JPG

Armoured vehicles fire on the people trapped at Kamenica

File:Srebr4.JPG

Serb soldier is seen wearing UN uniform at a roadblock

Are these pictures verified?

Guy Montag 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seemingly not, although I think the captions need citing more than anything else. It is clear from the clips that they are from TVP. - FrancisTyers · 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your point with POV on this article? Be ashamed. It's not hard to go to Holocaust article and put POV because someone once said that numbers are not... hmmm... that high. Apsurd. Leave this article alone, please. You are ruining your image, what you are getting from that when you put POV? Article is full of evidences, citations and references. Remember what I said about Holocaust? It's not good to behave like that and deny genocide. --HarisM 14:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of genocide denial? Where have I ever said that this article is not true? My complaint is that it isn't appropriately sourced in accordance with Wikipedia policies, see. WP:V and WP:CITE. - FrancisTyers · 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not you, sorry, other one. Guy Montag who started all this POV thing. Unnecesary. --HarisM 18:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply

no need for "neutrality disputed" statement and this article is still work in progress and many citations are being added as we speak.

I need citation for this paragraph

Can someone find citation for this paragraph: "About 762 Bosniaks had been killed in Zvornik on 1 June 1992. A similar massacre had taken place in Cerska on 9 September 1992, when a group of 6,000 refugees from Konjevic Polje, Cerska and Kamenica tried to reach Tuzla -- the VRS had laid ambushes and opened fire on the column, killing many and taking hundreds of prisoners, who then "disappeared". Some 500 people were killed close to Snagovo, as the moving column came under fire from artillery and aircraft. Human remains were still to be seen as the column of July 1995 passed on its way to Tuzla " Bosniak

Can someone format references better?

Some references are repeated and instead of repeating them 2,3 or more times, we can simply refer to the same reference using only one line of text in "references". Can someone format it this way, as I don't know how to do it. Thanks. Also, if you wish to add more info to references, or more references pointing to the same fact = go ahead and do it. Bosniak

POV?

Inserting a POV tag is one thing, documenting it at the talk page a logical step after that. As such, may I ask why this POV tag is inserted? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There were unsourced insertations by anon users of pretty strongly worded pov, and complete abuse of the enormity of the article by inserting pov words such as murder, slaughter etc. Guy Montag 19:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you show us the part of the article or senteces? The terms that were used (murder, slaughter are the same that are used in ICTY judgmenets). --Emir Arven 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problems at hand were

• "Remarkably, a group of ABiH soldiers managed to reach Medjedja in a captured jeep bearing Yugoslav National Army identification marks, having killed the five original occupants of the vehicle (this was the only indication that the Yugoslav army may have been involved in any action against the column)."-an unsourced narration.

• It is estimated that hundreds of women and female children were raped during Srebrenica massacre. The Serb troops abused women and even children whom they had herded into makeshift enclosures. Due to cultural stigma attached to rape, many women refused to testify against the rapists. -unsourced generalization and narration as to why it is unourced.

• However when the cameras were turned off the men were slaughtered at the hands of the Serb army. More than 60 truckloads were taken from Srebrenica to execution sites where they were bound, blindfolded, and shot with automatic rifles. Some of the executions were carried out at night under arc lights. Industrial bulldozers then pushed the bodies into mass graves, with some of the victims having been buried alive.

• Still the number of murdered is presently disputed by some. All nations and international organizations involved consider it to have been a massacre, and most consider it to be a case of genocide. The government of the Republika Srpska has officially condemned the atrocity.

That was just some of the few I was able to find, and that is after Francis, another editor already had a comb through. I understand that those are words used by the reports, but you have to use non pov versions in wikipedia, although I don't know whats the policy on articles that deal with clearcut cases.

Guy Montag 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you name it. How would you name killing of any people? Patethic, leave the article alone --HarisM 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag, if I understand correctly, you believe that words such as “murder” and "slaughtered" are not appropriate for wikipedia and that such words do not serve as objective descriptions of what happened in Srebrenica. If that is so, you have a lot of homework to do cleaning up wikipedia. You will need to also go to wikipedia’s “Holocaust” page and inform the editors of that article that their use of the word “murder” is not appropriate. Perhaps, you will also want to go to the “Armenian Genocide” and tell the wikipedia editors there that “mass murder” is not an appropriate term to describe the… well… mass murders that occurred there. Maybe you will also object to wikipedia’s description of Stalins Great Purge as including “extra-judicial murders”. Or wikipedia’s description of Ganghis Khan’s soldiers as engaging in “murder”. Or maybe you would object to wikipedia describing what was done to children at “Jonestown” as “mass murder”. Wikipedia’s description of the Nanking Massacre: “murder”. Wikipedia’s description of Alexander the Great’s destruction of Thebes “slaughters the population”. Wikipedia’s description of what Ethelred II of England did to the Danes: “slaughtered” them. Wikipedia’s description of what Richard the Lionheart did to muslim prisoners: “slaughtered” them.

So, Guy, you have quite a bit of homework if your objective is to stop the use of these words in wikipedia articles. Or Guy, maybe you should ask yourself why you object to the use of the word "murder" to describe what happened in Srebrenica?

If that was not mass murder, what is?

Guy?

With that said, I believe the Srebrenica massacre article would benefit from additional source references in a number of places that you have pointed out. The truth of what happened there and the extensive documentation describing it is so powerful, unsourced narratives are not necessary to give a detailed account of the Srebrenica massacre. --Fairview360 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a response to a comment left on my talk page following a call to provide sources for this article. While I have personally formatted and confirmed at least 20 sources there are at least 20 more added on top of that. I will keep searching for more and keep checking the statements noted in this article but it is a task that takes some time. So far all of the statements that I thought may be controversial, checked out. I may have missed a couple but hardly enough to blanket the entire article as POV. Because of that and the obvious logical fallacy of the person that tried to dispute this article, that was rather intelligently dismantled by Fairview360 I will be removing the POV tag.--Dado 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also to all, if you feel that a particlular statement requires a citation, note (Insert: {{fact}}) next to it. It will make improving this article that much easier. Thanks --Dado 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also checked some things. It's a lot of work, so thanks very much for your efforts. I did come across some problems. The phrase "considered by many as one of the most horrific events in recent European history" in the introduction, while true, is not supported by the AP reference given. The link http://bratunac.com/content.php?content.12 to "Truth about Bratunac (Istina o Bratuncu)" in note 6 is broken and I couldn't find the article on the website (though most of it is Bosnian, which makes it hard for me to navigate). I commented out the text

"The UN did nothing to protect the Bosniak civilians in Srebrenica. One hundred lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers were denied repeated requests for reinforcements and consequently sidelined to witness what was to follow." (at the top of the section "The crowd at Potočari")

because it was not taken from the ICTY judgement while the rest of the paragraph was. I also have some problems with the text by itself ("nothing" seems to harsh, I think there were more Dutch at the time, and it's not clear what the request for reinforcements refer to in this context).

Finally, I fully agree with Dado's request a few sections up that "anyone who wants to add aditional items on this article to provide specific sources", and I'd like to add that if you refer to a long document, please provide a page number or something like that, as it is not easy to find one specific fact in hundreds of pages of text. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not find the sentance in question but I do agree that stating UN did nothing is a bit harsh. While I have found several sources that have actually said that (such as The Observer) I find it to be a bit of a jurnalistic embelishment. Perhaps we can do this

"The UN neglected to protect the Bosniak civilians in Srebrenica as mandated in the UN resolution. One hundred lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers were denied repeated requests for reinforcements and consequently sidelined to witness what was to follow." --Dado 14:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the link, it may be temporarily down. The numbers are also quoted in the book and google search still returns the hit (however in bosnian only) [10]. I'd give it a bit time but I'll try to find another link--Dado 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Kozluk date

Is it estabished yet? --HanzoHattori 10:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The first sentance in that paragraph states between 14 July to 17 July 1995. I think that is as good as it gets. "Unknown date" in the paragraph title looks a bit weak so I would say to replace it with "14-17 July: Kozluk" --Dado 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-Serb participants in the killings

This section has a number of problems, both POV and language-wise:

According to the report by the Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, that led the Wim Kok government to resign (irrelevant to his section and already stated), approximately twelve (I can't find any number stated in the online version of the report,correct me if i'm wrong) Greek volunteers took part in the massacre of Srebrenica. These persons belonged to the Greek Volunteer Guard (ΕΕΦ), an integral part of the Drina Corps and were either members of the Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi group, or mercenaries. Ratko Mladić himself had asked ((Whom?) to put up the Greek flag after the massacre, while Radovan Karadžić had honored the volunteers.

Actually I did find this [11]. I also found that there is more to the issue of raising the greek flag than what is noted in the article. What may seam the most frequent source quoted on this issue is Takis Mikas book [12] where on the page 22 there is actually a photo showing Greek flag in Srebrenica. Following is my proposed revision:

"According to the report by Agence France Presse (AFP), 12 Greek volunteers took part in the massacre of Srebrenica . These persons belonged to the Greek Volunteer Guard (ΕΕΦ), an integral part of the Drina Corps and were either members of the Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi group, or mercenaries. According to book by Takis Michas a Greek flag was raised in Srebrenica following the fall of the city while Radovan Karadžić had honored the volunteers. "

--Dado 17:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue was forgotten for years, due to the tolerance shown by the majority of both Greek media and people (POV blanket statement, what were "the greek people", if we were supposed to consider them some sort of unified group, supposed to do about some obscure issue concerning the wars in Yugoslavia?), until the Greek deputy Andreas Andrianopoulos broached the subject in 2005 and the Minister of Justice Anastasios Papaligouras committed an investigation, which is still underway. All Greek volunteers are still elusive, but many Greeks have sympathy towards these people who they viewed as defending Europe and Christianity against Islamic fundamentalism.(POV blanket statement again."Many Greeks " is a clear example of weasel wording.How many is "many"?Are these certain groups of people?How can this be measured?There's no denying that this idea exists, but the way it is presented leaves much doubt about its prominance.Is this what Takis Michas's book says exactly?) --Jsone 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version (02:26, 30 July 2006 by Dado) is fine.--Jsone 10:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up effort

In last 7 days we had various edits done on this article that mostly have taken away from its quality so I have resorted to a bit controversial revert to the version as of July 22. Primarily the reason was because numerous sources and links to sources were eliminated but also because some of the points raised by two last comments on this discussion page. I do however think that few edits were done to contribute to the July 22 version of the article and I will comb through the article to return those. Also we can address issues raised in last two comments as well . I hope everyone will find this agreeable because it will be enormous task to go back and fix the errors with sources that were created.--Dado 22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak Message to Dado

Dado, how can we protect the page from vandalism and removal of sources? Is there any way we could protect the page in a way "Holocaust" page is protected?--Bosniak 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what are the conditions that made article Holocaust permanently locked. If you can find out about that we can see if the same can be applied here. --Dado 20:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionism

This section is: 1. not sourced 2. quite partisan 3. I'm not sure there even is such a thing as "Srebrenica genocide denial/revisionism", isn't it just a label used on opponents? I believe this section should be taken out, as the topic is already covered in the previous section. Osli73 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That section is well sourced but you didn't read it. There is a source for a part that you removed: "The Myth Of Bratunac: A Blatant Numbers Game" IDC research about Serb propaganda. This is also confirmed in Naser Oric judgement. --Emir Arven 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see this as an act of denial of genocide and sneaky vandalism. --Emir Arven 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Emir Arven,

the whole Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionism section is completeley unsourced. Yes, there are people who have a different interpretation of event and even those who claim that the massacre didn't happen (though I imagine that they are few, I've never heard of anyone). This is discussed/presented quite well in the preceeding Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism section. However, the term "Srebrenica genocide denier/revisionist" is not established. If there is such an established term, show me.

I moved the Serb casualties around Srebrenica section out of the Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism since that topic is not related to denial of the massacre.

The IDC report is on Bratunac municipality only and I can only find a press release, no original documentation or other references.

Finally, calling me a Srebrenica genocide denier just because I don't agree with your exact interpreation of events / analysis is childish. I've never said that the massacre didn't happen or that some 8,000 people weren't killed or how it happened. I don't dispute the Bosnian Serb/Yugoslav complicity in the massacre(s). What I object to is how some of these and related events are presented in the article. If this topic is too sensitive for you to be able to discuss sensibly and rationally, then I think you are better off editing other articles. Osli73 14:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Osli, you removed the whole section. That shouldn't be done. It is not Wikipedian way. We can go through every sentence that you want to remove and discuss about it. The source about Bratunac is very important, because Bratunac is used in this story by Serb politicians, and other deniers as an argument for relativization of genocide that happened in Srebrenica. So its place is here. IDC presented its research and showed that Serb politicans manipulated with numbers. Manipulation is a kind of revisionism. --Emir Arven 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Emir Arven and Dado, I completely fine with discussing changes before making them, as long you are willing to enter into a discussion with an open mind.

I don't see how the Genocide deniers section in question is warranted as it is not adding any sourced information to the article. Instead, it's quite clearly an attempt to label/taint all of those who hold a different interpretation of events, akin to calling all those who dare oppose Israeli policies as "anti-Semites" or, for that matter, all those Croats who support an independent Croatian state "neo-Ustasha" or "fascists" and then going on to say that these people, incorrectly, try to call themselves "anti-Zionists" and "anti-Communists". It's simply not a very encyclopedic way of presenting the issue and it lowers the overall quality of the aticle.

I absolutely believe that the Bratunac research by the RDC should be mentioned. I just believe that it's one of several sources that should be mentioned as there doesn't seem to be any consensus on the total number of Serb casualties around Srebrenica. By the way, only the press release is available on the RDC website, has anyone found the entire report? Any other mentions of it?

Finally, I realize that the whole Serb casualties issue is often used by Serb nationalists as a way to justify or diminish the Srebrenica massacre (or other crimes). However, there seems, maybe because of this, to be similiar knee-jerk reaction by Bosniaks to diminish the magnitude, nature of and consequences of the crimes against Serbs. There is a pretty good recent article from Transitions Online on this in relation to the verdict in the Naser Oric case at the ICTY (read the end). I recommend it. Osli73 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a text in the Casualties section of the Bosnian War article that I find as quite good regarding different estimates of the numbers of people killed. It reads:

Large discrepancies in all these estimates are generally due to the inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions. Original higher numbers were also used as many victims were listed twice or three times both in civilian and military columns as little or no communication and systematic coordination of these lists could take place in wartime conditions. Manipulation with numbers is today most often used by historical revisionist to change the character and the scope of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, most of above independent studies have not been accredited by either government involved in the conflict and there are no single official results that are acceptable to all sides.

I think something like this (granted that the number of people killed in Srebrenica is better documented) is what is needed for the Srebrenica massacre article. Also with regard to the Serb casualties section. Osli73 07:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Any reactions, comments? If noone is willing to enter into a (serious and open minded) discussion of my proposed changes on these Talk pages I might as well edit the article directly.Osli73 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dado, I see that you added the Srebrenica Blogspot as a source for your Srebrenica genocide denial section. I'm sorry, but a Bosniak nationalist blog (the kind that likes to present Naser Oric as a war hero, etc) isn't exactly a credible or relevant source. The Srebrenica genocide blogspot is exactly the kind of site that is trying to use the massacre to hit political opponents over the head with, which is what I feel this article sometimes does as well (in sections such as this).Osli73 10:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You put false info in the article. Without source and proof. It is not accepted by all sides that large number of Serbs were killed between 92-95, neither by ICTY nor by IDC, just by Serb propaganda, and you said that you are not Serb, yes sure ordinary Swedish guy...If you want to write about Serbs casulates then write it in Bosnian War or similar articles, but don't spread propaganda. --Emir Arven 08:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir Arven, it's sad to see that your knee jerk reaction to someone challenging your interpretation of events is that they must be a Serb nationalist. Did you read the suggested articles I mentioned above? You reaction is exactly the kind which is described in the Transitions Online article I mentioned earlier.

It is sad to see that you pretend to be a Swedish guy, but you are a Serb. --Emir Arven 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, I'm sorry to have to say this, but your focus on and disbelief in my nationality is symptomatic of true nationalists. You really see the world in black and white, either with me or against me.Osli73 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to hide the fact that you are a Serb. You don't have to pretend to be a Swedish to make a point. I didn't focus on your nationality because you are a Serb, but because of your manipulations. --Emir Arven 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Serb casualties around Srebrenica are a part of the background to the massacre, as they go some way in explaining the viciousness of the Serb forces towards the inhabitants of the town. I'm not trying to diminish the 1995 massacre, just explain the context in which it happened.

False. Serbs are trying to present their military casualties in fights as "a part of the background to the genocide". --Emir Arven 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, the reason the Naser Oric case (and its outcome) gained so much attention (despite him being a minor player) was precisely because some Serbs see it (and the killing of Serbs around Srebrenica 92-93) as a way to put the Srebrenica massacre into a greater context while Bosnian Muslims see it as a threat to their role as the only victims in the tragedy that was the Bosnian war. Please read the Transitions Online article I mentioned earlier.Osli73 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Killing the Serbs" around Srebrenica is propaganda, as it is showed in ICTY judgements. Are you talking about Serb soldiers or civilians? According to the judgement: "As for the destruction in the villages of Kravica, Siljkovici, Bjelovac, Fakovici and Sikiric, the judgment states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Muslim 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, they even used the warplanes." But Serbs claimed that this villages were destroyed by Bosniak foreces, as you do. --Emir Arven 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As to the exact number of persons killed, well... no-one seems to know exactly. It seems that numbers range from some 500 to over 3,000. I haven't seen any of the studies (the RDC material is only a pressrelease, which, to me, doesn't sound too academic in its language). So, why not leave it at that?

Because Carla del Ponte and Naser Orić judgement showed that Serb numbers are propaganda. --Emir Arven 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, no neither CdP or the Naser Oric judgement said anything about the number of Serbs killed around Srebrenica (what source do you base this on, by the way). The number of Serbs killed around Srebrenica was not part of the indictment against Oric. Finally, you must not mix up history and legal process - just because someone isn't convicted in a court of law of for a specific crime doesn't mean that they, in the eyes of history, are not guilty or did not play a part in it. Slobodan Milosevic was never convicted of anything and even if he hadn't died prematurely it is not unlikely that he would have been acquitted on quite a few of the charges made against him. Did this / would that have made him any less complicit in what happened?Osli73 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it said that seven people (Serb prisoners) were killed in police station during two years. I just showed you a part of his judgement. In its case, the prosecution tried to show that Oric was responsible for the destruction of about 50 Serb villages in the Bratunac-Srebrenica area in 1992 and 1993. Those acts are described in four counts of the indictment, and are qualified as violations of laws and customs of war. The prosecution claims that Oric, as the commander of the Srebrenica armed forces, is responsible for the "preparation, direction and implementation" of crimes alleged in the indictment, and for failing to prevent them or punish their perpetrators. Prosecution based its case on documents that Serbs prepared for them. But the judgement was totally opposite. It showed that in number of villages Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in those villages. So you are talking about people killed in this fight? --Emir Arven 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The ICTY case you are referring to (the Naser Oric one, I presume) only established whether Naser Oric could be personally tied to some specific deaths and cases of torture, not whether, or how many, Serbs had been killed by Bosniak forces around Srebrenica 1992-95.

No it showed that Serbs lied about number of people killed (soldiers and civilians) as well as destroyed villages. They showed completely opposite picture than presented by Serbs. Serbs commited massacers in every town in eastern Bosnia between 92-95, Foča, Trebinje, Bileća, Višegrad, Rogatica, Vlasenica, Kalinovik, Bratunac etc. so we should include all these massacers as "a part of the background to the genocide". --Emir Arven 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, again, the Naser Oric case did not prove anything regarding the number of Serbs killed. And, as I said above, the Serbs certainly saw the Bosniak attacks on Serbs around Srebrenica 92-93 as background to their attack on Srebrenica in 1995. The issue is also give quite a lot of space in the Dutch government report on the Srebrenica affair (see article external sources).Osli73 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it did. It destroyed Serb myth about 50 villages allegedly destroyed by Naser forces, and number of Serbs killed in Srebrenica. Serbs didn't see "Bosniak attacks on Serbs around Srebrenica as background to their attack" because Srebrenica was under the Serb siege and fire before that, Serbs just see this as an opportunity to justifay that horrible genocide, which was carefully planned and executed with participation of 20.000 Serb soldiers. As I said if you want to talk about casualties before Srebrenica genocide then we must explain about Višegrad massacres (just in one day Serb authorities in Višegrad gathered 70 Bosniak women and burned them in a house, before that they raped them), Bijeljina massacre, Foča massacre, Trebinje and Bileća massacres, Vlasenica massacre, Kalinovik massacre etc. There is more then 400 mass graves of Bosniak civilians found so far in Republika Srpska. That is a proof that no one can deny. So we should write it, as a background of Srebrenica genocide. Emir Arven 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)--15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers,Osli73 09:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Info. box on when, where and how many people were killed

As the article is quite long I think it would be helpful if some sort of info. box were added summarizing where, when and how many people were killed. Maybe even a map, if anyone has time/ability for that. Any takers? Osli73 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Serb Casualties"

Several problems with the "Serb casualties" section.Live Forever 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for being willing to engage in discussion, which few seem ready to do (most seem to scream Serb propagandist, or similar):

1. "It is accepted by all sides that Bosniak forces killed a large number of Serbs". "Large" relative to what? Sentence is also misleading in this context as it doesn't mention that the significant majority of these Serb "casualties" were soldiers killed in military confrontations.

Well, with estimates ranging between 500 to over 3000 I would say that it is safe to call it a "large" number. These are also stated in the ICTY Press Briefing mentioned below as well as by the NIOD report (which is already used as a source in the "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign". Why is "casualties" misleading? With regard to the RDC figure, I have specified the estimated number of soldiers and civilians. As for the other estimates, we just don't know.

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that the majority of the killed Serbs in the region were soldiers; this is confirmed not only by the RDC findings (which, as I said earlier, are far superior to the other sources presented and deserve to be treated as such) but also by various other sources such as the VRS' own report on Kravica. Kravica, taken by some of the biased pro-VRS sources to be the epitome of ARBiH brutality against civilians, turned out to only have resulted in the death of a dozen civilians and a much greater number of soldiers. The nature of the Serb casualties can also be surmised by any nonpartisan observer merely from the basic facts surrounding the situation: ARBiH forces did not go about rounding up civilians and executing them, but conducted raids against VRS villages and positions which were met with armed resistance. To neglect mentioning that the majority of the Serb casualties were soldiers killed in military confrontations implies that they are comparable to the Bosniaks murdered two years later; exactly what pro-RS sources who gloss over these established facts are attempting to insinuate by doing so. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "The extent" to which these killings motivated the VRS forces to seek revenge on the Bosniak inhabitants of Srebrenica isn't disputed; the very assertion that these killings at all "motivated" the VRS to seek revenge on the Bosniak inhabitants of Srebrenica is disputed. VRS forces had been attacking Srebrenica for years, and had already conducted massive massacres in comparable near-by towns that they had managed to take over. What were these massacres "revenge" for? To many (including the United Nations, a fairly neutral source) such opinions are simply apoligism and excuses, no different than earlier claims that the mass killings the VRS conducted throughout Eastern Bosnia were "revenge" for the Ottoman conquest. It should certainly be noted that Serb apoligists regularly claim the Srebrenica massacre was "motivated" by these killings, but to accept it as fact is preposterously POV.

"The extent" wording could certainly be qualified. However, I recall seeing quite a few sources which state that the Serb lust for revenge for losses 92-93 may have motivated their behavior in June 1995. For example, the Dutch govt. (NIOD) report says (see bottom of the page):

The Muslim attacks during the first year of the war appear to have caused the most resentment among the Serbs, who felt deeply humiliated by Oric. It is primarily defeats in places such as Zalazje, Podravanje, Fakovici and Kravica that Serbs wanted to avenge. Probably, that thirst for vengeance was one of the main driving forces behind the massacres in July 1995.

Calling the Dutch govt. Serb apologists seems a bit paranoid. Also the NIOD report has already been used as a source in the "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign" section. I'm sure there are plenty of other non-Serb sources as well (By the way, why would a Serb source be less qualified tha, for example, the Srebrenica genocide blogspot, which seems to be a very popular source here?).

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The NIOD is, as far as I can tell, a fairly unreliable source with wildly flawed information that seriously jeopardizes the validity of its conclusions. Please refer to the section where the report talks about the "total annihilation" of the population of Kravica. If it adopts such well-documented Serb propaganda as that into its findings, then it is no wonder that it would also adopt the pro-RS stance that the killings "motivated" the Srebrenica massacre. If the NIOD is used as a source elsewhere in the article, then I suggest it's immediately taken out and replaced with more credible material. Considering the well-documented nature of the section you mentioned (i.e. "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign"), finding a superior source should not be hard to find; I myself have several candidates. Basically, this article is supposed to deal with facts and there is simply no way to firmly establish the "motives" of those who perpetrated the Srebrenica massacre (are we to assume that had it not been for the ARBiH raids the VRS would not have conducted mass killings of Bosniaks upon taking over the city, even if they had already done so in Bratunac, Bijeljina, Visegrad, etc.?). Thus, putting them forward as facts is simply wrong. The only thing that could be written that is factually accurate is that VRS sympathizers have put forward these raids as having motivated the Srebrenica massacre (although, in this case, the wild exaggerations of documented casualty numbers put forward by these groups would have to be noted). The fact that non-Serb (and presumably impartial) sources also put forward this "theory" is irrelevant, as because we are dealing with "motives" it is evident that they are merely echoing the Serb sentiments. As for your question in which you brought up the validity of Serb sources and the Srebrenica genocide blog, you're completely missing the point in your witch-hunt for fallacies. The Srebrenica genocide blog is a perfectly valid source because the information posted there that is used on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, is original material from the ICTY, United Nations, etc. If you can find Serbian sources not based on original material but information from credible and legitimate sources, then perhaps they can be worked into the article. Unfortunately, sensationalistic Belgrade media posting inflated victim numbers do not fit these criteria. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

3. The section conveniently glosses over the fact that the Serb "villages" the ARBiH troops were raiding weren't simply civilian communities of Serb peasents as the name implies.

Again, only the RDC pressrelease comments on the breakdown between soldiers and civilians, which I have included in the text. I'm certainly not trying to gloss anything over. Otherwise we might as well state in the intro what portion of the 8,000 killed and missing were soldiers/of military age.

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's because you're contorting my arguments into ones you feel you could answer or because you're woefully uninformed, but my comment was not related to "the breakdown between soldiers and civilians" per se, but rather to the proven and well-document nature of many Serb villages as military outposts - facts which your section on Serb casualties wholly ignores. As for your contention that the RDC press release is "[the] only" source that comments on the above-mentioned "breakdown between soldiers and civilians": false. Once again, as the RDC represents the only professional multiethnic effort to carefully document and analyze the casualty figures of the Bosnian war it deserves to be given more weight, but either way there are numerous sources and facts which testify to the fact that most Serbs killed in the region around Srebrenica were soldiers. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Quoting Lewis MacKenzie is simply pathetic. Not only was MacKenzie outside of Bosnia for two years by the time the massacre in Srebrenica happened (not to mention that considering his location in Sarajevo, general ineptitude, and overall lack of UN presence in Srebrenica at his time, the extent to which he is qualified to talk of Srebrenica is minimal), but he is also funded by Serb lobby groups and accused of rape.

MacKenzie was the commander of the UNPROFOR during 1992, so he would have had a good insight into the events discussed here. As for the smear campaign directed against him by the Bosnian government the Journal of Conflict Studies gives a good overview of it:

Part of the propaganda war was a successful Bosnian government campaign to discredit MacKenzie personally (including stories that his wife was a Serb). The UN's response was to ignore such stories, rather than take action to refute them, and by June they had reached such a level that MacKenzie asked to be relieved as he could no longer function without risk to his troops, identified as "MacKenzie's men." In November 1992, coinciding with the Islamic Conference in Saudi Arabia, the Bosnian government claimed that MacKenzie had raped and murdered three or four Muslim girls obtained for him at a Serb concentration camp. By 1995, this story was being reported as regular visits by MacKenzie to a Serb camp brothel stocked with Muslim girls.

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the chief source for the journal you provided is MacKenzie's own book "Peacekeeper". The Bosnian government's "smear campaign" that you refer to includes the testimony of a Serb eye-witness as well as video evidence testified to by witnesses in a special briefing conducted by Helsinki Watch for Congressional staffers. Asides from this lies my point which you completely ignored; the fact that MacKenzie made speaking tours in the United States funded at $15,000 per engagement by Serb lobby groups. As for your contention that MacKenzie's status as commander of UNPROFOR in 1992 means he has "good insight into the events discussed here", were you familiar with the situation in Srebrenica in 1992 and 1993 you would know that UN presence was marginal and minimal, and MacKenzie's ability to have "good insight" while situated in besieged Sarajevo (never mind his apparent pro-Serb sympathies) is highly questionable. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

5. The Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo presented as just another source. In fact, as it has a multiethnic staff and open, detailed, professional, and extensive research into the number of casualties during the Bosnian war, it should be presented with the credibility it deserves. Especially considering that other sources with figures in the section are random Serb media outlets, the Serbian government, and a disgraced general.

Well, I am citing it so it's there. I suggest reading this briefing with Florence Hartmann, Spokesperson for the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICTY specifically on the subject of the number of Serbs killed. Basically, she recognizes that there is a wide range in the estimates, which is exactly what I do as well. Again, the NIOD report has been used as a source elsewhere in this article, why not on this topic?

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be cited in the article, but the manner in which is done is wrong (see above). As for the briefing with Florence Hartmann you provided, it takes place well before the RDC date pertaining to the issue was released, but still reinforces most of the points I've raised. While it is important to maintain an N-POV on Wikipedia, this does not mean treating all sources in a debate equally despite an obvious gap in credibility. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Dado, why have you added the NPOV dispute tag? [Wikipedia] defines NPOV as "In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts." This is precisely what I am doing!

I suspect you put the tag there simply because it goes against your own ideological conviction (Wikipedia warns that "For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough.).

Maybe I should enter a NPOV dispute tag on the sections of the article which I feel are biased as well. Osli73 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Notice to Osli73

You can agree or disagree, it's up to you. However, we will not let you post already discredited Serbian information and present it as a fact in Srebrenica Massacre article. Although I salute your decision not to deny Srebrenica genocide, I must condemn you for spoiling the article with moral relativism and already discredited Serbian sources (e.g. the number of Serbs killed, adventures of accussed concentration camp raper and Serb lobbyist Gen. Mackenzie, etc). --Bosniak 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, you are bent on calling anyone who challenges your highly biased presentation and analysis of events as "vandalism" or "moral relativism". I get the feeling that you see the Srebrenica massacre as more of a political than a historical topic. You choose to only present your numbers and dismiss any source or text which does not fit your view as "Serb propaganda". And, no, Lewis MacKenzie was no "concentration camp raper" - as I explained/showed above to Dado, that was a smear campaign by the Bosnian government during the war. Cheers Osli73 06:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NIOD REPORT IS BIASED

Read here: RELATIVISM OF JUSTICE: Thoughts on Noam Chomsky, NIOD Report, Dutch Government, U.N. & more... --Bosniak 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, the NIOD report has been criticised by some (mainly for being too large or being used by political opponents), but that is something that is always going to happen in such a controversial issue as the Srebrenica massacre. Certainly, Bosniak nationalists seem very intent on pinning as much blame as possible on the Dutch government for the massacre.

Finally, nationalist blogs such as the Srebrenica Genocide blogspot are not very good sources. Otherwise I could easily start referring to the rantings of a slew of Serbian nationalist blogs. Osli73 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence

I think the changes need to be discussed one by one instead of the wholesale reversions that seem to have become the norm. So let's look at the first sentence:

"The Srebrenica massacre was the July 1995 killing of up to 8,373 (killed or missing) Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska under the command of general Ratko Mladić."

The question is whether to include the parenthetical remark "(killed or missing)". I think that the sentence does not make much sense with it, in the view of the word killing before. On the other hand, the list where the number 8373 comes from indeed talks about "missing or killed". Finally, I think that mentioning the number "up to 8373" suggests a precision which is simply unattainable. For that reason, I prefer a vague formulation like "the July 1995 killing of around eight thousand Bosniak males". In a footnote, or perhaps a section further down the article, we can justify the number 8000 by mentioning different estimates like the Federal Commission for Missing Persons and the first ICTY judgment against Krstic (the latter says that the number is likely to be within the range 7000 - 8000). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, I think your suggestion is good. I think it would be good to include a summary stating how many are confirmed dead and how many are missing as well as providing information where what number of persons were killed, f.ex. how many were executed in Srebrenica and how many were killed while making their way towards Tuzla.

Cheers Osli73 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre Article Placed on Protection

I have placed the article on protection due to never ending vandalism. We cannot allow people to delete factual statements if they don't like them, nor we can allow already discredited Serbian sources to be entered into the article. --Bosniak 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Placing Template:Sprotect on the article does not place it under protection. In fact, you cannot place an article under protection yourself, only administrators can do that. I suggest you read our protection policy for further information, including the steps to take to request protection. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just silly, frankly - semi-protection only protects the article against editing by new and anonymous users. If you have a content dispute I suggest you work it out with the other editors. -- ChrisO 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Genocide

I noticed that there is a disagreement about whether the sentence that the Srebrenica massacre was the first legally established case of genocide in Europe. This is actually correct - nobody was prosecuted for genocide over the Holocaust, for the simple reason that the offence of genocide didn't exist in international law until 1948. The first convictions for genocide were in Rwanda in 1998, and Krstic was only the third person (and the first European) to be thus convicted. See Genocide Convention for more. -- ChrisO 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli73 is wrong, yet another time!

You stated that this statement is not in reference to the ICTY:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide."

Yet, another time, I am proving you wrong, read here: http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/krs-aj040419e.htm --Bosniak 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, again, you didn't read my text "the reference isn't to the ICTY document, but to some Bosniak NGO". I was referring to the reference, not the text. Pls read more carefully.Osli73 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert and protection of the article

Why was the article reverted and then protected? I have a long history on Wikipedia, I have offered to discuss my changes (but received no reply), explained the changes that I have made, and included plenty of reliable sources and references to the edits I have made.

So, please explain exactly what it is that you will not accept? Osli73 21:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now made a request to unprotect the article.Osli73 21:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the article was never protected. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, rather than finding excuses to erase statements that anyone familiar with the Srebrenica massacre know are true, for example, that some preteen children were killed, why not help find better primary source material? You could contribute your time to researching ICTY or ICMP documents. Your penchant for erasing accurate statements or relegating them to obscure places in the article creates the impression that your goal might be to obfuscate what happened rather than make it more clear. As it stands now, you erased the statement that preteen children were killed because the source material was not sufficient in your opinion and yet the source material included verbatim text from the ICTY? Why would you erase the statement that preteen children were killed? If you want to improve the article, then find better source material. --Fairview360 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, that statement is not important enough to be included in the lead section. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding that sentence (a) the quote was from a rather nationalist blog (even though the source stated that it was from the ICTY document). This makes it difficult to know in what context that quote was made and (b) I'm not sure it is necessary to include that information in the introduction, which should be a summary of the article.Osli73 15:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Adjustments

The article is good, mainly because it contains a lot of information about the massacre. However, it has some faults as well, mainly relating to the tone in which it is written and that it, in some places, only present one of several common interpretations of events. I have focused on three areas where this is evident before:

1. Introduction: the text talks about "up to 8,373 Bosniak males" when in fact the figure quoted is typically 7-8,000 and that includes missing. Also, the Holocaus was never legally defined as Genocide.

1. Stuggle for Srebrenica: this section glosses over the effect which the Bosniak offensive 1992-93, including the killing of a large number of Serb civilians, had on the behavior of Serb forces in 1995. I provided several sources which stated that Serb losses during this period gave rise to feelings for revenge.

1. Serb casualties around Srebrenica: this section only presents one study's findings on this issue instead of presenting the range of estimates which are out there (and which are quoted). I sources this from the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor's press brief regarding the Naser Oric trial. I also included the RDC finding. You also omit any text about the significance of these losses, which is what is at the root of the controversy - that Serbs feel their losses are being neglected while Bosniaks feel that discussions about Serb civilian losses somehow reduces their status as victims.

These are only three sections of the article which the Bosniak editors refuse to accept, even though I have provided plenty of reliable sources (ICTY, Dutch government reports, etc., compared to the natinalists blogs which are used by some as a source). Instead, these sources, which don't fit your view, are leballed as "vandalism" and "Serb lies". If you are not able to discuss this topic rationally, then maybe you should not be editing the article.

Please provide me with some comments.Osli73 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, if a mafia boss gives the order to have someone murdered as part of a turf war, the salient issue is that there was a turf war going on. Why was the order given? Because there was a turf war. If Luka Brossi the hitman takes pleasure in the killing for personal reasons of revenge, yes that is relevant, but it should not be construed as the reason for the murder. The murder occurred because orders were given as part of a turf war. Where did they come from. Why were they given. Ultra-nationalist Serbs -- Milosevic, Seselj, Arkan, etc -- had a goal of creating an ethnically pure greater Serbia. That is the underlying reason why the Srebrenica massacre occurred. Orders were given as part of a well thought out plan. So be careful in explaining why you want to include an explanation as to the particular glee some individuals took in slitting the throats of innocent people because you border on blaming the victims of Srebrenica for their own massacre when it was behind a desk in Belgrade that the relevant decisions were made, not in the heads of some hate-filled individual executioners. --Fairview360 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction

Some comments on the introduction:

• Since the ICTY document states the range 7-8000, based on confirmed killed and missing, that is also the figure which should be used in the introduction
• Srebrenica is the first legally defined case of Genocide in Europe, since the Holocaust was never legally defined as Genocide
• We need a link to the actual ICTY judgment for the citation at the end of the introduction. The current reference is the ICTY judgment, but the link is to a Bosniak NGO in NYC

If you disagree with the above, please comment here, instead of just saying it is all lies. And, please, stay polite. Cheers Osli73 08:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, according to the legal definition of genocide, the holocaust was a case of genocide, however the law against genocide did not come into existence until 1948, hence you are correct that there was not a legal verdict establishing the holocaust as genocide. In regards to the Srebrenica massacre, "The first established case of genocide since the holocaust" would be accurate. It has been fully established that Nazi Germany committed genocide. Please tell me that you are not questioning whether the holocaust was genocide. --Fairview360 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Struggle for Srebrenica

• I have included sourced comments from the ICTY and the RDC in Sarajevo regarding the estimated number of Serbs civilians killed during this period
• I have included statements from both the Dutch government NIOD report and Lewis MacKenzie, the UNPROFOR commander at the time, stating that revenge for Serb losses during this period (however large they actually were) was a major motive for the 1995 massacre.
• I have previously (see above) provided a link to an article in the Journal of Conflict Studies outlining the Sarajevo governments smear campaign against him (which

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosniak/Archive is referring to).

• The NIOD report was carried out by Dutch academics under the auspices of the Netherlands Instutute of War Documentation and has been often cited by both the prosecution and the defence in ICTY trials (of both Bosniaks and Serbs). It is also used in the section "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign" as a reference to the number of Bosniaks killed by Serb forces (Footnote 5). Calling it biased or pro-Serb simply because its presentation of events differs from what certain editors believe says more about these editors own bias than about the report. If this report is biased, we might as well take out most of the sources used in this article.

If you disagree with the above, please comment here, instead of just saying it is all lies. And, please, stay polite. Cheers Osli73 08:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy about Serb casualties

Same comments as for the "Struggle for Srebrenica section" but as some might have specific comments to this specific section, I will include them again:

• I have included sourced comments from the ICTY and the RDC in Sarajevo regarding the estimated number of Serbs civilians killed during this period
• I have included statements from both the Dutch government NIOD report and Lewis MacKenzie, the UNPROFOR commander at the time, stating that revenge for Serb losses during this period (however large they actually were) was a major motive for the 1995 massacre.
• I have previously (see above) provided a link to an article in the Journal of Conflict Studies outlining the Sarajevo governments smear campaign against him (which

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosniak/Archive is referring to).

• The NIOD report was carried out by Dutch academics under the auspices of the Netherlands Instutute of War Documentation and has been often cited by both the prosecution and the defence in ICTY trials (of both Bosniaks and Serbs). It is also used in the section "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign" as a reference to the number of Bosniaks killed by Serb forces (Footnote 5). Calling it biased or pro-Serb simply because its presentation of events differs from what certain editors believe says more about these editors own bias than about the report. If this report is biased, we might as well take out most of the sources used in this article.

If you disagree with the above, please comment here, instead of just saying it is all lies. And, please, stay polite. Cheers Osli73 08:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir Arven - your recent edits

Emir Arven, I have a cople of comments to the edits you made (mainly erasing my previous edits):

• The 7-8000 figure (missing and killed) is what is referred to in the ICTY documents in the reference
• The preteen text is (a) sourced from an anonymous blog (the Srebrenica Genocide Blogspot) and (b) is not crucial information for the introduction, which should be a summary of the article.
• Better to just use a neutral term like "offensive" with regards to the Bosniak raids in 1992 as "counter-offensive" is a value-loaded term. Also, if they were attacking Serb villages, couldn't that be seen as an offensive?
• I removed a link which referred to an empty page. I entered the "citation needed" to remind editors that a new one was needed
• The Srebrenica Genocide Blogspot is used as a sournce in for a lot of statements. This is a pro-Bosniak anonymous blog, it is not really a good souce in such a controversial topic
• You seem to want to criticise the NIOD report. Yes, there is a mention that an academic opponent (he also wrote a book on the Srebrenica massacre), Jan Willem Honig "is critical of its length" and that there apparently is a factual error with a map that doesn't quite fit with the text. Also, the editors of the different parts of the report have made somewhat different judgements about what sources to use. However, in a 6,000 report made by several different editors, this is hardly something which calls for discrediting the report. That the Srebrenica Genocide Blogspot does so is neither surprising nor significant enough to mention in the article. The NIOD report has been used for a long time in the article to provide an estimate of the number of Bosniaks ethnically cleansed from Eastern Bosnia in the beginning of the war. Why is it, all of a sudden, not good enough?
• MacKenzie, well, the Bosniak government launched a smear campaign against him which has been outlined in the Journal of Conflict Studies paper linked to above (see previous section).

As you appear completely unwilling to engage in any kind of discussion on these talk pages but seem to prefer to just make the edits you want without any comment other than "Serb lies" and "moral equivalence" then I will have to assume that you are driven by political bias rather than any academic interest. Cheers, Osli73 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Understanding why some editors are unwilling to discuss the Srebrenica massacre rationally

I found this article by Czech non-profit organization covering Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Transitions OnLine (TOL) on the issue of the NIOD report and why many Bosniaks, including, apparently, the Bosniak editors on this article, are so negative of it.

The NIOD report also provides the Bosniak establishment in Sarajevo with a solid platform from which the Bosniaks' own role in the Srebrenica massacre could be examined. The problem is, of course, that most Bosniaks find the characterization of themselves as anything other than passive victims deeply insulting, and that feeling is not limited to the Srebrenica massacre. The reactions of Srebrenica survivors' associations and Bosniak politicians and the media to some of the report findings confirm this.

The Bosniak public expressed anger at the Dutch for failing to unearth evidence that the massacre was prepared in advance, or that Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic was behind it. Some were also unhappy that the report failed to find active Dutch involvement in the separation of Srebrenica men and boys from the women, children, and elderly.

This is not the first time that Bosniak leaders and opinion-makers have reacted angrily when told that the truth does not correspond to their own mythology of the war, even when that truth doesn't deprive the Bosniaks of their victim role.

Cheers Osli73 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your remarks about our "Bosniak" reasons for contesting a report riddled with inaccuracies I won't even get to. However, I think it's interesting to note that this article is four years old. Live Forever 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

• How can you expect to be taken seriously if you are unwilling to discuss comments or sources (other than saying they are "riddled with inaccuracies" in general)?
• Well, the NIOD report came out 4 years ago, that is why this article, on the reactions to the NIOD report, also came out 4 years ago. Besides, nothing has really changed since then. For example, you and

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosniak/Archive certainly seem completely unwilling to accept any data which indicates that there are other than Bosniak victims. Osli73 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to lecture anybody on being "taken seriously", then I would suggest you cut down on the Ad Hominem attacks that do little more than emphasize your own ignorance. I am more than willing to discuss comments and sources; in fact, that's what I just did by writing several paragraphs in response to our earlier discussion in the "Serbian casualties" section and by carefully explaining every individual edit I have made. Live Forever 14:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of being "taken seriously", why in the world is it necessary to provide sources to prove that "food, medicine and other essentials were extremely scarce" in a besieged and overpopulated town with obstruced access to the outside world? I still added a source that carefully documents the state of the city at that time, but this is a basic fact to anyone at all familiar with the situation. I can only wonder how things would be if you treated absurd "Serb" claims with the same incredulous scrutiny. Live Forever 14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, I see that you are quite motivated. That can be an asset. I return to my suggestion that you build credibility by finding the primary source material quoted in the blog (pre-teen killing). I believe we are all in agreement that the primary source material (straignt from the ICTY) would be better than the blog. How about harnessing some of that fountain of energy you have and helping those who question your commitment to improving the article just as you question their commitment to improving the article. I still see that you have erased accurate statements based on less than perfect source material rather than finding better source material. We all know that pre-teen children were killed during the massacre. So help with that source material and I for one will put some of my energy into places where I see some validity in your challenges to the article. With all this energy, if we aspire to wikipedian ideals, then the article will be improved. --Fairview360 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview,

What I objected to was describing the source as the ICTY when it in fact was linked to the SG blog. This makes it very difficult to understand the context in which the citation was made. I'd be more than willing to help to find this information.

Cheers Osli73 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli73 is an idiot

He wants to deface Srebrenica massacre article with already discredited Serbian sources. He wanted opinion (moral equivalism) of accused Serb-run rape camp participant - Gen Lewis MacKenzie - to be heard on Srebrenica massacre article. You know what Osli? Keep MacKenzie's Srebrenica genocide denials for left-revisionist websites. They are not welcome here. Osli73 also wanted to include Belgrade's already discredited lies about 3000+ Serbs killed to be included in the article (when they were already discussed and discredited). This article is not about Serbian nationalist lies, this article is about 8,000 + victims of Srebrenica genocide. I will not allow Srebrenica massacre article to be poisoned by moral equivalism and already discredited Serbian nationalist lies and left-apologist opinions. Osli73, drop dead loser! --Bosniak 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)