Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Archiving issues

As so much of the discussion relating to this article focuses on issues which have been clarified or resolved by previous contributions, it is rather frustrating to find there is no easy way of directing contributors to previous discussions. Most of the archive link titles are date-related with no indication of subject, and when the links are accessed the content is presented in a haphazard menu whose item titles are often vague and uninformative.

We're advised not to edit Archive Files. So does anyone have suggestions how we could provide a useful summary of subjects already covered with links to previous relevant discussions?

--Opbeith 10:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• For linking to previous discussions, just put in the link location (e.g. this section would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Archiving_issues ) BobFromBrockley 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, that's sensible if you know the Archives and you're linking from a current discussion to a location that you're already familiar with, but it leaves the problem of how to narrow down the search for previous discussions of a subject you haven't previously been involved with or looked for. One possibility might be to give Archive links a composite title made up of all the section titles with separate links but I suspect that might be pretty cumbersome. Another might be to compile a compendium of links to certain regularly visited topics. --Opbeith 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thought. I wonder if it's possible to have discussion sub-pages for recurring issues. I can see disadvantages as well as advantages - making it more difficult to have a good overview of developments - but it might make it easier to locate an issue. Is it a feasible proposition? Opbeith 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Titling of comments

Can I ask for the information given at the head of the page to include advice to new contributors to make the title of their comments as focused and specific as possible? If specific issues are referred to in an accusation of bias or inaccuracy a generalised title offers no guidance to anyone wanting to refer back to the way the discussion may have developed. In fact a generalised accusation is effectively the expression of a point of view and so not very helpful in nailing down inaccuracies and omissions. I know it may be hard to ask someone who is unhappy with the overall balance of the article not to voice that opinion but it will have been based on disagreement with specific points. --Opbeith 11:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures, graphic principles and the desirability of giving notice of large scale or numerous changes

HanzoHattore, I can understand your reason for moving the two maps to places in the article that are more closely linked to the maps' specific content. But you don't seem to have given any thought to the impact this would have on the article as a whole.

The start of the article is now completely lacking any maps that would give the new reader a quick understanding of the geographical context. As a result of the arbitrary deletion and relocation of images over the last couple of months the article is now a graphic wasteland. The text is informative and useful but displayed in a typographically unstimulating format. Images not only inform the text they also help the reader to navigate through and assimilate the large volume of information it contains.

Although the notion of ad hoc contribution is central to Wikipedia I'm not sure why people consider that this should be seen as an invitation to carry out dramatic revisions at will without any need for discussion. It's the law of the jungle rather than the ethos of the community. If someone wants to make a large number of changes to an article it would show some basic consideration for fellow contributors if they provided a summary and an explanation on the Discussion page, preferably of course before proceeding to make the changes.

The principle of open access is central to Wikipedia but in the case of large, reasonably complex and controversial articles perhaps some form of built-in delay mechanism might be appropriate, so that changes can still be made but at least there's scope for discussion before the article is thrown into a state of upheaval and pointless aggravation by an act of intellectual violence - Wikitedia, for lack of a better word. --Opbeith 11:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Title

I propose that the title should be fully capitalised as a compound proper noun, being the name of a unique event, thus "Srebrenica Massacre". I mentioned this once before ages ago. If there are no objections by then I'll do this in one week's time, on 16 January. --Opbeith 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lewis MacKenzie

Here is the Statement by the Congres of North American Bosniaks: http://www.bosniak.org/06/page.php?id=24 .

Also, letter to MacKenzie by a Bosnian-Canadian intelectual: http://www.bosnjaci.net/aktuelnosti.php?id=4683&polje=aktuelno

Bosniak 08:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the libel from this section head, while leaving your comments and links in place. Please note that unsubstantiated allegations about living people are a direct violation of WP:BLP. Do not reinstate this libelous allegation to the article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you are wrong to remove the "Genocide denier" part of the heading. MacKenzie's denial of the genocide at Srebrenica has been documented and discussed here and is very pertinent. It is only the rape allegations that have not been confirmed. --Opbeith 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's at least pretend to be neutral, please? The word "denier", with an obvious association with Holocaust denial, is strongly POV. "Criticism" is accurate and neutral. As far as those ridiculous rape allegations, they were discarded as nonsense, a complete fabrication, years ago. Please read WP:BLP before you consider reinstating that allegation. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, the term "denier" is not solely reserved for Holocaust. Srebrenica Genocide denial is a fact we have to deal with. Allegations against Gen. Mackenzie were never tested in court and they were never legally proved to be false. Plus, allegations come from victims, Bosnian judicial institutions and the Congres of North American Bosniaks. Therefore, the article will be reinstated. Bosniak 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, let's at least pretend we can read. From the text of MacKenzie's 14 July 2005 letter to the Toronto Globe and Mail under the heading "The real story behind Srebrenica":

"What happened next is only debatable in scale. The Bosnian Muslim men and older boys were singled out and the elderly, women and children were moved out or pushed in the direction of Tuzla and safety. It's a distasteful point, but it has to be said that, if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women go since they are key to perpetuating the very group you are trying to eliminate. Many of the men and boys were executed and buried in mass graves."

MacKenzie is arguing that genocide did not take place. Yes or no?

This paragraph could only be have been written by someone who had no knowldege of the Genocide Convention and the Krstic judgment or deliberately chose to disregard what he had read on the subject. MacKenzie chooses to ignore all that has been written about the tactic of "gendercide" in Bosnia. We can allow that the Krajisnik judgment had not yet been handed down when he wrote these words but I'd be interested to know from you what observations this expert analyst has felt inspired to make since the Chamber published its thoughts on the subject of the genocide of the Muslim population of Bosnia.

I don't think the rape accusations have been discarded as nonsense. They have not been proven in court proceedings but although they have been challenged I don't believe the charges have yet been withdrawn by the Bosnian judiciary (to whom MacKenzie says that he has written) and nor have there been court proceedings as yet against those who have repeated the allegations in North America. Until they are disproven it is not unreasonable to cite the charges laid by a national public prosecutor, provided that they are preceded by the word "alleged". --Opbeith 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to tell me that this was not phrased this way specifically to impugn General MacKenzie's reputation?

"Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of the UNPROFOR accused of raping of Bosniak women in camp Sonja by a Bosnian court [1](Statement by Congres of North-American Bosniaks re Lewis MacKenzie's crimes), stated that:"

I note that the name of this article is Srebrenica massacre, not Srebrenica genocide. Interestingly enough, someone created a redirect of that name -- perhaps it should be deleted, as the name itself is POV. Do you understand what "What happened next is only debatable in scale" means? He's not disputing that the Srebrenica massacre took place, he's questioning the alleged scale, and he's arguing that the word "genocide" isn't technically accurate. So no, he's not a "denier", in the sense that you clearly intend for that word to be understood -- he's critical of the way the events have been reported.

And you appear to misunderstand the WP:BLP guidelines. Anyone can "allege" anything they choose. That doesn't mean we're going to lend credence to it by putting it in Wikipedia. In a quick search, I found these articles that correspond to my memory of this nonsense from several years ago:

• http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=9884
• http://www.serbianna.com/columns/borojevic/042.shtml

I was hoping to find more references to this nonsense in recent newspapers, but it appears that mainstream newspapers prefer to not print false and libelous allegations. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, the sources you listed were SERB. Nebojsa Malic and Mr. Borojevic are Serbian writers known for their spread of propaganda and bald faced lies, including ridiculouing Srebrenica genocide. Bosniak 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I can't see that "arguing that the word "genocide" isn't technically accurate" is any different from denying genocide. The ICTY has found, after lengthy discussion of the issue in its judgments, that genocide as defined by the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took place at Srebrenica. MacKenzie chooses not to address the ICTY's findings. He has a history of interventions on this subject which suggests that when he as a non-lawyer describes a legal finding as not "technically accurate" he is not speaking in ignorance, he is deliberately disregarding evidence and arguments that have been tested in court.

You'll need to find sites less well-known for apologism and denial than antiwar.com and serbianna.com and authors who are known to have a greater respect for established fact than Malic and Borojevic if you want to demonstrate that MacKenzie can speak with authority on the subject.

MacKenzie's reputation is to the point because his views on the subject of Srebrenica are regularly raised here to support efforts to challenge the fact of genocide and reapportion blame. The sources you cite in his defence are notorious for their attempts to do that, as you must know.

Personally I think that MacKenzie's wilfully inaccurate public pronouncements and his cavalier attitude towards disclosure of his interests are in themselves sufficient ground to reject the credibility of his technical expertise on the subject of genocide at Srebrenica.

Nevertheless it's the case that although MacKenzie talks about considering legal action against those who refer to the charges of rape publicly in North America he does not actually sue, so your claim that the allegation is libellous cannot yet be described, to use a phrase, as "technically accurate".

This not a question of "anyone" alleging "anything". The allegation is a live and legitimate issue in this context. In reproducing the Association of Prison Camp Survivors' witness's statement in its appeal to the various Canadian organisations on behalf of Woman - Victim of War the Congress of North-American Bosniaks, which has presumably taken legal advice, appears to be deliberately challenging MacKenzie to resolve the matter of whether a specific claim is in fact libellous. --Opbeith 11:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have (once more) removed the POV from this section head. We're here to write a neutral encyclopedia, not push an agenda.

I re-read MacKenzie's letter. Here's that section, giving more complete context:

What happened next is only debatable in scale. The Bosnian Muslim men and older boys were singled out and the elderly, women and children were moved out or pushed in the direction of Tuzla and safety. It's a distasteful point, but it has to be said that, if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women go since they are key to perpetuating the very group you are trying to eliminate. Many of the men and boys were executed and buried in mass graves.

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

Nasar Oric, the Bosnian Muslim military leader in Srebrenica, is currently on trial in The Hague for war crimes committed during his "defence" of the town. Evidence to date suggests that he was responsible for killing as many Serb civilians outside Srebrenica as the Bosnian Serb army was for massacring Bosnian Muslims inside the town.'

He doesn't "deny" that the event occurred; he says that "The Hague war crimes tribunal casts serious doubt on the figure of "up to" 8,000 Bosnian Muslims massacred", and notes that the Bosnian commander is now himself on trial for war crimes. You are well aware of the implication of the word "denier". I can only assume that you want to use the word "denier" rather than "critic" specifically because of the POV implications. I've explained that the word is not only profoundly POV, it's also inaccurate. We're not going to use it here.

In fact I don't "know" that those sources are biased. Maybe they are; I simply note that the facts I read there match my (vague, distant) memory of those ridiculous allegations. I suppose I could have assumed that you'd reject those sites because one of them has the word "serb" in it. I didn't seek out those sites, I've never heard of them before. I did a google search and that's what I found. Did you read them and discard the content, or did you simply reject them because of source? I have to assume that, as this nonsense was rejected as an utter fabrication many years ago, unbiased media outlets have declined to dignify it with coverage. You're posted a single website that you know I can't read as it's in Bosnian. If you have any unbiased sources that you'd like to cite here, please do so.

I just googled around some more, and found this detailed analysis of the Srebrenica massacre, which mentions the old and discredited rape allegations in passing, only to note how absurd they were.

Once more, WP:BLP is very clear on this point, and I'm specifically thinking of WP:BLP#Biased or malicious content. It seems to me that the motive for including that utterly unfounded and discredited allegation is specifically to smear MacKenzie's reputation and question the validity his comments about the scale of the Srebrenica massacre. I also note that there appear to have been several attempts to insert these allegations into the Lewis MacKenzie article, and all have been immediately reverted based on lack of legitimate citations to reliable sources. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know what sort of material www.serbianna.com offers the visitor. Your notion that I reject a source out of hand simply because I see that "serb" is part of the site name suggests where you may be coming from.

But that's by the by. Let me go back to what MacKenzie says: "It's a distasteful point, but it has to be said that, if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women go since they are key to perpetuating the very group you are trying to eliminate."

Please tell me - how else can this statement be understood other than that MacKenzie is arguing "if the women were let go it wasn't genocide"? Regardless of the wording of the Genocide Convention and the ICTY's understanding of it. He is saying that genocide did not take place. I'm not saying he's a massacre denier, however much he seeks to diminish and excuse it. But he is a genocide denier. --Opbeith 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Where I'm coming from, Opbeith, is WP:NPOV, which is why I've (once more) made this section head neutral. Regardless of your opinion of those sites, I'm telling you that they present the facts of this case accurately. I don't have a bias one way or another regarding any of the ethnic sides involved in the former Yugoslavia. I know that UNPROFOR soldiers, with no personal stake in the matter whatsoever, placed themselves in between ethnic groups intent on killing each other. As far as MacKenzie's opinion goes, it seems to me that you are reading that article through a profoundly biased point of view. MacKenzie, as head of UNPROFOR, refused to take sides in an ethnic war. He argued that atrocities were committed on all sides, and for that, apparently, he must be punished. I read and reread his letter. He presents an unbiased expert opinion, apparently corroborated by evidence presented in The Hague, that, while a horrible massacre indeed took place, the figure of 8,000 casualties is seriously questionable, and he personally disagrees with the word "genocide". As he doesn't question the fact that the massacre took place, it's a matter of semantics that he prefers to not use the "genocide" label.

FWIW, here's how General MacKenzie describes this rape nonsense in his book, Peacekeeper:

"In November 1992, the Bosnian-Serb soldier Borislav Herak was arrested by the Presidency's forces in Sarajevo and charged with the murder and rape of Muslim citizens. Allegedly, he said under interrogation that he had worked at the 'Sonja' prison camp located north of Sarajevo, and had seen me come by and pick up four Muslim girls, who were taken away and presumably raped and murdered. He indicated that I had arrived in a jeep, and the girls had followed my party when we left in a car. The story made headline news during the Islamic conference in Saudi Arabia, attended by President Izetbegovic. Fortunately, the North American press showed an encouraging degree of good taste and at first declined to carry the story. The story did, however, receive wide coverage in the Islamic press, and in Croatia, Germany and Italy.

"Given that I hadn't even known that a place called 'Sonja' existed; that I had never ventured north of Sarajevo except on one drive to Belgrade with 200 others on May 17; that I never drove around Sarajevo in anything but a VBL armoured vehicle after my return to the city on June 10; and that I didn't go anywhere without UN colleagues as witnesses, I was more than upset over such disgusting fabrications. My greatest concern was the impact these lies would have on the security of our people on the ground, particularly the Canadians. Anyone with a Canadian flag on his sleeve was immediately associated with my reputation as a 'rapist and murderer of Muslims' in Bosnia."

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, Jim. MacKenzie personally disagrees with the word "genocide". He knows better than the Genocide Convention and the ICTY and we must agree that his opinion counts for rather more than the relevant international legal authority's. So we might as well accept his word on the rape allegations, and anything else. So let's leave it at that. --Opbeith 18:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Douglas - enough of your Serb and pro-Serb revisionist sources. It's an old story that has already been discussed a little bit more than 1000 times so far. Enough of Lewis MacKenzie, the guy admitted himself he was paid by Serb lobby to hold speaches. It's a waste of time to deal with this subject over and over again. Bosniak 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that approach usually work for you, Bosniak? "Enough from you, go away?" Sorry to disappoint you, but as it happens, I don't have a particular POV about any of the ethnic groups involved in the Bosnian war. So let's go back over the issues once more, shall we?

1. You brought this article to my attention by posting that silly vandalism warning to my talk page a few days ago. In fact, the last time I edited Anti-Bosniak sentiment prior to receiving that message from you was on November 25th, in the middle of the deletion debate about your Bosniakophobia article. That was when you earned yourself a one-week block for vandalizing the AfD votes. Contrary to your personal attack on me expressed in an edit summary, I'm not a "Serb apologist". The only reason I'm here, now that you've brought this article to my attention, is to correct some egregious WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violations with regard to Lewis MacKenzie.
2. The link you're using in regards to those allegations is in Bosnian. As this is the English Wikipedia, here's a [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1719518/posts#comment?q=1 link] that we can all read, along with this rejection of the allegations by a Canadian federal government spokesman.
3. No legal proceedings have been initiated, and MacKenzie has not been charged with any crime. A local prosecutor in Sarajevo called a press conference, and he admitted that "[MacKenzie] has not been indicted since under the law no one can be indicted before he has been questioned." A press conference has no legal standing whatsoever.
4. MacKenzie has commented on these allegations in the past, as long ago as the publication of his book in 1993 (see above). You can also refer to MacKenzie's comments here, here, and here. And please read about Ad hominem arguments; you need to discuss the argument on its merits. "Those are Serb sources" is not a legitimate rebuttal.
5. You have repeatedly inserted this statement into the article in one form or another since at least last August: "Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of the UNPROFOR accused of raping of Bosniak women in camp Sonja by a Bosnian court stated that...". This statement is a gross violation of WP:BLP and is clearly intended to cause readers to reject the general's comments. ("He's a rapist, therefore his opinions about casualty figures must be disregarded.") WP:BLP is very clear: Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material. Again, General MacKenzie has not been legally accused of anything by any court, and it's simply wrong to impugn his reputation on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. I see that you've added these rape allegations to the article several times since last August [2], [3], [4], [5] (and there are many, many more). When the rape comment has been removed as libel (which it has been, every time you've added it), you've also tried the approach of simply removing MacKenzie's criticism altogether.
6. You said "Enough of Lewis MacKenzie, the guy admitted himself he was paid by Serb lobby to hold speaches[sic]." Please provide a citation from a reliable and unbiased source demonstrating that Lewis MacKenzie is biased in favour of Serbs and against Bosniaks. In everything I've read by him, he takes the position that there was plenty of blame to go around: no side is 100% guilty, no side is 100% innocent.
7. I should also mention in passing that you appear to be in clear violation ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) of this guideline, which says "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."
8. With regard to several of those canvassing messages, please adhere to this talk page policy, which says "Use English: No matter to whom you are addressing your comments, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is because comments should be comprehensible to the community at large."

Once more, I'm asking you to please respect these Wikipedia guidelines, and stop reinstating that unsubstantiated and libelous allegation. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Douglas, whatever the rights and wrongs of the way Bosniak expresses his anger at the way in which Lewis MacKenzie is routinely cited as an impartial commentator you yourself have failed to deal with the issues raised. The allegations have been made against MacKenzie. There is apparently enough substance in them for the Bosnian prosecutor's office to want to investigate these allegations. It is unable to proceed with an indictment until MacKenzie answers questions. MacKenzie refuses to answer questions and shelters behind diplomatic immunity. There is an impasse there.

In order to get past that impasse Emir Ramic, acting as President of the Congress of North-American Bosniaks, has written on behalf of the organisation Woman - Victim of War to the United Nations to ask them to release the records of its investigation of General MacKenzie and to the Canadian Government to ask for its assistance in ensuring that MacKenzie makes himself accessible to the Bosnian judiciary's investigations. He has also written an open letter to numerous Canadian organisations asking for their support in persuading the Government to act. Ramic appends to his open letter the statement made by a witness containing allegations about MacKenzie's conduct in Bosnia. Ramic has brought the allegations clearly into the public domain.

I pointed out to you previously that MacKenzie resists taking legal action but confines himself to talk about speaking to his lawyers about the matter. Ramic's letter seems to be a challenge to MacKenzie to go beyond veiled verbal threats and take action against his organisation so that the matter can be resolved.

Since as far as I am aware MacKenzie has taken ano ction to date against Ramic and the Congress in the courts his claim and yours that the allegations are libellous are unproven. That means that you are not justified in using that claim in your criticism of Bosniak. Please substantiate if I am incorrect.

Bosniak's anger is justified when a man who plays the media and public opinion like MacKenzie continues to be cited as an authoritative voice in Bosnian affairs. MacKenzie is a man whose opinions and conduct in various areas have been shown to be less than straightforward. --Opbeith 08:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But his opinion is not cited as a given fact; he is mentioned as a notable... erm... criticist, in the proper section. I accept that his role and motives are controversial. There are two options: either it's outright deleted as irrelevant, or outright kept as citation (personally, I think it's borderline). But we may not poison the well by including libelous allegations as an introduction to his opinions per WP:BLP. If those allegations have appropriate notability, they belong to Lewis Mackenzie article, one click away. The same thing is done for Diana Johnstone.
<rhetoric>Even if we assume that Mackenzie is guilty, how that necessarily affects his opinion on the Srebrenica massacre? As far as I get it, his quoted criticism of the massacre predates the allegations, not the other way round.</rhetoric> Duja► 12:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Douglas and Duja, the reason why MacKenzie is such a problematic figure here is that he is regularly cited by visitors who use his opinions to dispute facts firmly established elsewhere (just look back through the lengthy arguments that have taken place on this discussion page and in its archives).

MacKenzie's public pronouncements challenge the findings of disproportionate suffering and disproportionate responsibility for atrocities in Bosnia (as per two of the central UN sources - Bassiouni and Mazowiecki). His relevance to the Srebrenica Massacre article results firstly from the way he has sought to minimise the extent of the massacre in the face of authoritative evidence available from sources such as the UN Secretary-General's report on the fall of Srebrenica and the ICTY's findings in a number of cases and secondly from the way he argues, in spite of the ICTY's lengthily argued deliberations on the subject of genocide and its findings that genocide within the meaning of the Genocide Convention was committed at Srebrenica, that genocide did not occur.

Because of his high-profile role in leading the UN peacekeeping effort in the early part of the war he is regarded as a hero in Canada and as a source of authoritative and impartial opinion on Balkan affairs. It is his impartiality which is questioned and hence his authority to speak. MacKenzie's conduct while commander of the UNPROFOR suggested a close association with Serb military and political leaders and a disproportionate readiness to criticise the other (Bosnian government) side that went beyond fairness and objective comment. The rape allegations were made very early on and widely disregarded at that time because of the suspect nature of the most prominent witness. However they are still live because there are other witness accounts and germane because they are seen as relevant to MacKenzie's links with the individuals responsible for the rape camps.

The rape allegations are serious but there are other less contentious reasons for questioning MacKenzie's impartiality, probity and veracity. He was not open about accepting substantial payment for a lecture tour funded by a notable Serb lobby group. He eventually albeit unforthcomingly acknowledged the connection but not before he had spoken before the US Congress Armed Services Committee on Balkan matters without disclosing that interest. His interventions in the media often advance views and opinions promoted by the lobby that seeks to help those responsible for the atrocities in Bosnia generally and at Srebrenica in particular avoid being held to account.

Having said all that I agree that the way in which MacKenzie's role and interventions are dealt with in the article is messy. Sadly that is almost inevitable, given that an awful lot of activity here goes into energy-consuming efforts to respond to what I see as an ongoing campaign of distortion. Many of the edits are poorly integrated and less appropriately phrased than they might be because they represent attempts to refute misleading claims and destructive deletions before those become embedded in the article and more widely circulated. Much of the discussion would be more appropriate at the Lewis MacKenzie article. Treatment of MacKenzie in this article is more prominent than may be warranted because the edits are made in a rapid response situation and inevitably a degree of frustration creeps in. And unfortunately this article is not being constructed in an ivory tower, more like in a sort of Snipers' Alley. --Opbeith 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(Relatively)New Summaries of ICTY Judgments

The ICTY website contains several summaries of the trials & judgments (including appeals) for several Srebrenica related cases on their website in PDF format. Although a summary of the Krstic judgment has not been added yet.

Just click on the "Case Info" logo.

ICTY judgments

Gardenfli 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Source abuse

In the article, the following sentence:

Surrounding Serb villages were used as bases to attack Srebrenica on a daily basis from day one, as concluded by ICTY. [12]

where [12] is [15].

However, linked document doesn't state that, anywhere. It uses the word "base" exactly once:

In the spring of 1992, fighting groups had been formed on territorial bases and local leaders were chosen for their personal qualities, such as courage and achievement. Consequently, a number of them, including Akif Ustic, Hakija Meholjic, Ahmo Tihic and Ejub Golic, to name a few, asserted independence in the early days of the conflict and persisted in this attitude throughout the period relevant to the Indictment.

And even this is different meaning of the word than one implied by the article. Nor can I see any interpretation of [12] which would enable the above sentence. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. [12] repeatedly states that, f.e.:

On 21 June 1992, Ratkovici, Gornji Ratkovici and Ducici were attacked by Bosnian Muslim fighters from two nearby villages and followed by a crowd of Bosnian Muslim civilians. [...] Consequently, the destruction of property in Ratkovici and Gornji Ratkovici on 21 June 1992 by Bosnian Muslims fulfils the elements of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, not justified by military necessity. [emphasis mine]

And so on, and so forth, for every attacked village. I will edit the article accordingly. Nikola 23:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Nikola, tedious as it may be for you to have to read it again, it might be worth repeating the following section from the Oric judgment that you use as the basis for your analysis -

                              "Background of the Case

Bosnia and Herzegovina was one of six constituent republics of the former Yugoslavia. In the early 1990s, tensions increased between the country’s different ethnic groups. By April 1992, when armed conflict broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Bosnian Serb side heavily relied on the Serb-dominated JNA, the Yugoslav Peoples’ Army, and was thus militarily far superior. By contrast, the Bosnian Muslims found themselves insufficiently prepared for the conflict as they had neither the structures nor the logistics to match the might of the Bosnian Serb forces.

Reflective of the overall situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, tensions intensified in Srebrenica as well. Prior to the outbreak of the conflict, approximately three quarters of the 37,000 inhabitants of Srebrenica municipality were Bosnian Muslims, and one quarter was Bosnian Serb. During the early months of 1992, Serb paramilitaries arrived in the Srebrenica area and began, with the help of the JNA, to distribute arms and military equipment to the local Bosnian Serb population. On 18 April 1992, Srebrenica was forcibly taken over by the Bosnian Serbs, after most of its Bosnian Muslim inhabitants had fled. However, sporadic resistance from small groups of Bosnian Muslim men inflicted losses on the Bosnian Serb side. After one of their leaders was killed in an ambush on 8 May 1992, the Serb forces retreated from Srebrenica leaving a lot of destruction behind and the Bosnian Muslims returned to their town.

Although they had retaken Srebrenica, the town itself remained encircled by Serb forces. Between June 1992 and March 1993, Srebrenica and other isolated patches of Bosnian Muslim-held land in the area were subjected to Serb military assaults, resulting in a great number of refugees and casualties. During this time, a number of Bosnian Serb villages and hamlets were raided by Bosnian Muslims, mainly in search of food, but also to acquire weapons and military equipment. In late January or early February 1993, the Bosnian Serbs started a major offensive against Muslim-held territory in the area, taking over many villages and considerably reducing the overall size of the Srebrenica enclave. This is referred to as the Serb winter offensive in the Judgement.'''''" [my emphasis]

And of course we know that after this one side was kept penned in Srebrenica where a very large civilian population of locals and refugees in desperate straits, starving and deprived of humanitarian relief by the besieging forces.

I know that's unlikely to reduce the force of your indignation over individual parts of the wider picture but it's worth reminding you of the wider picture anyway. In return perhaps you'll reassure me, since I'm not familiar enough with the detailed history on the ground, that these villages played no part in hosting any armed members of the groups inflicting these conditions on a civilian population targeted for ethnic cleansing by the policy of making their situation unbearable and their survival impossible.

ICTY appears to judge that they didn't, and on this article ICTY's judgements are regarded as absolutely infallible. Nikola 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nikola, to judge from your most recent changes you are someone who has little regard for the broad truth, your aim is simply to pursue partisan advantage. Your actions are deceitful and exploitative. You and your associates are determined to highlight the culpability of anyone else in order to divert attention from the criminal reality of what was done at Srebrenica. You do great damage to any hopes of rehabilitating the reputation of the people you think you are championing. Not just sad, tragic. --Opbeith 07:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Start over?

I took the liberty to delete the entire mud-slinging thread full of mutual personal accusations not pertaining to the article. Now that we know who's who and what are whose positions, can we get back to discussing the article? You guys don't have to like each other's personalities and views, but this kind of discussion doesn't lead the ultimate goal—the article—anywhere. So, where have we stopped? Duja► 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Duja. I'm not in full agreement with your summary of events, but this seems to be the most sensible solution. --Opbeith 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Serb Military Presence

From Hague Judgement:

In the proceedings against Naser Oric when the ICTY examined the attacks by Bosniak units under his control on various villages in the vicinity of Srebrenica it found that although there was no justification for the wanton destruction that took place in these villages, there was evidence in many cases of militarisation, military presence and provocative military action. In various villages referred to in the proceedings village guards received at least some military support. At the time of the attack on Ratkovići, Gornji Ratkovići and Dučići, a number of Bosnian Serb village guards were present. Although there was conflicting evidence the more convincing evidence suggested that at least some of those village guards underwent special military training and were relatively well-armed. The Trial Chamber did not exclude a military justification for the attacks on the villages.

In Bjelovac and Sikirić village guards received weapons and ammunition from the Bratunac Brigade of the VRS, and there was a Serb and Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. Weapons and ammunition were stored in Bjelovac, and positioned in between houses in Ložnicka Rijeka and Kunjerac. The school building of Bjelovac was used as a kitchen to feed passing Bosnian Serb fighters. Bosniak 21:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, that's what I find helpful about edits that are obviously a travesty of the facts. When they give a quote and you go back to the original source you almost inevitably find that in their urge to be self-servingly selective they've signposted the way to the rest of the evidence that controverts them and frustrates their attempt to mislead. --Opbeith 22:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Critical views" or "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism"

To change the title of a section that begins :

A range of alternative views of the Srebrenica massacre exist, from those who believe that the massacre did not take place at all to those who believe that far fewer than 8,000 were killed or that most of those killed were the result of combat, not executions.

from "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism" to "Critical views" waters down the title of the section to the point of irrelevance.

The title described the subject of the paragraph perfectly adequately. This change is not simply needless meddling. It seeks to disguise the brutal reality that there are people who deny, minimise and excuse what the United Nations has accepted as being the worst atrocity committed in Europe since the Second World War and flies in the face of the legal judgments that have confirmed the facts of what happened (insofar as attempts to conceal those facts allow) and established that the crime of genocide within the meaning of the Genocide Convention was perpetrated at Srebrenica.

This change of title can only be understood as a deliberate attempt to minimise the seriousness of the crime. --Opbeith 07:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a lot of people on Wikipedia suffer from your diagnosis Mr. Beith. "Everyone who disagrees with my view is biased", right? (Not that I do, just with the way you choose to behave in presenting it...)--Hadžija 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadžija, my view is just my view and that's where it starts and ends. I'm happy to keep pointing out that it counts for very little alongside the view of the matter expressed by the Secretary General of the United Nations and the International Tribunal in the Hague, etc. --Opbeith 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone with no knowledge or interest in this topic, "denial of the massacre" sounds biased, whereas "critical views" sounds neutral. I therefore favour the latter. —Psychonaut 08:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"denial of the massacre" sounds biased in describing "... those who believe that the massacre did not take place at all"? Ummm. --Opbeith 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, "denial of the massacre" is biased in describing "those who believe that far fewer than 8,000 were killed". If someone believes that only, say, 4000 were killed instead of 8000, that does not make them a "massacre denier". If you want to write a section specifically about those dissenting views which expressly deny that a massacre ever took place, then feel free to call it "Denial of the massacre". But you should not lump both massacre deniers and those who merely question the extent of the death toll under said heading. —Psychonaut 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is another suspicious member Erikarver. He just joined and his only edits contain Srebrenica Massacre. Must be Hadzija or some sock puppet using different computer IP address. Bosniak 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Legally speaking, there was a judgment confirming genocide. Anybody who denies this fact does not qualify as a "critical view"; it qualifies as a genocide denier, because they deny judicial facts. I have never heard those who question/deny holocaust be labeled simply as "critical view"; they are deniers and revisionists. So either we use term Denial or Revisionism, but we cannot stick with so called "Critical View". Legally, morally, and factually - it simply does not make any sense. Psychonaut, you have opted for Serb side in the past, so please don't pretend to be neutral (although I do appreciate you not vandalizing article). Hadzija/74.119.72.55 and others, stop deleting whole paragraphs and attempting to destroy article. I will file a complaing for 74.119.72.55 behavior. Bosniak 23:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut, please explain why "denial of the massacre" sounds biased to you. I would argue that it is preferable to "critical views" because it is far more specific. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Denial of the massacre" is problematic precisely because it is far more specific. The section in question states that it covers "a range of alternative views", including views which expressly recognize that the massacre did indeed occur. —Psychonaut 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut, to help you remember the title, here it is again: "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism" --Opbeith 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

…all three terms of which are nicely subsumed by the succinct, neutral, and non-inflammatory "Critical views". —Psychonaut 19:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut has been biased and pro-Serb since I joined Wikipedia. He has been constantly complaining against Bosniaks to administrator notice boards. Bosniak 07:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in the petty ethnic feuding between Serbs and Bosniaks. I concede that your second statement is true, but unfortunately that reflects more poorly on the Bosniak editors involved than it does on me. Anyone who cares to examine my contributions to WP:ANI and WP:RfAr will see that I will report anyone who severely disrupts Wikipedia, regardless of their proclaimed ethnic or national allegiance. —Psychonaut 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break: Denier versus Critical views

I want to make clear that I find this entire conversation profoundly distasteful. I had no intention of getting dragged into this debate; my only interest was to remove a libelous comment about Lewis MacKenzie. I can't express how much it sickens me to see terms like "genocide denier" casually flung around.

I'll start by copying over my comments from User talk:Opbeith regarding the labeling of Lewis MacKenzie as a "denier".

Here are MacKenzie's words:

http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/features/2005/MacKenzie_Srebrenica.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum: Opbeith should clarify this if I'm unintentionally misrepresenting his views, but in the interests of brevity, his position, and Bosniak's, is that the ICTY has ruled that Srebrenica was, in fact, a genocide according to the United Nations definition, and that any dissenting opinions are, by definition, "genocide denial". I understand and acknowledge that this is an honorable position. Respectfully, though, I disagree. Dictionary definitions consistently define the term very narrowly, for example, as "The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide." The Institute for the Study of Genocide posts several definitions here, including this: "The concept of genocide applies only when there is an actualized intent, however successfully carried out, to physically destroy an entire group (as such a group is defined by the perpetrators)" (The Holocaust in Historical Perspective, Vol. 1, 1994). And I found this commentary from a Frontline report that predates Srebrenica. It says, in part, "The term genocide has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming dangerously commonplace. In order to shock people and gain their attention to contemporary situations of violence or injustice by making comparisons with murder on the greatest scale known in this century, 'genocide' has been used as synonymous with massacre, oppression and repression, overlooking that what lies behind the image it evokes is the attempted annihilation of the entire Jewish race." General MacKenzie has every right to express his personal opinion that the Srebrenica massacre does not meet the narrow standards expressed in these definitions -- regardless of a legal ruling by the United Nations. In no sense is he "denying" that the massacre took place. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, are you replying to some comments made on this talk page or are you commenting on the article? As far as I can see, MacKenzie is not labelled a denier in the article. He is labelled a revisionist, which I'm not very happy with even though it is correct according to one definition of the word.

Now, the section heading "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism". I'm happy to consider other possibilities, but it does seem a good summary of the contents. As I said, the problem with "critical views" is that it is not specific; in particular, the section is only about opinions that whatever happened was not as bad as the rest of the article says. It's all about critical views that go in one direction, though they differ in how far they go. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, please, read MacKenzie's words carefully. The ICTY applied the wording of the Genocide Convention to what happened at Srebrenica. Genocide was a word coined by Raphael Lemkin and the Genocide Convention (adopted in 1948) defines genocide on the basis of Raphael Lemkin's formulation.

The ICTY looked carefully at the argument that MacKenzie raises in his alternative hypothesis of what constitutes genocide - that it could not have occurred because the women and children were transferred away from the area - and rejected that argument. This interpretation was specifically confirmed by the Appeals Chamber in April 2004.

MacKenzie's views were published in July 2005. MacKenzie would obviously have been aware of the Appeals Chamber's findings (if not, he has no claim to be an informed commentator). He does not deny the massacre. Again in the face of the Appeal Chamber's finding in April 2004 that 7000-8000 Bosnian men and boys had been murdered, without new evidence to contradict the Court's findings he seeks in July 2005 to revise the number of its victims.

So MacKenzie is a massacre revisionist who argues in the face of the Convention's definition and the ICTY's findings, of which he must have been aware, that the massacre did not constitute genocide. How can this not make MacKenzie a genocide denier and a massacre revisionist?

I am not "flinging the term "genocide denier" around", I'm arguing the case for its use on the basis of facts in the public domain. --Opbeith 11:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to add to what I said above, Opbeith. I stated your position, which is that the ICTY ruling should be taken as the final word on whether the label of "genocide" is appropriate, I agreed (and still do) that this is an honorable position, and yet, I respectfully disagree. MacKenzie used the word "distasteful" to describe this entire line of argument, and I have to agree that it fits; I find the entire conversation disturbing. But here's what MacKenzie said in his article: "The Bosnian Muslim men and older boys were singled out and the elderly, women and children were moved out or pushed in the direction of Tuzla and safety." He goes on to day that "Nasar Oric, the Bosnian Muslim military leader in Srebrenica, is currently on trial in The Hague for war crimes committed during his 'defence' of the town. Evidence to date suggests that he was responsible for killing as many Serb civilians outside Srebrenica as the Bosnian Serb army was for massacring Bosnian Muslims inside the town." MacKenzie is a military man, not a lawyer or diplomat. The way he sees the massacre is that men and boys of fighting age were singled out and murdered in the middle of a war. This was a crime on an unbelievable scale; nobody could possibly deny that. MacKenzie's argument is not that this wasn't a horrific crime; he said it should be considered in the overall context of an ongoing war.

Jim, did MacKenzie really as you allege say that the massacre "should be considered in the overall context of an ongoing war"? You seem to be telling us that General MacKenzie, as a former Canadian General and commander of UN Forces, condones disregard for at least the Fourth Geneva Convention (relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) and the First and Second Additional Protocols (relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts and Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts). --Opbeith 00:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was obviously paraphrasing, Opbeith. You added those quotes; they aren't in my original comments. You can check his article as easily as I can; he clearly says that the events must be taken in context to be understood. As far as the rest of your comments, I find myself unable to respond, as your comments have no basis in anything that MacKenzie said in that article or that I have said here. MacKenzie clearly labels the event a "tragedy" and a "massacre"; what part of that says he "condones" the massacre?

By the way, I find it interesting that the very first sentence in this article by a "Genocide Denier" is "This week marked the 10th anniversary of the United Nations' second greatest failure since its creation in 1945 -- the genocide in Rwanda being the undisputed No. 1." -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, just to remind you of the words you used and what I said in response, putting quotation marks around what you said. " Jim, did MacKenzie really as you allege say that the massacre "should be considered in the overall context of an ongoing war"?" Please, no more misrepresentations.

In paraphrasing MacKenzie as you did, you were in effect suggesting that MacKenzie was arguing for a redefinition of the Geneva Conventions, paralleling your suggestion that he should be allowed to redefine the provisions of the Genocide Convention in accordance with his own personal interpretation. For someone so critical about the implications of the words other people use, you have a rather cavalier attitude where your own are concerned.

I'm not sure what you're actually saying in your quote from "a "Genocide Denier"". The failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda is identified as the UN's greatest failure but what is he saying about Srebrenica? It's the UN's second greatest failure. OK. There are other candidates but Srebrenica has a good claim. But what's he saying about genocide in this sentence? What's he saying about the scope of the massacre? What are you trying to say to me? --Opbeith 08:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, the overall section heading is "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism", and MacKenzie is listed in a subsection titled "Other revisionists". Because of that hierarchical structure, MacKenzie's views are presented in the overall category of denial and/or revisionism. Both of those terms are POV, with a strong negative connotation.

The word "denial" is intended to be understood as being equivalent to Holocaust denial, as described in Genocide denial:

Genocide denial occurs when an otherwise accepted act of genocide is met with attempts to deny the occurrence and minimize the scale or death toll. The most well-known type is Holocaust denial, but it's definition can extend to any genocidal event that has been minimalized or met with excessive skepticism. Note that denial of Armenian Genocide, the second most contested (and most studied) genocide after the Holocaust, is sometimes referred to simply as "Genocide Denial".

Most instances of genocide denial are usually considered a form of Historical revisionism. However, in circumstances where the event in dispute is not seen to constitute genocide by the majority of scholars, the use of the term may be instead considered propaganda. The extremely serious nature of the crime of genocide, along with the terrible reputation it creates and potential repercussions that may come against a nation as a result of committing it, ensures that whenever genocide is charged, there will be parties that attempt to avoid or divert blame.

The word "revisionist" is also used for its negative connotation, as described in Historical revisionism (negationism):

Historical revisionism (also but less often in English "negationism"), as used in this article, describes the process that attempts to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. Perpetrators of such attempts to distort the historical record often use the term because it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities with a phrase which has a legitimate meaning.

Would "Controversial views" be acceptable? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your view that "The word "denial" is intended to be understood as being equivalent to Holocaust denial". It is used in the context "denial of the massacre", which seems precisely what is meant and also to preclude any confusion with "genocide denial". Is there a synonym for "denial" which is acceptable to you? I can only think of "rejection of the massacre", but I'm not sure that's correct English.

I agree with you re revisionism. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested "Controversial views"; do you see a problem with that heading? The problem with "denial" is that it's a boolean word. If I deny that the moon is made of green cheese, I'm not simply skeptical of the green cheese theory; I'm rejecting it outright. And in the context of this subject -- a massacre that is also labeled a genocide -- the association with Holocaust denial is readily apparent. With regards to the heading "Denial of the massacre", it's wrong to place MacKenzie under that category. Here's what he says about the massacre (omitting a contentious sentence about what it meant to let the women go):

"The Bosnian Muslim men and older boys were singled out and the elderly, women and children were moved out or pushed in the direction of Tuzla and safety. [...] Many of the men and boys were executed and buried in mass graves."

In no sense is he denying that a massacre took place. He only takes exception with characterizing the event as "genocide". Perhaps it was genocide. The ICTY says it was, and some would say that puts an end to all discussion. But honorable men of good will are allowed to express a preference for a very narrow dictionary definition. Ultimately, it strikes me as something of a semantic argument. It's not particularly relevant to the dead whether they died in a "genocide" or a "massacre"; they're dead all the same, and it shouldn't matter what label we use to refer to this horrendous crime. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, "critical views" sounds the most unbiased subheading for the discussion that follows. Using the terms "denial" and "revisionism" automatically create bias in the reader when examining the evidence that follows. I have reverted the article a couple of times to maintain what I believe is the phrasing most in-line with NPOV standards. -- Merope 08:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Douglas, I never believed that MacKenzie denied that a massacre took place; sorry if I left that impression. Having MacKenzie mentioned under "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism" does not imply that he denies that the massacre took place. However, it appears that the word "denial" carries more negative connotations for others than for me. In view of this, I'm happy to accept "Controversial views" as a compromise.

Jitse, I don't think you're justified in this retreat. Please see my response to your exchange with Jim Douglas above. "Denial" is a simple concept. Its use may have extrinsic "negative connotations" in specific circumstances but here it is being disputed in the context of a generalised attempt to avoid the implications of the basic meaning of the concept. --Opbeith 11:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Merope, thanks for your input. The reason I prefer "Controversial views" to "critical views" is that the latter implies that the mainstream view as described in the rest of the article is somehow not critical, but naive and not well thought through. What do you think about using "Controversial views" as a heading? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The description "Critical views" gives legitimacy to views that challenge facts established in international law. --Opbeith 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it removes a POV section head that poisons the well by informing readers that opinions in this section are understood to be illegitimate, replacing it with a morally neutral term. Readers will judge for themselves whether the arguments presented in those links have any validity. -- Jim Douglas

As I said, I don't view "critical views" as a neutral heading but as a positive one. As I said, it "implies that the mainstream view as described in the rest of the article is somehow not critical, but naive and not well thought through". In particular, it seems silly to me to split the external links section in "critical links" and other links. Hence, I changed it to "controversial". I think "non-mainstream" describes it better but that's such an ugly word. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The German article de:Massaker von Srebrenica uses "Zweifel, Relativierung und Bestreiten des Massakers", which translates as "Doubt, relativisation and denial [or: disputation] of the massacre". In my opinion, this is the best heading I've seen. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, in UK English the term more usually used is "relativism"

That the German article has something isn't an argument. Just because they're POV doesn't mean we have to be. With your previous suggestion all you've done is replace a slightly POV term (in your opinion) with a very POV term. Controversial? Controversial to whom? The whole topic is controversial. Why are they controversial? It just opens up more POV issues than it deals with. Also, I find your argument unconvincing. "Criticism" is commonly used to denote objections to something, or a common view of something. Articles like Criticism of Wikipedia list what's wrong with Wikipedia. Do you really find the word that objectionable? It seems pretty NPOV to me, unlike "controversial", which screams "this is bullshit but we had to include it in an attempt to be seen as neutral". --Hadžija 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about a section acknowledging the existence of views that disregard proven evidence. --Opbeith 08:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Two minor points:

• Looking at the dictionary, it indeed appears that "relativisation" is not used in the meaning that I intended (saying that something is not as bad as previously thought). Relativism means something different.
• I didn't use the fact that the German article has the heading as an argument, I just indicated the origin of my idea.

Back to main point. There is a consensus in mainstream media over the basic facts: the massacre took place, about 8000 were killed, and it should be labelled "genocide". There is a minority view disputing this. Wikipedia should make clear that that is indeed a minority view. Contrast this with Criticism of Wikipedia, which contains many views that are commonly held. That's why I think that controversial views is more appropriate and more NPOV. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, Article 6 of The Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cyber Crime has the title "Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity". "Gross minimisation" sounds as if it might be a suitable rendering of "Relativisierung". --Opbeith 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative views

Sorry for missing out on part of the discussion, but I have changed the title from "controversial views" to "alternative views" for two reasons:

1. The section does not give any third-party references to support the assertion that these views are controversial.
2. The opening paragraph of this section describes the views as "alternative views". Thus far no one here has objected to this characterization, so let's simply title the section using the words from the article we have already implicitly agreed upon.

—Psychonaut 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

MacKenzie rape allegations

Ok, let's talk about those rape allegations.

First, this is how General MacKenzie describes this situation in his 1993 book, Peacekeeper (pages 326-328):

In November 1992, the Bosnian-Serb soldier Borislav Herak was arrested by the Presidency's forces in Sarajevo and charged with the murder and rape of Muslim citizens. Allegedly, he said under interrogation that he had worked at the 'Sonja' prison camp located north of Sarajevo, and had seen me come by and pick up four Muslim girls, who were taken away and presumably raped and murdered. He indicated that I had arrived in a jeep, and the girls had followed my party when we left in a car. The story made headline news during the Islamic conference in Saudi Arabia, attended by President Izetbegovic. Fortunately, the North American press showed an encouraging degree of good taste and at first declined to carry the story. The story did, however, receive wide coverage in the Islamic press, and in Croatia, Germany and Italy.

Given that I hadn't even known that a place called 'Sonja' existed; that I had never ventured north of Sarajevo except on one drive to Belgrade with 200 others on May 17; that I never drove around Sarajevo in anything but the VBL armoured vehicle after my return to the city on June 10; and that I didn't go anywhere without UN colleagues as witnesses, I was more than upset over such disgusting fabrications. My greatest concern was the impact these lies would have on the security of our people on the ground, particularly the Canadians. Anyone with a Canadian flag on his sleeve was immediately associated with my reputation as a 'rapist and murderer of Muslims' in Bosnia.

The Canadian government and the United Nations decided that their response to these accusations would be low-key until they became a major story in North America. I endorsed this decision, which over time I grew to regret. My phone rang off the hook for weeks with calls from around the world asking, 'Why doesn't your government deny these allegations? Their lack of comment is condemning you, and the UN certainly isn't doing you any favour by their silence." To be fair to Canada and the UN, they were merely following a policy we all thought best at the time. When reporters called, they were given a denial. We just didn't go proactive in refuting the story, which is what various supporters quite reasonably expected us to do.

In my continuing attempt to figure out why the authorities in Sarajevo would perpetuate such a lie, I have come up with only two theories. The first is that it wasn't the Bosnian authorities, but Herak himself, knowing he would face the death penalty if found guilty of murdering innocent Muslims, who made up the story to delay his execution. At the same time, obviously the Presidency wanted to use him and his story for propaganda purposes to discredit myself and UNPROFOR.

The second theory makes a bit more sense. The Presidency knew I was against international military intervention in Bosnia. They also knew I was appearing regularly in front of some very influential government committees and leaders in the countries that would actually carry out the intervention, if such a decision were ever made. If they couldn't stop me from recommending against intervention on their side, and against lifting the international arms embargo, they would try to destroy my personal credibility.

In July of 2005, MacKenzie's article about the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre was published in the Globe and Mail.

In October of 2006, a county prosecutor in Sarajevo told an AFP reporter that he was investigating the old allegations. I can't find a link to an actual news site, only to bloggers, so I have to trust that this transcription is accurate: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1719518/posts#comment?q=1:

SARAJEVO,Bosnia - Bosnian authorities are investigating rape allegations against retired Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie, who commanded UN peacekeepers in Bosnia at the start of the 1992-95 war, an official said.

"We have the testimonies of women that he visited the detention camp several times and was not only witnessing, but also participating, in rapes there," Sarajevo county prosecutor Oleg Cavka told AFP.

He was referring to the detention camp called "Sonja" in the Sarajevo suburb of Vogosca where criminal Serbian forces forcibly imprisoned Bosniak women, and forced them to be their sex slaves.

Cavka refused to disclose the number of MacKenzie's alleged victims, but added police had been collecting evidence since 1998 against MacKenzie, who commanded the UN peacekeepers until August 1992.

"He has not been indicted since under the law no one can be indicted before he has been questioned," Cavka said.

Bosnian authorities have asked Canada for permission to interview MacKenzie on several occasions, but have received no reply, he added.

MacKenzie was replaced in Bosnia after he criticized the UN's role there.

Here's the background on the original (utterly discredited) allegations from Herak, and MacKenzie's comments on the current investigation:

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/borojevic/042.shtml

"The original story connecting Canadian Maj-Gen Lewis MacKenzie to alleged rape was written by John Burns. It is a story focused on the confession of a Bosnian Serb prisoner of the Muslims, Borislav Herak, who confessed to having murdered 29 Muslims and raped eight women. Herak, (who several years later recanted, claiming that he had been tortured and forced to memorize his confession) accused UNPROFOR head, Canadian Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, of having raped Bosnian women in a local bordello "Sonja" in the suburb of Sarajevo, Vogosca."

And from http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=9884:

Sarajevo county prosecutor Oleg Cavka told AFP last Thursday that he was investigating Canadian Gen. Lewis McKenzie, first commander of the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, for allegedly visiting a Serb-run brothel and raping Muslim women who were supposedly held captive there.

McKenzie angrily rejected the allegations, explaining that a smear campaign against him has been conducted by the Muslim government in Sarajevo ever since he urged the U.S. in 1992 not to intervene militarily in the Bosnian civil war. The rape allegations were taken from a "confession" by a captured Serb soldier who had been tortured into admitting to all sorts of things – all of which were later proven false. McKenzie wasn't anywhere near Sarajevo when his alleged visit to the alleged rape-brothel allegedly happened.

Perhaps the final bit of cynicism was the claim that a photograph of McKenzie with four crying women showed his victims. In reality, they were four local women that worked for the UN staff, evacuated by McKenzie at the beginning of hostilities in Bosnia. The photo was from their tearful reunion several months later.

Here's what David Binder of the New York Times says about Herak's credibility in his introduction to Media Cleansing, Dirty Reporting: Journalism and Tragedy in Yugoslavia, by Peter Brock:

http://mediacleansing.blogspot.com/2006/06/here-is-new-york-times-reporter-david.html

"In the category of fabrication he has dissected several articles that led to the award of the parallel 1993 Pulitzer prizes for international reporting: first, the “confession” of thirty-five murders and sixteen rapes in Sarajevo by Borislav Herak, a Bosnian Serb, in a 3,500-word story by John F. Burns for The New York Times and, second, the stories by Roy Gutman of Newsday alleging the creation by Serbs of Nazi-style “concentration camps” for thousands of Bosnian Muslim prisoners, some of whom were slaughtered. Gutman went so far as to evoke Auschwitz."

"Brock painstakingly establishes that Herak’s “confession” had been tortured out of him by his Bosnian Muslim captors."

The New York Times reports that two of the Bosnian Muslims that Herak claimed to have witnessed being murdered were later found alive in Sarajevo:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30811FF3A550C728CDDAA0894DF494D81

Jailed Serbs' 'Victims' Found Alive, Embarrassing Bosnia

By CHRIS HEDGES

Published: March 1, 1997

In a major embarrassment for the Bosnian Government, two Muslim brothers whose supposed murders were used as evidence in a highly publicized war crimes trial to condemn two Bosnian Serbs to death have been found living in a Sarajevo suburb.

The finding of the brothers has raised troubling questions about how the guilty verdict was reached. The two Serbs, currently in a Sarajevo prison, were condemned to death by a military court.

Discovery of the Muslim brothers has exposed what defense lawyers say was the undue haste of the trial, which produced no physical evidence, and the heavily charged political atmosphere that colored the judicial ruling.

The trial, which was widely covered by the international press, was used by the Muslim Government to publicize the brutal ethnic cleansing campaign then being carried out by the Bosnian Serbs.

The trial of the two Serbs, Sretko Damjanovic and Borislav Herak, in March 1993 was the first attempt by the Sarajevo legal system to try Bosnian Serbs for genocide and other war crimes. It was intended to begin a judicial process that would see those Serbs who were responsible for the killings of tens of thousands of Muslims brought to justice.

But it was also used to convince Europe and the United States that the Serbs were guilty of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Mr. Damjanovic, 36, was found guilty, largely on a confession he later said was made under torture, of killing the two brothers and a third man, Krso Ramiz. But in yet another blow to the case, internal documents show that the Sarajevo public prosecutors office has charged three other Bosnian Serbs -- Nenad Damjanovic (not related to Sretko), Vukovic Miro and Jeftic Bozo -- with carrying out Mr. Ramiz's murder.

During the trial, Sretko Damjanovic recanted his confession and said he had been severely abused by the Muslim police until he signed the document. The court doctor confirmed at the trial that Mr. Damjanovic had four knife wounds and a broken rib that appeared to have been inflicted while in police custody.

In Mr. Damjanovic's confession, he stated that he was responsible for the killing of the two brothers, Kasim and Asim Blekic.

"The two principal pieces of evidence used to convict my client were his signed confession, where he supposedly admitted to murdering two men who we now know are alive, and the testimony of his co-defendant, Borislav Herak," said Mr. Damjanovic's lawyer, Branko Maric. "How can my client's supposed confession be considered valid now? And how can the testimony of Mr. Herak, who said he witnessed these alleged murders, also be accepted by the court?"

Government officials were reluctant today to discuss the case.

And it seems that MacKenzie took the time to respond to a letter from the Congress of North American Bosniaks, explaining the situation yet again:

http://bosnjaci.net/egt.php?id=934

It appears that the allegations originated from media interviews with the captured Bosnian Serb soldier, Borislav Herak who claimed to have murdered and raped Bosnian Muslim women. During the interview he indicated that I had frequently visited Sonya's café in Sarajevo, selected captured Muslim girls, raped them and subsequently murdered them. It was subsequently revealed that Herak's evidence was a fabrication having been well coached and his description of myself, my rank badges and vehicle bore no relationship with reality.During the past decade as these libelous accusations reappear in the media it is frequently stated that I have been approached by the Bosnian authorities to be questioned and that I have refused. That sir is blatantly untrue. I have never been asked if I would agree to be questioned and frankly I would be happy to respond to questioning here in Canada. It is also stated that the UN and Canada have been approached to permit me to be interrogated and both have refused. To the best of my knowledge this has not happened as I assume that I would have been notified of such a request.

On the 12th of October 2006, Sarajevo county prosecutor Oleg Cavka repeated the unfounded allegations against me yet again to AFP and the comments received international attention. He again stressed my visitations to Sonja's Café, a location I have never seen let alone visited. Friends who have served in Bosnia more recently tell me that the Bosnian judiciary has made giant strides in the past decade and has earned a reputation for fairness and honesty. It is with these facts in mind that the professional misconduct of Mr Cavka is so troubling. I was shocked that Mr Cavka would go to the media with the presumably confidential and "untested" contents of an investigation file and make public that information against myself while admitting that I have not been indicted. It is bad enough that I had no opportunity to defend myself; however, the clear inference of Mr Cavka's statement that, "he has not been indicted because he has not been questioned" is that, but for the questioning, I would have been indicted. This conclusion on the part of Mr Cavka demonstrates a clear absence of impartiality. Furthermore, he usurps the function of a court or judge in the indictment process i. e. a prosecutor brings or files an indictment, a judge rejects or confirms and indicts. I wish to formally complain regarding the unprofessional and irresponsible conduct of Mr Oleg Cavka.

There have been several attempts to insert these allegations into the article, going back to at least last August. The current justification for including these discredited allegations in the article is that a local Sarajevo prosecutor told an AFP reporter in October that he was investigating the allegations. There is, to put it mildly, significant doubt about the allegations. The only reason for including them is to smear MacKenzie's character, a nasty form of ad hominem attack. If MacKenzie's comments in his article are factually incorrect, then by all means, they should be refuted. But reporting his words, under the title "Other revisionists", with the introduction: "Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of the UNPROFOR who is under investigation by a Bosnian prosecutor following rape accusations, has said that:" does nothing to illuminate his opinions about the Srebrenica massacre; it can only be intended to poison the well so that readers will understand that they are expected to discount his opinions. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that the rape accusations are irrelevant and I've indeed removed them on several occasions, if my memory serves me correctly. However, there seem to have been developments in the past months which might give the accusations a saliency warranting their inclusion (e.g., the AFP report). I'm unsure at this point whether they should be included, and if so, where. Obviously, if they are included, we should seek a balance.

In the interest of resolving the issue, let me propose a text:

Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of the UNPROFOR, has said that:

…

A Bosnian prosecutor is investigating accusations that MacKenzie raped several women in a concentration camp in Vogosca. MacKenzie dismisses these accusations, saying that he has never been near Vogosca, and that "a smear campaign against him has been conducted by the Muslim government in Sarajevo ever since he urged the U.S. in 1992 not to intervene militarily in the Bosnian civil war". The Canadian minister of Defence also rejects the accusation.

Of course, references should be added. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, your current proposal is more WP:NPOV than anything I've seen yet. If the rape allegations were both credible and relevant, I'd be happy to accept your proposal and move on.

I have several concerns about including the rape allegations in any form, starting with WP:BLP#Biased or malicious content. That allegation has been posted and reposted to the article as far back as the beginning of August. For example, one version said: "Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia accussed of participating in Serb-run rape camps, states that:". This was months before a local Sarajevo prosecutor talked to an AFP reporter, so it was clearly based on the 1992 fabrications that originated with Borislav Herak. The new allegations, skimpy as they are, appear to be a reiteration of those same allegations -- that MacKenzie raped women in "Camp Sonja", a site which he never visited. And I find edit summaries such as "rv - allegations have not been proven to be untrue, there was no judician process, see discussion page" to be very disturbing -- is "guilty until proven innocent" now our standard for inclusion?

To the best of my ability, I've detailed the historical background to provide some context and show why I believe these allegations are politically motivated and lacking in any credibility. Oleg Cavka's extremely brief comments to that AFP reporter directly mirror the stories that originated with Borislav Herak when he was captured in November of 1992, stories that were later determined to be fabricated. Cavka has presented no evidence whatsoever, he has given no details of the alleged crimes, and he hasn't initiated any actual legal proceedings. In the absence of something of substance, Cavka's comments to that AFP reporter ultimately amount to nothing but idle gossip.

My other concerns are based on WP:NPOV#Undue weight and a clear attempt to poison the well. Rape allegations are always highly emotionally charged, which is understandable; it's a nasty crime. When we juxtapose MacKenzie's opinions about the nature of the Srebrenica massacre with an observation that he is being investigated for multiple rapes, we are telling readers that his comments are to be read through the prism of him being an alleged rapist. If MacKenzie's article misrepresents facts, then it's appropriate to refute him on a point by point basis. But it's not appropriate to simply undermine his comments with this transparent ad hominem attack. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

-> Your post is too long, not interested in pro-Serb views as they are biased. Enough of General Mackenzie, the fact is that he has not proven his innocence in court. He needs to answer to allegations and if he is found innocent, then fine. Until then, enough of Gen. MacKanzie who was a paid Serb lobbyist. Bosniak 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim (and Merope), WP:BLP also says: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." I'm too lazy to check myself whether the allegations are well-documented, but MacKenzie himself says "The story did, however, receive wide coverage in the Islamic press, and in Croatia, Germany and Italy" (shamelessly extracted from the quote dug up by Jim). I agree that the allegations are hard to believe in view of the evidence available to us. However, if we present this evidence to the readers, they will probably reach the same conclusion.

In view of all this, I still think we should mention the accusations. Perhaps though this article is not the correct place for it, and it would be better placed in Lewis MacKenzie? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, I have the same concerns about adding it to the Lewis MacKenzie article. I only looked at that article for the first time a few days ago, but I see from the page history that the rape allegations have been added to the article from time to time; Bosniak inserted this version in October. The problem is that Oleg Cavka didn't actually say anything of substance in that interview in October. You can see how his comments were received by the mainstream media: I searched hard for reliable sources that discussed Oleg Cavka's comments to that AFP reporter last October, and the only evidence I could find that the interview even happened is in blogs. If Cavka ever files actual charges, it will certainly be covered by reliable sources. At that point, it will absolutely be notable and should be mentioned in the Lewis MacKenzie article. At the moment, though, the allegations don't rise above the level of smear and innuendo. With regards to the original discredited allegations, his Britannica bio -- which is significantly longer than the one we have here -- also neglects to mention them. I'm reluctant to post the entire article here, but this is what it says about his return to Canada from Sarajevo: "The conflict in former Yugoslavia, however, followed him back to Canada. He was verbally attacked by members of the Croatian community in Canada and by factions in Bosnia. Although he tried to defend himself, as a member of the Canadian armed forces he was precluded from commenting on government policy." If the Britannica had considered the allegations to be notable, I would find that a compelling argument. But including old and discredited allegations in the Lewis MacKenzie article strikes me as a clear violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The rape allegations are significant insofar as they not only suggest illegal activity but are relevant to MacKenzie's alleged close relationship with the parties responsible for establishing the rape camps. So they are significant as far as his more general conduct in the context of the Bosnian War and the views that he expresses in public are concerned. They are relevant to the article in the sense that they call into question his motives and the authority with which he speaks on the subject of Srebrenica.

Personally I consider that MacKenzie already reveals himself to be an unreliable source through his comments on the fact of genocide and the scope of the massacre. So to avoid getting distracted from the essence of the issue I'm not fundamentally opposed to leaving the reference out here and leaving it to be dealt with in the Lewis MacKenzie article until the allegations are confirmed. The important thing is that we shouldn't trivialise or ignore them or accept MacKenzie as someone whose opinions have authority. --Opbeith 12:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The myth of 'rape allegations' was begun by the Bosnian government PRECISELY because such an allegation would as you say "call into question his motives and the authority with which he speaks on the subject of Srebrenica." Anyone with half a brain can see right through them. And through this entire article. Stop The Lies 00:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Jim, I suppose you agree that the allegations should be included, even though they're "old and discredited", if they're notable (i.e., mentioned in mainstream media). A Google search indeed does not turn up a lot, but the story with Cavka is mentioned in Yahoo News and that article refers to CTV. However, the accusations are from 1992 and articles from the early 90s are hard to find via Google. For instance, I also found a mention, albeit brief, in Der Spiegel, nr. 10, 1996, pp. 168-171 (not freely available, as far as I can tell). And I repeat that MacKenzie himself said they were widely reported.

Regarding your idea of refuting MacKenzie's view: I think the rest of the article already implicitly does that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

Revisionism, denial etc - all these words are POV. They implicitly support one point of view over another. There's not much more to say...--Hadžija 16:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Denial is real and fact. Oh Hadžija, hadžija, I didn't except this from you. We can't change facts. How would you call it? --HarisM 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy regarding..." Stop The Lies 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

"Genocide is not a legal term"

Jim Douglas, your reference to the Frontline citation from Alain Desteixhe by way of support for your claims concerning the alleged misuse of the term "genocide" suggests that you didn't examine the quote closely or critically.

Alain Desteixhe states that "using the definitions of both Lemkin and the Convention, and placing them within the context of the larger category of crime against humanity in general, there have really only been three genuine examples of genocide during the course of the twentieth century: that of the Armenians by the Young Turks in 1915, that of the Jews and Gypsies by the Nazis and, in 1994, that of the Tutsis by the Hutu racists"

Desteixhe's book "Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century" was written in 1994 (the English translation was published in 1995), i.e. before Srebrenica.

The text quited expresses Desteixhe's concern in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide at how the term "Holocaust" had been used to refer to the humanitarian catastrophe of the cholera epidemic in the Hutu refugee camps in Goma. He argued that this obscured the significance of individual responsibility and was distracting attention from the real crime already committed.

"The fact that cholera does not handpick its victims according to their ethnic origin was completely overlooked. ... Intrinsic meaning is lost when a word is used so loosely to describe any human disaster with a large number of victims, regardless of the cause."

The gist of Desteixhe's argument is that genocide is defined within the context of the larger category of crime against humanity in general by using Raphael Lemkin's and the Genocide Convention's definitions, summed up as: "a criminal act ... with the intention of destroying ... an ethnic, national or religious group ... targeted as such".

His test was subsequently applied by the ICTY to the fate of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica and that of the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia and genocide within the meaning of the Convention found to be proven.

Jim Douglas, your argument that the term "genocide" should be capable of interpretation in alternative sense to that Lemkin, a man with intimate understanding of the meaning of the holocaust, gave the word flies right in the face of what Desteixche is saying.

You maintain that "the word "genocide" is not a legal term, nor does it mean precisely the same thing to all observers, nor does the United Nations have the exclusive authority to define the term."

The word "genocide" is a legal term. The Genocide Convention has reality in international law.

Although the Convention was adopted by the United Nations and is given effect by the United Nations in its role as the repository of international law whose agencies are responsible for observance of international treaties and conventions, a commitment to observe the Convention is binding on the many individual nations who have ratified it.

That doesn't leave much meaningful scope for a formal interpretation of the term outside the wording of the Convention, unless and until the Convention is amended.

Jim Douglas, you have portrayed yourself as an individual concerned with the objective validity of the expressions and arguments advanced here. However your innocence of intent appears to be contradicted by the way in which you must your sources and arguments. The "direction of travel" of those arguments seems to take you in the direction of allowing views that lack justification and challenging facts that have been substantiated and away from an objective analysis of established facts. --Opbeith 12:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit tired of the WP:ABF comments, Opbeith. I acknowledge and respect your position: The United Nations has a legal definition of the term "Genocide". I've responded to this above. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I initially assumed that you were a maybe pernickety stickler for absolute accuracy, which is not necessarily unreasonable stance. But it is not reasonable when the demands for accuracy at to follow a one-sided pattern. It is not reasonable when the person demanding "accuracy" fails to respond to challenges to their own accuracy. And it is not reasonable when the person demanding accuracy repeats their own inaccuracies. When all of this follows a well-established pattern in this forum it's not unreasonable to feel that what is taking place is not free and open debate.

You repeatedly criticse Bosniak while ignoring the actions of the apologists. You fail to respond to challenges such as my question to you about the validity of your use of the Desteixhe quote. You misdirect follow-up discussions away from the point of challenge, for example treating the accusation against MacKenzie that he is a genocide denier instead as an accusation that he denied the massacre. You cite from a very narrow range of sources identified with a particular end of the spectrum of opinion - Malic, Borojevic, Brock. You pick up arguments that have been discussed to infinity here such as the number of the dead and rather than discussing suggestions within the scope of current debate you return to time-expired claims, such as your latest citation from MacKenzie that Naser Oric killed as many local Serbs as Bosniaks killed in the massacre.

It's meaningless to say you acknowledge and respect my "honourable" position when you ignore the points I raise. You say something about the United Nations having a legal definition of genocide. I'm not sure what that means when you don't tell me whether you accept that the definition of genocide enshrined by the United Nations in the Genocide Convention is one that you argue firstly is not legal, is not for the United Nations to choose, and is then not a definition binding on either Lewis MacKenzie or yourself. This is not discussion, this is evasion. So I ask myself why do you reassure me that you respect my position. You don't respect it enough to respond to it. So why do you say that it is "honourable"? Perhaps it's because that offers you a way of putting down Bosniak.

No, it's not an assumption of bad faith. It started as a slight suspicion of bad faith, yes, but now the evidence leaves me with the firm conviction that bad faith is what it is. If you want to try and block me or whatever you think is appropriate you'll have the courtesy to answer my points first. Anyone is entitled to disagree with me. But after I've spent my time trying to respond to what they have said seriously I expect the courtesy of a fair deal in return.--Opbeith 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps you just missed my response to this question above. I'm happy to copy it here if you prefer:

I'm not sure what else to add to what I said above, Opbeith. I stated your position, which is that the ICTY ruling should be taken as the final word on whether the label of "genocide" is appropriate, I agreed (and still do) that this is an honorable position, and yet, I respectfully disagree. MacKenzie used the word "distasteful" to describe this entire line of argument, and I have to agree that it fits; I find the entire conversation disturbing. But here's what MacKenzie said in his article: "The Bosnian Muslim men and older boys were singled out and the elderly, women and children were moved out or pushed in the direction of Tuzla and safety." He goes on to day that "Nasar Oric, the Bosnian Muslim military leader in Srebrenica, is currently on trial in The Hague for war crimes committed during his 'defence' of the town. Evidence to date suggests that he was responsible for killing as many Serb civilians outside Srebrenica as the Bosnian Serb army was for massacring Bosnian Muslims inside the town." MacKenzie is a military man, not a lawyer or diplomat. The way he sees the massacre is that men and boys of fighting age were singled out and murdered in the middle of a war. This was a crime on an unbelievable scale; nobody could possibly deny that. MacKenzie's argument is not that this wasn't a horrific crime; he said it should be considered in the overall context of an ongoing war.

As far as my choice of citations, I literally don't know how to respond. This is clearly a topic that you live and breath. But if there's some political implication associated with any of those citations, I'm unaware of it -- I simply googled "genocide" and posted some quotes in an attempt to explain why I believe a career soldier might make the comments that he did, while coming from a position of good will. I've just read my responses back, and I'm honestly not sure what part of that you don't understand. As I said, I understand that your position is that the word "Genocide" is something akin to a trademark owned by the United Nations, and that alternative definitions are null and void: If the United Nations determines that a particular situation constitutes a Genocide, then alternative opinions are, by definition, "Genocide Denial". Under no circumstances can such a dissenting opinion be considered a legitimate point of view of an honorable man. If that is, in fact, your position (and it appears to be), then I suppose we're at an impasse, and we'll simply have to agree to disagree. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, once again you dodge the issue. You said that genocide was not a legal term. I told you how the definition of genocide was enshrined in international law under the Genocide Convention in the national legislation of the countries that have ratified the Convention. You then redefine this as me suggesting that "genocide" has similar status to a trademark. If the courts find that a trademark has been infringed that is certainly an offence in law. But the UN is not enforcing a trademark. Courts that try crimes of genocide are trying them under the provisions of international law. If a crime has been committed, then to deny that it has been committed is to be a denier of that crime. Sorry, we are at an impasse if you don't understand the concept of a crime under international law.

I don't eat and breathe genocide. But it offends and disgusts me when I see the progress that has been made to bring this crime within the scope of the rule of law treated so capriciously by someone who uses a quote (Desteixhe) condemning such arbitrary wilfulness in their own justification. You don't have to respond to my citations, you just have to refute my dispute with yours.

And yes I did note what you said about the career soldier. As I noted above in response, you seem to be telling us that General MacKenzie, former Canadian General and commander of UN Forces, condones disregard for at least the Fourth Geneva Convention (relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) and the First and Second Additional Protocols (relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts and Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts). That's what an experienced soldier in a senior position is doing if he says the massacre "should be considered in the overall context of an ongoing war". --Opbeith 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to add two more points to the ongoing debate.

1st: The genocide convention makes no prevision that sex selective killings (i.e. the targeting of only the men) does not constitute genocide. In other words, the fact that women & younger children were not targeted for death like the men were (although, certainly there were reported cases of murder of both women & kids; and rape of teen girls and young women). While it may be General MacKenzie's personal point of view that genocide did not occur in Srebrenica; in no part of the Genocide convention does it state that the offenders must target the entire group (men, women & kids) for destruction for the event to constituted as genocide. In fact, there is a whole scholarship on the act of gendercide-specifically targeting either males or females for physical destruction; and how gendercide is a form of genocide.

2nd: The fact that MacKenzie presents the erroneous fact that Oric's troops killed as many Bosnian-Serbs as the VRS killed in Srebrenica seriously damages his crediblity and shows very clearly (IMHO) his biased P.O.V. with regard to Srebrenica. There has been no source; such as the Red Cross, ICTY, ICMP, UN reports on the war in Bosnia, which have given even the shred of credibility to this assertion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gardenfli (talk • contribs) 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC).Gardenfli 04:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm done

Ok, I've reached my limit. I thought we were having a civilized exchange of viewpoints, but this seems to have turned into a cross-examination, and I'm not not prepared to be treated like a criminal defendant. I didn't seek out this article; it only came to my attention when Bosniak decided out of nowhere to post nonsense to my talk page. I spent last week trying to remove blatant libel, when it should have been obvious to anyone with an open mind that the allegation trampled all over our biographies of living people policy. Opbeith finally agreed yesterday that he's willing to drop that little bit of libel "until the allegations are confirmed." Which, I concede, is an improvement over Bosniak; his standard for inclusion of libel is "rv, allegations have not been proven to be untrue". Opbeith's latest source of indignation is whether "genocide" is a legal term. Clearly it's a "legal term" as far as the ICTY is concerned, otherwise there could be no genocide trial. But I concede I didn't express myself very well, and Opbeith has been trying to get me to confess to my crime. So, to make Opbeith happy, yes, genocide is a "legal term" to the ICTY. That having been said, the man on the street doesn't refer to the legal definition when he talks about genocide. Is the Darfur conflict a genocide, Opbeith? I say it is; the United States government says it is; apparently the United Nations says it's not. So yes, Opbeith: I assert that the United Nations does not have the unique authority to say that one situation is a genocide and another is not. You disagree, which is your right. If I follow your position to its logical conclusion, then I don't have the right to assert that what's happening in the Darfur is in fact a genocide, because the United Nations has not ruled it to be so. Arguing in the other direction, MacKenzie simply makes the argument that busing the women, children, and old people to safety before selectively murdering the men and boys of fighting age -- clearly a horrendous war crime -- is not typically what we think of when we use the label "genocide". Your position is that Srebrenica is genocide, as the United Nations has ruled it to be so. By the same legalistic argument, the 400,000 dead in the Sudan are not the victims of genocide. Ok, fine. If those are the house rules for participating in this article, I'm more than happy to walk away. It's clear to me now that it's not actually possible to have a civil conversation here. The article is all yours, Opbeith. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured that out a while ago... *sigh... Don't waste your breath trying to save this article, it's a lost hope. Pretty soon, it will be saying that Mackenzie himself committed genocide while raping Bosniak women and receiving money from Serbian warlords all at once! Stop The Lies 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Genocide - there's a difference between what we see happening before our eyes and a fact established in law

Jim, I haven't treated you like a criminal defendant, what I have done is try to make you justify yourself, given the way you came into the discussion presenting yourself as an arbiter of truth and good conduct. Yes, I'm afraid I have been pretty uncompromising in my response to your arguments, because you presented yourself as someone, with no axe to grind, acting in the cause of accuracy, fairness and good conduct to defend Lewis MacKenzie against rape allegations. You then proceeded to make assertions and provide interpretations, based on highly biased sources, that go to the heart of the article's content - the issue of genocide and the scope of the massacre.

It's certainly not my article, as you put it. I've contributed very little to the content of the article in fact because I think it's important to look at the article as a whole, and that's difficult while we're arguing over specific points. So I don't see myself as a defender of the article as such. What I am concerned about is the legitimacy of its content and that's what this Discussion page is about.

If you are so concerned and scrupulous where other people's views are concerned you should be as careful with your own. In your "Parthian shot" posting you misrepresent what I have been saying about libel and genocide. I don't say that I and, more importantly, the UN cannot be challenged in areas whose status in law has not been determined.

For example, you say the rape allegations are libellous. I say that you can't call them that yet, because MacKenzie has not sued for libel and no case has been heard. But we are both simply expressing our own different views because there has been no legal hearing or determination.

If I'm "willing to drop that little bit of libel", it's not because believe that including the allegations isn't justified - I think I was pretty clear about that. These allegations are important in terms of their relevance to MacKenzie's reliability as a commentator on the issue of Srebrenica, which is the subject of this article. But there is enough evidence elsewhere of his unreliability for it not to be worth the effort to continue disputing this specific point until legal action by MacKenzie or by the Bosnian prosecutor gives us a definitive judgment.

The same considerations regarding legal status apply to the fact of genocide in Srebrenica or Darfur. You seem determined not to concede that genocide is a concept defined authoritatively in international law. You certainly have expressed your view adequately, and do so again - "it's a "legal term" as far as the ICTY is concerned" but "the man on the street doesn't refer to the legal definition when he talks about genocide". In other words it is the man on the street's definition to which we should refer for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. I disagree. There are a lot of us men and women in the street disputing what the "man in the street's view" actually is, such as the man on the street in Khartoum who may choose to understand the term in the sense that Omar al-Bashir gives to it.

Srebrenica is legally genocide. Darfur is not yet legally genocide (and nor for that matter is the "religious cleansing" taking place in parts of Iraq at the moment). Nevertheless I believe along with you that what is happening in Darfur is genocide and I hope that eventually charges will be brought and the perpetrators brought to justice. I'm disgusted by the failure of the UN to reach the political consensus that will allow it to act. It's an obscenity. But genocide in Darfur is still a matter of my personal judgment, not yet a proven crime.

I believe charges should be brought. The basic law exists in the Convention on Genocide. But the convictions don't exist yet. I believe that what is happening meets the criteria of the Convention but it can still be argued that the charge hasn't been tested and proved. What we're discussing in relation to Srebrenica in contrast is cases that have been tried and appealed, where the fact of genocide has been proved.

Someone who claims to be furthering the objectivity of the article while presenting themselves as an innocent with no axe to grind and claiming an innocence of the issue should not be making claims about the basic facts using inaccurate arguments and drawing on biased sources, particularly when so much effort has already gone into covering this ground already.

I'm sorry to hammer on. But meddling with the truth is indeed poisoning the well. --Opbeith 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues relating to ICTY judgments as raised by Osli73 and/or KarlXII

In August and December Osli 73 and/or Karl XII raised the issue of respect for copyright with reference to ICTY judgments.

I contacted the ICTY and have had an e-mail reply from Mr Christian Chartier, Senior Officer at the Registry Communication Service of the ICTY.

Mr Chartier informs me that quoting from or reproducing a Judgement or document is not seen by the ICTY as a copyright violation. He remarks that there is ample evidence that the Tribunal's case-law is in the public domain. Judgements are always rendered during public sessions; the hearings are broadcast live on the ICTY website; the actual judgements are released on the website within minutes of the completion of the hearing along with the summary read out in court by the Presiding Judge. Their publication on-line and in the "ICTY Judicial Reports," clearly indicates that the Tribunal favors any further dissemination of the work of its Chambers.

The one "condition" that he draws my attention to - as a matter of common sense rather than anything else - is that when quoting from or reproducing an ICTY document, including Judgements, this should be indicated fairly and clearly by referring either in the text itself or in a footnote to the case name, the case number and the actual paragraphs/portions quoted and reproduced with quotation marks, and ideally a hyperlink to the document as found on the website could also be added. --Opbeith 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Child victims of the Srebrenica Massacre

This is a copy of a post I made at the Srebrenica article, after a reference to "many children" being among the victims at Srebrenica was removed. I noted that a discussion of the issue might be more appropriate here.

In 1997 Amnesty International noted that more than 100 minors were still missing, including Hazim Hasanovic (born 1978), Suad Suljic (born 1978), Edin Ahmetovic (born 1977) and Semir Ahmetovic (born 1979), Jasmin Zukic (born 1978), Senad Zukic (born 1980), Muharem Mujic (born 1980), Sifet Mehanovic (born 1978). (AI Index: EUR 63/026/1997 - 23 October 1997) http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR630261997?open&of=ENG-BIH

The videotape given by Natasa Kandic to the Serbian war crimes investigator and the ICTY provides visual evidence of the murder of chidren at Srebrenica. According to Tim Judah and Daniel Sunter's article in The Observer at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1499516,00.html four of the six Bosniaks taken off the coach at Trnovo and assasinated were under 18.

Three consecutive names among the FCMP's listed 8373 names of the dead and missing are the children

531 ALISPAHIĆ ARMIN AVDIJA 1203979183129 12.03.1979

532 ALISPAHIĆ AZMIR ALIJA 210978183136 02.10.1978

533 ALISPAHIĆ BEHADIL ADIL 19.05.1979

http://www.srebrenica-zepa.ba/srebrenica/spisak.htm

Azmir Alispahic was one of those killed on the Kandic videotape. The horror experienced by Nura Alispahic and her daughter Magbula as they watched the tape of their son and brother Azmir being killed has been widely reported.

I've seen reference to 12- and 13-year-olds being among the victims. The FCMP list names

5217 MUHIĆ NESIB HASAN 00.00.1984

7594 SMAJLOVIĆ FAHRUDIN JUSUF 01.01.1983

2775 HASANOVIĆ REMZUDIN HASIB 101982000000 01.01.1982

4469 MALAGIĆ HARIS IBRAHIM 00/00/1982

and

1188 BOŠNJAKOVIĆ AMER MEHO 1109982000000 11.09.1982

The last named was two months short of his thirteenth birthday. The other four don't have accurate birth dates and presumably for whatever reason their disappearance was reported by someone other than immediate family.

Of course there are plenty of slightly older names on the list. There are 16 dates of birth in 1981 and 53 dates of birth in 1980.

So, there were many children among the victims.

--Opbeith 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Italicisation of quotes

Psychonaut, although you say that quotes aren't italicised in English in fact it's perfectly standard practice in English, particularly when you have a block of text sandwiched between other blocks that aren't quoted text. Italicisation is an alternative to using quotation marks around the quoted text.

In fact you may remember that the quote here was italicised before the recent editing to-and-fro took place. It had lost its italicisation without anyone putting in the quotation marks, so I was simply restoring the status quo.

Personally I think italicisation makes for easier recognition as a quote but I've no great preference in the matter. I'm happy to go with the general choice if that's what's agreed. But if it's decided to stay with plain text then you'll need to put in the enclosing quotation marks. --Opbeith 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Too few opinions" flag

Laughing Man, You decide to flag the article with the notice "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page."

It's certainly your right to add a warning like that if that's what you really believe. But by sticking the flag on the article in that arbitrary way you're effectively telling us that you're not interested in discussing your proposal or listening to other people's viewpoints before you go ahead and take your own action.

Or are you simply trumpeting the advance warning of yet another onslaught by the revisionist concert party? I hope you've taken on board the basic idea that individuals engaging in controversial actions should first discuss changes in article content on an article's talk page that was expressed in the following ruling, quoted on this Discussion page only a couple of months ago:

"Relevant decision by the Kosovo arbitration committee:

7) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)" --Opbeith 10:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)