Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Srebernica Genocide Horror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistency

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

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

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

“Battle of Srebrenica” redirect

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

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

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

Broken link

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

Answer to OSLI

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

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

"Srebrenica Genocide Memorial"

hi all,

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

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

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

editing down

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My latest edit

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

Interesting...

Google Popularity Results:

1. Srebrenica Massacre - 380,000 results!

2. Srebrenica Genocide - 423,000 results!

Bosniak 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

editing - Tuzla column

hi guys,

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

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

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

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

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

a couple quick questions

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oh, and one more thing

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

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

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

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

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

message to Dragon re background section

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

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

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

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

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

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

time to archive?

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

note on Jonathan v Dragon reverts

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

(Jonathan)

hi there,

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

(Dragon)

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

(Jonathan)

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

Jonathanmills 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ICTY conclusion

As for the destruction in the villages of Kravica, Siljkovići, Bjelovac, Fakovići and Sikiric, the judgment states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Bosnian forces were responsible for them, because the Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in those villages. In the case of the village of Bjelovac, Serbs even used the warplanes.[2] The Dragon of Bosnia 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

DoB, a reply to your comment above:

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

Osli73 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DoB, further answer to your comments above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Osli73 09:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fview360, a reply to your comments above:

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

Osli73 08:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

DoB,

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

Osli73 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply about Osli73-Johnatanmills sockpuppet suspicion

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

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

Ethnic cleansing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethnic Cleansing section is an important part of this article.

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

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

Gardenfli 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

CheersOsli73 07:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Disgusting Example of Srebrenica Genocide Justification at Italian Wikipedia

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

links to 'critical views'

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

Sub-articling?

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

Wrong information from the judgment

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

Which is false.

The sentece from the judgment goes like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likely more than 8,000 victims of Srebrenica genocide

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

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

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

Srebrenica Memorial Quilt

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

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

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

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

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

Alternative views uncorrect

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

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

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

Srebrenica Genocide Children and Elderly

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

External links for 'Alternative views'

hi guys,

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

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

Of the six links...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diana Johnstone is a Serb apologist

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

Alternative Views, aka...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serbian news agency B92

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

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

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

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

SREBRENICA GENOCIDE DENIAL AND REVISIONISM: SHORT DEFINITION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Helsinki committee for human rights in Serbia

about Ratko Mladic and serbian efforts to avoid justice

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

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

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

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

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

Hollywood Support for Serbia Grows

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

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

btw. George Clooney denied it on his website.

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

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

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

should that be included in an encyclopedia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dolus specialis

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

"The dolus specialis concept is particular to a few civil law systems and cannot sweepingly be equated with the notions of ‘special’ or ‘specific intent’ in common law systems. Of course, the same might equally be said of the concept of ‘specific intent,’ a notion used in the common law almost exclusively within the context of the defense of voluntary intoxication."—Genocide scholar William Schabas[3]

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

The body count

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Babic (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Buried children

Memorial Centre - Potocari (September 2007)

Buried persons: total 2907

Children:

         age 13,5-14:  3
             14 - 15:  9
             15 - 16: 29
             16 - 17: 50
             17 - 18: 71

Memorial Centre - Potocari (September 2008)

Buried persons: total 3215

Children:

         age 13,5-14:  3
             14 - 15:  9
             15 - 16: 31
             16 - 17: 56
             17 - 18: 76
             total: 175 

Kutil 77.240.177.27 (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Slobodan Milo's 'controlled media'

Hi guys (probably talking mainly to Griffin and Fairview here):

I guess the main point I wanted to put was that the reference cited by Fairview, in the first instance, did not mention Srebrenica at all, so it doesn't really fit the bill as a source for the statement.

Secondly, it is essentially only a description of testimony given by the prosecution at trial, not (for example) the findings of the tribunal, so I'm not sure it should be used as essentially 'proving' the thesis.

And moreover, it seems fairly obviously slanted -- media occasionally fabricating stories (intentionally or otherwise), war propaganda (use of perjorative terms like 'fascists', 'jihadists' etc), government controlling media licences, especially in a time of war -- those are characteristics of ANY country's media. Saying "Serbian Radio Television created a strange universe in which...the devastated Croatian town of Vukovar had been 'liberated'" -- well, it is standard practice in war to refer to one's own conquests as 'liberation' -- viz the Americans and Brits 'liberating' Iraq. Indeed, to say this is a 'strange universe' merely proves to me that the source is non-objective.

Lastly, the report itself apparently says "The media offensive launched by Belgrade contributed to the appearance of equally detestable propaganda in other Yugoslav republics" -- food for thought for the Bosniak nationalists here, perhaps?

Finally, I'm not intent on reverting anything and everything along the lines of what's been added -- just get some better sources, and put it in less POV language (eg, 'Some have argued [or whatever] that Serbia's state media [not 'Slobodan Milosevic's media'; this is an encyclopaedia] sowed misinformation about the massacre among Serbs'). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I haven't had a response to this, there has been two new references added by Fairview, neither of which, again, mention Srebrenica at all. One of them is simply the list of charges brought by the ICTY, *not* the findings of the judgement. And I thought the courts found that Serbia was *not* responsible for Srebrenica?

The other is an article on the PBS website which talks about "the hate campaign against everything which was not Serb went into overdrive in the media and at Milosevic's now notorious rallies". If anyone can offer any evidence that such rallies existed, they should let Jared Israel (Emperor's Clothes editor) know and he will provide them with $500. (See the Wikipedia page on Slobodan Milosevic, under 'defenders of Milosevic'). The fact that the article states such a clear falsehood makes it an extraordinarily dubious source. Jonathanmills (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I just want to make it clear what I am arguing here. I'm *not* saying none of what Fairview is saying about the Serbian state media is true. I'm just saying that there has as yet been zero evidence *provided* for the statement under discussion -- namely, that the Serbian media 'sowed confusion about Srebrenica' -- which is a very poorly worded statement (and POV) in any case. Jonathanmills (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008

Update: Fairview has again re-inserted the sentence under contention, without any discussion, despite my invitation to the talk page (and starting this thread). Apart from being poor 'Wikiquette', I want to re-emphasise my previous post and make crystal clear that...

..for all I know, Fairview may be 100% correct in his charge. I'm just saying it hasn't been correctly referenced, as far as I can tell. He claims it is "ICTY-backed": maybe it is, but all he has presented are *prosecution charges*, not ICTY findings. The other two references provided don't mention Srebrenica at all, and at least one of them appears to be woefully slanted.

Also, the sentence itself is both poorly worded ('Milosevic's media' rather than 'Serbian state media' is what one expects from a propaganda screed, not an encyclopaedia) and inherently POV -- 'causing confusion' de facto implies that it is incorrect, when this is exactly what is at issue.

It's fairly obvious that the mere existence of the section on 'Alternative views' (despite the fact that it is probably 1% of the entire article) is rankling the Bosniaks on here, hence the attempt to discredit it with POV language, removing of references, etc. All I can say is, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and if you can't live with having a point of view different to your own being presented (after all, there *are* articles on Holocaust revisionism, to take an extreme example), you should basically be doing something else with your time. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jared Israel is one of the main Serb apologists and a moron who denies every single crime Serbs ever did.He is so bold to deny the existance of Bosnian-Serb deathcamps and even denying the Srebrenica Execution Video in which Serbian Scorpions unit(under command of Serbian MUP) killed executed 6 unarmed civilians. The denial of the Srebrenica Genide is his daily routine.So Jared Israel must never be allowed to be refferenced in any encyclopedia.

There are tons of refferences abot Slobodan Milosevic's control of media and that was also part of his inditment in ICTY.The fact that he died just before the end of the trial can't be used as "nothing was proven crap" by Serb apopogists.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Griffin, thanks for joining the discussion.

I didn't cite Jared Israel as such, I was just pointing out that he has offered a reward to anyone who can offer proof that Slobodan Milosevic said anything to incite racial hatred in any of his speeches. So if such proof exists, why not make an easy $500?

As to the point at hand, an indictment isn't the same as a judgement, unless we are going to abandon the 'innocent till proven guilty' principle and assume that anything said by the prosecution in a court case is necessarily true (an extraordinary idea).

Moreover, you still have to provide some evidence that this was the case regarding events at Srebrenica specifically, given that this is what this page is about. If there are 'tons' of references, as you state (and I'm not saying there aren't, necessarily), surely you will be able to find at least one that mentions it? None of the references put forward so far have made any mention of Srebrenica.

Finally, I think the wording of the sentence is extremely POV in its construction and language, as I said before. And I just don't see why it's necessary. Basically you seem to be saying that the Serbian state media was (at least in part) responsible for Serbs believing so-called 'alternative' theories about the massacre. I don't really see how this adds to the article, except to try to discredit those theories, BUT if you find some decent reference/s for it, and word it in a basically neutral way, I'm not going to continue to delete it. Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So because Adolf Hitler never went to trial we should consider him innocent too? Slobodan Milosevic's Gazimestan Speech was very inflamable and other nations in Yugoslavia saw it as threatening. The fact that Slobodan Milosevic was the president means he was responible for the conntacts and PR outside Serbia. That's why he had people under him to spread hatred,violence and fear.Like Seselj,Arkan,Karadzic,Mladic,Krajisnik,Drljaca,Martic,Hadzic,Plavsic etc. Milosevic's involvment in crimes was proven during other trials by ICTY one of them includig Joint Criminal Enterprise with Milan Martic & co in Croatia.

About Srebrenica

Gen. Wesley Clark testified in Milosevic's case against him and said that Milosevic had pre-knowledge about the events in Srebrencia.He asked Milosevic how was it possible that the genocide could happen.Milosevic said "I told him(Mladic) not to do it,but he did it anyway". Srebrenica was covered up Milosevic's contoled media until 2001.Before that there was no mentioning of Srebrenica Genocide in Serb media. Mladic and Karadzic tried to deny it after it happened but they were proven wrong by the satelite images of mass graves arond Srebrenica. So this whole denial of Srebrenica Genocide derives from Slobodan Milosevic's defence team and Serbian propaganda machinery. All that has contributed to denial of Srebrenica Genocide in Serbia.The uninformed citizens of Serbia just started to find things out after 2001.

I don't need to discredit those "theories",those theories are discreditting themselfs because they are not based on the proof but on some stupid "facts" that have a goal to create confusion.The Srebrencia genocide deniers are using the same methods as Holocaust deniers. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A mentioning of Srebrenica from 1999: [4]. Nikola (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathanmills is big fool who drink Milosevic "anti-Western imperilism" kool-aid. No editor defend him because he make such stupid statement here. Everyone know that Milosevic control media and manipulate people. Why we have to talk with such stupid statement? 206.124.150.143 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If I am 'big fool', how much more so are the people who say Milosevic's speech at Gazimestan is 'very inflamable'? Look it up on Wikipedia, it is basically a call for inter-ethnic tolerance and equality.

As for the rest of it, I've said repeatedly that I'm not disputing the charges per se, just saying the references provided aren't adequate (again, an indictment isn't a judgement, and none of the references mention Srebrenica by name.

Rather than calling me names, why not find some decent references and word the statement in a neutral manner, after which (as I said) I will not continue to delete it?

As for the references, I like the reformat in general, but I'm going to include the 'alternative links' in the external reading where they were before rather than buried (and essentially discredited) in the footnotes. After all, this is an enormous article and the 'alternative' section is something like two small paragraphs, so there's no argument because of space. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For Gazimestan Speech look at ICTY documents. You should also read the SANU memorandum which called Serbs to create their own territories in Croatia and Bosnia before the tensions and the war. Milosevic was judged by other ICTY court cases which included people under him.so a lot was proven. I said the fact that Milosevic died ,doesn't give Serb apologists an excuse to say that nothing was proven as much as they would like to.

That's two small paragraphs too many because it insaults the victims of Genocide and their family members who surrvived.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you are reverting everything what we discussed. Like the Byzantine Sacred Crap Propaganda Blog which is known for spreading false information. and you removed refferences about Milosevic's propaganda on many events incl. Srebrenica Genocide.

You are a true Serb apologist with no sence of shame at all.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you do that again i will report you and you will be blocked for abusing wiki rules.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Griffin

Re the Gazimestan speech, rather than look at ICTY documents, why not check out the actual speech itself? (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gazimestan_speech)

You say 'the fact Milosevic died doesn't mean nothing was proven' -- but you're missing the point, which is that an *indictment* cannot possibly be used as proof. Find another reference, if it exists like you say.

As for the Byzantine blog, we didn't really 'discuss' it at all to a conclusion. Rather, you deleted it, saying it was rubbish, I responded that giving it as an *example* of a view is not the same as saying it is true per se, Osli weighed in and agreed with me, then you got emotional and started talking about the victims of the massacre and how I was disrespecting them or something -- which I pointed out was a silly and counterproductive approach to have when writing an encyclopaedia.

I AM going to revert it again, but I don't see how I've violated Wiki rules. I would have thought YOUR behaviour, with the ad-hominem and emotionally bullying tone, and unwillingness to properly address any of my points, was more in conflict with 'Wikiquette' than anything I've done.

As I said before, if you've got so much time and knowledge about the issue, why not find some decent references, word things somewhat neutrally and make this whole dispute go away? Jonathanmills (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11221/gary-j-bass/milosevic-in-the-hague.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/opinion/11Brkic.html

SREBRENICA: FROM DENIAL TO CONFESSION

Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia

few articles about the denial of Srebrenica written by Serb democrats themselfs

http://www.helsinki.org.yu/projects_sre.html

http://www.helsinki.org.yu/projects_sre_t01.html

http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/BiancaJagger1.html

And about Milosevic's inditment..

His guilt was proven in other cases along with his nationalist allies,so his guilt is confirmed. Milan Martic case for example,Plavsic case,and the Serbs still have to deliver Mladic and Kradzic.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Griffin,

Not sure what any of this is intended to prove. This page already accepts as fact the ICTY account of what went on at Srebrenica, and I haven't tried to alter that at all.

As I have now said repeatedly, my problem is/was with incomplete references and clearly loaded wording. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

Today I have tried to arrange the External Links and Further reading into some sort of coherent order. But I think the next step is a vary large culling of the list. See Wikipedia:EXTERNAL#Important points to remember "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This is the reason that I moved the "Alternative views" up to a footnote "use them or lose them". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Biographical details of living persons

See WP:PROVEIT Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

I am going to revert this edit because, unless sources are provided, it is a breach of WP:PROVEIT and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons . --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I see it was reversed, by IP address 66.152.113.44. Please do not reinstate it without sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Philip, I didn't realise what you were talking about and now I've re-reverted it.

I would reverse my edit, except that... aren't the references provided in the footnote? IE, both Edward Herman (as a part of the 'Srebrenica Research Group') and Lewis MacKenzie (in the Globe and Mail article) are there.

I realise you may be arguing that the sentence implies they believe the massacre never occurred, which is probably not the case; I'll wait for your reply, however. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've reversed it back to how it was. I would still appreciate a reply from Philip on this, if he/you have time. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you reversed it because IMHO it was a clear breach of policy. No one ought to edit into Wikipedia allegations about living people that could damage their reputations unless the information is backed up with reliable verifiable sources. Saying someone is a genocide denier for a genocide that is widely recognised as a genocide because of the ICTY and ICJ judgements is IMHO damaging to their reputations and a breach of policy unless they have made such statements and it can be proven that they have. If you think they did, then produce sources that say so and please make sure that the wording in this Wikipdia article is close to the wording used in the sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Currently in the article until I move it to here was:

Among Western observers, critics include the British magazine ... (ITN vs Living Marxism).

Living Marxism

The sources is not a reliable one for such accusations. Living Marxism went under because it "claim that [ITN] misrepresented an image of an emaciated Muslim, Fikret Alic, at the Serb-run Trnopolje camp in August 1992." and could not pay the libel damages when the could not prove it was true (Staff ITN wins Bosnian war libel case BBC 15 March 2000). They might well have said something about the Srebrenica genocide, but if they did then it should have a better source.

Having read the source on the line moved here: (ITN vs Living Marxism) I was wrong about something, although the publisher is not a reliable source, the author is: David Campbell is "currently Professor of International Politics, and Director of the Newcastle Institute for the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in the UK". Most of his web article is not directly relevant to this Wikipedia article but there is a paragraph in the Second paper: Section "Belittling Bosnia" of the Campbell article: "LM’s intentions are clear from the way they have sought to publicize accounts of contemporary atrocities which suggest they were certainly not genocidal (as in the case of Rwanda), and perhaps did not even occur (as in the case of the murder of nearly 8,000 at Srebrenica).[49]". In footnote 49 Campbell cites Linda Ryan "What’s in a ‘mass grave’?," Living Marxism, Issue 88, March 1996" (the link he provides in the footnote does not exist any more so I have substituted another. Using this quote we can put a line in the article about Living Marxism but AFAICT Campbell does not mention Diana Johnstone. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Diana Johnstone

Diana Johnstone is another case were we need a better source because if your read this article by her The Bosnian war was brutal, but it wasn't a Holocaust in The Guardian, 23 November 2005, she does not say that the massacre at Srebrenica did not happen or that it was not a genocide and she points out that

In apologising to Noam Chomsky (Corrections and clarifications, November 17), the Guardian's readers' editor also had the decency to correct some errors concerning me in Emma Brockes's interview with Chomsky (G2, October 31). Despite this welcome retraction, the impression might linger from Ms Brockes's confused account that my work on the Balkans consists in denying atrocities.

So we need a source to support the statement from after 2005. The Guardian article links to the PDF article [5] (page 5) which has lots of details but without knowing what she wrote about for example "Johnstone’s analysis of the disgraceful behaviour of the International Criminal Tribunal for the ‘former Ygoslavia’ is so incisive for a non-lawyer as to make a lawyer blush. ..." Also see page 16 for what Leif Ericsson says about Johnstone's position but unfortunately not what she says her position is. So we need a reliable source from after November 2005 that explains what Diana Johnstone's position is on Srebrenica --It may well be in the PDF document but I do not have time right now to read it all at the moment. -Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The document linked at the bottom of the Guardian article -- All Quieted on the Word Front by edited Al Burke, Copyright 2005 by Nordic News Network -- is long and contains allegations and counter allegations by a number of people about Diana Johnstone for example on page 15 (PDF page 17):

"Who decides if it confuses us? Zaremba: "I think that is something which every well-read citizen can do. If there is a finding of genocide by the Hague Tribunal which can be read on the Internet, and it says in Ordfront that no one has been found guilty of or even investigated for genocide, then it is a lie that is so blatant and easy to check that one can say that it is intended to confuse— or at least has the effect of confusing. Maybe there was no intent. Maybe it was just ignorance or stupidity, I don’t know." [Note: Here, again, Zaremba distorts Johnstone’s position. What she actually wrote about the Hague Tribunal and the question of genocide can be read in her book, Fools’ Crusade.]

In the appendix there are several articles by people who support Diana Johnstone. The first is written by Noam Chomsky "on criticisms of Johnstone’s book" (pages 62-64 (PDF pages 64-66)) in it he writes on page 63 (PDF 65):

Another document sent to me contains a number of charges:

1) “According to her [Johnstone] it cannot be a matter of genocide when women and children are spared. But to me it is obvious that genocide and crimes against humanity have been committed in Srebrenica. . . .”

Reference is apparently to Johnstone’s statement (p. 117) refuting the claim that the charge of “genocide” is demonstrated by the fact that the Serbs who conquered Srebrenica offered safe passage to women and children. In response to this absurd claim, she writes: “However, one thing should be obvious: one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children.”

I do not see how her entirely appropriate comment justifies the charge in (1).

On pondering it I understand what Chomsky is saying BUT it is a very fine line and (without reading the original) I understand why the author of the "Another document" drew his or her conclusions. As this appears to be a very complicated area of allegation and counter allegation I think any comment should be a quoted comment.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Together with the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications, these are also worth reading The following letter was sent by Chomsky to the editor of The Guardian and Open Letter to The Guardian Noam Chomsky ZNet, November 13, 2005 (Both available on Noam Chomsky's website). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a paper: Marko Attila Hoare, "The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and the Milosevic Lobby], henryjacksonsociety.org 4 February 2006, is critical of Johnstone and Chomsky and the Guardian's apology, but it is not very well sourced (it alleges they said xyz but does not cite where they alleged said it) and it is not from a reliable publication. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I'm just wondering, in light of this discussion (and the WP guidelines you have pointed out), whether the fact that the 'alternative references' having been moved into footnote form 'ties' the authors unfairly to the statement that 'far fewer than 8000 were killed or the massacre never occurred', which is the guts of the sentence which links to them.

I'm not agitating to remove the references from footnote form per se, which I'm happy enough with, but it occurred to me that under the principle you're talking about above (and below), having writings by Ed Herman, Gen. Mackenzie, etc after the sentence suggesting 'outright denial' might be problematic. Any thoughts? Jonathanmills (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished reading the references. The full sentence does not seem unreasonable, and we are not responsible for the reliability of what the sources claim. The publishers of the information seem fairly flaky and someone should attempt to verify the sources against the original publications, but I do not think that the wording of the Wikipedia sentence leaves Wikipedia open to libel. Then I'm not an American lawyer, so my opinion on this is not worth the bandwidth it takes up to read this paragraph! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

final paragraph - result..?

Hi guys,

I'm now happy with the final paragraph now, even with the 'alternative views' links in footnote form, so hopefully we can put this recent argument to bed. (Of course, I'm not trying to pre-empt anyone else NOT being happy with it, I'm just clarifying my own position).

Oh, and thanks to Fairview for finding a relevant reference at last. Jonathanmills (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Genocide and war crimes denial campaign

http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,2763,184815,00.html

"At one point during the trial, LM produced video footage shot by what it called Bosnian-Serb Television, which did indeed have a crew there that day. But these particular images, it emerges, came from a third camera, a camcorder held by a man in military fatigues I remember well; LM was serviced in that instance by Serbian military intelligence. "

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also... a paragraph about Serbia's non-cooperation with the Tribunal shoud stand here. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As it directly relates to Srebrenica, sure. Jonathanmills (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It relates toSrebrenica Genocide because of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic and two more Serb criminals responsible for most of the massacres in Croatia.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Griffin, that makes no sense -- it's related to Srebrenica because it has something to do with massacres in Croatia?

In any event, there's already stuff in the article about the ICTY and how Karadzic and Mladic are currently fugitive. There's no need for more about it.Jonathanmills (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No,I just said that Serbia needs to deliver 4 more guys who are at the top of the list.Mladic and Karadzic and two others who were repponsible for massacres in Croatia.Serbia is not cooperating with The Hague and that paragraph should be written.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned twice in the Legal proceedings, under ICTY and ICJ. But it is worth adding sentence in the lead that the ICJ found that Serbia was not co-operation over this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is because certain things are going on in the internal politics in Serbia that relate to this matter. Bosnia can't put pressure on Serbia because of their non-cooperation with the Hague because the Serbian member of the Bosnian government is blocking this by a veto,while the Croat and the Bosniak member of the presidency are united on this issue. Serbia and Serbs in Bosnia a playing dirty politics and are still involved in this genocide denial and that has to be mentioned here.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that with wanted war criminals running around loose that Serbia was not co-operating, but when I looked on the net that does not seem to be true or do we discount this report: Brammertz says Serbia continues to co-operate with the ICTY Southeast European Times, 23 March 2008 and if we do is there a better source that we can use? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He's just being very careful because the elections are to be held in May.There is a great possibility that Serbian Radical Party(fascists) will win these elections and nobody wants that.That's why he said thet his final rapport wil be in mid-May.Serbia is threatening with political suicide if the EU doesn't ease the pressure.But it sholudn't. Serbia is just waiting that Karadzic and Mladic die.If those two ever come to trial(which i doubt) lot's of dirt will come to the surfacea and Serbian nationalist politicians don't want that. What Brammertz was saying is that the Kosovo independance is not the reason of Serbia not cooperating.There are other reasons...Kosovo is just an excuse to reck time.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic was killed because of his cooperation with The Hague.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

user Jonathanmills claims Srebrenica article or ICTY statements are "propaganda screed"

On April 22, 2008, user Jonathanmills deleted from this article text from the findings of facts of an ICTY judgement. The section he deleted is as follows:

As the Bosnian war erupted, Serb forces attacked the Muslim civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, Serb forces—i.e. the military, the police, the paramilitaries and sometimes even Serb villagers—applied the same pattern: Bosniak houses and apartments were systematically ransacked or burnt down while Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured and, sometimes, beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in local camps.

User Jonathanmills made the deletion with the following statement: "I think the reader 'deserves' a concise summary of events, not a propaganda screed which repeats footnoted references."

User Jonathanmills would be well advised to clarify his statement. It seems that he is saying that ICTY findings of facts are a propaganda screed or that this article if it cites the ICTY findings of facts is a propaganda screed. Fairview360 (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph is useful for setting the context and should remain in the article because this was one extreme event in a pattern of similar events, but I also think Fairview360 you should play the ball and not the man. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A player is responsible for what he does with the ball just as a referee is responsible for what he does with his whistle. Fairview360 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairview, to clarify -- I'm not saying the ICTY judgement is a propaganda screed, I'm saying the *article* becomes a propaganda screed when instead of simply summarising the facts in a neutral tone, it (somewhat childishly) repeats verbatim lurid details from such judgements.

I won't keep reverting the paragraph, although I do think it should be put in quote marks (and will probably do this myself), as it is nothing more than a verbatim quote.

As for 'playing the ball and not the man', I don't feel Fairview was really playing the man in this instance, actually. I certainly didn't feel insulted or attacked by his criticisms.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it seems that User Jonathanmills is saying that ICTY findings of facts are not written in a neutral tone, that they are sensational, and that relying on the findings of facts section of ICTY judgements is childish. "Summarising the facts in a neutral tone" is exactly what the findings of facts section of a court judgement is supposed to be. Is User Jonathanmills claiming that the ICTY failed to do so? Perhaps, User Jonathanmills would like to clarify if this is indeed what he is saying.

Earlier in the creation of this article, there were long, drawn out, intense edit wars which were finally resolved by all sides agreeing to accept the ICTY findings of facts as a source of text which was not sensational, was not POV, but was written in a neutral tone. If the ICTY findings of facts are not accepted as part of the foundation of this article, it is not clear what common ground could exist among editors of opposing points of view. Fairview360 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it seems that User Fairview is missing my point.

As I said, "I'm not saying the ICTY judgement is a propaganda screed, I'm saying the *article* becomes a propaganda screed when instead of simply summarising the facts in a neutral tone, it (somewhat childishly) repeats verbatim lurid details from such judgements."

Is that a particularly difficult position to understand? I don't mean to say 'lurid' as in 'incorrect' or 'fanciful' or 'made-up', rather, gory and/or explicit. Perhaps it was not the best adjective to use, but I hope that makes my intented meaning clear.

In terms of the paragraph in question, I think it is a bit childish for the article to, *in addition to* saying that civilians were killed, ethnically cleansed, etc (which the next paragraph does, and which I would not dream of deleting), needlessly quote verbatim from the judgement about the details (particularly in an introductory, background portion). Factual material can still end up being POV, as I'm sure a Wikipedia directive somewhere says. Jonathanmills (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if User Jonathanmills would be willing to give a yes or no answer to the following question. In User Janathanmills opinion, does the following text from the ICTY judgement constitute "summarising the facts in a neutral tone"? Yes or no?

As the Bosnian war erupted, Serb forces attacked the Muslim civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, Serb forces—i.e. the military, the police, the paramilitaries and sometimes even Serb villagers—applied the same pattern: Bosniak houses and apartments were systematically ransacked or burnt down while Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured and, sometimes, beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in local camps.

Fairview360 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if User Faarview would be willing to address my actual point, instead of putting forward silly straw-man arguments. Try reading my last paragraph again, as that's the best summary I can give.

But I don't know what purpose it serves anyway, as I've said I'm not going to try to change the paragraph again. Jonathanmills (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Point? Calling the choices of other editors "childish" does not constitute a substantive statement worthy of a response. Let's see if user Jonathanmills can give a more substantive response that would explain his deleting ICTY text from the article. User Jonathanmills disagrees with one or more of the following:

a) the ICTY text is factual,

b) the ICTY text is written in a neutral tone,

c) the ICTY text is a summary of how the ethnic cleansing campaign was implemented,

d) the ICTY text is relevant to the article.

If all four statements above are true, then the ICTY text belongs in the article. Which of the above does user Jonathanmills want to specifically contest? Or does he plan to continually delete sections of this article with vague arguments calling alternatives to his choices "childish", "silly", or a "propaganda screed"? Fairview360 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else having trouble understanding my argument? It seems pretty clear to me (whether or not it is a correct judgement in this instance is another matter). Jonathanmills (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

sentence regarding Dutch forces at Srebrenica

Hi all,

I just removed the following sentence added by editor Mani1 from the introduction:

"Dutch forces watched the massacre happening and showed no reaction to it."

It's referenced to ICTY v Krstic, paras 18 and 26 (although this was simply the existing reference at the end of the previous sentence, and no further reference had been added by Mani1).

I've removed it, because for a start, there is nothing in paras 18 or 26 indicating the validity of the statement. Furthermore, I went through the entire Krstic judgement with the 'Find' function for the word 'Dutch', and the only things mentioned which are on this topic are:

"[para 58] On 13 July 1995, the Dutch Bat troops witnessed definite signs that the Bosnian Serbs were executing some of the Bosnian Muslim men who had been separated. For example, Corporal Vaasen saw two soldiers take a man behind the White House. He then heard a shot and the two soldiers reappeared alone.103 Another Dutch Bat officer, saw Serb soldiers execute an unarmed man with a single gunshot to the head. He also heard gunshots 20-40 times an hour throughout the afternoon.104 When the Dutch Bat soldiers told Colonel Joseph Kingori, a United Nations Military Observer105 (“UNMO”) in the Srebrenica area, that men were being taken behind the White House and not coming back, Colonel Kingori went to investigate. He heard gunshots as he approached, but was stopped by Bosnian Serb soldiers before he could find out what was going on.106"

and...

"[para 153] A Dutch Bat soldier testified that members of the Drina Wolves, a sub-unit of the Zvornik Brigade, went inside houses in the vicinity of the compound and “started to plunder those houses”. He identified the men as belonging to the Drina Wolves because he saw them wearing the Drina Wolves insignia depicting a wolf’s head.343 The witness heard screams from inside one of the houses and a burst of fire from an AK-47. The witness concluded that the Bosnian Muslim refugees inside the house were being killed.344"

Neither of these paragraphs come close to proving the statement added by Mani1. Indeed, paragraph 50 reads:

"When Major Robert Franken, the Deputy Commander of Dutch Bat, was asked, during his testimony, why the Serbs were seising [sic] the UNPROFOR vehicles, he answered: 'Because they didn’t want anybody to be around; that’s obvious…they didn’t want us to witness whatever would happen.92'"

Oh, I realise now I must not have actually saved the article when I removed Mani1's sentence -- however, User Wolbo has done this already. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

POV pruning of ICTY judgement?

Hi all,

I know this will not make me popular on here, given the apparent sympathies of many editors, but I would like to draw attention to the following:

The article (as it currently stands) states the following regarding the Srebrenica 'safe area':

The 28th Mountain Division of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) remaining in the enclave was neither well organised nor equipped: a firm command structure and communications system was lacking and some soldiers carried old hunting rifles or no weapons at all. Few had proper uniforms.

From the outset, both parties to the conflict violated the “safe area” agreement. Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Karremans (the Dutchbat Commander) testified to the ICTY that his personnel were prevented from returning to the enclave by Serb forces and that equipment and ammunition were also prevented from getting in.[24] Bosniaks in Srebrenica complained of attacks by Serb soldiers, while to the Serbs it appeared that Bosnian government forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch counter-offensives against the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it.[24] General Halilović admitted that ARBiH helicopters had flown in violation of the no-fly zone and that he had personally dispatched eight helicopters with ammunition for the 28th Division.

Now, I've just been reading the ICTY vs Krstic judgement this material was evidently taken from (much of it is in fact verbatim quoting, although I'm not quibbling about that here), and the relevant paragraphs read (emphasis is all mine):

[From para 21] The unit of the ABiH that remained in the enclave – the 28th Division - was not well organised or well equipped. A firm command structure and communications system was lacking,25 some ABiH soldiers carried old hunting rifles or no weapons at all and few had proper uniforms.26 However, the Trial Chamber also heard evidence that the 28th Division was not as weak as they have been portrayed in some quarters.27 Certainly the number of men in the 28th Division outnumbered those in the Drina Corps28 and reconnaissance and sabotage activities were carried out on a regular basis against the VRS forces in the area.29

[para 22] From the outset, both parties to the conflict violated the “safe area” agreement. The Trial Chamber heard evidence of a deliberate Bosnian Serb strategy to limit access by international aid convoys into the enclave.30 Colonel Thomas Karremans (the Dutch Bat Commander) testified that his personnel were prevented from returning to the enclave by Bosnian Serb forces and that equipment and ammunition were also prevented from getting in.31 Essentials, like food, medicine and fuel, became increasingly scarce. Some Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica complained of attacks by Bosnian Serb soldiers.32

[para 24 -- NB para 23 talks about the ARBiH general's refusal to hand over weaponry to UNPROFOR, but it's not relevant to my point here] The Trial Chamber heard credible and largely uncontested evidence of a consistent refusal by the Bosnian Muslims to abide by the agreement to demilitarise the “safe area”.37 Bosnian Muslim helicopters flew in violation of the no-fly zone;38 the ABiH opened fire toward Bosnian Serb lines and moved through the “safe area”;39 the 28th Division was continuously arming itself40; and at least some humanitarian aid coming into the enclave was appropriated by the ABiH.41 To the Bosnian Serbs it appeared that Bosnian Muslim forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch offensives against the VRS and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it.42 General Halilovic admitted that Bosnian Muslim helicopters had flown in violation of the no-fly zone and that he had personally dispatched eight helicopters with ammunition for the 28th Division. [Para ends with final sentence describing Halilovic's justification of his actions]

Now, I would argue that the selective quoting used in the current article amounts to a violation of NPOV, because while it includes virtually everything 'unfavourable' (for want of a better word) to the Bosnian Serbs, it *omits* virtually all of the statements unfavourable to the Bosniak side -- the two exceptions being, a) "[W]hile to the Serbs it appeared that Bosnian government forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch counter-offensives against the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it", and this is preceded by 'to the Serbs it appeared...', hence potentially not actually true; and b) "Both parties to the conflict violated the “safe area” agreement [...] General Halilović admitted that ARBiH helicopters had flown in violation of the no-fly zone and that he had personally dispatched eight helicopters with ammunition for the 28th Division" -- and here I would argue that although (IMHO) the ICTY judgement makes it fairly clear that Bosniak violations were in fact *more* serious than Serbian ones, our article would lead the neutral reader to believe the opposite.

That being the case, I think it needs to be fixed up; I would make some changes myself but I am aware that this is an extremely controversial topic and that most editors on here probably won't like what I'm arguing, so thought I'd throw it out for some discussion first. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian place names

Hi all,

I'm just doing a bit of tidying up of the article (I'm not doing anything about the paragraphs I mentioned above re the 'safe area' yet, as I haven't had any input from others; also I'll put my suggested change to that up for discussion before posting it) -- anyway, I notice that many mentions are made of other towns and place names without any context (eg, 'The Serbs also attacked Foca, Zvornik, etc' (sorry if I got the names wrong there).

My concern is that to non-Bosnians (and this article should be written with them in mind, the vast majority of English-language Wikipedia readers not being Bosnians!) this means very little, especially without a map where all these are marked (and that map doesn't exist at the moment on the page).

I was wondering if any Bosnians (or those who know the geography) could help in this regard, just by explaining something about the place names mentioned (nothing big, just adding 'the town/village of Foca' (whichever is correct), also their relation to Srebrenica (eg, 'the nearby town of Foca', or 'Foca, to the west of Srebrenica' -- NB, those are simply sample texts, as I don't know where or what Foca is exactly.) Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see that second map (about a quarter of the way down the page) does have the names of most, possibly all, of the places mentioned; however, it's not close to the text I'm talking about (the background to the fall of Srebrenica), also I think it's good practice to have *some* description when mentioning otherwise unknown place names. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is taken out of context

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2008/03/23/nb-04

It means that Serbia will not brake it's ties to the ICTY because of the Kosovo independence. It doesn't mean that Serbia is fully cooperating with the ICTY.

Here are some articles in english about Serbia's current "cooperation". http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=48723 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/9629/

The Brammertz raport of Serbia's "cooperation" will be published any day now now.)After Serbian elections)

Serbia's Hague raport in May

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=22&nav_id=48697

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=18&nav_id=49519

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The two Serbia's Hague raport in May URLs you have provided are dated 48697 (22 March 2008) and 49519 (18 April 2008). In the first it says "The prosecutor dismissed allegations that Serbia had stopped cooperating with the Hague Tribunal because of the situation in Kosovo, and insisted that cooperation still existed." in the second it is difficult to asses exactly what it is saying because it says none of the players were to be willing to talk to journalists, and then seems to cite secondary sources, that says "that Serbia needs to make some headway in its cooperation with the court" but even so it do not say that Serbia is not cooperating. Those two sources reflect what is said in the Southeast European Times ([6], [7]) the first of which was used in the article as a citation. The text with the citation stated "and although Serge Brammertz said in March 2008 that Belgrade was co-operating" it never claimed that Serbia was fully co-operating. Indeed that they are not, is what is implied by the rest of the sentence. The British Foreign Office makes a point of this by stressing the level of co-operation that Serbia has given over the last few years.[8] Perhaps we can find a reliable source that states the current level of co-operation, if not I think the clause should be re-inserted until we get a definitive reply in the next UN report by the prosecutor that is due out in the near future. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As these two BBC reports make clear (New war crimes chief in Belgrade 17 April 2008 and 10 days later Serbia and EU sign pact on ties) this is a very topical and very political issue.[9] --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Denial of warcrimes in Serbia

Shrinking space for denial,Serbia and the ICTY

http://www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2/fs/?file_id=19814 --(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with the past in former Yugoslavia

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6542/dealing_with_the_past_in_the_former_yugoslavia.html --(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

HRW: Serbia won’t face past seriously

http://www.b92.net/eng/download.phtml?39065,0,0

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Video tape forces Serbs to confess warcrimes http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/11/news/serbia.php --(GriffinSB) (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, how does any of this relate to the article? Not the topic but the article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to make a section about this phenomenon.On this article's talkpages there were quiet a few serbian editors that have denied the Srebrenica genocide and a great deal of Serbs continue to deny this crime as well as other crimes comitted by Serbian forces.There are some universatory studies dealing with Serbian war crimes denial.Many Serbian ultranationalist websites continue to deny the Srebrenica Genocide,Vukovar massacre,shelling of Dubrovnik,death camps in Bosnia and many other events.So i think there should be a section about it here as well on some other articles.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Death Poses Challenges as Serbia Faces Past and Future

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/international/europe/13belgrade.html

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Denial of warcrimes in Serbia

http://www.helsinki.fi/aleksanteri/english/ecebb/ecebb_coursedescriptions_07_08/obradovic_lecture_on_denial.ppt

http://www.crees.bham.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/obradovic.htm

Serbs still divided over Srebrenica Genocide

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4737583 --(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can Serbia face the Past? http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1644313,00.html Deutsche Welle --(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

my stance

[PLEASE NOTE -- I DELETED THE FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY UPON POSTING IT, BUT SOMEONE LATER BROUGHT IT BACK UP VIA A REVERT - JM]

I have no interest in pushing shit uphill against a bunch of dickheads with no interest in the facts (indeed, clearly an apparent interest in cleverly obscuring them).

Some day, hopefully (although I'm not holding my breath), Wikipedia will sort out this mess of a situation and take a much harsher line against editors who make shitty, clearly biased edits, as it is making the articles on controversial topics complete shite (note that despite my clear violation of 'Wiki-quette' this evening and one other occasion in the past, I would stand by pretty much all of my *edits*).

However, if any dickhead re-inserts the word 'panicking' about that Bosniak soldier, expect it to be deleted at some point. (Again, I've already discussed this issue above, if anyone's confused as to why). Jonathanmills (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[DELETED POST ENDS - JM]

As I could see, the source contains the term: panicking as a description of the state of mind of a person who killed the soldier. Anyway, it is not a valid reason for putting the tag at the very top of the article. Finally, I think you should be permanently banned because of your comment. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jonathanmills, restrain yourself from personal attacks and insults! And read Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#Adding_a_page: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. The article contents are well sourced and not disputed. 85.158.36.95 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I DELETED this comment, but somebody dredged it back up.

As for losing my temper, I've been pretty much unfailingly polite up until now, IMHO, but I am just sick to death of editors who A) aren't polite in response -- read this discussion page for some examples, but much more importantly B) seemingly don't give a shit about FACTS!!

If you Google 'Raviv van Renssen' (hint, try that spelling rather than the initial misspelling that was on here) it is much more common to see (including from high-profile, pro-Bosniak journalist David Rohde) descriptions of an *angry* soldier. The 'panicking' is an unsourced statement from a clearly biased source.

I'll keep away until I've calmed down (apart from this one issue), but PLEASE, PLEASE do me the favour of trying to see the point on this one. Cheers (JonathanMills)

The thing that made me blow my top was, I already patiently went through why the 'panicking' comment was inappropriate (see above on this very page), and no one could argue with the logic, but then after I'd been away from the page for a while it just got re-inserted without comment!!

I agree I've been utterly un-civil these last few edits (although I do repeat that the above comment was one I DELETED AS SOON AS I WROTE, as I thought better of it, but someone else has put it BACK UP -- not really the best form I would have thought.

And if I ought to be 'permanently banned' for losing my temper once, what about people who deliberately insert invalid rubbish INTO THE ACTUAL ARTICLES???!! (JonathanMills) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.153.172 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

apologies

Hi all,

Genuine apologies for losing my temper. I would say just quickly that I think most editors here would have to agree it is not my usual M.O., and also I'd like to RESTATE that the 'my stance' comment above was one I DELETED IMMEDIATELY UPON WRITING as I realised it was a bit over-the-top and unhelpful. Cheers (JonathanMills) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.153.172 (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And make that more than 'a bit' :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)