Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Protecting the removal of Pamela Geller's views on Srebrenica

CKatz has put the article into Protection by preserving the deletion of the Pamela Geller content rather than reverting to the situation before the current dispute began. He instructs the parties concerned by developments to "sort it out" when it is obvious that the chances of "sorting it out" are minimal. His professedly neutral intervention, as on previous occasions, comes at the moment where its effect appears to be less than neutral.

A group of editors who had shown no previous interest in the article came to it, declared an absence of consensus for the inclusion of the Geller sub-section article, largely ignored detailed arguments for its inclusion, removed the sub-section and now have the status of its removal protected.

Fairview360 and I do not always see eye to eye but we both have a familiarity with the subject as well as a long experience of editing this article and responding to numerous sustained efforts to distort or remove its content. I think in this matter we both see justification for the sub-section's inclusion and we have both responded in detail to the justifications for its removal. Despite Roscelese's assertion that "There is both talk page consensus and RSN consensus against using this source." I wasn't aware of a discussion at WP:RSN and so haven't contributed what would obviously have been a differing view.

I don't see why a debate should have been conducted away from the Talk Page where both Fairview360 and I have set out our arguments in detail. Experience has been that when discussion is taken away from the Talk Page as in the recent request for comments about the section's title the result is the intervention of editors with limited knowledge of the subject whose comments show substantial misunderstanding of the subject at issue.

In the case of the discussion over the change of sub-section title the change was over-ruled on the grounds that, disregarding the specific arguments and the support of a majority of those with legitimate previous involvement with the article, the existence of opposition meant there was no consensus. Now change has been carried out (and consolidated) apparently on the basis that because there is support for change among people with no previous interest in the article the disagreement of those familiar with the article does not count as questioning consensus. Lack of consensus is deemed to act retrospectively.

CKatz maintains that he is unable to understand why his interventions are perceived by me as being less than neutral. I hope that my comments on the effect of his latest intervention will help him understand. As an admin his views and actions prevail, but nevertheless he should not expect his assertion that "THIS IN NO WAY ENDORSES EITHER PERSPECTIVE and should not be interpreted as such" to pass without being measured against the effect of his intervention.

I have always tried to respond carefully and objectively to what seem to be legitimate doubts and queries about the content of the article. However experience of this article and its relationship to the world outside Wikipedia has made me aware of and less patient with attempts, direct and indirect, to reshape parts of this article to an agenda, sometimes even key (verifiable) truths, and I do not see this action to protect what appears to me to be a deliberate campaign of intervention as appropriate. Opbeith (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

People in the past who have professed themselves to be neutral at this article have often tended, whether deliberately or not, to identify neutrality as the midline between existing content based on verifiable sources - eg the status of the genocide - and the views of those disputing that content. Neutrality is not the same as compromise. I suggest that in future if CKatz believes that there is a need for his intervention he consider seeking a second opinion, preferably from one of the few genuinely neutral - knowledgeably or diligently so - admins who have become involved here, such as User:Jitse Nielsen or User:Aervanath, or someone recommended by them. Opbeith (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of Geller should stand. Geller's opinion is not important unless it is noticed by observers writing in reliable sources. If Geller's blog entries about Srebrenica are not noticed by the larger world then they are unimportant.

The only way that Geller's opinion should be introduced is if independent third party reliable sources can be cited to show that her opinion merits discussion. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Does Binksternet consider The Guardian, The Daily News New York and/or the Southern Poverty Law Center reliable sources? Fairview360

Binksternet repeats arguments without noting that they have previously been contested. When a reliable source reports her significant public influence and particularly that of her anti-Muslim views and includes reference to her opinions in the general area of "Serbian war crimes", common sense suggests that her comments concerning the substance of by far the most notable of those crimes (once again, the worst crime in Europe since the Second World War according to the Secretary-General of the United Nations) are worth including in the relevant sub-section of the article about the crime. The Wikipedia guidelines that are repeatedly cited here in the sense of inflexible commandments do in fact suggest the use of common sense but editors like Binksternet continue to demand observance of a rigorous policy that does not permit the exercise of common sense. Perhaps Binksternet could point me to the wording that enunciates the principle he insists should be applied.Opbeith (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Start with WP:UNDUE. If a notable person's blog entry is not noticed by others, it is not worth inclusion in an article. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be your interpretation. The essence of the policy is that "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." The article certainly does not give the minority view equal/undue attention. The subsection records a view that has been at the heart of much of the ongoing conflict in the region and problems that have hindered the judicial process. Cited references indicate the importance of the minority view. The significance of Geller's opinions generally - however substantial they may be - is indicated by reliable sources, including the general category into which her views on Srebrenica fall. The validity of the reference on the blog, denying the established facts about the genocide aand supporting the politician being tried for responsibility and enthusiastically defending the publicist of the view, is not refuted by the policy. The policy states "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". It does not say anything about how a prominent adherent's view has to be reported in order to be relevant to an article. Read what the policy you cite says. Opbeith (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A minority view is held by a few people. Maybe you can prove me wrong but I see that nobody but Geller believes what she wrote in her blog. Nobody has commented on it to lend it credence. That is not a minority view, it is a fringe view. Geller's blog should not be used to reveal Geller's opinion if it is the only source for that opinion. Somebody else should have written about it or it is a tree falling in the forest with none to hear. It is undue emphasis on a sub-minor fringe viewpoint. Perhaps you are not aware that Geller is considered an extremely fringe character much like the members of Westboro Baptist Church. Much of the time she is all by herself in her opinions. Only sometimes does she strike a nerve and receive notice from others. This is not one of those instances. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It is time for Binksternet to stop pretending he has not been presented with The Guardian article which does in fact take note of Geller's opinion and specifically refers to what she is writing on her blog, specifically referring to her denying war crimes committed by Serbian war criminals. Binksternet has been referred to the article repeatedly. Perhaps it is time for him to actually read it. Also, it is absurd for Binksternet to claim that no one agrees with Geller. The entire section of the article gives multiple references to people who do agree with Geller. Again, it would help if Binksternet did a little bit, just a little bit of homework, before being so heavy handed.Fairview360

"A minority view is held by a few people." That suggests a redefinition of the word "minority". If Geller is such a fringe character how has been was able to secure such exposure for her views and mobilise public opinion for example over the Manhattan mosque proposal? She gets John Bolton to write the introduction for her book - does that suggest a figure of "sub-minor" significance? I don't think you can simply ignore sources cited here such as the Guardian and NY Times that describe her influence. She's a shallow, trivial and deceitful character. That doesn't make her insignificant. Opbeith (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, "The Wrong Version" is always an issue. If CKatz had fully protected the version that used the poor source, obviously we could just as reasonably have taken him or her to task for it, but that wouldn't have been very reasonably at all because some version of the article must exist. As for the rest - I see nothing more that has to happen other than Opbeith and Fairview360 ceasing their edit war. Not only do they lack consensus for their addition, there is evident consensus against it. They laid out their arguments, but the arguments of people who disagreed with them were clearly more convincing. That's just how it works sometimes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Our edit war? Opbeith (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Geller claims that the death toll was exaggerated and that all the victims were killed by their own side in order to blame non-Muslims.[1] That is a fringe view, and therefore should not be included. Fringe views can sometimes have significance that they should be included. However one would have to show that reliable sources about the massacre would mention them. In this case the source provided is about Geller, not the massacre. Her opinions belong only in articles about her. TFD (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The continuing significance of this "fringe view" is the reason why the sub-section exists. TFD's comment suggests a failure to understand the role that denial and minimisation has played and continues to play in the region and wider. References cited earlier on this Talk Page give a bit of an idea:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/serbian-president-denies-srebrenica-genocide

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/serbias-new-president-revives-balkan-tensions-by-denying-srebrenica-massacre-was-genocide/2012/06/04/gJQAtstIDV_story.html

http://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/2977-norway-protests-serbian-presidents-srebrenica-denial

When a debate is dominated by people who have often not read the article and have only a passing interest in the subject it's quite dispiriting when the admins who intervene here routinely ignore the consensus of people with a long-term interest, not just Fairview360 and myself, in favour of a consensus of short-term interest. Opbeith (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

None of those articles are about Geller. TFD (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

They point to the significance of the denialist view and respond to your comment that Geller's denialist comments should not be included because they are a fringe view. As far as your assertion that views of someone who is significant only for the circulation and influence of her views belong only in articles about her and not in an article about the subject, that seems to be your view rather than an inflexible Wikipedia principle. De minimis non curat lex and likewise Wikipedia guidelines remind us of the importance of exercising common sense. The discussion here is becoming an exercise in exegetics in which the theologians have not yet got round to quoting the original wording. Opbeith (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Trying to use articles that don't mention Geller to support inclusion of Geller's opinion is synthesis and not allowed on Wikipedia. None of the sources discusses Geller's crackpot notion that "38,000 out of 40,000 survived" the massacre, yet that is exactly what some editors wish to introduce to the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article specifically refers to Geller's blog, specifically refers to her "aligning herself with Serbian war criminals", specifically refers to her having "vigorously defended Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian president who died while on trial at The Hague for war crimes." Those war crimes include the Srebrenica Massacre, the topic of the article in question. It is as if a reliable source says that someone's opinion on Nazi war crimes is notable but because the source does not explicitly mention Auschwitz, it can not be included in an article about Auschwitz, unquestionably one of the Nazi war crimes. This kind of overly legalistic hairsplitting is a disservice to wikipedia. It benefits the reader to see the various contemporary sources of opposition to describing the Srebrenica Massacre as a genocide. Reliable sources have shown that Pamela Geller is a notable person. Reliable sources have asserted that her opinions relevant to this article are notable. Her own blog leaves no doubt that what The Guardian considers notable -- her support of Serbian war criminals, her defense of Slobodan Milosevic and denial of Serbian war crimes -- includes denying the Srebrenica Massacre. In an article with 23,627 words, Pamela Geller's opinions were described for less than one half of one percent of the article and yet the stewards of wikipedia insist that the entry should be deleted, that it is not relevant, that it is not noteworthy, that it was being given undue weight. What is also strange is the selective deletion of Pamela Geller who claims that only 2000 died (38,000 of 40,000 survived). That is the same number given by Lewis MacKenzie and La Nation both whom remain in the article. Why aren't these same editors deleting them from this article? Milorad Dodik claims that 36,500 of the 40,000 inhabitants survived. Why aren't these editors here deleting him from the article for expressing fringe views? Fairview360

The inclusion of Geller's comments are not synthesis. There is no original research here, per WP policy on Original Research (in which Synthesis is now incorporated). Geller is significant for her views in relation to inter-religious/ethic conflict. Geller expresses views on the Srebrenica genocide and also regarding principal perpetrators and their associates. She is a reliable source for her own views per WP guidelines. Reliable source reporting of her influential views includes reference to her views on the war criminals. Srebrenica was the most important of the Bosnian war crimes to which the Guardian is clearly referring. There is no synthesis or original research here, simply the common sense understanding that the Guardian reference includes Srebrenica. An alternative reading would be difficult to justify. No synthesis, and equally no basis in policy to claim original research. Fairview360 has provided adequate context of the place of Geller's views in the article. So the question is, why this sudden campaign by people who have shown no previous interest in the article and most of whom show no signs of having read through the previous discussions to have Geller's views expunged? Opbeith (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Note that the debate should be about the issue, not the fact that the article is protected. Short of outright vandalism, or some other clear issue, it is not the role of the admin to pick "the right version" before locking it up. Thirteen reverts back and forth is clearly disruptive; sort it out here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If Ckatz were to wait until one side or the other was in place before locking it, it would be bias. It is best to take Ckatz word for it that he is acting in good faith and simply locking the article once he sees edit warring. There was indeed an edit war breaking out. Perhaps, Ckatz could remain with the debate here and help the editors come to an agreement. Fairview360

I doubt CKatz has a role to play in helping editors come to agreement. More than once in the past here when a consensus of informed editors has been in agreement, he has disregarded their views and sought to widen the debate, not in a way that would have drawn in informed comment but simply drawing attention of the discussion to editors unfamiliar with the article who have simply returned the discussion to first principles already established in the content of the article. When challenged over this practice and other arbitrary actions, he has not offered constructive comment or any indication that he understands the cause of dissatisfaction. Setting aside my dissatisfaction with his intervention in this particular issue, I see no previous evidence that as an administrator he has the capacity to make a constructive contribution to resolving it. Opbeith (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

CKatz, your interventions in the past have often been arbitrary, showing a lack of concern for a consensus that involves long-term contributors here. Your protection of the page might have been considered reasonable in itself, but in the actual circumstances, your curt instructions to "sort it out" is just another indication of your apparent unwillingness to engage constructively with the issues here. Opbeith (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrators lock the currenrt version when they lock the article. It is always the "wrong version". TFD (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that a rule? Otherwise there's a choice, conscious or unconscious, involved in the administrator's decision in locking the article at its current version or in the version quo ante. Opbeith (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

How is one public person's blog arguments, not discussed by any secondary source or anything like that whatsoever, have any relevance here whatsoever?

STOP RIGHT THERE. The Guardian article DOES discuss Geller's view. The Guardian article DOES specifically refer to her blog. The guardian article DOES specifically refer to Serbian war crimes. If you have NOT READ ANYTHING here, then keep your self-imposed ignorance out of the discussion. Fairview360

She has no background or experience in this matter. She has no qualifications in this matter. Honestly, if Paris Hilton were to say on Twitter that she thought that Mao's China was a great place and unfairly maligned, then that wouldn't mean going to the 'Great Leap Forward' article and adding whole chunks about Hilton's opinion. This is spurious. Many people have removed the Geller comments and they should stay removed. 72.47.0.74 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. What Paris Hilton thinks sucks and what she thinks is awesome will appear in articles about her because she, along with tens of thousands of ther people, is notable. That does not mean that we should now edit every article about subjects upon which she has expressed an opinion. The same applies to people who do not have her stature. TFD (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Has TFD read any of the references that have been provided especially The Guardian article which was being used as a reliable source in the deleted section? Here is the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america Fairview360

These two comments simply ignore the evidence put forward. Has the New York Times or the Guardian ever published a report about Paris Hilton helping "set the tone and shape the narrative" for a national debate over an issue of such prominence as the Park51 debate? The NY Times reported how Geller's blog Atlas Shrugs "gets about 200,000 unique visitors a month" and "helped draw thousands to protests against Park51"? The NYT acknowledges that it's not clear how much Geller's "crusade against Islam" reflects public public opinion but it emphasises that "her involvement can hardly be ignored".

The NYT refers to Geller's views being mocked by some constrasts this with other views referring to her as influential in spreading fear of Islam and contributing to the dehumanisation of Muslims comparable to the anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism of the past. All this is repeatedly ignored in a discussion about the relevance of her views to a crime unparalleled in post-War Europe that was the culmination of a campaign to dehumanise the Bosnian Muslims - a campaign at the heart of which were individuals with whom Geller unequivocally allies herself, like Srdja Trifkovic, or whose responsibility for the crime itself she disputes, like Radovan Karadzic.

So why are so many people here who have never shown the slightest interest in the article before so insistent that Geller's views are insignificant and shouldn't be mentioned here? And why do they repeat arguments - statements - that consistently ignore the evidence repeatedly produced here? Answers on the back of a postcard, please. Opbeith (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Geller hit a nerve with Park51 but she is not so important on the topic of Srebrenica. You cannot use a piece about one of Geller's few successes to boost her up to the level of notability on Srebrenica. Binksternet (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article considers her views on Serbian war crimes notable. So, which does wikipedia go with, the opinion of a wikipedia editor or a reliable source? Fairview360

Binksternet, have you managed to find the relevant wording of the policy you keep citing yet? Opbeith (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article barely mentions Geller's views on Serbia. The majority of the article is about the proposed mosque at 9/11 Ground Zero. There is only this tidbit about Serbia "[Geller] has vigorously defended Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian president who died while on trial at The Hague for war crimes, and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps in the 1990s." That's it, no more. Yet in this article about the massacre, you wish to insert text which says Geller was "referring to Srebrenica at her blog Atlas Shrugs claims that 38,000 out of 40,000 survived the "genocide" (her own quotation marks) and no atrocities were witnessed. She maintains that the slaughter of seven to eight thousand was not remotely possible and describes the whole premise of Western support for the Bosnian Muslims against the Christian Serbs as a "big fat lie". Commenting on Radovan Karadžić's trial by the ICTY she argues that Bosnian Muslims were not murdered but killed by their own side, referring to "Bosnia’s Familiar Islamic M.O: Self-Killing, then Blaming the Infidel". This is not allowed per WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. The Guardian barely mentions Serbia and certainly does not discuss her oddball opinion about the numbers of dead and the supposed stratagem used by the Bosnians. The Guardian does not open the door for quoting the blog. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

May we accept that Binksternet's only interest here is preserving the integrity of wikipedia, maintaining consistency and perhaps, through this discussion, a better understanding of the nuances of wiki rules can be ascertained.

There is an article titled Examples of Feudalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_feudalism . In the article, wikieditors have provided examples of feudalism. For each example, they provide references to show that each is actually an example of feudalism, however there is not a reference stating that the example given is notable. Here in this article, wikieditors have given a list of teachers of method acting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_acting . With each teacher entered into the article by wikieditors, there is not a reliable source stating that each teacher's contribution to method acting is notable. With these two articles and probably a majority of wiki articles, wiki editors provide examples of whatever the topic is. Four Deuces seems to be saying that none of these examples in any of these articles are legitimate unless there has been extensive discussion in reliable sources to show that the example given is significant. Really? One could easily believe that neither Opbeith, Fairview360, Binksternet, nor Deuces really thinks that the bar should be set that high. On the other hand, Opbeith, Fairview360, Binksternet, and Deuces most probably all agree that some random person writing a blog denying genocide in Srebrenica should not be included in the article even though the person's publicly stated opinion is an example of the subtopic. So where do editors draw the line? Can wiki editors practice some common sense on what examples to provide in an article or do they all have to wait until they can find a reliable source stating that the example in question is significant enough? Fairview360

Examples of other articles are not as relevant as you might think. First, consistency between Wikipedia articles is not one of Wikipedia's goals. In fact, we embrace several orthographies and several types of citation style. The specific examples you provide appear to be composed of undisputed text. In articles without disputes, quite a bit more text is allowed. In articles on contentious topics, with disputes between editors, the situation is different: the total text is often reduced because differences cannot be otherwise ironed out. Finally, pointing out a difference between the article under discussion and some other article may well indicate that the other article merits a more careful look, an adjustment to fit policy. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The consistency referred to is not regarding the articles but rather consistency in the interpretation and application of wiki rules. What has eluded Fairview360 is why the Geller entry is so contentious. At first, when Fairview360 first saw the entry, he also thought it was a gratuitous entry. However, when reading about Geller, it became apparent she herself is notable and her opinions regarding Serbian war crimes had been noted and were relevant. Really though, while Fairview360 sees the value of including Geller since she is representative of an element within the American political scene which is inclined to dismiss Srebenica, it is still not clear to Fairview360 why there is so much opposition to the Geller entry. Why does it matter so much to a few editors that the Geller entry is not permitted? That remains something of a mystery to Fairview360. What is the harm in including an example of the subtopic by a notable person? (By the way, Fairview360 did not originally refer to himself in the third person, but after some rather nasty edit wars some years ago with the concommitant invective on the talk pages, he decided to write only in the third person since it tends to pre-empt personal attacks.) Fairview360

Geller is notable for a few specific things but not for her opinion on Srebrenica. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Does Binksternet agree that if a reliable source takes note of a person's opinion on a particular subject that that person's opinion on the subject is then notable? Does someone need to be well known in order to be notable? Does a person's opinion on a subject need to be well known to be notable? What constitutes notable? Fairview360 is not asking these questions for rhetorical effect. Rather Fairview360 is interested in Binksternet's view on the matter. Fairview360 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.20.13 (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Geller content is not incorrect or misleading. It is not given undue weight. Evidence and arguments have been provided why it merits inclusion, why it may be considered notable, whether or not this is necessary, and why it does not represent original research in the form of synthesis. Binkersternet continues to argue that reliable sources have not reported it in sufficiently specific detail for it to overcome the barrier of notability. Binksternet has several times been asked to refer to the Wikipedia policy that would disbar it on the grounds of content rather than article subject requiring evidence of notability but continues to make assertions of opinion instead. This could continue indefinitely. Opbeith (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pamela_Geller_blog the consensus was that the blog was not strong enough to insert into this article. I think we are done here, until a new source is found that discusses Geller's opinion about the Srebrenica massacre, giving it greater weight. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet another assertion, this time saying "I think we are done here", is not the same as coming up with the wording of policy that you have repeatedly claimed exists but never demonstrated. You are a very determined character but you should not assume that you can simply impose your judgment without solid justification. I'd not noticed that this discussion had been taking place elsewhere until this last reference. Assertion and misrepresentation seem to have muddied the waters there in the same way that they have here. On we go. Opbeith (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

For when the Geller entry becomes an issue once again, do take note that at 20:22, 17 October 2012, Binksternet bailed out of the discussion, arbitrarily declared "we are done here" and left a number of questions hanging. Fairview360

Let it be known that the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pamela Geller blog was fruitful in that consensus was established: Geller's blog is not notable enough with regard to the Srebrenica massacre. Views expressed by the following editors established this consensus: Roscelese, TheRedPenOfDoom, Shrike, Binksternet, Chum and change, Sean.hoyland, Anonymous209.6, Amadscientist, Dlv999, Jeff5102 and Nableezy. This consensus did not favor the minority opinions of Opbeith and Fairview360. The matter is finished for now. It can be revisited if and when a reliable source, not Geller, comments on Geller's opinions regarding the Srebrenica massacre. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted Fairview360

I would ask anyone interested (and with stamina enough) to try to follow the trail of the exchanges since the start of this debate and then say whether they believe that the claimed "consensus" has been achieved on the basis of an honest, conscientious and thorough discussion. Opbeith (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have, and this horse is well and truly flogged. RashersTierney (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Rashers Tierney, "flogged" is a very appropriate metaphor. You don't in fact say whether you think all that inconsistently targeted flogging achieved anything constructive, and of course, like most of the commenters here, you simply slip past the question I asked - do you believe that the flogging was conducted honestly and conscientiously? If you do want to stick a "done and dusted" label on the discussion perhaps you would first provide some of the missing responses to those still unanswered key questions? Opbeith (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are commenters here unable to answer simple and straightforward questions? Opbeith (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

They only consider her views about the massacre notable when discussing her, not when discussing the massacre. You need to find a book or article about the massacre that provides extensive discussion of her views to show that they are significant. If experts do not consider them to be important, then neither should we, per WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, both of you, not exact, still as vague and waffly as before. Reetitive generalised references to WP:THIS and WP:THAT don't answer my request for the the wording of the policy that says that a comment by a notable subject on a notable subject in a source that's accepted as reliable in its own terms cannot be included in an article in a relevant section. Something that contradicts the wording of WP:NOTABILITY that I quoted above and that you seem determined not to respond to.

Here goes again with the wording of WP:NOTABILITY, please cite me the policy text - not another WP:WHATEVER - that says it does not apply:

"This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

... On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article.

... Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article."

The reference to due weight has been dealt with by Fairview360. No-one has challenged the details of his evaluation, which is what you need to think about doing if you want to take that line of argument further. No-one has even attempted to show how Geller's comment is given undue weight in the article, as compared with the undue effort being devoted at the Talk Page to efforts to remove the comments. Opbeith (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It just so happens that WP:THIS and WP:THAT are very much applicable in the forms of WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Geller's blog is not notable by itself, not for every little thing she writes. Some of what she writes drops into oblivion, some of it is heard by a few, and some of it makes the major newspapers. We cannot have Geller's detailed opinion about Bosnia and Serbia brought into an article about Bosnia and Serbia unless people have commented upon it in detail. That's the undue weight part. We cannot try and pump up Geller's importance regarding Bosnia and Serbia by referring to her opinion about Ground Zero. That's synthesis. Proper weight for Geller would be to describe her in the context of Srebrenica only, quoting only . Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That's still just reassertion of your interpretation, without referring to the substance of the policies you cite. Opbeith (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There has still been no resolution of the issues raised in the discussion. The notional consensus elsewhere than at this article has not dealt with the issues raised above on the article Talk Page. Opbeith (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead section is too long

If the article was not edit-protected I would add this template:

The guideline WP:LEAD says the topic should be summarized in four paragraphs at most. The current lead section relies too heavily on quotes. As well, it makes arguments which are best left for the body of the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Fairview360 would support removing the following from the introduction, the last three paragraphs of the introduction:

In 2005, in a message to the tenth anniversary commemoration of the genocide, the Secretary-General of the United Nations noted that, while blame lay first and foremost with those who planned and carried out the massacre and those who assisted and harboured them, great nations had failed to respond adequately, the UN itself had made serious errors of judgement and the tragedy of Srebrenica would haunt the UN's history forever.[2]

FRY was cleared of direct responsibility for or complicity in the massacre, but was found responsible for not doing enough to prevent the massacre and not prosecuting the responsible, in breach of the Genocide Convention. Netherlands is also considered responsible for not preventing the massacre, due to presence of its UN contingent, and government of Netherlands acknowledged this symbolically by resigning over the issue, though no international rulings or cases concerning the issue have been considered, except in the case of individual victims suing Netherlands. In the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case the International Court of Justice presented its judgment on 26 February 2007. It cleared Serbia of direct involvement in genocide,[32] but ruled that Belgrade did breach international law by failing to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, and for failing to try or transfer the persons accused of genocide to the ICTY, in order to comply with its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Genocide Convention, in particular in respect of General Ratko Mladić.[33][34][35] Mladić had been accused by the ICTY and was suspected of hiding in Serbia until his arrest there on 26 May 2011.[36]

According to the UK-based Bosnian Institute,

To say that genocide took place 'only' in Srebrenica in July 1995 flies in the face of earlier judicial rulings. Four international judgments in the especially well-argued cases of Nikola Jorgic, Novislav Djajic, Djuradj Kusljic, and Maksim Sokolovic clearly confirm that genocide took place in several municipalities outside of Srebrenica in 1992. All four trials were conducted in Germany — at the request of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) — to ease the caseload of ongoing trials at The Hague. All the relevant appeals have long been exhausted, so that judgments in these cases are final and binding.[37]

Fairview360

This information is in the introduction as a result of long-term arguments over the content of the article. The first of the three paragraphs is the key acknowledgment by the UN Secrteary General of the responsibility of the international community, not just the direct perpetrators. The second sets out the much disputed assignment of responsibility by judicial authorities at the highest level. The third flags up the dispute over the scope of genocide in Bosnia, currently at issue in the Hague. I believe that although these paragraphs are quite lengthy for an introduction they fulfil an informative function and just as importantly they serve to moderate ongoing dispute over the content of the article. In any case, I don't think this is an appropriate moment to be trying to cope with further changes given the amount of attention that the denial subsection is demanding. Perhaps this is a subject for discussion once immediate issues have been resolved. Opbeith (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this material was added subsequent to those discussions. The introduction has often been plagued by editors stuffing it with information that has a persuasive effect but does not belong in an introduction.

This section is redundant:

In 2005, in a message to the tenth anniversary commemoration of the genocide, the Secretary-General of the United Nations noted that, while blame lay first and foremost with those who planned and carried out the massacre and those who assisted and harboured them, great nations had failed to respond adequately, the UN itself had made serious errors of judgement and the tragedy of Srebrenica would haunt the UN's history forever.[2]

It gives the reader no new information. The previous quote from the ICTY gives all the context needed.

This section could be summarized in one sentence:

FRY was cleared of direct responsibility for or complicity in the massacre, but was found responsible for not doing enough to prevent the massacre and not prosecuting the responsible, in breach of the Genocide Convention. Netherlands is also considered responsible for not preventing the massacre, due to presence of its UN contingent, and government of Netherlands acknowledged this symbolically by resigning over the issue, though no international rulings or cases concerning the issue have been considered, except in the case of individual victims suing Netherlands. In the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case the International Court of Justice presented its judgment on 26 February 2007. It cleared Serbia of direct involvement in genocide,[32] but ruled that Belgrade did breach international law by failing to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, and for failing to try or transfer the persons accused of genocide to the ICTY, in order to comply with its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Genocide Convention, in particular in respect of General Ratko Mladić.[33][34][35] Mladić had been accused by the ICTY and was suspected of hiding in Serbia until his arrest there on 26 May 2011.[36]

How does this section belong in the introduction?:

According to the UK-based Bosnian Institute,

To say that genocide took place 'only' in Srebrenica in July 1995 flies in the face of earlier judicial rulings. Four international judgments in the especially well-argued cases of Nikola Jorgic, Novislav Djajic, Djuradj Kusljic, and Maksim Sokolovic clearly confirm that genocide took place in several municipalities outside of Srebrenica in 1992. All four trials were conducted in Germany — at the request of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) — to ease the caseload of ongoing trials at The Hague. All the relevant appeals have long been exhausted, so that judgments in these cases are final and binding.[37]

And where is all this long-term discussion allowing those three sections to be entered? Fairview360

I'm happy to discuss when other current issues are out of the way. Opbeith (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fairview360, I agree that the introduction should be modified but your robust criticism does no take account of the fact that elements have been introduced there in the course of disputes which have consumed a substantial amount of your and my time. This article has been subject to modification by various editors who have ignored very basic issues and the current wording of the introduction is the result of various editors' past attempts to avoid Square 1 discussions.

For what they're worth, my thoughts on the points you raise:

The UN SG's comments are highly significant. The genocide was a failure of the supreme international security agency on the scale of the worst crime in Europe since WWII. This failure is still present in discussions of the current situation in Syria. The SG's comments set out an assessment of the gravity of the issue and the apportionment of responsibility which provide a framework for an understanding of the wider significance of the genocide.

The para re responsibilities broadens out the SG's assessment with specifics that are fundamental to an understanding of the event and the disputes concerning its legal status. Again it provides a framework to substantive issues raised in the body of the article.

Both those two paragraphs might be rewritten to provide a less formal wording for general readers, but this would need to be done carefully in order not to lose the crucial points.

The paragraph concerning the genocide rulings in fora other than the ICTY is certainly too detailed but those findings are still important as far as the issue of the application of the UN Genocide Convention is concerned, which is part of the ongoing significance of the genocide in a wider context. I'll get back shortly with some suggestions. Opbeith (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Kaldari, the Meron quote was momentous and was a judicial ruling at the highest level of international criminal law that specified the nature of the crime that was committed, which has been and continues to be the subject of dispute, within Wikipedia but more importantly in the wider context of international justice and international relations - currently, in the context of Nikolic's statements since election, having a bearing on the ongoing stability of the Balkans and the integration of states in conflict over fundamental judicial issues into the EU. The ICJ quote is important in association with the Meron quote in that it represents the finding of the highest instance of international law. Its importance derives from repeated challenges to the legitimacy of the ICTY and its decisions, here and in the wider world. I agree that the "other genocide findings" paragraph can be shortened but nevertheless it is important in relation to the significance of what happened Srebrenica in the wider context of as yet legally unresolved events in Bosnia as a whole and also in relation to Srebrenica's significance to the working of the Genocide Convention. Opbeith (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead section must be trimmed, per WP:LEAD. It can only be four paragraphs long, and it must be a summary of facts laid out in the article. I moved the quotes down. Even with that change, the lead is too long. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Binkersternet, once again you misrepresent the WP text you cite in order to allow yourself to take arbitrary action. Why do you do this? The text in fact reads "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs". It is not policy with absolute effect but a Wikipedia guideline that forms part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. At the head of the text is the injunction "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." This is part of a pattern you displayed in the discussion about the inclusion of Pam Geller's comments. You misquote from WP guidelines in order to justify an imperative that you proceed to enforce without any serious attempt to work with other people at the article. This is not editing in good faith. Opbeith (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to lecture me on good faith Wikipedia edits. I'm a five-year veteran editor who has created more than 200 articles for Wikipedia, making more than 85,000 edits. I think it is reasonable for people to assume that my attention here is a representation of my good faith.

There's a principle of writing, especially encyclopedic writing, that says "less is more". The encyclopedia reader is looking to the lead section for the quickest summary of the article. Many readers are put off by a lengthy lead section; a bloated one serves to reduce the number of readers who make it through the whole lead section, not to mention the many more who do not continue through the whole article.

The spirit of WP:LEAD is simple: make it accessible. I propose that you hold that spirit in mind when reshaping (reducing) the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Article is too long

The entire article is too long. It's almost 30% longer than World War II (which is itself an extremely long article, but understandably so). The longer sections should be split off into their own articles, per summary style. Kaldari (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If you check back in the archive you'll find this has been discussed and attempted before. After some editors spent considerable effort working at it the task was abandoned. Despite earlier legal findings much significant content is still being disputed by defence teams in current ICTY trials (Tolimir, Karadzic, Mladic, among others). Supporters of the side legally found responsible have often found reasons for challenging specific and even general matters which they consider are still current. Although a multitude of lower-level cases are waiting to be heard at national war crimes court level the very last of the Hague trials are now under way, among them those of the senior military and political figures involved. Given the prospect of a lengthy and potentially dispute-ridden process, unless an informed (underlined) consensus can be established at an early stage, my guess is that it would be considerably more effective to wait before making large-scale changes until the outstanding cases at The Hague have been resolved. Opbeith (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kaldari, the article really is too long. Per WP:SUMMARY, I too suggest that it be split off into smaller articles. I think a consensus on this can easily be reached, as its in everyone's interest to have a more concise and readable article. The Hague really has nothing to do with the length of the article. Cheers, --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is way, way too long. And that's my semi-professional opinion, delivered in good faith. joepa^T 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Modifying the introduction

I agree with comments that the current introduction is not as helpful as it should be to the reader coming to the topic who may want to gain a basic knowledge of the subject before embarking on the main article. The main article is also very long, and there are some sections which could be placed in subpages, for example the list of convictions, provided that an adequate summary remained within the main article. However changes in the article will need to be carried out carefully, for a variety of reasons. I suggest that given the shortage of editors willing to get involved practically at the article it would be better to concentrate first on making the introduction as accessible as possible.

The introduction has grown as a somewhat haphazard process, hence its awkwardness. I've tinkered with it trying to improve it in the past but never attempted a comprehensive revision. Hopefully this is the opportunity to do something with a clearer general view of the subject.

So I've drafted an alternative version which I'm afraid hasn't got very far in shortening the article but I hope it's more readable and more informative to the ordinary reader. By inclination I'm inclusive and I know I'm naturally a bit verbose. But it's also important to provide the person skimming the introduction with an overview of the main issues and also to try as far as possible to avoid pointless discussion of basic accepted facts. So although my suggestion is longish, I believe it's important not to omit essential structural information.

The references are generally as in the current version, though per standard introduction style they should now be in the main article. I haven't checked how well the facts in the introduction are already referenced in the body of the article, particularly anything I've added, that's for another day as the checking and if necessary moving of references and refnames will need to be done very carefully in a long article like this.

"The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, refers to the killing of more than 8,000 Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), mainly civilians and prisoners of war, in and around the town of Srebrenica in north-eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina in July 1995, after the town was captured by Bosnian Serb forces commanded by General Ratko Mladić. Regular units of the units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) were supported by special forces and outside participants including a Serbian paramilitary unit previously under Serbian Interior Ministry control and foreign volunteers allegedly including the Greek Volunteer Guard. The mass murder was described by the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) as the worst crime on European soil since the Second World War.

Srebrenica was an enclave in the strategic Drina Valley which resisted the ethnic cleansing of the Valley's Bosniak population in 1992, at the start of the Bosnian War. In April 1993, humanitarian concerns led the UN to declare Srebrenica a "safe area" under its protection. In July 1995 the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), represented on the ground by a 400-strong contingent of Dutch peacekeepers ("Dutchbat") and notionally supported by NATO airpower, failed to prevent the town's capture by the VRS or the subsequent massacre.

The great majority of victims were adult men and teenage boys but those killed also included boys aged under 15, men over 65, women and reportedly even babies. The Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons Preliminary List contains 8,373 names, including some 500 aged under 18 and several dozen women and girls. The bodies were buried in mass graves, then re-exhumed and mingled remains reinterred in remote secondary and tertiary graves. As of July 2012, 6,838 individual victims have been identified through pioneering DNA analysis of body parts recovered from mass graves and 5,657 have been buried in the Potočari Memorial Cemetery.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a UN international court set up to try war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, determined that the destruction of the Bosnian Muslim population of Eastern Bosnia by the massacre of the enclave's male inhabitants constituted an act of genocide under the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention and that the forcible displacement of the survivors was confirming evidence of genocidal intent on the part of those who had orchestrated the massacre. The ICTY has dismissed explanations of the killings as deaths in combat or acts of revenge. The court has found several members of the VRS Main Staff guilty of genocide and associated crimes at Srebrenica, notably Radislav Krstic, Vujadin Popovic and Ljubisa Beara. It is currently (as of November 2012) concluding its work with the trial of the most senior political and military figures involved, including Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Zdravko Tolimir.

On 26 February 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest forum of international law, handed down a ruling in the action brought by Bosnia and Herzegovina accusing Serbia and Montenegro of genocide. The ICJ cleared Serbia of direct involvement in genocide, but ruled that Serbia and Montenegro had breached the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and also by failing to try or transfer persons accused of genocide to the ICTY as required by the Convention, in particular General Ratko Mladić, who remained in hiding in Serbia until his arrest in May 2011.

The failure of the Netherlands troops to protect refugees who were handed over to the Bosnian Serb forces led to the resignation of the Netherlands government and civil law actions in the Dutch courts brought by survivors and relatives against the Netherlands and the UN.

In 2005, in a message to the tenth anniversary commemoration of the genocide, the Secretary-General of the United Nations noted that, while blame lay first and foremost with those who planned and carried out the massacre and those who assisted and harboured them, great nations had failed to respond adequately, the UN itself had made serious errors of judgement and the tragedy of Srebrenica would haunt the UN's history forever."

OK. I hope that helps. Constructive comments awaited. Opbeith (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd just add that I hope for anyone who wants just a very quick summary the length of the introduction shouldn't be a deterrent because a very limited summary can be had from the first couple of paragraphs and the following paragraphs simply add more important information for anyone who isn't interested in reading the article in depth. Opbeith (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this version which is slightly reduced:

"The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, refers to the killing of more than 8,000 Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), mainly civilians and prisoners of war, in and around the town of Srebrenica in north-eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina in July 1995, after the town was captured by Bosnian Serb forces commanded by General Ratko Mladić. The mass murder is the worst crime on European soil since the Second World War.

Srebrenica was an enclave in the strategic Drina Valley which resisted the ethnic cleansing of the Valley's Bosniak population in 1992, at the start of the Bosnian War. In April 1993, humanitarian concerns led the UN to declare Srebrenica a "safe area" under its protection. In July 1995 the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), represented on the ground by a 400-strong contingent of Dutch peacekeepers ("Dutchbat") and notionally supported by NATO airpower, failed to prevent the town's capture or the subsequent massacre. The invasion was performed by regular units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), supported by special forces and outside participants including a Serbian paramilitary unit previously under Serbian Interior Ministry control, and foreign volunteers allegedly including the Greek Volunteer Guard. The failure of the Netherlands troops to protect refugees led to the resignation of the Netherlands government and civil law actions in the Dutch courts brought by survivors and relatives against the Netherlands and the UN. The great majority of victims were adult men and teenage boys but those killed also included boys aged under 15, men over 65, women, girls and babies. The Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons Preliminary List contains 8,373 names, including some 500 aged under 18 and several dozen females. The bodies were buried in mass graves, then re-exhumed and mingled remains reinterred in remote secondary and tertiary graves. As of July 2012, 6,838 individual victims have been identified through pioneering DNA analysis of body parts recovered from mass graves and 5,657 have been buried in the Potočari Memorial Cemetery.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a UN international court set up to try war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, determined that the destruction of the Bosnian Muslim population of Eastern Bosnia by the massacre of the enclave's male inhabitants constituted an act of genocide under the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention and that the forcible displacement of the survivors was confirming evidence of genocidal intent on the part of those who had orchestrated the massacre. The ICTY has dismissed explanations of the killings as deaths in combat or acts of revenge. The court has found several members of the VRS Main Staff guilty of genocide and associated crimes at Srebrenica, notably Radislav Krstic, Vujadin Popovic and Ljubisa Beara. It is currently (as of November 2012) concluding its work with the trial of the most senior political and military figures involved, including Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Zdravko Tolimir. On 26 February 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest forum of international law, handed down a ruling in the action brought by Bosnia and Herzegovina accusing Serbia and Montenegro of genocide. The ICJ cleared Serbia of direct involvement in genocide, but ruled that Serbia and Montenegro had breached the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and also by failing to try or transfer persons accused of genocide to the ICTY as required by the Convention, in particular General Ratko Mladić, who remained in hiding in Serbia until his arrest in May 2011.

In 2005, in a message on the tenth anniversary commemoration of the genocide, the Secretary-General of the United Nations noted that, while blame lay first and foremost with those who planned and carried out the massacre and those who assisted and harboured the perpetrators, great nations had failed to respond adequately, the UN itself had made serious errors of judgement and the tragedy of Srebrenica would haunt the UN's history forever.

The main parts remain; some of the material has been moved around. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet, that was a helpful attempt to shorten the number of paragraphs, so my comments are not intended as antagonistic, simply as a differing opinion for discussion.

I appreciate the fact that you've done your best to reduce the number of paragraphs without losing content but it does mean lengthier paragraphs, which could deter the general reader. I think the crucial consideration is not the absolute number of paragraphs but the ease with which the reader can grasp the content of a complicated subject. I don't think the guidelines are rigid in referring to an ideal of four paragraphs for the introduction, they just suggest that as a reasonable size/format to be aimed at normally.

The article is long (and will probably still be so even after we try to shorten it) and includes some complex content. An introduction that tries to cover the essential points will need to be an appropriate size. I think it helps legibility and comprehensibility to have shorter paragraphs, provided that they gain from being separate. That's why I'd advocate more paragraphs rather than fewer but longer ones. That seems to be in line with the guideline's spirit of working to achieve accessibility.

As far as the reorganisation is concerned, these are my thoughts:

(1) It's better for details of the forces involved to follow on immediately after the reference to the forces that took the town rather than to separate the composition and place it on the far side of the background information and the reference to the UN presence.

(2) Separating the composition of forces off into a second paragraph allows the central fact of what happened to be contained in a one sentence first paragraph. Although the reference to the worst crime status would be an appropriate second sentence ending the first para, as you suggest, my preference is for the detail of the Bosnian Serb forces to follow immediately, in a second para, with the "worst crime" mention closing off the pair of paras. Although I prefer two paras here, I wouldn't have too much of a problem if they were combined as one.

(3) I think the "worst crime" statement still needs to be attributed to the UN SG. Including the person who made the "worst" value judgment contained in the statement is important, because there's no objective crime ranking system. The fact that it's the UN SG making the statement, within whose responsibility the major international courts fall, gives the statement legitimacy and authority.

(4) The reference to the Netherlands consequences doesn't separate off naturally from one of its two most suitable locations. To my mind it needs to be with either the reference to the presence of the Dutchbat contingent at Srebrenica or more naturally, because its part of "subsequent events", in a position after the major judicial rulings. The information doesn't combine naturally with any of the other paragraphs there so I believe it makes more sense to have it as a stand-alone paragraph. Opbeith (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear you about the spirit being accessibility, and about the number of paragraphs not as important as the actual length of the lead section. I differ from your view in regard to the attribution of the "worst crime" bit because this is the lead section which is for the quick facts, and the attribution can be picked up later in the article body. As a bald fact, the "worst crime" assertion does not absolutely require attribution because it comes from the highest authority. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I'm comfortable with leaving out the source from the text but it's a legitimate preference you've expressed. Ideally we'd be moving to shift the references away from the introduction into the body of the article, so eventually the relevant link may be some way away but since we're going to have to be careful how moving the references might affect other reference insertions and refnames in the article overall, that's probably going to be something we put off to another day, week, .... Also I'm afraid that experience warns me that a bald statement like that is liable to provoke unrewarding interventions. Nevertheless, I'm willing to compromise on this if you think it a better solution. Opbeith (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Two compromises, right? Looks like some or most of my reductions in text, but organized in your paragraphs. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The section in the introduction about the responsibility of the Netherlands has no references and as far as I can se, no credible source. It also uses weasel words ("is considered"). Tagged "by whom" and this part should be removed quickly if no source is brought up. It is a very severe accusation, in the opening section. As such it would need very strong evidence to back it up. As long as that isn't supplied at all it looks like original research. Binksternet, please don't remove the "by whom" tag as long as no reference is given and the weasel wording "is considered" is there. 82.170.114.168 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement "the government of the Netherlands acknowledged this symbolically by resigning over the issue" is poorly written (which issue is meant? the massacre, dutchbat, or partaking in the mission at all?) and not an argument to hold the Netherlands "responsible for not preventing the massacre." Political decisions are just that. They are not a ruling by an international court, they are not (necessarily) the conclusions coming from scientific/historical research. This entire bit on the Netherlands in the introduction needs a major overhaul. References are sorely missing. 82.170.114.168 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For inspiration, here's a quick translation of the lead section in the German version of the article, which was rewarded with an "excelllent" star:

The Srebrenica massacre was a war crime during the Bosnian war, which has been classified by the UN court in accordance with the 1951 Convention entered into force on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of genocide. [1]

In the area of Srebrenica in July 1995 were about 8,000 Bosniaks killed, mainly men and boys between 12 and 77 years[2]. The massacre was perpetrated under the command of Ratko Mladic by the Army of Republika Srpska (Vojska Republike Srpske, VRS ), the Serbian police and paramilitaries despite the presence of UN peacekeepers. It went on for several days and was spread over a large number of crime scenes near Srebrenica. The perpetrators buried thousands of bodies in mass graves. Multiple reburials in the following weeks should cover up the deeds.

The massacre of July 1995 is considered the worst war crime in Europe since the end of World War II. [3] [4] Already completed processes in international courts have shown that the crimes did not occur spontaneously, but were systematically planned and carried out. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (UN War Crimes Tribunal) in The Hague described the massacre in judgments against Radislav Krstic, [5] [6] [7] Vidoje Blagojevic, Dragan Jokić, [8] [9] [10] Ljubiša Beara and Vujadin Popović as genocide. End of February 2007, the International Court rated the massacre as well as genocide. [11]

I would like to point out that where the German lead neutrally mentions "despite the presence of UN peacekeepers", the English version goes way overboard by stating "The Netherlands is also considered responsible for not preventing the massacre" without mentioning any credible source for this. You cannot just hold a country responsible for a war crime and not give credible sources, references or evidence. If nobody comes up with a credible source for this statement, or an alternative wording for the role of the Netherlands (with regard to the UN mission it took part in) that is properly sourced and referenced, this part just needs to be removed as it constitutes weasel words, original research and non neutral point of view. 82.170.114.168 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is rather strange that Binksternet would defend an entirely unreferenced statement after having so strongly insisting that the partially referenced text regarding Pamela Geller should be deleted. Fairview360 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the introductory paragraphs should summarize points made in the article body. As the points are cited in the body, the lead section does not need to be referenced. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD,While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many people only read the lead. Rather than arguing with 82.170.114.168, why not add the supporting references to the lead? Fairview360 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

General information

I divided long introduction into 2 parts: 1. Current introduction; 2. I added section name General information which is not the best solution, but helpful at this stage. We can take the sentences from General information section and add to relevant parts of the article. Best, Konullu (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I just tagged the lead as being too short because of your change to it. I don't think the guideline WP:LEAD is being followed if we separate the first paragraph of the lead section from the rest of it by a "general information" header. Please read WP:LEAD and see how it encourages us to summarize all the main points of the article body and present these to the reader in the lead section. Your shortened version does not do this. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Genocide at Zepa (outside of Srebrenica)

IWPR, Genocide Conviction for Serb General Tolimir, 13 December 2012. http://iwpr.net/report-news/genocide-conviction-serb-general-tolimir -- The bench further concluded that genocide was committed in Zepa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.106.29 (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ICTY Tolimir Judgment and NPOV

The Tolimir Judgment recently entered at the ICTY marks a significant downward revision in the death toll of the Srebrenica massacre. Para 570 of the judgment puts the number of victims at 4,970, which is significantly less than the "more than 8,000" victims mentioned in the first section of the article. The Tolimir judgment also contradicts para 664 of the Popovic judgment which puts the number of victims at 7,826.

The Tolimir judgment is also a majority opinion. The majority held that the figure of 4,970 victims was "a conservative calculation" and that the real number was "likely to be markedly higher", but there is a dissenting opinion. One of the three judges was of the opinion that the figure was too high.

The dissenting opinion of Judge Nyambe contradicts the very core of the Tribunal's findings with regard to the Srebrenica massacre. Not only does she dispute the number of victims, she also disputes its classification as genocide, and she disputes the involvment of the military and political leadership of the Bosnian-Serbs.

The point I'm making is that the Tribunal's findings on this subject vary from chamber to chamber and judge to judge, yet the article presents certain opinions like they're an undisputed fact when what they are is an opinion based on a subjective interpretation of the evidence.

Wikipedia's NPOV policy states that "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, 'John Doe is the best baseball player' expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: 'John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.' Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited."

Issues like (A) the number of massacre victims (B) the massacre's qualification as an act of genocide and (C) the involvment of the military and political leadership of the Bosnian-Serbs in the massacre are clearly opinions as evidenced by the range of views held by different judges and trial chambers at the ICTY. Opinions should be cited as such in this article, and they're not.

Moreover, the article devotes too much space to side issues like the alleged participation of Greek volunteers, people who wandered away from the column, etc... There's a dispute about key details of the massacre, yet the article is giving attention to side issues that ultimately make very little difference.