Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Whole article is propaganda

Frankly, the entirety of this page and section is nothing but propaganda. I served for UNPROFOR in that region and trust me, the number of Serb victims in the area was not "falsified" or exaggerated. According to the RDC, 3,500 Serbs were killed of which 1,000 were civilian victims. The entire article presents massively one side of the story (and I understand why, of course) but nonetheless this is supposed to be educational for people, not a pity parade or a propagandistic attempt to deny ALL ELSE that happened before and after the events in July 1995. This page honestly has almost no academic value to, really, anybody but Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Muslim nationalists. Indeed, the entire page seems to have been written with the blind nationalism of the 1990's revisited, of which the Muslims certainly fell prey to back then. In any event, the entirety of this article is comically one sided. It is as if the Bosnian Ministry of Information wrote the article themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.187.101.222 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you unsigned above. I have moved the Renaming heading and put in another - I hope that's OK. Plenty of evidence that shows the "Srebrenica massacre" was a fraud, but it's quite hard to find discussion by just Googling (wonder why). Here's one article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-srebrenica-massacre-was-a-gigantic-political-fraud/5321388. Bougatsa42 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Renaming the article in to Srebrenica genocide

Can someone explain me why is the article still named as a massacre instead of genocide. The verdict of a Genocide is rare in human history, massacres on the other hand are common and usualy dont have the "weight" of a fully documented genocide such as this one. I dont need to remind you that the Srebrenica Genocide perpetrated by the Serb forces is the most documented and investigated crime against humanity. For the sake of the victims and international recognision honouring all the resolutions made by the Western civilised world, this article should bare the term genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Because politically motivated declarations aside, most people realize that this was not genocide unless the term has been completely redefined. It was a massacre. A horrible atrocity to be sure. But not the actual mass extermination of an entire race, religion or nationality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, the Srebrenica massacre has been consistently recognised as genocide by the UN as well as international courts; if the majority of the populace (and I don't know where you have gotten your information from) seem to think it isn't genocide, it is irrelevant, as the majority of them don't know the legal definition of genocide and it is up for the courts to determine if a case fulfilled the requirements, which it did. However, regardless of the nature of the crime, I do agree that the article title should not be changed, as the generally accepted term for the incident is the "Srebrenica massacre." Gorčin, "massacre" does not imply that an event isn't genocide, and the genocidal nature of the crime is clearly indicated in the lead. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition, most of the UN security council members voted in favor of calling the events a genocide. 10 nations voted in favor, 1 state against and 4 abstained, sources ABC news, USA Today. (P.s.: On a personal perspective, I feel disguised by the humanity of those denying such a horrible genocide aiming to annihilate the Bosnian population.) OppositeGradient (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Massacre or genocide

I would change article name to "Srebrenica genocide" because it is by all media characterized as such. Also, I support protection because we, on Bosnian Wikipedia, had many attempts of vandalizing articles regarding Srebrenica genocide. --Munja-x64 (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to have the article named "Srebrenica genocide" (which I don't dispute it was). As a comparison, the individual massacres of the holocaust do not in their titles contain suffix "genocide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf A380 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The term Holocaust isn't a term commonly used by Holocaust denialists to whitewash the genocide that was the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a genocide, the Srebrenica genocide was a genocide, real historians will back me on this. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 01:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a false logic here, our job isn't to give or deny comfort to 'deniers', and of course we record that almost all legal bodies and a large number of historians use 'genocide'.Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely that the page name should be changed and protected as genocide. I don't know what the user above me is trying to point out with "idividual massacres of the holocaust". A mistake that there may or may not be in other articles does not justefie another mistake in this article. Almost all interllectuals and EU lawmakers agree on this and have confirmed the label of "genocide". There is no reason for a wikipedia article to stick to the biased russian and serb labels the undermine the nature of this event. EU law makers have spoken. Why is there no "genocide" in the page name? Mozad655 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Mozad, I see your point but you're missing that there is also an article called the Bosnian Genocide which clearly points to the genocide in Srebrenica whilst also including prevalent views of a wider notion of genocide in Bosnia (Mladic and Karadzic are for example currently charged with genocide in other municipalites as well). The fact is that the horrific event in Srebrenica is both a single massacre and a genocide, the most common name of which still is the "Srebrenica massacre". I personally foresee that the name Srebrenica Genocide will become the one dominantly used in the future. Whatever the case, the lede of the article is perfectly clear on the fact that the massacre is a genocide. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly encourage for a renaming of the whole article in to Srebrenica Genocide. I again point out that the Srebrenica Genocide is the most investigated and documented crime against humanity and thus deserves a more specific and precise recognition as a Genocide, rather then the vain term of a massacre. Other genocides such as the Armenian Genocide have properly labeled names of their Wikipedia article ( Armenian Genocide ), even if we dont have a valid court qualification of the mentioned crime. I have reasons to believe that there are more sinister reasons of why this article is not properly named as a Srebrenica Genocide according to the ICT qualification of the mentioend crime. I also point out that every genocide is a massacre, but not every massacre can be qualified as a Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with the full article being renamed to Srebrenica Genocide, the international community is unanimous on that categorization, except for only a small minority of countries, such as Russia and Serbia. For instance, the recent UN Security Council resolution asking the events as Genocide had 10 votes in favor against 1 vote (Russia) against (see sources above). OppositeGradient (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please understand, the term "massacre" doesn't imply that an event isn't genocide. Besides, this section has nothing to do with the naming dispute, there is already a section on this page about it. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you agree it is a genocide, if most countries view it as a genocide and if a large number of world media call it so, then why do you insist on not titling the article as such? OppositeGradient (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue your case, please use the relevant section of this page. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I endorse everything said by Praxis Icosahedron, nothing is gained by re-titling and the alternative descripion and legal rulings are made abundantly clear. What matters is being accurate about what happened there, then and since. (ps most staunchly denialist Serbs still think nothing much happened in Srebrenica and would be unhappy with either term, it's a bit grotesque to imply that those who oppose re-naming are somehow supporting 'downplaying' the event).Pincrete (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• If you do not intend 'downplaying' the event, then why do you defend yourself without being accused? (Freudian symptom of guilt). Nevertheless,
  • if we all agree it was a genocide (as most sources and nations indicate), and
  • if genocide supersedes a massacre in magnitude and qualification, and
  • if Google Scholar has 9,020 results for "srebrenica massacre" and 12,500 for "srebrenica genocide"; then
• As we know Russia and Serbia oppose the existence of a genocide in Srebrenica. Editors who oppose the usage of the term genocide, against all odds and arguments, should really provide objective reasons to delineate themselves from the Russian-Serbian thesis, or accept the term genocide. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient the reasons are those given by Praxis Icosahedron, that the customary term has been 'massacre', when a considerable weight of evidence exists that the ordinary reader would not use that term, a change would make sense. I refuse to respond to the challenge of delineating myself from ANYONE's thesis, we are not here to strike poses of agreement or disagreement with any position. Look at my edit record, look at that of Praxis Icosahedron.Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If the only argument is "the customary term has been 'massacre'", then such a custom is artificial and does not reflect the real-world (I.e. how most scholars, nations and media call the event). As such, I believe it is not substantiated and should be fixed. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, your belief is noted.Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with the term genocide. The people who are calling it a massacre are predominately coming from Serbia and are predominately denying that the genocide had happened. Detoner (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Detoner, I can assure you that the people on this page defending the present title, neither come from Serbia nor deny what happened. It might help if discussion rose above the level of 'name calling'.Pincrete (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not calling names, but I'm speaking of the context the term massacre has in Serbia. The term to foreign readers does not appear in contradiction the the term genocide. but in Serbia that term is in the strong contradiction with the term genocide. I support the change since the ICJ (the highest court of the UN, the only one that can judge if the genocide happened) had ruled that the genocide had happened. That is also supported by virtually every expert and the term massacre is incorporated in the term genocide as the genocide is much broader term that the term "massacre". I understand that the foreign readers do not see much difference, so I wanted to help and give the context that two terms have in Serbia. They are in strong contradiction to each other and I think much of the people who advocated for the term massacre would be surprised to know that there are people who agree with them because they are denying the genocide had happened. Also let's not throw the "name calling" accusation in my direction, as you just called me a "name caller". I will support the change of the title. Detoner (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Search results in english return over 4 to 1 results in favor of the use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" over the phrase "Srebrenica genocide" - there is a clear predominance of that term in the english speaking world. Additionally, there is not a significant connotative difference in english between the terms as you have described for Serbia. Thus, for english Wikipedia, both the sources and the WP:NPOV policy support the use of the title "Srebrenica massacre." Scr★pIron^IV 19:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Detoner, in my experience, most 'denialists' deny either term, preferring 'battle' or trying to assert that casualties were equal on both sides. It would no more be right for WP to consciously avoid pleasing 'denialists' than it would be to deliberately please them. However, the discussion is here and everyone putting their pov clearly (as you have) will help clarify the matter. TO ME it is more important that the article be as clear, accurate and solidly sourced as possible, and that the name be the one most commonly used by Eng. readers.Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I stated the reasoning for my support. There is a significant difference between those two terms in English language as well. The genocide is much broader term and the ICJ is, as the highest court of UN, the only one than can rule upon that. The massacre can be ruled by a number of international and domestic courts. As I said, I support the term genocide as it is a broader term than incorporates the term massacre. Detoner (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Various legal bodies have ruled that Srebrenica was genocide, those rulings ARE stated clearly along with the AKA, early in the lead, as they should be. WP naming conventions are not based on court rulings, nor intended to either emphasise or downplay the seriousness of the event. When/if 'genocide' clearly becomes the term used by the general reader, THEN there would be a case for a rename.Pincrete (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The genocide is a broader term and I support the change, because the term massacre is widely used by the people who deny the genocide. That much proves that the genocide is a broader term. Also I spoke of international court in the same context. There is only 1 court that can rule upon genocide and that much proves that the genocide is a broader term. I'm supporting the change and I can be pinged, since it is obvious that I'm in minority right now. Detoner (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Detoner, I know some people feel very strongly as you do, the only thing which I would hope to convince you of, is that I, and I believe other editors, are not motivated by any wish to 'downplay' the event, nor to give comfort to those who wish to. Personally I think 'deniers' have a very strange moral compass if they think genocide is bad but persuade themselves that mass murder/massacre is somehow OK.Pincrete (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I must to provide some element into this debate strongly question the continued use of the term , "Srebrenica Massacre." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac2204 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Rename this article

It was a genocide, most reliable sources call it a genocide. It gives WP:UNDUE to deniers to call it anything other than what it is: a genocide. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 07:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ms. Andrea Carter here, there is a fair amount of discussion above about this.Pincrete (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

nb I have taken the liberty of merging 3 sections relating to the article name [1].Pincrete (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Well okay then. ~~Motion withdrawn unless I can come up with further reasons that haven't been previously covered to rename it.~~ The discussion seems ongoing, so I'll just add my support there. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 00:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ms. Andrea Carter here, it wasn't my intention to 'close down' discussion, only to put it all in one place. The analogy I would like to make is that WP refers to 'The Holocaust', even though that term could be construed as a euphemism for 'the genocidal extermination of etc.'. We do so for the reason that the term is the one most commonly used by most readers. This article makes very clear that the event is aka and has been also been defined by many legal bodies and scholars as 'genocide', if it did not do so, I would probably agree with you about 'Undue'.Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I continued the discussion above. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 18:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe there are more sinister reasons in why this article is continusly underepresented with the title clasification of massacre. One question to the massarce propagists. If we have the Armnenian genocide wiki article, wich isnt even clasified as such in an courtly maner and international verdict why is it named Armenian genocide and not Armenian massacre? Why is the Srebrenica genocide the only internationaly recognized genocide represented as a massacre?

Double standards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin (talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Gorčin, I assure you that there are no "more sinister reasons" for all or the majority of those who wish to maintain the current title. It is clearly indicated in the lead that the 'Srebrenica Genocide' is another term used for the event, as well as multiple references to the genocideal nature of the crime. It doesn't help to keep bringing up vague accusations implying deniaist motivations of me and other editors to make a point, particually where they have gone out of their way to stress the barbaric (and genocidal) nature of the crime. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Gorčin, I second everything that Aardwolf says, an article title is not there to either condemn or give comfort to anyone. The article about 30+ years of nasty civil conflict in N. Ireland is called The Troubles, why? Because that is the most common name used both by sources and (more importantly) by readers. The Armenian genocide, has never been known by any other name since non-Armenians became aware of it (and a massacre is a single event, not many seperate events, as in Armenia). All the indications are that more people refer to 'Sreb massacre' than 'Sreb Genocide', though the second is becoming more common.

Privately, I find the logic strange that suggests it's somehow OK, or less serious, to murder/massacre about 8000 unarmed people but calling it 'genocide' makes it more serious. 'Genocide' changes the intent of the crime, it doesn't make mass-murder any more or less serious. The article is clear that it is often called 'genocide' and that many courts have ruled that it is legally genocide. 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)

I have to agree with Pincrete here. There seems to be a supposition that "genocide" means a more severe form of "massacre." According to the wiki article, genocide is not simply "mass killing" but a systematic attempt at eliminating a specific group. There is plenty of evidence of a "Bosnian genocide" attempted by Serb forces throughout the span of the war, but it seems moot to nominate a single event a genocide. Theoretically, the planned and deliberate poisoning of a river to cause a local tribe to become infertile is an act of genocide, whereas killing thousands in a bombing of a town is a massacre. The two words do not differ in degrees of evil or number of deaths. They're simply different but related concepts. I don't see what can be gained from confounding concepts, except trying to make inflammatory statements rather than an honest account of the horrors that happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.225.223 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the two postings above, either the entire campaign was a genocide or it wasn't, but no single chapter should be deemed by this term. Furthermore, I'd go as far as to say either it were a three-way genocide or none at all, the suggestion that one belligerent committed this but others did not because they only committed massacres is preposterous. --OJ (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oranges Juicy, we aren't drawing any such conclusions (nor are they implied in the name). The evidence is that 'massacre' is still the more common name for the event, and that is the only logic to the choice. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"The evidence is that 'massacre' is still the more common name for the event, and that is the only logic to the choice. " Except this isn't true. Genocide is the more common name for the event, which puts the entire article name in a more precarious position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.105.187 (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I do NOT agree, "massacre", is the most common term for this in the Blagojevic and Jokic, Popovic et al. and Tolimir cases that, there were two separate but conncected Joint Criminal Enterprises, the forced removal, and murder operation. BOTH have been determined to have qualified as genocide, due to the populations vulnerability, and its wartime populace being so small compared to it's prior 1991 population. The killings in 1992, and events leading to the siege, the fighting and the deaths as a result, were known by Serb forces...event as countless media sources refer to the event as, The Srebrenica Genocide", as a matter of fact, the courts have ruled that this term and intent refers also to the Bosnian-Muslims of Zepa and Gorazde, as made clear by Directive 7, and Mladic's statements that, "the fate of your people is in your hands, not just in this region, but all..' Soldiers who carried out the massacres themselves stated they believed they were committing genocide. It has been determined the intent was to kill all Bosniaks within reach to eliminate the possibility of reconstitution. This determination was made solely on the massacre. The prior referred to judgements (appeals), clearly state, two separate operations with the same intent, 1) a JCE to exterminate the men and boys 12-78 of Srebrenica and 2) the Causing of Serious bodily and mental harm to the women, children and elderly through torture, rape, opportunistic killings and separation of family members...resulting in the fact 42,000 were subjected to the mens rea and actus reus of genocide. Thus the, "massacre" portion is another separate article on that portion, while the term "Srebrenica Genocide", or even "1995 Genocide in Eastern Bosnia", or "Eastern Bosnian Genocide", are ALL appropriate given tribunal, Academic (Daniel Goldhagen, Christiane Amanpour etc.) agreement, along with the three appeals agreement. It is almost a gift to Wikipedia, providing specific determinations, from hundreds of witnesses, thousands of exhibits, physical and circumstantial evidence etc. The "Srebrenica Massacre". term was more common prior to the Popovic judgement, and prior to the Jokic judgement. However most media sources use the term, "Srebrenica Genocide", today, vs. 'massacre". Massacre implies or dismisses a crucial element of the eventsd and their organized , systematic nature, and very important case law. So, I concur (as a genocide prevention advocate and international law student) that at this point, "Srebrenica Genocide", or "Eastern Bosnian Genocide of 1995". Some article should encompass the entire event and not solely the massacre. Dissent if academically sourced can be provided toward the bottom of this page. -Jokic/Blagojevic "The trial chamber finds that through the manner and means in which the forcible transfer is carried our, may lead to the destruction of the group", "In this case the transfers were directed at the protected group, "The Bosnian Mulsims of Srebrenica, the transfer when combined with the killings, are on their own, caused serious bodily and mental harm, as to be an act of genocide..." judgement,http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tolimir/acjug/en/150408_summary.pdf "http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tolimir/acjug/en/150408_summary.pdf

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060608000517/http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf to http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060824113249/http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf to http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf#search=%22prosecutor%20vs%20krstic%20judgement%22
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e-1.htm#IIA6
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/5/ex_yug/yug_pr10.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2005/06/27/world/greecestartsprobeintosrebrenicamassacre.html&template=/news/templates/newswire/news_story_reuters.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-11T165654Z_01_L11464103_RTRUKOC_0_US-WARCRIMES-BOSNIA-GRAVE.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-worldNews-11
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.idc.org.ba/project/the_myth_of_bratunac.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=8198&kat=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.potocarimc.ba/_ba/liste/nestali_a.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912110426/http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/54/549 to http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/54/549
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8244

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Remove kebab" redirect

As amusing as it that searching wikipedia for "remove kebab" (in reference to the popular internet meme) redirects here, I don't think it's appropriate. At least not without some sort of further mention, perhaps explaining the meme?

Just hoping to bring attention of this to someone better suited to rectify the situation.

78.149.209.252 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have blanked, such that it does not redirect, another editor has 'prodded". Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Kravica sponaneously

This part seems problematic:

The mass murder in Kravica seemed unplanned and seems to have started spontaneously when one of the warehouse doors suddenly swung open, according to trial testimony.

The reference given was a reuse of the name "un.org" which have had multiple declarations in the past. Now "un.org" has a single declaration and lots of incorrect re-uses. I could with a reasonably degree of certainty figure out what reference was actually supposed to have been used, however it ended up looking like original research. The Krstic Judgement notes that "The paucity of evidence implicating the Drina Corps in the commission of the mass executions on 13 July stands in contrast to the substantial evidence implicating the Drina Corps in the commission of the mass executions from 14 July onwards as discussed infra", and a survivor states "all of a sudden there was a lot of shooting in the warehouse". A better source is needed, if it exists. Uglemat (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Confusion about Republika Srpska Commission on Srebrenica

There seems to be much confusion surrounding the "Second RS Report". There seems to be two related groups here, first the "Commission for the research of events in and around Srebrenica in 10 – 19 July 1995" ("Srebrenica Commission", or "Commission for Srebrenica") which issued two reports, one on 11 June, another one on 15 October 2004. Confusingly, both have been referred to as the "final report" in sources I've seen. There is also a second group, the "Working group for the enforcement of conclusions arising from Final Report of the Srebrenica Commission".

Then there is the issue of the 892 names. The Amnesty Source cited says

At the end of March 2005 the RS authorities subsequently forwarded a list of some 892 persons suspected of involvement in Srebrenica to the State Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina; the list included many still employed by the RS government.

Most sources seem to agree however, like Čekić wrote in the first source I've given, that:

[The Working Group] established the number of persons who were, in March 2005, on leading positions within the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, entities, and municipalities (SIPA, OSA, DGS, Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Defense, the Republika Srpska Ministry of Defense, the Republika Srpska Ministry of Interior, Judicial police, Misdemeanor courts, municipalities, etc.), who took part in the events in and around Srebrenica in 10 – 19 July 1995. The number is 892 persons.

It seems the Amnesty source is wrong, and therefore the wikipedia article as of now.

Uglemat (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This book, chapter 7, seems to clear things up. The October report apparently is an addendum to the "final report" of June 2004, after a sudden batch of new documents. I haven't read it all yet. Uglemat (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)