Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Archives: Archive 1 - Discussions from 2004 Archive 2 - The Role of the Drina Corps in the Srebrenica Crimes Archive 3 - US resolution Archive 4 - Discussions from January – July 2005 Archive 5 - Discussions from August – December 2005 Archive 6 - Discussions from January – July 2006 Archive 7 - Discussions from August 2006 Archive 8 - Discussions from September 2006 Archive 9 - Archived on November 28, 2006 Archive 10 - To be Archived on ...

Comments

Editing

Just a thought: it seems to me that this article about the Srebrenica massacre/genocide needs editing; it is far too long. Remember, these are supposed to by encyclopedic articles, not book drafts. Perhaps interested parties can remove the 'surplus' to a newly created article entitled, Background to the Srebrenica Massacre? Politis 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Politis, I don't agree with you about moving the Background to a separate article. First of all, in my understanding, articles should be about specific subjects, not about the background to specific subjects. Perhaps, though, it could be possible to have a separate article on the Bosnian War - eastern Bosnia or similar. Also, part of the challenge of writing a good article is to be concise for the benefit of the reader. Although the Background may be too long, I think that problem is more pressing in the main description of the massacre. Here it could be better to try to shorten and focus on the most important parts. But let's start at the top, with the Introduction and the Background.KarlXII 14:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this sounds good. I'm not sure if it is possible thoug, given the very aggressive attitud of some of the editors here.KarlXII 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[Big sigh] I know, that is why I am not offering to cut it back ;-) Can the current 'edit warriors' agree between them for a cut back? I mean, the article is about Srebrenica and the case for 'genocide' has been made quite clearly by the international community - even if many of us disagree and many of us are also aware of Serbian suffering, that is the situation and it must be respected. In any case, it seems to me that a generous compromise has already been achieve by excluding the term 'genocide' from the title of the article. Politis 12:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How about deleting the Role of Bosniak forces on the ground section (I'm not sure how relevant it is), or at least summarizing it? Now it's just a really long quote from some UN publication/report.KarlXII 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked just the first reference (for Federal list of missing persons) and found that the link, which claims to be to the Federal Commission for Missing Persons; "Preliminary List of Missing and Killed in Srebrenica"; 2005 , in fact appears to be to the site of some unidentifiable (it's all in [serbocroatian)] http://www.srebrenica-zepa.ba/srebrenica/news.php NGO.

1. It is very difficult for someone who does not speak/read serbocroatian to evaluate this source and the organization which is behind it.
2. It would be better to link to an authoritative source stating, in English, that the Federal list of missing persons contains 8,000 or so names.

Your thoughts?KarlXII 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some comments concerning the participation of Serbian special forces units:

1. is this information crucial enough to warrant a mention in the introduction? Would it be better placed and expanded on in the same section as that which deals with the possible participation of Greek and other volunteers?
2. the reference refers to an article from March 2006 which recounts amendments to indictments against some individuals for allegedly leading these special forces units in connection with the Srebrenica massacre
3. are there any other good sources regarding the participation of these units in the massacre?
4. wherever the text is placed, should it be preceeded by an "alleged" or "possible" or similar wording?

KarlXII 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The role of Serbia in the Bosnia war is quite relevant. The presence of forces from Serbia is indicative of the Srebrenica massacre not being an isolated incident but rather part of a larger dynamic and therefore belongs in the introduction. Fairview360 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The introduction mentions that the Dutchbat forced "did not prevent the massacre" and cites p. 18 and 26 in the icty case. That wording insinuates that the Dutchbat soldiers could have prevented the massacre if they had wanted to/tried. This is not supported by the reference. A better wording would be "were unable to prevent the massacre".KarlXII 15:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"were unable to prevent the massacre" is debatable. We can state with complete confidence the fact that the massacre occurred and that the Dutchbat mission was to preserve Srebrenica as a safe haven. The stated fact that Dutchbat soldiers did not prevent the massacre still leaves room for a discussion of what they could have actually done given what tepid support they received, etc. Fairview360 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the numbers killed, the introduction again uses the missing persons figure referring to the serbocroatian language NGO site (see my comment above). Wouldn't it be better to use the figures mentioned in the icty case:

1. "experts were able to conservatively determine that the minimum number of bodies in the graves exhumed was 2028" of which "the majority of the victims were executed"(p. 80) and
2. it then concludes by saing that "The Trial Chamber is satisfied that, in July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica, Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number is likely to be within the range of 7,000 -8,000 men." (p. 84).

Given that the icty document is probably the best/most authoritative source available, should't the article strive to use it's interpretation/wording/presentation of events as much as possible (as opposed to using those of native language NGOs)? KarlXII 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In the intro. do we really need the concluding citation, or at least all of it? Since the intr should be about summarising the article, wouldn't it be enough to simply state that the icty judget it to be genocide? The judgement is covered in detail later in the article anyways.KarlXII 10:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The ICTY citation aptly summarizes what happened which is exactly what an introduction is supposed to do. Fairview360 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

KarlXII, sorry for the delay. Your observations seem well researched across the web. The article needs to focus on what the title says. The plain fact as you are proposing, seem to me neither anti-Serbian, nor disrespective towards the Bosniaks. Perhaps you should go ahead with editing out some chunks, and hope that our friends understand the need for a fair and succinct article. Politis 12:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Politis and others, OK I will use the weekend to go ahead with the edits proposed above. I hope no one has any issues with them. I'd especially like some help with finding an official English languge source for the list of missing persons, or, even better in my mind, an updated reference which mentions the numbers missing. Until then I propose to use the icty figures although they are by now almost a year old.KarlXII 14:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Making suggestions at 10:46 and then saying OK I am now going to engage in wholesale edits to the intro at 14:07 the same day does not constitute engaging in good faith discussions. 6 hours does not provide enough time to the editors of this article to respond. Fairview360 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In reply to the points raised by Karl:

• The "Role of Bosniak forces on the ground" section — I agree that it should be removed or rigorously shortened.
• The federal list of missing persons — while we prefer English sources, the fact that this source is written in another language is in itself no reason to remove it; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English.
• "participation of Serbian special forces units" — I agree that this needn't be mentioned in the lead section. Some more supporting sources would be useful, but it's not necessary to wait for a conviction. Regarding "alleged" or "possible": well, that depends; if most reliable sources agree that Serbian special forces did participate, then our language should reflect that. The role of the Scorpions has been discussed before, see Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive5#Scorpions from Serbia.
• "Dutchbat forces did not prevent the massacre" — I don't think that this implies that Dutchbat were able to prevent it. It may suggest it to some people, which is why I prefer the formulation "… 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but their presence did not prevent the massacre." In any case, I think that the text "were unable to prevent the massacre" which you prefer is worse; this clearly says that Dutchbat could not have prevented it whatever they would have done, which is not supported by the references as far as I can tell.
• the numbers killed — this was discussed at Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive8#post protected discussions and I think that that discussion shows that the range 7000-8000 mentioned by the ICTY is outdated.
• the concluding citation in the intro — I agree that it shouldn't be there. I seem to remember that I said so but others disagreed. However, I can't find the discussion anymore in the archives.

Karl, I am very grateful that you posted this points for discussion on the talk page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This pattern of a lot of animated activity, apparently reasonable suggestions across a wide range of issues with a reference to issues that have already been well covered (eg 7,000-8,000 dead), and then wilful and rapid intervention to make contentious changes is rather reminiscent of Osli73. It's a very successful tactic for tying up a lot of other people's energy without being identified immediately as someone with destructive intent.

Back in the summer I worked my way over the whole article to see what suggestions might be worth making, because it is a bit sprawling and could certainly do with a bit of restructuring, but I lost the thread of it with the last round of onslaughts.

Jitse, I have to say that however legitimate you consider substantial revisions at fairly short or minimal notice to be, they do convey the impression of someone with an agenda. --Opbeith 22:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What is reminiscent of Osli73 is using the argument that the article is too long as justification for deleting a few essential sentences in the introduction. That makes no sense. I believe Opbeith has accurately described Osli73/Karl12 as having an agenda. And, for the record, while we will all have our disagreements perhaps passionate at times, I believe Jitse is motivated by a genuine desire for fairness. Fairview360 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, thanks for the reply. My thoughts on your comments are:

1. OK, let's remove the "Role of the Bosniak forces on the Ground section, or if someone cares to, shorten it considerably
2. the main reason I brought up the reference is that I can't tell wether or not it really is the federal list of missing persons and the site it's on doesn't seem to be an 'official' one. I would prefer if it were possible to find a better, pref. English language, source. Maybe it would be better to find a recent English language comment on the list, on saying something to the effect of "the fed. list of missing persons contains some xxx names" and a date.
3. about the special forces, see below
4. I think your wording is better
5. if "an estimated 8,000" is better, then let's say that. I just thought it would be good to use the icty judgement since it's such a solid source which can't be questioned, while the other figures are just quotes from newspapers and general media, which I imagine would carry less weight
6. my thinking was that the citation just repeated what the text said so that it wasn't really adding information

Again, thank's for your comments. KarlXII 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just 2c for "Serbian special forces units": I agree that it's too undue weight to be put in the intro. However, the "Serbian special forces unit" is a moot definition. Those were dogs of war sponsored and to a good extent controlled by Serbian Secret Service (SDB), funded partly by SDB but mostly by smuggling and looting. Only in 1996 they become officially incorporated in security system of Serbia, and at the time of Srebrenica massacre they were just officially "volunteers". I started expanding the Jedinica za Specijalne Operacije (bad name, I know) article, but if you can read Serbian, please read the extensive coverage in Vreme, referenced there, which covers all dark aspects of the Unit and its predecessors, from its roots, through the wars, to Đinđić assassination. Duja► 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Duja, thanks for the info. I know nothing about the Scoprions or wether or about their or the SDBs role in the massacre. I just felt that it wasn't something you would normally put into an intro. Better to develop this in a special section of the article if it is warranted.

Also, sorry about not following through with the edits over the weekend as promised. It is just that I've been busy elsewhere. I'll try to get to it soon though. KarlXII 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's my suggestion for a shorter introduction:

The Srebrenica Massacre was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak males in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska under the command of general Ratko Mladić. The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but their presence did not prevent the massacre.

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II and it is the first legally established case of genocide in Europe. In the landmark ruling "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide.

Is there anything else we should add? Maybe something about the attempts to hide the bodies or about the excavations? I also prepared this text describing the massacre, but now I'm not sure where to put it:

Following the Bosnian Serb army's takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995 an estimated 20,000-25,000 residents had sought refuge at the UNPROFOR base at Potocari, outside of the town while an estimated 10,000-15,000 Bosniak men had sought to escape to government controlled territory north of Srebrenica. While the women, children and elderly were sent on buses to government controlled territory while the men, including those captured from those trying to escape, were sent to various locations around Srebrenica were they were executed between 13-17 July. Following the massacre.

Your reactions, pls? KarlXII 10:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I'm going ahead with the changes.KarlXII 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairview (and anyone else out there), I don't think it it acceptable to not participate at all in the discussion on the talk page and then revert the outcomes from that discussion by referring to some historical discussion. If you don't participate or give input, don't think you own the page.KarlXII 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. The article is not frozen, but constantly evolving, like the rest of Wikipedia. There has been a lot of discussion about it, which means that we have to be careful and not change too much, but there is no reason at all to prohibit any changes. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, nice to hear that. I knew the article was sensitive to some but though that discussing changes on the talk page first and giving everyone interested in the article ample time to respons would be sufficient. I don't have the interest or the time to spend on petty revert wars with people who think they 'own' the article and that it is 'perfect' as is.KarlXII 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So Osli73 and KarlXII both are a name plus a number, both have an interest in Sweden, both have an interest in the former Yugoslavia, both make the same arguments, and both want to delete entire sections of the intro, but we'll just ignore that for now. Let's just forget that extensive sockpuppetry has been the bane of this article. The wholesale deletion of portions of the intro are not justified. The only edit I see, that is something that was not fully discussed and agreed upon before, is whether the intro is going to say "at least" 8000 or "an estimated" 8000. I would agree with an estimated 8000 and will change it now. But there is no reason why editors who have worked on this article for sometime -- as opposed to transient sockpuppets -- should have to tolerate the wholesale unjustified deletion of accurate fully documented statements. Fairview360 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, you cannot dismiss it like this. As I said, I agree with Karl comments, he justified the deletion, and you should be willing to discuss it instead of just stating out of the blue that it's not justified. I'd be very disappointed to learn that I'm wrong when I said that you would engage in discussion.

Osli and Karl may be the same, and they may not be. It does not matter. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, I know that you are not a sockpuppet. If KarlXII is a sockpuppet about to take us down a road we have already traveled, then his being a sockpuppet is indeed relevant. But OK, I'll let that go and respond at face value, again, to what is being expressed here. Let's start with this statement from the ICTY which so eloquently describes what happened in Srebrenica and gives the context. Why would someone put so much effort into having it deleted from the intro?

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity."

Please explain. Fairview360 05:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The section quoted by Fairview360 concisely and authoritatively explains why the massacre took place and its wider significance. That is why it remains central to the Introduction. --Opbeith 22:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing - the background

Although the background to the massacre deserves to be properly explained, I feel that it can be done more concisely and with fewer sub-sections (which, if nothing else, just makes the TOC longer). Would anyone object to, or want to contribute to, a new, more concise version of the background section including the "Safe area" section? KarlXII 00:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning: KarlXII is probably Osli73's sockpuppet

An analysis of KarlXII and Osli73's edit history strongly suggests that KarlXII is Osli73's sockpuppet. I believe it would serve the best interests of wikipedia if an administrator conducted a Usercheck on KarlXII and Osli73 as well as review their edit histories for comparison. If it is true that KarlXII is a sockpuppet, good faith discussions are essentially impossible. It is not realistic to expect legitimate users to attempt good faith discussions with sockpuppets. Fairview360 06:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Relevant decision by the Kosovo arbitration committee:

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

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to carry our any type of investigations you would like. I know that you levelled the sockpuppet ackusation before and I ignored it but did forward it to osli who warned me about this article being sensitive. On the basis of this and of jitses suggestion I took extra care to discuss everything on the talk page. However, if this is the type of behavior which is going to characterise this article then I will focus my efforts elsewhere.KarlXII 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple question, KarlXII: what is your actual relationship to Osli73?

I've been tied up trying to sort out the havoc caused by a virus on my computer. A lot of my time has been wasted over the last three weeks by the various effects and repercussions. I'd hate to see the prospect of further time wasting by a reincarnation of Osli73 but I suspect that what I see developing is the same pattern of objectively reasonable comments serving as a Trojan horse for much less constructive interventions. --Opbeith 22:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

KarlXII is destroying Srebrenica Genocide article

Where are admins to protect integrity of wikipedia's encyclopedia? We can't let people who deny facts (e.g. who deny Srebrenica Genocide, or who deny WWII Holocaust) to participate in these topics, because they have nothing valid to contribute. They delete important facts of the case, and spam articles with discredited leftist-apologist make-believe propaganda. If they love Milosevic, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and other dictators so much, then they should move either to Serbia, Germany, or Iraq; and they would probably not be welcomed even there.

So, let this be final wake up call for wikipedia's admins to protect Srebrenica Genocide article from these vandals. Bosniak 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, this does it. I have been nothing but polite and open about my edits on this page. Now I'm getting accusations like "sockpuppet" from Fairview and "love Milosevic" from you. What I do think the admin should do is to do something about the tone used and the aggression level here. And you, I'm going to report for slinging personal insults. As for F-view, I encourage him to investigate as his accusations are becoming very irritating.KarlXII 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi KarlXII, you should stop treating Wikipedia as your personal homepage where you can delete important paragraphs and vandalize article(s) as you see fit. Please go again and read what is wikipedia all about and stop destroying what has been built for the past 12 months. Bosniak 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ivanisevic

Bosniak, earlier this year, I believe it was Emir Arvin (?) who submitted an extremely well argued and well documented account of Ivanesic and the genesis of Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbs. If you can find Emir's submission, it may help you document statements regarding Ivanisevic. Fairview360 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fairview, I will send you results of a research about chetnik "Mr. Ivanisevic" and his made up and overblown research about alleged crimes against Serbs. The research was made by another American girl, a friend of mine. Bosniak 06:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprofor

F-view, what is your problem with the text (suggested by Jitse Niesen, not me)? Are you the admin for this page? Do you control who is allowed to add content and edit here?KarlXII 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Karl73, twice you have said that you are not interested in editing this article which tells me your commitment to this article is flaky. So why would I want to spend my time discussing this with a user who has only a fleeting interest in the article, who I still believe to be a sockpuppet or someone whose approach to this article is identical to Osli73 (a sockpuppy if you will), and who can't decide whether to stay or go? Your being a potential sockpuppet/sockpuppy is less relevant than your tempermental whimsical engagement. So what is it Karl73? Have you made up your mind? Which statements of yours are we to believe to be true? In any case, for the record, I do discuss my edits even with those I believe to be -- an opinion I am entitled to -- johnny-come-lately, should-I-stay-or-should-I-go sockpuppies.

I would be more than happy to discuss with Jitse -- an editor who has invested a lot of his time and energy in this article and has shown a long term commitment to its quality -- his preference for the intro reading "their presence did not prevent the massacre". My impression is that Jitse has a preference though he sees "they did not" and "their presence did not" as both essentially acceptable. Meanwhile, Jitse sees your suggestion as unacceptable. Jitse stated to you: "In any case, I think that the text 'were unable to prevent the massacre' which you prefer is worse; this clearly says that Dutchbat could not have prevented it whatever they would have done, which is not supported by the references as far as I can tell." But I believe we can agree that Jitse is perfectly capable of arguing for his suggested edits and does not need you as his advocate.

Lastly, your questions are clearly rhetorical and do not warrant a direct reply. -- Fairview

Fairview said on my talk page:

In the following sentence, I believe the antecedents of the pronoun "they" are both the UN and the Dutch peacekeepers. "The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but they did not prevent the massacre."

This is certainly not how I read it; I think that "they" refers to the peacekeepers. I have no problems with the reading "The UN did not prevent the massacre."

We should be able to lift the ambiguity with a slight formulation. I change it to "The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area", but they did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, good job. That makes it clear that "they" refers to the UN. Fairview360 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, I disagree with your most recent edit. The problem ins't with wether "they" refers to the UN or the Dutch peacekeepers. Rather, it is that the sentence "They did not prevent the massacre" insinuates that they, wether it be the UN or the Dutch peacekeepers, could have but for some reason didn't chose to prevent the massacre. Although I am aware that there are those who believe this, I think a more neutral wording would be the one you proposed earlier:

"their presence did not prevent the massacre"

KarlXII 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not an insunation. It is a fact. The Dutch troops pleaded for airstrikes. The UN leadership decided not to launch them. In the words of Kofi Annan: "No one laments more than we the failure of the international community to take decisive action to halt the suffering and end a war that had produced so many victims." Fairview360 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Committee is convinced that by massive strikes along the southern road, the only road leading to Srebrenica, the UN and NATO could have stopped the offensive."

Report by the parliamentary committee on the events in Srebrenica

National Assembly (French Parliament)

http://www.msf.fr/documents/srebrenica/Conclusions.pdf

"A Dutch battalion of UN peacekeepers (Dutchbat) failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims when the town was overrun by Serb forces in 1995."

BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1921482.stm

“U.N. peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Serb forces easily to overrun it and, without interference from U.N. soldiers, to carry out systematic mass executions…”

US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe testimony

Researcher HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/HELSINKI

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_hr/c951206l.htm

Fview, so you agree that it was not the Dutchbat troops who were unwilling to stop the massacre (and cannot even be taken for granted that they knew a massacre would take place prior to the Serb attack on Srebrenica)? I think the BBC quote pretty well presents the issue. I would be happy with that. KarlXII 12:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, KarlXII now says he would be "happy with" the following statement from the BBC: "A Dutch battalion of UN peacekeepers (Dutchbat) failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims when the town was overrun by Serb forces in 1995." Therefore, if "they" refers to the Dutch Battalion, KarlXII would be "happy with" the statement "They failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims." Given that "killing 7,000 Muslims" is a massacre, KarlXII would presumably be comfortable with the statement: "They failed to prevent the massacre." Given that that statement conveys the massacre as being the direct result of the Dutch Battalion's failure, one would think that KarlXII would prefer the more forgiving factual statement: "They did not prevent the massacre." But no, KarlXII strongly disagrees with that statement. (memories of Osli73) Fairview360 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Article is a Disgrace

I cannot believe the blatant bias and inaccuracy of crucial sections of this article, and its disgusting attempt to make a Hollywood movie out of an awful event from the war.

Some significant faults:

1) The simple use of the word "Denial" (in section "Denial of the massacre") as opposed to "Controversy" has enormous negative connotations. Denial is used as a word often used describing one who wishes to not face the truth. Therefore, the article claims that the truth is: a certain number of Bosniak men were killed (~8000) and anyone who disputes this is in denial, or refusing to face the truth.

There is significant proof that disputes the numbers provided in this article, therefore, this is a "Controversy", not a case of fact and denial.

Instead of "Denial of the massacre", that section of the article should be named "Controversy Over Casualties" or something similar to that.

In addition, since these figures are disputed, the Srebrenica incident cannot be called the "largest mass murder in Europe since World War II". In order to give it such a label, one must know, without controversy, the number of people killed. If contesting figures (which are equally legitimate) on the number of men killed are considered, the incident ceases to be the "largest mass murder in Europe since World War II".

2) Close to the beginning of the article, there is a section on "Ethnic Cleansing". However, the "Ethnic Cleansing" which occurred prior to the incident at Srebrenica is blatantly ignored.

I am referring to the "Ethnic Cleansing" that took place in neighbouring Serbian villages, where Serbian civilians were "Ethnically Cleansed". (And not just the men interestingly...)

The number of Serbs killed during this act of "Ethnic Cleansing" may be equal or even greater than the number of Bosniak men killed during the Srebrenica incident. Since both figures are disputed, it is almost impossible to know. However, it is no more likely that more Bosniak men were killed, therefore, that assumption must not be made! (There is much evidence against it, this being an entirely different argument.)

This act of "Ethnic Cleansing" against Serbs in surrounding villages is referred to in a section close to the end of the (too long to be an encyclopaedia) article. This is a major error, since this act of "Ethnic Cleansing" was one of the primary causes of the Srebrenica incident.

To downplay it, and almost leave it out of the article entirely, is to ignore that Srebrenica was an act of retaliation and an attempt to end the numerous attacks on Serbian villages by Bosniak forces.

3) I could go on, but this article is massive and full of factual and organizational errors. To dispute them all would take far too long.

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. It should definitely not be removed, since it is an important historical event, but it needs massive alterations.

Stop The Lies 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Stop the Lies, although I can agree that this article is not entirely NPOV, the problems are mainly related to wording and which information is presented and how, rather than the information as such. Its things like saying "guerilla-style counter attacks" when describing Bosniak military operations and "offensives" when describing Serb military operations, describing Serb villages as "military bases", saying that the UN "did not prevent the massacre", etc. My comments on your issues raised:

• numbers killed: the icty and most media cite somewhere between 7-8000. It can be argued that the figure is higher or lower, but that is beside the point.KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>Most media? Encyclopaedias aren't regurgitations of media claims, they are factual sources, meant to illustrate the truth regarding things such as historic events. That is why the fact that, (as you said) "it can be argued that the figure is higher or lower" is actually not beside the point, but rather, IS the point. Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The core policies of Wikipedia are clear that Wikipedia should only reproduce statements of other sources and that we do not strive to find the truth. For instance, Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in original). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As your source points out, you are right, Wikipedia does want the most popular belief on its pages. However, it is very unfortunate that there is a bias toward some sources and not others, and the deliberate attempts to turn previously legitimate sources into illegitimate ones (ex: General Mackenzie) leading to only the exposure of one limited point of view (in this case, a view with a political agenda), and therefore, to the demise of truth. Stop The Lies 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

• largest mass murder in Europe since WWII: regardless of wether the number killed is 7000 or 8000 the massacre certainly was the largest in Europe since WII. This is also how it is typically presented.KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>Once again, how things are "typically presented" are of no importance to an encyclopaedia. The truth is what is relevant. ==>If the number killed is slightly under 2000 as some sources claim (while providing evidence), then the 'massacre' ceases to be the "largest in Europe since WII". The fact that this cannot be disproved is a legitimate argument for the removal of such an arbitrary phrase. Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

There are very few reliable sources that claim a number under 2000. As Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>I agree that if a handful of people believed the world would end in a week, that view would not belong in Wikipedia. However, in a controversial topic such as the Srebrenica incident, I believe it is crucial to illustrate such a pressing view that HAS been reported by reliable sources, just not the hundreds available to the advocates of the Western agenda. Some are sadly not aware of the millions that went into hiring agencies to circulate propaganda about the entire Yugoslav War (the media attention surrounding the Srebrenica incident being part of it)... Stop The Lies 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

• ethnic cleansing: apart from the fact that the takeover of Srebrenica and the following massacre are examples of ethnic cleansing themselves, ethnic cleansing taking place prior to the June 1995 deserves to be mentioned in the article since it provides background to understanding the massacre. It is relevant background information.KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>Agreed Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

• ethnic cleansing of Serbs: I believe ethnic cleansing of Serbs in the Srebrenica region prior to the massacre is described in the article, as it also provides relevant background information to the massacre. Its relevance should be pointed out, since it is an often used explanation for the massacre (especially by Serb sources, but also by some 'western' media - again, remember that Wikipedia is about conveying how an issue is usually presented, not about original research).KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>Yes it is described. However (1) The section is too small when compared proportionally to the rest of the article (2) Portrayed as a controversy when there is sufficient evidence to state it as fact (more in fact, than there is to state the Srebrenica massacre as fact) and (3) it is placed at the end of the article, a MAJOR error. The section should be placed close to the front, not only because it occured before the Srebrenica incident, but because it is the primary cause of it. Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

• deniers: here I only agree to a certain extent. Yes, not all those who disagree with the "over 8000" number should be dubbed "genocide deniers". Certainly, there are those who absolutely deny that any massacre took place at all. To me, "Genocide deniers" is a label applied to a group by its opponents in a debate, and therefore POV/inappropriate. Better to describe the debate which has taken place (and maybe still is taking place) regarding the massacre. Maybe under a heading like "Srebrenica massacre debate".KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>There are 4 different takes on the Srebrenica incident: (1) It happened, and the numbers claimed by this article are correct (2) It happened, but the numbers stated by this article are incorrect because they do not have sufficient supporting evidence and are, therefore, arbitrary (3) It happened, but the numbers stated by this article are incorrect because they have been proven lower, and (4) It did not happen. ==>As one can see, there are two cases where one can argue that the figures presented are incorrect, yet that same person fully agrees the event took place. Going by other Wikipedia articles containing controversial topics, an (in my opinion) appropriate, neutral, and objective heading is commonly: "Controversy Regarding ___ " or "Controversy Surrounding ___ " etc. Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Remember, Wikipedia is about presenting the common understanding of an issue, rather than original research (truth) about it. KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==> I disagree. What is the point of having facts presented, when they may not be facts at all but common fallacies or mass misconceptions? Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Stop The Lies, again, the point is that Wikipedia is not the place to 'set history right'. It is not about 'original research' but about the common view. However, if there is a considerable minority view, as in this case, these should also be presented (in a NPOV way). All major sources use the 7000 to 8000 killed figure, state that there was considerable ethnic cleansing (on both sides, but primarily of Bosniaks). Many sources site it as the largest mass murder in European history since WWII.

==>Once again, I strongly disagree. For example, the "common view" in the United States was (and could still be) that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (due to propaganda/media to get support for the war, etc, we all know the story). That is an example of a "common view" I would strongly disapprove being displayed on Wikipedia, much like the "common view" that 8000 Bosniak men were killed in Srebrenica and that this is only disputed by radicals and "deniers".

==>If encyclopaedias were filled with "common viewpoints" they would be absolute trash.

==>And please stop reducing the truth to meagre "original research". Original research is something that "discovered" the "pyramids of Bosnia" heh (I'm not sure if you've heard of that disaster).

==>But let us stop, we have made our views clear and obviously neither of us is going to convice the other. Stop The Lies 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

What I think is wrong with the article is that it in many cases is POV in its selection of the facts and how it presents them.KarlXII 12:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>You are right, that is a major error. Stop The Lies 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Scorpions

I am removing:

"In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre."

For the following reasons:

(1) Its reference does not claim that. This is a quote from the reference:

"The indictment alleges that “Special units of the Republic of Serbia DB [state security] under the control of Stanisic and Simatovic, including Red Berets and Scorpions participated in [an] attack” by the Bosnian Serb army in July 1995 on the Muslim enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa."

(2) It is an allegation that has not been proven.

It should NOT be changed to: "In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, it is alleged that special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre."

Because: If that is included in the introductory paragraph, then the following should be included in the introductory paragraph: "It is alleged that the number of Bosniak males killed could be as low as 2000." As well as plenty of other 'allegations'. Stop The Lies 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I agree with the anon. user who states that Wiki isn't a courtroom where only events established by international court judgements can be included. It would certainly appear that the Scorpions were present at the time of the massacre. However, while it seems clear that the Scorpions did indeed participate, it is not clear that they were under the command of Serbia or if they were controlled by the Bosnian Serbs. This IWPR article goes into quite a bit of depth on the issue, saying:

The question that will necessarily arise at the tribunal, should the tape showing the executions be admitted into evidence, is under whose command the Scorpions operated in the summer of 1995 when they are alleged to have killed the six Muslim men and boys in Trnovo. The prosecution at the tribunal claim that the Milosevic-led Serbian security authorities were in charge of the unit, while the former Belgrade leader has insisted that it was under the control of the Croatian Serb authorities.

According to IWPR sources, the Scorpions at the time of the atrocity were formally part of the 11th Corps of the VRSK, the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina, the self-proclaimed Croatian Serb statelet.

Medic, in testimony given a few years ago in a case involving one of his former comrades, said the Scorpions unit was formed in 1991, initially to provide security for the eastern Slovonian oil fields. He added that in 1996 it became a reserve unit in the Serbian Public Security Service Special Anti-Terrorist Unit, SAJ.

This was confirmed last week at the Milosevic trial, when witness General Obrad Stevanovic, the former Serbian assistant interior minister, told the court that “the earliest point that [the Scorpions] could have been [subordinated to the Serbian interior ministry] would have been after the end of the war in Krajina, after mid 1996 or perhaps slightly earlier [that year]”.

A recently published report by the Serbian organised crime department into links between the Scorpions and the Belgrade authorities says that the paramilitary unit did not come under the command of the SAJ until March 1999.

Although the Scorpions may have been directly controlled by VRSK military chiefs, there’s evidence that the paramilitaries had links with the security establishment in Belgrade, especially at the time it was created.

In conclusion, it would appear to be pushing it to label the Scorpions as "special state security forces of Serbia" as it implies that they were indeed under Serbian state control while this is far from an established fact.KarlXII 11:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out the reference to the Scorpions being "special state security forces of Serbia" as that appears not to be settled. Please see the discussion on this IWPR article I mentioned above.

One could even argue, as Jitse Niesen has done earlier, that if the Scorpions thing is to be mentioned in the lead article it should also be discussed in the main text of the article, which it is not, as far as I can see. That would also give room for a more detailed discussion about who was in control of the Scorpions at the time of the massacre. I will propose a text, OK?KarlXII 09:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

for the record

I just made two edits to the article while forgetting to sign in. The two recent edits by 216.7.9.34 are me. However, when checking the IP I see that not all edits by 216.7.9.34 are by me. I see three edits from Nov. 20 and 30 that are not me. The IP address is from a cafe with wireless for its customers. Fairview360 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed issues

Below is a list of disputed issues in the article. I've added my explanations for them.

1. the is still considerable disagreement on the status of the Scorpions, while they were from Serbia, it is not clear that they were present in Srebrenica under Serbian command. This is what the IWPR article I referred to above deals with. Read it. - as a compromise/olive branch I have now proposed calling the Scorpioins "a Serb paramilitary unit"KarlXII 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC). Calling them "Serb" or "Serbian" rather than "Bosnian Serb" does indicate that they are from Serbia. "paramilitary unit from Serbia" could work. I've now changed the text to "members of a Serbian paramilitary unit". This seems a good compromise given the above.KarlXII 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
2. describing Oric's attacks as "counter-offensives" and "guerilla-style" rather than as plain "offensives" is POV. It's as if the VRS attacks would be referred to as "counter-offensives"
3. regarding the medals to the Dutch peacekeepers, there's no need to insert personal comments such as "even though they did nothing to prevent the massacre" It should really be enough to say that the UN had declared this a "safe area" and that 400 UN peacekeepers were present at the time. That they did not prevent the massacre is quite obviuos since it happened. As to why, again, it's better to expand on this in a separate section, perhaps in the "Analysis" section.KarlXII 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
4. McKenzie quote: He appears to be one of the most vocal/best known 'Western critics'. KarlXII 13:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) As for saying that he was "paid by the Serb lobby" because he (allegedly) received a lecture fee is POV. In that case a lot of other sources should labelled as "Bosniak-controlled", "controlled by the Bosnian government" or "a pro-Bosnian group" etc. Placing MacKenzie in the Revisionism section should be enough.
5. I've reworked the Revisionist section, stating that it contains everything from outright deniers to those who claim that considerably fewer than 8000 were executed. I've split it into two sections - one for Serb and one for Western critics/revisionists.KarlXII 12:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
6. "estimated vs at least": most sources cite 7-8000 killed or just "estimated" 8000 killed. The Enc. Britannica cites "more than 7,000"[1], CNN says "up to 8000"[2] and the BBC says "more than 7,000 Muslim men are thought to have been killed"[3]. So, "an estimated 8000" seems pretty good.KarlXII 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Also, the 8,300 figure by the Commissino of Missing Persons includes all those unaccounted for, ie also people who disappeared (ie were killed) before the main attack on the enclave as well as those in the column to Tuzla who died in 'combat'. Please see the list below with the figures as they are cited by major sources.KarlXII 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
7. POV tag: quite obviously the neutrality of this article under its present form is disputed, which qualifies it for a POV tag.KarlXII 09:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Further reading section: this should contain links to some of the most established books/works on the subject. This should probably include the ICTY judgement against Krstic, the NIOD report as well as Rohde's Endgame. This is even more important in such a politically charged topic as this. Therefore, including links to an obscure book and to one in Dutch, is not appropriate. KarlXII 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
9. copyright issues: after reviewing the archives of the Talk pages it seems large parts of the text concerning the massacre are/were a cut and paste job from the ICTY judgement against Krstic, has this been rectified? What about the images, what is the status of the rights on them?

Fview, you didn't explain your accross the board revision. See above for the other issues (which you also deleted). As for the Scorpions, yes, theye were from Serbia, but it's far fro mclear that they acted in Srebrenica under Serbian govt control, which the wording you propose insinuates. Why don't you expand on it somewhere in the main article? This is, after all, just a lead text.KarlXII 13:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And you Karl73 have not responded to this from the "Unprofor" section : To clarify, KarlXII now says he would be "happy with" the following statement from the BBC: "A Dutch battalion of UN peacekeepers (Dutchbat) failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims when the town was overrun by Serb forces in 1995." Therefore, if "they" refers to the Dutch Battalion, KarlXII would be "happy with" the statement "They failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims." Given that "killing 7,000 Muslims" is a massacre, KarlXII would presumably be comfortable with the statement: "They failed to prevent the massacre." Given that that statement conveys the massacre as being the direct result of the Dutch Battalion's failure, one would think that KarlXII would prefer the more forgiving factual statement: "They did not prevent the massacre." But no, KarlXII strongly disagrees with that statement. (memories of Osli73). Fairview360 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Fairview360 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been over all of this before, Osli. Live Forever 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, people, I didn't participate in this debate too actively, but "being here before" is not a particularly appealing reason without pinpointing where particularly, and I find Fairview's reply confusing and fairly ad hominem—while KarlXII likely is Osli73, that doesn't change the arguments, as Osli was not banned from this article. There are 6 points raised by Karl (and AFAICT a new link to a IWPR article concerning Scorpions) and I'd really like them addressed either directly or via links to older discussions. I think that three of you (and perhaps few more editors) are generally doing a good job on the article, despite occasional POV clashes, and I'd be sad to see an edit war without talk. Duja► 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

#1 Osli73 is on probation. If Osli73 is using a sockpuppet to circumvent that probation, that is quite relevant. It would be grounds for permanently banning KarlXII and extending Osli73's probation.

#2 Osli73/KarlXII is agreeing with the BBC statement that the Dutch failed to prevent the massacre and then at the same time deleting the statement "they did not prevent the massacre". Yes, it is confusing since the edits and the line of argument are not consistent.

#3 I do not have time to go in circles with Osli73/KarlXII as I did earlier this summer, therefore I am limiting most of my discussion and edits to the introduction. Fairview360 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OMG, my head hurts when looking at the diffs... Guess I'll follow the wise advice above. Duja► 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I've been invited here - but I don't really understand what am I asked to do. Since I am inactive, I'm afraid I'll require direct questions. --PaxEquilibrium 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pax, since Nov 21, you have made over 500 edits. In the last two days, you have made over 100 edits. What do you mean when you say that you are "inactive"? Fairview360 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview, instead of answering any of my comments above you are simply ignoring them or making up excuses for not having to discuss them.

1. yes, the Scorpions were from Serbia, though it is not at all clear that they were acting on behalf of the state of Serbia in Srebrenica. Please, read the IWPR article on this topic.
2. I deleted a reference to a dead link, what's wrong with that?
3. I'm simply asking that Oric's attacks not be described as "guerilla-style" "counter-attacks", when "offensives" is a much more NPOV term used elsewhere in the article
4. about the Dutch peacekeepers, yes, they did nothing to prevent the massacre because they were completely outgunned and outnumbered. The wording you are proposing implies that the Dutch peacekeepers didn't want to stop the massacre. Oric and the Bosniak forces in Srebrenica also didn't do anything to prevent the massacre, should we state that as well? However, I'm fine with saying that the UN did not prevent the massacre (if it could even reasonably be expected to have anticipated that it would happen). That's why I'm proposing the NPOV term "their presence did not prevent the massacre". What's wrong/objectionable about that?
5. what was wrong with the "Serb casualties" section? What was there to object about it? Instead you are proposing a very POV text.
6. why can't the MacKenzie quote be in there? He is certainly one of the more well known Western critics? The article is certainly full of quotes from others. Why not this one?

Please, answer these questions instead of just saying that you don't need to discuss. KarlXII 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am focusing on the introduction. I will leave it to the other editors to do this dance with you regarding the rest of the article. Since your approach and desired edits are identical to Osli73's, you can easily see my response to your thoughts and edits by reading the archives. Fairview360 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

About "motivations" for the massacre: Shouldn't the new state project, and the significance of capturing Srebrenica and the other enclaves in order to achieve an ethnically homogenous Bosnian-Serb state along side the Drina also be mentioned as well?

The fact that the municipalities of Bratunac, Zvornik, and Vlasenica were already cleansed of their Bosniak population, and that population already subjected to massacres & mass murder in spring 1992 (before any significant Bosniak/ABiH "counter offenses" "raids" "offenses" "guerilla attacks" "forays" (whatever term people want to use)took place is not insignificant.

About MacKenzie quote. *If* the quote & reference in kept in the article, I also think that it is important that the fact that he took money from a Serbian interest group also be referenced as well. It serves no one to try to portray him, despite his UNPROFOR credentials as an "objective" or "neutral" observer as the article does. I have some quotes regarding the General, if you want to see them.

(This hasn't been discussed yet.)

About Mladic's quote "Mladic recognized genocide..." It should be moved up to the ethnic cleansing section of the article, because the meeting where the quote was uttered took place on May 12th, 1992. Not, right before the massacre in July 1995, as the article implies.

Therefore, I think that Mladic's statement needs to be moved up to the Ethnic Cleansing section. Bosnia's Accidental Genocide Article

Gardenfli 04:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Anger over Dutch Srebrenica medal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6207254.stm --HanzoHattori 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my edits/Serb casualty section

Explaining my edits:

I'm brand new to using Wikipedia; although I have followed the Srebrenica article for quite sometime. If inadvertently violate some wikipedia ettiquette or format, I do apologize. Anyway, I want to explain the edit that I made on the section regarding Serb casualties (although, I'm not sure if it necessary for me to do so).

The original statement stated that there were 1,200 civilian casualties including men of military age.

However, the exact quote from which that statement is referenced to HRW: Oric's two yearssays: "...Milivoje Ivanisevic (the president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbian People), uses the significantly lower figure, of “more than 1,000 persons [who] died,” and contains the list, mostly made of men of military age. Among those killed, there were evidently a significant number of Bosnian Serb soldiers who died in the fighting, like in Kravica."

Therefore according to the HRW article that was referenced: the 1,200 number includes both civilian and military casualties. With a significant number of the casualty list being fighters.

I (or someone else) do probably need to edit the line for flow, and it may be too similar to the sentence used in the HRW article.,. But, the main point is that according to the HRW article, the Ivanisevic number includes both civilian & military casualties, with a "significant" number of casualties being military.

Again, I realize it is not necessary for me to explain this edit, but given the constroversy that this article has caused, and the ocassional fighting that takes place, and the fact that I'm brand new to this article, I figure that I should do so.

Secondly, although I did not edit this point: the various sources quoted in the ICTY Press Briefing does not say one way or another that the victim list were all civilian or not. For example it states 995 Serb victims from the Bratunac-Srebrenica area. Not 995 civilians as mentioned in the wiki article. Of course, if the ICTY article did specifically say that all 995 victims were civilians, I would have no problem saying that all 995 casualties were civilians, if the ICTY article said so, but it does not. Gardenfli 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gardenfli, welcome. Yes, I agree that if MacKenzie is going to be given airtime in this article, his having been paid by nationalist Serb lobby groups should also be mentioned. I have always wondered why ManKenzie is so beholden to nationalist Serbs. It may be that his personal conduct during the war witnessed by nationalist Serbs puts him a position of being blackmailed. I do not consider him to be a reliable source. With that said, I am concentrating on edits that I am willing to put my time into defending. I am concentrating mostly on the intro. In regards to my most recent intro edit, the Serbia MUP commander Franko Simatovic boasted on film to Milosevic how well his soldiers were fighting in Bosnia and Croatia. There is no question that units from Serbia MUP were deeply involved in the wars in Bosnia and Serbia. Fairview360 05:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Gardenfli, A couple of comments to the above discussion:

1. The ICTY press briefing does differentiate between "victims" and "casualties", with the former only encompassing civilians. It seems fair enough that this article should do the same. However, if pushed too far some could then argue that since that several thousand of the Bosniak men killed in the Srebrenica massacre were soldiers breaking out towards Tuzla these people should not be labelled "victims" but "casualties", etc.
2. MacKenzie, I've never seen any other media introducing MacKenzie as having been paid by any "natinalist Serb lobby". Why should this Wiki article do that? It is precisely this type of labelling which makes the article POV. I'm sure Serb nationalists would think it appropriate that the UN General Assembly statement on the role of the Bosniak forces on the ground be accompanied by a comment about how many muslims countries voted for this or state that the Research and Documentation Centre has been sponsored by NATO countries, etc, etc.
3. Regarding the Scorpions, well, see my comment above. Basically, yes, no one challenges that they were from Serbia, but it is far from clear that they were present in Srebrenica on behalf of the Serbian government. This is what the IWPR article mentions.

KarlXII 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Karl. Thank you for the welcome.

We will probably never know the exact number of Serbs (both military & civilian) killed in the Srebrenica-Bratunac-Skelani(sp) area. Just as we will never know the exact number of Bosniaks (both military & civilians) killed from the same period in 1992-1993, after the initial ethnic cleansing in the spring of 1992, and before the Safe Area was declared.

I am not denying that there weren't any Serb civilian casualties, murders in the area.

However, there does seem to be some problems with how the article presents the casualties.

As I explained in my previous edit, according to the HRW article, which is referenced in regards to the Ivanisevic casualty total, the number 1,200 includes both military & civilian casualties; not just civilians.

The exact quote from HRW is:

However, the book Hronike nasih grobalja (Chronicles of Our Graveyards) by the Serb historian Milivoje Ivanisevic (the president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbian People), uses the significantly lower figure, of “more than 1,000 persons [who] died,” and contains the list, mostly made of men of military age. Among those killed, there were evidently a significant number of Bosnian Serb soldiers who died in the fighting, like in Kravica.

Therefore, the Ivanisevic number clearly includes both non-combatants, and combatant deaths in the overall total. Presenting all 1,200 victims as being civilians is misleading.

Secondly, I'm wondering if the section explaining Serb casualties won't be more logical in the section about the "fight over Srebrenica." ? (since that is the period of time in question).

Just a suggestion. It seems much more logical. Gardenfli 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gardenfli,

1. Number of Serb casualties: I don't put much store in the Ivanisevic numbers to begin with. Certainly the ICTY/Carla del Ponte doesn't. I honestly haven't given that much thought. As for the 2,000 estimate quoted by del Ponte, you were right to include that that included both civilians and military.
2. Location of section: I guess the logic for the current location of the Serb casualties section in the article is that it's not directly related to the massacre as such but is an issue of contention related to the massacre.
3. A question: the article is quite long. Do you have any ideas for condensing the text? As much of the description of the massacre appears to be a direct cut-n-paste job from the ICTY judgement against Krstic and should probably be rewritten anyway - would you be prepared to give that a try?
4. Scorpions: although everyone agrees that the Scorpions is a Serbian paramilitary unit and was present (or at least some of them) in Srebrenica, it's not clear whether or not they were there under the command or knowledge of the Serbian military/state. Currently, the Scorpions are mentioned in the intro but not anywhere else in the article. I've suggested that this might be added in the analysis section. Would you be willing to help out there (I think it would be much better if this was a common project, to reduce the conflict level)?

KarlXII 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Karl,

I never said I had much faith in Ivanisevic's number. My edit had nothing to do with Ivanisevic, it was with how the HRW article was used. The original quote stated (citing the HRW article) that there were 1,200 civilian casualties, when the article did not say that at all.

Gardenfli 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gardenfli,

Ivanisevic numbers: if the article misquoted the HRW report, I think it's great that you corrected it.

KarlXII 09:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Serbian paramilitary unit" is moot again. To my knowledge, they were a mixed bag of "volunteers" from many sides; see the trial in Belgrade records. Duja► 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Duja,

I'm trying to propose some kind of compromise between saying they were just a bunch of volunteers and that they were under orders of the Serbian government. Saying "Serbian paramilitary unit" makes it clear that they were from Serbia but doesn't say, or imply, anything about whether or not their status was official or not. Again, I recommend that this is expanded on in the articles main text.KarlXII 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

MacKenzie

Roy Gutman's "Witness to Genocide" includes an entire chapter on MacKenzie, specifically mentioning the fact that he was paid by a Serbian interest group. The information is also cited in Norman Cigar's "Genocide in Bosnia" book.

The fact that MacKenzie took money from a Serbian interest group is not in dispute or up to debate. It has been cited many times. Next time I go to the library, I'll try to find the specific quotes, with page numbers, publisher's information, etc. referenced.

I also have several paraphrases from MacKenzie's testimony, which shows very clearly his lack of objectivity.

(All of this is from Gutman's Witness to Genocide) pg. 172: "In his testimony before the House Committee, MacKenzie argued for the creation of a small Muslim state in central Bosnia, while the Croats and Serbs get their respective wishes for Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia."

In April (no year is given, I'm guessing 1993). He visited Karadzic in Belgrade. MacKenzie claimed the visit was just to help secure passage of Canadian troops.

3. 170: According to George Kenney, a US State Department official (who resigned from office in protest of the US's Bosnia policy)

officials there frequently were unable to find any factual basies for MacKenzie's statements alleging that government forces were firing at their own civilians.

4. 172: MacKenzie appeared as the main "celebrity" in the SerbNet film titled "Truth Is the Victim in Bosnia."

(Quotes are as they are quoted in the book, parenthesis are mine).

If we keep the MacKenzie quote in, and we keep the fact of him being an UNPROFOR general (which rightly or wrongly does give him an aura of "objectivity" we should also include info about him taking money from a Serbian interest group based in the US. Again, it is a fact.

I'm sure there are other people other than MacKenzie that we can use. But, I don't understand why people refuse to even put a quote in about MacKenzie taking money from the Serbian lobby based in the US.

Gardenfli 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gardenfli, Obviously, Mackenzie is not a "friend of Bosnia" (ie the Bosniaks). In the samw way, Gutman and a lot of other sources used here are very much "friends of Bosnia" (which is probably why he insits on painting MacKenzie as being paid by Serb nationalists). Are you familiar with the bogus rape story put out by the Bosniak government during the war to discredit MacKenzie? Obviously, they're not friend. So;

1. Is it necessary to state the leanings of all of the sources cited?
2. It's very unlikely that the views which he has expressed are the result of being "paid by" Serb groups. It's more likely a normal lecture fee.

KarlXII 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

MacKenzie himself acknowledges that he has been paid by Serb lobby groups. The rape story is as bogus as MacKenzie's claim that far fewer people were killed in Srebrenica. Actually, MacKenzie's claim is more bogus since the evidence proves him wrong. People do not simply disappear into thin air. If this article is going to give credence to his demonstrably false claims, if the standard of the article is going to be lowered such, then it is equally acceptable for editors to include the allegations against MacKenzie. I believe that both his demonstrably false claims and the rape allegations should not be in this article. Fairview360 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The payment which MacKenzie apparently (I haven't seen any source) received was, as far as I understood, a normal lecture fee. There is nothing to imply that his views are not his own. Lots of other sources, cited here, have been paid by or supported by various groups with an interest in the conflict.

• If any mention of MacKenzie is to be preceeded by a statement that he was paid by a Serb nationalist lobby, then the same principle should apply to all other sources as well.
• Placing MacKenzies claim/views in the Revisionism section should mean most readers understand that they are far from the consensus.

KarlXII 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview, The reason MacKenzie's views should be presented in the article is not because they are correct (which they're not, in my opinion) but because he represents one point of view. Putting his quotes in the Revisionist section make it pretty clear for the reader that he does not represent the mainstream point of view. It's not about setting things right, but about presenting the commonly held views on the subject.KarlXII 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As Osli73 before, KarlXII is arguing in circles. According to KarlXII, MacKenzie's false claims should be included in the article because they represent "one point of view". However, KarlXII, at the same time, argues that claims MacKenzie succumbed to temptation and accepted offers of enslaved prostitutes from nationalist Serbs should not be included in the article because they are false. And then KarlXII accuses others of not engaging in good faith discussions. All the while, it does appear that Osli73 has circumvented his probation by recreating himself as KarlXII... with a different computer of course... thereby demonstrating the bane of wikipedia. Fairview360 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview,

1. It is quite apparent that there are alternative / revisionist views of the Srebrenica massacre. It would seem normal for an article on the massacre to mention these views
2. MacKenzie is one of the proponents of such 'revisionist' views
3. If we are going to condition all opinions expressed in the article by things like "enslaved prostitutes" of "nationalist Serbs" then we should apply the same principle to all other sources as well - which obviously does not make sense.
4. Placing MacKenzie's views in the "Revisionism" section should be enough to help the reader understand the nature of his views.

KarlXII 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

slight correction "Surrendering"

ETA: I didn't correct this yet. I'm just bringing this up, because it is something that needs to be corrected sooner or later.:The wikipedia article states: On April 13, 1993, the Serbs told the UNHCR that they would attack the town within two days unless the Bosniaks surrendered. The Bosniaks refused to surrender.

The first line about the VRS attack is true. However, according to the book "The Death of Yugoslavia" the second part about the Bosniak forces refusing to surrender is not true.

According to the book:

On April 12th 1993 the VRS launched an intense attack on the town that killed approxemently 56 people; including children playing on the football field.

(Source: Yugoslavia Death of a Nation, by Laura Silber and Allan Little pg. 269)

On April 14th the Srebrenica authorities asked that a message be smuggle out to the UNPROFOR headquarters in Belgrade.

Quote: "The Commander told me that they had decided to surrender. He said it was not simply the shelling in the center of the town but that their defensive lines had collapsed. They looked desperate and finished." (Source: Yugoslavia Death of a Nation, by Laura Silber and Allan Little pg. 271)

On April 16th Mladic, Sefer Halilovic and a Cedric Thornberry met to discuss the surrender and mass evacuation of Srebrenica.

(Source: Silber and Little pg 272)

The evacuation of Srebrenica in 1993 never took place, because just the previous night (April 15th) the UN had declared Srebrenica a safe area. The Safe Area agreement was: 1. Serb forces were not requied to pull back from their achieved lines 2. A ceasefire was agreed in effect at 5:00 A.M 3. The Bosnian Gov't forces would be disarmed and provided for the deployment of 140 Canadian troops to collect weapons. 4. The Serbs agreed to allow the helicopter evacuation of 500 wounded. These would be selected by UNPROFOR in the presence of two doctors from both sides. 5. All helicopters would be required to stop in the Serb held town of Zvornik, regardless of the condition of the wounded. (Silber and Little page 273)

Therfore, it does appear as if the ABiH was preparing to surrender. Furthermore, the line about the ABiH "refusing to surrender" as it is stated in the article, is not even sourced. Gardenfli 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Vandalism! Stop the Lies!

Who changed 'estimated' to 'at least' in the opening sentence????! That link provided is a link to the official SARAJEVO list..... .... .... I'm sure that's not biased! I'm not even going to bother changing it..

I'm so sick of this article... I give up.

WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE WAR WAS HORRIBLE (referring to Bosnian War)

BOTH SIDES COMMITTED ATROCITIES

BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY

BOTH SIDES ARE VICTIMS

But goddamit, people have to stop spreading garbage about what happened, or the two sides will NEVER get beyond ugly nationalism and hate that keeps them from being the friends they one were....

One last comment: This entire article is based on a biased portrayal of what happened in Srebrenica in the form of a film. If films like this keep getting made, that not only portray one side of the story, but also make up stories and exaggerate claims (such as casualty counts), then HATE WILL PREVAIL and many people will be misinformed due to BIASED accounts... but most importantly... two peoples who should love each other, and take care of each other, and watch each others backs, and eat burek together, and go to Bijelo Dugme concerts together.... will only sit on opposite sides of the fence... waiting for the next opportunity to strike...

What a sad world... Only the truth will unite Bosnians and Serbs... Spread the truth, Stop the lies... I'm done with this article. Stop The Lies 08:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

No need for POV status as all info presented is accurate

Srebrenica genocide info/references are overhelmingly tied to the ICTY court judgments etc, and there is no need for POV status. Obviously, some people want to disrupt the truth from seeing light, but thanks to Wikipedia's anti-vandalism and anti-edit-war policy, the article is slowly (but steadily) becoming better. The point is - there is no need for destruction of article, and admins must deal with people such as KarlXII. There is no reason to let those people continue their vandalism, deletion of whole paragraphs, edit wars, etc. It's such a disruption and it must be changed. Lock the article, do something, don't let vandalism prevail. Thank you. Bosniak 09:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter if the information is accurate or not, it is a matter of how it is presented and what information is presented. See my list of disputed issues above and you will get a feeling for what it's about.KarlXII 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"estimated 8000" vs "at least 8000" killed

I advocate using "an estimated 8000" instead of "at least 8000" killed. Why? Estimates seem to vary between 7000 to more than 8000. Thus the word "an estimated 8000" seems fair. Here are some examples:

1. "Accounting for Genocide: How Many Were Killed in Srebrenica?", European Journal of Population, Sept. 2003. It concludes that "We conclude that at least 7,475 persons were killed after the fall of Srebrenica." [4] and [5]
2. HRW ("“Safe Areas” for Srebrenica’s Most Wanted; A Decade of Failure to Apprehend Karadzic and Mladic, June 2005) uses ther words "between 7,000 and 8,000" [6]
3. The Enclyclopedia Britannica says "more than 7,000" http[://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9403267/Bosnia-and-Herzegovina]
4. CNN referst to "up to 8,000" ("Srebrenica: 'A triumph of evil'", May 2006)[7]
5. BBC writes "more than 7,000" ("Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica")[8]
6. Domovina.net cites "Around 8000" ("Srebrenica : Introduction", May 2002)[9]
7. NIOD report writes that "The Yugoslavia Tribunal concluded that between 7000 and 8000 men were executed, although this does not allow for the possibility that some will have died during the march for any of a number of other reasons. Based on the Bosnian Serb figure of approximately 6000 'prisoners of war' captured by the VRS, it seems that of the 7500 missing persons, approximately 6000 faced execution while the others met their end through some other cause." (NIOD report, Part IV, Chapter 2:20, "Review")[10]
8. ICTY in its judgement against Krstic writes "between 7,000 – 8,000" (ICTY, April 2004, para. 2)[11]

So, based on the above it would seem that "more than 7000" or "between 7-8000" are the most commonly cited figures and that, therefore, "an estimated 8000" would be a good wording. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place for Original research. This has nothing to do with "relativization" or any such thing. It is about presenting the facts as stated by reliable and respectable resources. Consistently pushing for higher figures is "politicization" (see what wikipedia is not: a soap box).KarlXII 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Compare this statement with the statement about MacKenzie. KarlXII/Osli73, you are such a chameleon. Now you say "It is about presenting the facts as stated by reliable and respectable resources." For all your posturing, you do not have the intellectual nor moral highground. When it suits your purposes, you are constantly trying to give unreputable sources as much credibility as you can get away with. And then you object to describing women forcibly taken from their homes and forced into prostitution as "enslaved prostitutes". What would you describe them as, "consenting sex workers who have undergone an aggressive recruitment"? And now you want to go in circles about how to describe the likes of Seselj, Karadzic, Mladic, and Milosevic? Who the hell are you to claim that you care about Serbs and Serbia and then try to dilute the language such that the above mentioned men are only described as "Serbs"? They are not representative of Serbs. They are representative of a radical nationalist fringe that has held Serbia captive for way too long. They do not represent all Serbs. For the sake of the citizens of Serbia and those of Serbian culture, we must make a distinction. We must be clear that nationalist Serbs do not represent all Serbs. No wonder people simply get sick of you. Fairview360 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview, what are you talking about?

1. what "posturing" and "moral high ground" are you talking about?
2. who are these "enslaved prostitutes" you are talking about and when did I even mention (or not mention) them?
3. in what way am I going in "circles" about Seselj, Karadzic, Mladic and Milosevic?
4. have I ever claimed that I "care about Serbs and Serbia"?

The only people who seem to get sick of me are nationalists (such as yourself) who are unable to carry on a civilized discussion.KarlXII 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. 2. It is a prime example of your posturing when you rhetorically ask when did you mention "enslaved prostitutes" when you wrote those very same words -- "enslaved prositutes" -- the same day in a previous comment. Of course you remember.

3. You are characterizing describing anyone as a "nationalist Serb" as POV language. So how does one make the distinction between all Serbs and those such as Seselj, Karadzic, Mladic, and Milosevic?

4 OK. I stand corrected Osli73/KarlXII has never expressed any concern for Serbs or any other citizen of the former Yugoslavia.

Lastly, characterizing me as unable to carry on a civilized conversation is another example of posturing on your part. I'll now return to responding to proposed edits at face value. Fairview360 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The 8,300 figure referred to by Emir Arven and quoted in the article is a total for the number of people confirmed missing in the region of Srebrenica. This includes also people killed in combat during the trek to Tuzla or even before the main attack on the enclave as well as other people who have just not been accounted for. KarlXII 20:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If no one can come up with any/a number of credible and well known sources using a figure above 8000 then I propose that we change the text back to "an estimated 8000".KarlXII 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There obviously is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding this number. I would advocate using 8000 because 8300 implies a level of precision that simply isn't there. Some have estimated 7000, others have estimated as high as 10,000. Also, for general impact of the article, 8000 vs. 8300 isn't substantially different. The point is that its the largest case of genocide in Europe since WWII. If a respected third party report (eg. US Government, Red Cross, UN etc...) can be cited to give a harder number, I'd be all for using it, but in the absence of such a source, I think "approximately 8000" or "an estimated 8000" is the correct language to use. Mgunn 12:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Given all the evidence at this point given by reliable sources, either "at least 8000" or "an estimated 8000" is, I believe acceptable. However, I believe it puts the article on more solid ground to say "an estimated 8,000". There are examples of credible sources saying "at least 8000" (see archives). However an estimated 8000 is far more common. The introductory paragraph gives the number of confirmed missing or killed (8,373) so the reader is given all the information they need to reach a conclusion about the actual number killed as a result of the massacre. Fairview360 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck happenned to all the images?

Can someone give a justification for what happenned? Mgunn 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the edit history. The images were removed because they were copyright violations. —Psychonaut 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are too many photos in the article. I just removed one, but I wonder why all of these photos are here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Four comments:

• A number of the images are quite obviously from a television program called "TV P1".
• A large number of the other images are also very likely from various news agencies (AP, etc).
• It would be nice to have some confirmation that their use here is legitimate and does not break any copyright issues
• I agree, the article does feel a bit overloaded with images. Less is more!

KarlXII 09:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a lot of different uploaders of the TV screenshots, which have been slated for speedy deletion by someone else. Most of the memorial photos look free, but it doesn't hurt to check them out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just had to remove a few pictures of the memorial since, on the Commons (where I admin at), the photos were determined not to be created by the uploader. However, I found [12] which could be used under a public domain license (as a photo of the US Government). Would this work? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news

Serbian War Criminal Prosecutor, Vladimir Vukcevic admitted that Scorpions were part of Serbian Security Foreces which participated in genocide. He said that it is impossible to deny that fact. Here is the video interview for Bosnian TV (click "11.12.2006." for watching in the following page: [13]). Emir Arven 19:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the link Emir Arven. I do not speak Bosnian. Can you summerize the main points/quotes? I'm currently trying to look up information about the Scoprions as well. Human Rights Watch recently published a document on the Milosevic trial, and the involvement of some of the state security apparatus in the war in Bosnia. However, on a very cursory glance at the paper, I only found one reference to the Scorpions. I do however have some quotes etc. about the particpation of the JNA, and Serbian MUP in the ethnic cleansing of E. Bosnia, especially in 1992-1993 including the Srebrenica area (Bratunac-Srebrenica-Zvornik-Vlasencia (sp?) ) Gardenfli 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gardenfli, while it seems clear that the Scorpions were formally a unit of the Serbian military police it is absolutely not clear under who's orders and under who's control they were active in Srebrenica. This IWPR article goes into quite a bit of depth on the issue, saying:

The question that will necessarily arise at the tribunal, should the tape showing the executions be admitted into evidence, is under whose command the Scorpions operated in the summer of 1995 when they are alleged to have killed the six Muslim men and boys in Trnovo. The prosecution at the tribunal claim that the Milosevic-led Serbian security authorities were in charge of the unit, while the former Belgrade leader has insisted that it was under the control of the Croatian Serb authorities.

According to IWPR sources, the Scorpions at the time of the atrocity were formally part of the 11th Corps of the VRSK, the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina, the self-proclaimed Croatian Serb statelet.

Medic, in testimony given a few years ago in a case involving one of his former comrades, said the Scorpions unit was formed in 1991, initially to provide security for the eastern Slovonian oil fields. He added that in 1996 it became a reserve unit in the Serbian Public Security Service Special Anti-Terrorist Unit, SAJ.

This was confirmed last week at the Milosevic trial, when witness General Obrad Stevanovic, the former Serbian assistant interior minister, told the court that “the earliest point that [the Scorpions] could have been [subordinated to the Serbian interior ministry] would have been after the end of the war in Krajina, after mid 1996 or perhaps slightly earlier [that year]”.

A recently published report by the Serbian organised crime department into links between the Scorpions and the Belgrade authorities says that the paramilitary unit did not come under the command of the SAJ until March 1999.

In conclusion, it would appear to be pushing it to label the Scorpions as "special state security forces of Serbia" as it implies that they were indeed under Serbian state control while this is far from established.KarlXII 09:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview, I agree, "from Serbia" is clearer than just "Serbian". As for expanding on this in the article, do you have any suggestions for a good text? In that case the Wiki article which deals with them (I believe I saw a reference to one in the archives) should be adjusted accordingly. The "Scorpions" in this text should also be linked to that article.KarlXII 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)