Talk:Srebrenica massacre

• /Archive1: Discussions from 2004
• /Archive2: The Role of the Drina Corps in the Srebrenica Crimes
• /Archive3: US resolution
• /Archive4: Discussions from January – July 2005
• /Archive5: Discussions from August – December 2005

Links

There is a person who is persistantly trying to eliminate links that deal with the denial of the massacre. While I understand why were these links placed originally his point to make a note that these links are "genocide denial links" makes sense to me. Jitse I appreciate your persistance on this article but I think this is a good compromise. --Dado 04:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for taking this to the talk page. I agree with labelling the links and that's why I included short quotations indicating that they do not represent mainstream opinion. I think this is more informative than using a loaded label like "genocide denial", don't you? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We can do both: "These links do not represent mainstream opinion and some consider them genocide denial" But I am not the one who is disputing it so I would ask the person who was involved in this reverting to state his opinion. Thanks --Dado 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Denial of Srebrenica massacre

Apparently, not enough proofs have been given on historical revisionism page about the reality of denial of Srebrenica. If some think it's an important subject to place on the revisionist page, have a look. Lapaz 23:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Srebrenica massacre denial exists. There are also descriptions of events and analyses which differ/diverge from the commonly accepted version. This deserves to be pointed out. However, adding a second, equally long, paragraph about how these people are wrong seems rather partisan. Better to let the reader decide for himself. Thus, I have eliminated the second paragraph.Osli73 17:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Denial does exist but so does the debate about this particular type of revisionism. It does not fit the whole picture that revisionists have a last word when there is an equally strong force counterarguing the revisionist's claims [1] . For the sake of presenting the entire picture of the debate the paragraph deserves to placed back. --Dado 17:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think most people realize that the views presented in the "revisionism" and "denial" section are alternate versions not supported by the mainstream (and typically for good reasons). That should be enough. Adding the long harangue about how this is not 'real' revisionism gives a POV feel to it and just seems a bit contrived.Osli73 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dutch government

I think some additional information is needed about the resignation of the Dutch government after the release of the report about the utter failure of the peacekeeping efforts. Up to now the article does not say anything why they resigned and what where the results of the report. What were the failures of the Dutch soldiers or NATO? 84.59.109.206 14:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack of refenence to religion of Bosniaks

I'm a little worried the religion of the Bosniaks was not mentioned very much at all in the article. The article introduction should include a phrase refering to the largely Sunni Islam following Bosniaks. Can someone integrate that in there? 24.7.141.159 16:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The article at Bosnian Genocide appears to be a WP:POVFORK with little or no info unrelated with the topic of this subject. It should be merged into this one. See Talk:Bosnian Genocide#POV Fork; merge. Duja 00:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(Previous discussion from here moved to Talk:Bosnian Genocide#POV Fork; merge) by Duja 17:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC).)

Improving the article

After reading the article it comes accross as having a lot of good information but being a bit too heavy on words like "slaughter" and "innocent" etc. I realize this is an emotional issue but letting this seep into the wording of the text reduces the general impression of the article. Especially section "The Massacre" feels more like a text from an engaged journalist rather than something you would expect from a dictionary.Osli73 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now done a small clean-up of the article with the primary aim of making it a more concise and the the wording less emotional.Osli73 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Hardly a small clean-up but rather a extensive effort to change the word and spirit of the article. These things need to be discussed first.

The article is for the most part exact public transcript of the ICTY case prosecutor vs Krstic. In addition to that it is a compromise reached after some 6 months of edit waring and debating on this article (see archived discussions). Being a legal document it can hardly be taken as overtly emotional piece of literature and it is well suited and balanced for Wikipedia.--Dado 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the previous article was the result of a lot of work. I'm not saying all of it was bad, just that it was (1) way too long, (2) had a lot of emotional language in it ("slaughter" etc, perhaps fitting for the prosecutor, but not in a dictionary) and (3) was came accross as quite partisan. Sometimes it's good to kill your darlings and then remotivate why things should be put back into the article....Osli73 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In your edits you have conclusevly and deliberatelly done the following:

1. Eliminated mention that the massacre was a genocide
2. Eliminated mention that the takeover of the enclave was part of the plan to reconnect the teritory with Serbia in order to conceal the involvement of Serbia in the massacre.
3. Eliminated mention of ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks
4. Changed the name of Bosnian forces into Bosniak forces to allude that the army was monoethnic in its ideology as part of the theory that the war was ethnic civil war and not an act of aggression.
5. Eliminated mention of Serb attacks on Srebrenica prior to takeover as alluding to the takeover and the massacre as somehow being a retaliation for alleged attacks by Bosnian army
6. Attempted to allude to a conspiracy from Sarajevo to trade off Srebrenica for other military gains
7. Eliminated references to the failed responsibility of UN forces to protect the enclave
8. Completely eliminated a section that talks about the plan to execute the population as a way to conceal the intent as a primary element of genocide
9. Deleted resolution 199 to conceal the widely acceptable nature of the event
10. And to top it all off eliminated good part of denial and revisionism section as you have quite successfully implemented all elements of denial and revisionism into the article itself, all noted in points 1-9.

I assume you have done this (item 10) to justify your, what is clear now, heavily biased edits disguised as legitimate contribution. I would ask you kindly not to resort to such tactics and contribute to this difficult and controversial issue with much more care.--Dado 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that I'm trying to produce a balanced and concise article. I'm not trying to push any agenda at all (if I had been, wouldn't I have edited out quite a lot more). However, the previous article was, in my opinion (but obviously not yours), too polemic and emotional to fit in a encyclopedia. Comments like "and one of the most horrific events in recent European history" are example of this. However, I'll be happy to discuss your constructive comments:

1. You are correct, it should be added that the ICTY has ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide. I suggest including this in a separate section "War Crimes", "ICTY rulings" or similar.

2. It seems to be widely agreed that the strategic reason for capturing the enclace was to eliminate what was seen as a dangerous Bosniak pocket in Bosnian Serb territory and to ensure a contiguous territory i E Bosnia. However, I've never before heard that the strategic reasoning was to conceal the involvement of Serbia/Yugoslavia in the massacre. Do you have any referencec?

3. I'm fine with including a mention of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and of Bosniaks in E. Bosnia prior to the massacre. Let's put it in a Background section including a link to the Bosnian War article.

4. Civil war vs. act of aggression is a political statement which the article shouldn't take sides on. However, I'm fine with calling it the ARBiH.

5. The strategic reasoning for attacking the Srebrenica pocket is disucssed in no. 2 above. Though, since the ARBiH and irregular Bosniak forces (Oric) were active in the region, retaliation does seem like one likely motive.

6. There are speculations that this might have been part of the strategy/tactics of the Bosnian government in Sarajevo. I'll try to find some kind of sources for this.

7. Isn't it quite obvious that they UN forces were unable to defend the enclave?

8. The intent was very obviously to kill the military aged males of the enclave and to conceal this. The intent wasn't to try to kill the entire population, in which case also the women and children would have been killed.

9. The massacre is a widely accepted event. Including long references to US Congress resolutions doesn't seem like the way to prove it (or anything for that matter). Better to do this in the External links section.

10. The denial/revisionism section was more about attacking the revisionists than about presenting their opposing views. Remember, Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to push your own political agenda. Osli73 07:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not say anywhere that encyclopedia needs to be removed from the sense of humanity when trying to portray certain events as horrific. It is quite valid and completely sensible and morally correct to describe this event as horrible. I am quite certain that you would agree. You keep insisting that this article is somehow unbalanced yet you justify it as it being your own POV. If you have something against particularities in the article please state them here and we can debate them one by one. Now for your responses

2. You may be correct that RS leadership has seen Srebrenica as a dangerous pocket. Hitler has also seen Jews as being dangerous so he acted in preemption (aside from his clouded judgment). Let's look at this objectively. What is more dangerous. 40000 almost completely unarmed civilians, being starved to death and shelled for 3 years, or army armed to the teeth that completely surrounded the town of Srebrenica with almost complete freedom to do just about anything they wanted to the population. Let's think about that. SCG did have a strategy to conceal their involvement in the conflict given that they were faced with the genocide and aggression charge before the ICJ. I would suggest you read up on it (Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ)

3. Yet you keep reverting to the term Bosniak army.

4. You are right it is a point of contention and while the article did not take a side on the issue you certainly have in you edits

5. Oric's forces were not irregular. They were part of ARBiH. There was a certain degree of fighting and property plundering in fighting between Oric and VRS where plundering did take place in the context of the siege conditions that persisted over Srebrenica for 3 years

7. Yet it is important to note that they did not even attempt to take action.

8. The ICTY also noted that given the patriarchic structure of the Bosnian family it was know to the perpetrators that by eliminating the male population it would be impossible for its female population to reconstitute the community, effectively rendering the Bosniak community of Srebrenica destroyed. This falls under intent to destroy in whole or in part a population on a particular territory regardless that the actual direct physical destruction only pertained to military ready part of population. The entire population was by this act destroyed.

9. Unanimous bipartisan decisions on such controversial subject by US congress are very uncommon while the US congress represents some 350 million Americans. I would say that is significant enough number to consider this as a "generally acceptable opinion"

10. I deal with facts not agendas.

Please present specific problems about the original version of the article before you keep pushing what is clearly and what you have admited to be your POV.--Dado 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I havent heard anything new from Osli73...The article was based on relevant international court decisions...So if you, Osli73, have some neutral court decisions which will support your thesis, then provide those...--Emir Arven 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have noticed, that the above user is trying to put false information, when he is writing about regular Bosnian forces, Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina...He wants to present it as Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) army, which is not true, as well as Government of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, which was the only legal and recognized by UN, during war in Bosnia. So, what I see here, is not improving the article, but nationalistic game, which starts and finishes from time to time when the date of genocide (July 11th) is coming closer...Read the earlier discussions...--Emir Arven 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you are the nationalists - using the Srebrenica massacre to beat your opponents over the head. Calling me a Serb nationalist just because I disagree with your wording is a sign of your own paranoia. It's even more strange since I'm Swedish (and yes, my both of my parents are Swedish, I live in Sweden and I was born in Sweden, as was my wife and my children). Why do you think anyone who disagrees with you has to be a Serb?

I don't want to deny that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide or that the ARBiH was the "Bosnian army" (my mistake, I was trying improve the clarity of the article by calling people either Bosniaks or Bosnian Serbs, and mistakenly applied this to the ARBiH as well, so, please do not see this as part of some conspiracy). I agree that Mladic committed war crimes and that the UN failed to defend the enclave.

However, I do not like the very partisan/emotional tone of the article. Let's just take a look at the introduction, as an example: "and one of the most horrific events in recent European history." This is a statement of opinion. The text already says that it was the largest massacre in Europe since WWII, what's the use of the "horrible" comment?

The issue of the Scorpions - the US legal journal JURIST [2] , the Guardian [3], CNN [4], the Institute for War and Peace Reporting [5], the Washington Post [6] and the Times [7] all call them "paramilitaries" or "paramilitary". Why do you insist on saying they are "state" forces of Serbia?

This kind of tone carries on throughout the text of the article. I'm sure it's mostly factually correct, however, it is very selective use of facts spiced up by emotional language which gives the article a tone which I believe does not belong in an encyclopedia. I realize it will be difficult to convince Bosniaks of this so I will let you continue to use the article for your own political purposes.Osli73 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont know who you are and I dont care, but I have seen your contribution and motive in Serb related articles. I have also pointed out that changes made by you had nothnig to do with the improvement.Here is comparison which clearely shows what kind of "improvement" is this all about. For instance, you removed the fact about the age structure of the people killed in Srebrenica: Srebrenica genocide was killing of up to an estimated 8,106 Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly. Also, you put speculation made by Serb revesionists: "It has also been argued that the government in Sarajevo saw the presence of the refugees as a tool for keeping their claim on the area." Then you deleted very important information: Although Serbs were attacking and killing Bosniaks civilians in and around Srebrenica daily and left the second part of the sentence: "To the Bosnian Serb forces it appeared that Bosniak forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch offensives against them and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it.". But hey, you are Swidish...Sure you are...--Emir Arven 10:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a source that quotes the actual indictment of the Scorpion members that is as clear as a day about the relation of those forces to the Serbian state. All others that you have presented are op-ed pieces or reports that probably have echoed someone elses incorect statement, something that journalists often do as they get on a particular bandwagon. That is the only arguement that you had so far that merited a response. Everything else is your own POV. Emir's emotional retort may had been a bit too personal but I don't think this issue should be taken any more personally than that.--Dado 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Osli73, you made a lot of changes in the article in your effort to make it more concise. Many of them dissociate Serbia from the conflict. You cannot expect your changes to stay. However, that does not mean that you don't have a point, and perhaps some of your changes would improve the article.

On the issue of the Scorpions: It is not clear to me that the indictment of a prosecutor should be more reliable than many citations in various media.

Furthermore, I'm not at all happy with the section "Serbs Never Demilitarized, but Continued to Criticize Bosniaks". The section is too detailed and badly incorporated in the remaining text. It is already clear from the article that the Serb did not demilitarize. Finally, Wikipedia is not a collection of other texts. I'm reluctantly making an exception for the ICTY judgment, because it stopped the edit war. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some other massacre-articles (eg Katyn) on Wikipedia and find them to be more concise and less emotional. But, I realize this is a touchy subject and that a lot of those active on this article might have personal experiences of the massacre. So, I'll leave it at saying that I feel this article isn't as good (especially in the sense of concise and balanced) as I think it could be.

Regarding the Scorpions, I'm not sure that the prosecutor is necessarily the final word on this. Also, the Scorpions were not part of the state forces of Serbia (which were the JNA) or under the direct command of Serbia. As far as I have understood, they included persons from Serbia (though not exclusively).Osli73 09:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jitse I am not sure to which section you are referring. Could you paste it here and we can review it.

I would agree with you that Wikipedia should not be a collection of various texts but for this subject ICTY remains most reliable and most comprehensive to date. Article is not 100% verbatim copy of the text issued by ICTY and I think in time it is getting to be even less so, but as you have correctly pointed out the large presence of that document in this article it is an only thing that makes this article sustainable and not a subject of an edit war, at least for now.

Osli73, if you can provide information that the prosecutor's establishment of the facts regarding the relation of Scorpions with the Serbian State has been refuted in the court than we can discuss the issue again. Also I don't think that prosecution has claimed that Scorpions were part of JNA but part of the Serbia DB [state security] which is probably equivalent of State Police or a National Guard.--Dado 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about Srebrenica massacre#Serbs Never Demilitarized, but Continued to Criticize Bosniaks, which starts with "From: UN General Assembly, Fifty-fourth session, Agenda item 42: The Fall of Srebrenica - Role of Bosniak Forces on the Ground". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never noticed that section. It was probably added later and as you have said quite poorly incorporated and not wikified. I don't have time at this point to go over it so if you want to remove it I am OK with that. --Dado 00:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The section was indeed recently added, at 07:02, 29 May 2006 to be precise. I have removed it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Scorpions were paramilitary commandos (like all of Serbian Special Police) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary#Paramilitary_commandos - it's state forces. --HanzoHattori 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Raped female child source provided

"We saw two Serb soldiers, one of them was standing guard and the other one was lying on the girl, with his pants off. And we saw a girl lying on the ground, on some kind of mattress. There was blood on the mattress, even she was covered with blood. She had bruises on her legs. There was even blood coming down her legs. She was in total shock. She went totally crazy." source http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf

Thank you. I formatted the reference as customary. I also don't see why it is necessary to have the same story, in the same words, twice, so I removed the second instance. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Article length (too long)

I realize this is a very important topic for a lot of people. However, at 105 k the article is waaaay too long. See MediaWiki:Longpagewarning and Wikipedia:Article size. Any suggestions for shortening the article and making it more concise? The very long and detailed "The massacre" section could perhaps be shortened?KarlXII 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the September 11, 2001 attacks has 60 kb main and LOTS of related articles. Maybe it should be done in similiar structure?

This article is so one-sided. It does not show anything about the christmas day massacre of 500 serbian civilians commited by Oric. This article is a serious p.o.s!!!!! -Lazar

The "christmas day massacre of 500 serbian civilians" that you mention was actually the christmas day raid that resulted in the death and injury of around 70 Serb soldiers and 13 civilians. Live Forever 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, I agree that the article would benefit if some of the material was put in related/specific articles. Can you propose this to the powers that be on this article? I would suggest keeping a more concise version of the article and then putting the specifics and eye-witness stuff in related articles.Osli73 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Lazar, yes, I too feel the article is a bit partisan. However, given the nature of the event it describes, that can be forgiven. Especially since it is a very well sourced and documented article. As for the Christmans Day massacres and other background stuff, I think that could go in a specific background section (but with careful review of sources).Osli73 12:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that creating a daughter article or a Wikiquote article Witness accounts to Srebrenica Massacre containing well sourced and relevant quotes is rather good idea although it will probably not reduce the article significantly. --Dado 17:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dado, I also think that would be a very good idea. Other possible 'daughter' articles could be the whole Srebrenica massacre denial section, Background on the war in and around Srebrenica prior to the massacre, Political fallout from the massacre in the Netherlands and Western reactions to the massacre.

But, I think you are right when you say that these will not necessarily shorten the article by that much.Osli73 11:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So, if we agree that the article should be made shorter (more concise) then how do we go about this? I would suggest taking a section by section approach, where the person responsible proposes:

• suggestions for rewriting the text to make it shorter
• text to delete alltogether
• text to be moved to a daughter article

Could that be a good approach?Osli73 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts about alleged Serb casualties around Srebrenica

A couple of comments on this section:

• Using the "Facts about..." isn't quite accurate. What the researchers have arrived at is an estimate. I think it would be wise to change this.
• The IDC study only focuses on Bratunac, not on Srebrenica
• Others have contested this estimate. Most seem to cite that between 1,000-1,500 Serbs were killed in Srebrenica and Bratunac during 1992-1993 by Bosniak forces. Please see the Dutch govt report on the Srebrenica safe haven from 2002 (see external links). Of course, various Serb war-time sources cite higher figures (above 3,000).

Please let me know your thoughts before I go ahead and edit this section. Osli73 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bosniak" versus "Bosnian Muslim"

(The first two paragraphs are copied from User talk:Rigobert Song.)

Could you please give an explanation why you want to change "Bosniak" to "Bosnian Muslim" in Srebrenica massacre? Of course, this question would not have been necessary if you had used the edit summary box; please do this in the future, it is there for a reason! Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it disgusting for an entire article about the [[Srebrenica massacre[[ to not mention the unified religious background of the victims and an example of Islamophobia and a part of a collective effort by European historical revisionaries to make it appear as if Muslims, in the history of the world, have never suffered because of their relgious background and are always violent aggressors. Can you imagine an article on the Holocaust ommiting the fact that the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish?

As I understand it, the people themselves prefer the term "Bosniaks". Surely, you are not arguing that they are islamophobic? I'm not opposed to mentioning their predominant religion somewhere, but the way you are doing it suggests wrongly that all the people killed were Muslim. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak and "Bosnian Muslim" are virtually synonymous. And no, I'm not claiming that ALL civilian victims of the Bosnian-Serb war in general were Muslim but we are talking about the Srebrenica massacre here. I doubt the Serbs would be killing their Othrodox friends and I don't know about any Bosnian Croatians being involved, and "Bosniak" is not a term used as a reference to them. The fact that all of the 8,000 victims of this incident has names like Mustafic or Bajramovic, and that in many articles in the Western (BBC, etc.) refer to them as "Bosnian Muslims" must make it obvious? Also, note the way in which Milosevic would urge Serbs against the Bosniaks by equating them with the Turks? Also, note the involvement of other Orthodox groups such as Greeks and Russians in aiding the Serbs. Also, evangelical Christian groups here in the US had the audacity to try and claim that this event never happened and that that the Bosniaks were "Islamic terrorists" carrying out attacks on Christian Serbs.

I'm not asking that every mention of Bosniak be replaced by Bosnian Muslim, just that the first mention should be left or at least there should be some mention in the article of the religious motivation behind the killings.

I don't quite understand your logic. While on one end you correctly point out to Milosevic and probably more correctly Mladic calling Bosnian Serbs to take revenge on "Turks" (which is an ethnic connotation and in Bosnia a historical reference to Ottomans, not necessarily religious) on the other hand you are trying to point out that these were crimes against religion. While you are right that religion of Bosniaks played a large part, it is not the only deciding factor in the massacre. Furthermore, the Srebrenica massacre is not necessarily an exception to what happened in rest of BiH during the Bosnian War, the war that was primarily waged against Bosnian citizens en masse, loyal to the BiH government or the country. While I agree with Jitse's statement above that predominant religion of victims should be pointed out it is not the only factor in the massacre.

I think you should familiarize yourself with articles Bosniaks and maybe Anti-Bosniak sentiment--Dado 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak vs Bosnian vs Bosnian Muslim - brief explanation

Simplified explanation of terms:

Bosniak ===> ethnic group (see CIA World FactBook for Bosnia-Herzegovina).

Bosnian ===> nation (includes all people who live in Bosnia)

Bosnian Muslim ===> highly offensive for some locals in Bosnia, because Bosniaks are not "religious group", they are ethnic group who lived in Bosnia for centuries. In other words, Bosniaks are autochtone people of Bosnia.

Formating sources

As I mentioned in the edit summary the article is 95% based on the Prosecutor vs Krstic judgement which is a primary source so the tag is unjustified. I do however think that sources in this article should be formated to follow one of the source citing stiles such as MLA_style_manual. Article The Holocaust is a good example of how to properly format sources for an article and it is a good reference how to use codes (such as <ref name=sourcename> etc.). I can start on this if there is an agreement. --Dado 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the size of the article I would also ask anyone who wants to add aditional items on this article to provide specific sources formated per MLA Style manual or as per current source formating, as it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep track of all information that are being added. Also please read the article before the addition as some things are being added and repeated that further unnecessarily increase the size of the article and make it more difficult to read.--Dado 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre Anniversary

... is coming July 11th. We should ready ourselves to defend Srebrenica Massacre page from possible vandalism. In the coming days, I will be checking the page frequently, more often during the day. Please do the same and thank you all.- Bosniak

Bosniak bias

This article is so bias toward one side that it's unbelievable. I posted a link to the Bosniak atrosites and it was taken off yet there is a link to the execution of a Bosniak (The uncensored version of the Bosnian execution video Warning: shocking content!). And there are five more links that are pro-Bosniak (The Association Women of Srebrenica - Official Website, Srebrenica Genocide - Independent Blog, Myth about Serb Civilian Casualties Around Srebrenica - Facts compiled by State Sponsored Research & Documentation Center in Sarajevo, July 12, 1995 Through My Eyes, the Fall of Srebrenica account of a Bosniak soldier in Tuzla, Bosnian Genocide - Independent Web Site, BOSFAM - Non-Governmental group supporting displaced women in Bosnia). All articles need to be accurate and truthful.--Red Titan 12:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of sources and biased word choices

This article needs a cleanup in terms of word choice. There are also unverified claims about rapes of children and women that need to be sourced and original research regarding the lack of documented sources for certain instances.

Guy Montag 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead... - FrancisTyers · 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For someone who has been editing this article for so long, I don't know why you haven't caught on the bombastic language used and the uncited stories completely devoid of the Serbian account. Guy Montag 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been editing the article for about as long as you have and haven't been a serious editor of it. - FrancisTyers · 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I apologize. I've just noticed on the Dier Yassin talk page that you just started. Guy Montag 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

np :) I'm glad of your work here. Getting this to FA status would be quite a feat. - FrancisTyers · 23:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is going to take alot of work. Here is what I am thinking, I hope you are ready to get into deletionist mode. Erase anything that can be construed as an unverifiable opinion, even if it is made by a source. Keep those sources that cite something akin to "I saw XXX shoot 25 civilians in a ditch" and delete stuff like " I heard gunshots behind the barn, so I think they were buried in the general area." Make sure that others back up those claims. The UN has found that a massacre happened here, but it doesn't mean that clearly vicious unverified one sided claims need to be prominantly seen in this article without a counter claim. Guy Montag 23:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest we move such claims to the talk page rather than delete entirely. This way if someone has a better source they can provide it. - FrancisTyers · 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending citation or re-wording

Below is listed stuff that either needs to be cited, or both cited and re-worded. - FrancisTyers · 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Remarkably, a group of ABiH soldiers managed to reach Medjedja in a captured jeep bearing Yugoslav National Army identification marks, having killed the five original occupants of the vehicle (this was the only indication that the Yugoslav army may have been involved in any action against the column)."

File:Srebr5.JPG

Armoured vehicles fire on the people trapped at Kamenica

File:Srebr4.JPG

Serb soldier is seen wearing UN uniform at a roadblock

Are these pictures verified?

Guy Montag 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seemingly not, although I think the captions need citing more than anything else. It is clear from the clips that they are from TVP. - FrancisTyers · 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your point with POV on this article? Be ashamed. It's not hard to go to Holocaust article and put POV because someone once said that numbers are not... hmmm... that high. Apsurd. Leave this article alone, please. You are ruining your image, what you are getting from that when you put POV? Article is full of evidences, citations and references. Remember what I said about Holocaust? It's not good to behave like that and deny genocide. --HarisM 14:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of genocide denial? Where have I ever said that this article is not true? My complaint is that it isn't appropriately sourced in accordance with Wikipedia policies, see. WP:V and WP:CITE. - FrancisTyers · 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not you, sorry, other one. Guy Montag who started all this POV thing. Unnecesary. --HarisM 18:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply

no need for "neutrality disputed" statement and this article is still work in progress and many citations are being added as we speak.

I need citation for this paragraph

Can someone find citation for this paragraph: "About 762 Bosniaks had been killed in Zvornik on 1 June 1992. A similar massacre had taken place in Cerska on 9 September 1992, when a group of 6,000 refugees from Konjevic Polje, Cerska and Kamenica tried to reach Tuzla -- the VRS had laid ambushes and opened fire on the column, killing many and taking hundreds of prisoners, who then "disappeared". Some 500 people were killed close to Snagovo, as the moving column came under fire from artillery and aircraft. Human remains were still to be seen as the column of July 1995 passed on its way to Tuzla " Bosniak

Can someone format references better?

Some references are repeated and instead of repeating them 2,3 or more times, we can simply refer to the same reference using only one line of text in "references". Can someone format it this way, as I don't know how to do it. Thanks. Also, if you wish to add more info to references, or more references pointing to the same fact = go ahead and do it. Bosniak

POV?

Inserting a POV tag is one thing, documenting it at the talk page a logical step after that. As such, may I ask why this POV tag is inserted? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There were unsourced insertations by anon users of pretty strongly worded pov, and complete abuse of the enormity of the article by inserting pov words such as murder, slaughter etc. Guy Montag 19:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you show us the part of the article or senteces? The terms that were used (murder, slaughter are the same that are used in ICTY judgmenets). --Emir Arven 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problems at hand were

• "Remarkably, a group of ABiH soldiers managed to reach Medjedja in a captured jeep bearing Yugoslav National Army identification marks, having killed the five original occupants of the vehicle (this was the only indication that the Yugoslav army may have been involved in any action against the column)."-an unsourced narration.

• It is estimated that hundreds of women and female children were raped during Srebrenica massacre. The Serb troops abused women and even children whom they had herded into makeshift enclosures. Due to cultural stigma attached to rape, many women refused to testify against the rapists. -unsourced generalization and narration as to why it is unourced.

• However when the cameras were turned off the men were slaughtered at the hands of the Serb army. More than 60 truckloads were taken from Srebrenica to execution sites where they were bound, blindfolded, and shot with automatic rifles. Some of the executions were carried out at night under arc lights. Industrial bulldozers then pushed the bodies into mass graves, with some of the victims having been buried alive.

• Still the number of murdered is presently disputed by some. All nations and international organizations involved consider it to have been a massacre, and most consider it to be a case of genocide. The government of the Republika Srpska has officially condemned the atrocity.

That was just some of the few I was able to find, and that is after Francis, another editor already had a comb through. I understand that those are words used by the reports, but you have to use non pov versions in wikipedia, although I don't know whats the policy on articles that deal with clearcut cases.

Guy Montag 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you name it. How would you name killing of any people? Patethic, leave the article alone --HarisM 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag, if I understand correctly, you believe that words such as “murder” and "slaughtered" are not appropriate for wikipedia and that such words do not serve as objective descriptions of what happened in Srebrenica. If that is so, you have a lot of homework to do cleaning up wikipedia. You will need to also go to wikipedia’s “Holocaust” page and inform the editors of that article that their use of the word “murder” is not appropriate. Perhaps, you will also want to go to the “Armenian Genocide” and tell the wikipedia editors there that “mass murder” is not an appropriate term to describe the… well… mass murders that occurred there. Maybe you will also object to wikipedia’s description of Stalins Great Purge as including “extra-judicial murders”. Or wikipedia’s description of Ganghis Khan’s soldiers as engaging in “murder”. Or maybe you would object to wikipedia describing what was done to children at “Jonestown” as “mass murder”. Wikipedia’s description of the Nanking Massacre: “murder”. Wikipedia’s description of Alexander the Great’s destruction of Thebes “slaughters the population”. Wikipedia’s description of what Ethelred II of England did to the Danes: “slaughtered” them. Wikipedia’s description of what Richard the Lionheart did to muslim prisoners: “slaughtered” them.

So, Guy, you have quite a bit of homework if your objective is to stop the use of these words in wikipedia articles. Or Guy, maybe you should ask yourself why you object to the use of the word "murder" to describe what happened in Srebrenica?

If that was not mass murder, what is?

Guy?

With that said, I believe the Srebrenica massacre article would benefit from additional source references in a number of places that you have pointed out. The truth of what happened there and the extensive documentation describing it is so powerful, unsourced narratives are not necessary to give a detailed account of the Srebrenica massacre. --Fairview360 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a response to a comment left on my talk page following a call to provide sources for this article. While I have personally formatted and confirmed at least 20 sources there are at least 20 more added on top of that. I will keep searching for more and keep checking the statements noted in this article but it is a task that takes some time. So far all of the statements that I thought may be controversial, checked out. I may have missed a couple but hardly enough to blanket the entire article as POV. Because of that and the obvious logical fallacy of the person that tried to dispute this article, that was rather intelligently dismantled by Fairview360 I will be removing the POV tag.--Dado 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also to all, if you feel that a particlular statement requires a citation, note (Insert: {{fact}}) next to it. It will make improving this article that much easier. Thanks --Dado 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also checked some things. It's a lot of work, so thanks very much for your efforts. I did come across some problems. The phrase "considered by many as one of the most horrific events in recent European history" in the introduction, while true, is not supported by the AP reference given. The link http://bratunac.com/content.php?content.12 to "Truth about Bratunac (Istina o Bratuncu)" in note 6 is broken and I couldn't find the article on the website (though most of it is Bosnian, which makes it hard for me to navigate). I commented out the text

"The UN did nothing to protect the Bosniak civilians in Srebrenica. One hundred lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers were denied repeated requests for reinforcements and consequently sidelined to witness what was to follow." (at the top of the section "The crowd at Potočari")

because it was not taken from the ICTY judgement while the rest of the paragraph was. I also have some problems with the text by itself ("nothing" seems to harsh, I think there were more Dutch at the time, and it's not clear what the request for reinforcements refer to in this context).

Finally, I fully agree with Dado's request a few sections up that "anyone who wants to add aditional items on this article to provide specific sources", and I'd like to add that if you refer to a long document, please provide a page number or something like that, as it is not easy to find one specific fact in hundreds of pages of text. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not find the sentance in question but I do agree that stating UN did nothing is a bit harsh. While I have found several sources that have actually said that (such as The Observer) I find it to be a bit of a jurnalistic embelishment. Perhaps we can do this

"The UN neglected to protect the Bosniak civilians in Srebrenica as mandated in the UN resolution. One hundred lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers were denied repeated requests for reinforcements and consequently sidelined to witness what was to follow." --Dado 14:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the link, it may be temporarily down. The numbers are also quoted in the book and google search still returns the hit (however in bosnian only) [8]. I'd give it a bit time but I'll try to find another link--Dado 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Kozluk date

Is it estabished yet? --HanzoHattori 10:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The first sentance in that paragraph states between 14 July to 17 July 1995. I think that is as good as it gets. "Unknown date" in the paragraph title looks a bit weak so I would say to replace it with "14-17 July: Kozluk" --Dado 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-Serb participants in the killings

This section has a number of problems, both POV and language-wise:

According to the report by the Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, that led the Wim Kok government to resign (irrelevant to his section and already stated), approximately twelve (I can't find any number stated in the online version of the report,correct me if i'm wrong) Greek volunteers took part in the massacre of Srebrenica. These persons belonged to the Greek Volunteer Guard (ΕΕΦ), an integral part of the Drina Corps and were either members of the Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi group, or mercenaries. Ratko Mladić himself had asked ((Whom?) to put up the Greek flag after the massacre, while Radovan Karadžić had honored the volunteers.

Actually I did find this [9]. I also found that there is more to the issue of raising the greek flag than what is noted in the article. What may seam the most frequent source quoted on this issue is Takis Mikas book [10] where on the page 22 there is actually a photo showing Greek flag in Srebrenica. Following is my proposed revision:

"According to the report by Agence France Presse (AFP), 12 Greek volunteers took part in the massacre of Srebrenica . These persons belonged to the Greek Volunteer Guard (ΕΕΦ), an integral part of the Drina Corps and were either members of the Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi group, or mercenaries. According to book by Takis Michas a Greek flag was raised in Srebrenica following the fall of the city while Radovan Karadžić had honored the volunteers. "

--Dado 17:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue was forgotten for years, due to the tolerance shown by the majority of both Greek media and people (POV blanket statement, what were "the greek people", if we were supposed to consider them some sort of unified group, supposed to do about some obscure issue concerning the wars in Yugoslavia?), until the Greek deputy Andreas Andrianopoulos broached the subject in 2005 and the Minister of Justice Anastasios Papaligouras committed an investigation, which is still underway. All Greek volunteers are still elusive, but many Greeks have sympathy towards these people who they viewed as defending Europe and Christianity against Islamic fundamentalism.(POV blanket statement again."Many Greeks " is a clear example of weasel wording.How many is "many"?Are these certain groups of people?How can this be measured?There's no denying that this idea exists, but the way it is presented leaves much doubt about its prominance.Is this what Takis Michas's book says exactly?) --Jsone 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version (02:26, 30 July 2006 by Dado) is fine.--Jsone 10:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up effort

In last 7 days we had various edits done on this article that mostly have taken away from its quality so I have resorted to a bit controversial revert to the version as of July 22. Primarily the reason was because numerous sources and links to sources were eliminated but also because some of the points raised by two last comments on this discussion page. I do however think that few edits were done to contribute to the July 22 version of the article and I will comb through the article to return those. Also we can address issues raised in last two comments as well . I hope everyone will find this agreeable because it will be enormous task to go back and fix the errors with sources that were created.--Dado 22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak Message to Dado

Dado, how can we protect the page from vandalism and removal of sources? Is there any way we could protect the page in a way "Holocaust" page is protected?--Bosniak 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what are the conditions that made article Holocaust permanently locked. If you can find out about that we can see if the same can be applied here. --Dado 20:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionism

This section is: 1. not sourced 2. quite partisan 3. I'm not sure there even is such a thing as "Srebrenica genocide denial/revisionism", isn't it just a label used on opponents? I believe this section should be taken out, as the topic is already covered in the previous section. Osli73 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That section is well sourced but you didn't read it. There is a source for a part that you removed: "The Myth Of Bratunac: A Blatant Numbers Game" IDC research about Serb propaganda. This is also confirmed in Naser Oric judgement. --Emir Arven 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see this as an act of denial of genocide and sneaky vandalism. --Emir Arven 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Emir Arven,

the whole Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionism section is completeley unsourced. Yes, there are people who have a different interpretation of event and even those who claim that the massacre didn't happen (though I imagine that they are few, I've never heard of anyone). This is discussed/presented quite well in the preceeding Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism section. However, the term "Srebrenica genocide denier/revisionist" is not established. If there is such an established term, show me.

I moved the Serb casualties around Srebrenica section out of the Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism since that topic is not related to denial of the massacre.

The IDC report is on Bratunac municipality only and I can only find a press release, no original documentation or other references.

Finally, calling me a Srebrenica genocide denier just because I don't agree with your exact interpreation of events / analysis is childish. I've never said that the massacre didn't happen or that some 8,000 people weren't killed or how it happened. I don't dispute the Bosnian Serb/Yugoslav complicity in the massacre(s). What I object to is how some of these and related events are presented in the article. If this topic is too sensitive for you to be able to discuss sensibly and rationally, then I think you are better off editing other articles. Osli73 14:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Osli, you removed the whole section. That shouldn't be done. It is not Wikipedian way. We can go through every sentence that you want to remove and discuss about it. The source about Bratunac is very important, because Bratunac is used in this story by Serb politicians, and other deniers as an argument for relativization of genocide that happened in Srebrenica. So its place is here. IDC presented its research and showed that Serb politicans manipulated with numbers. Manipulation is a kind of revisionism. --Emir Arven 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Emir Arven and Dado, I completely fine with discussing changes before making them, as long you are willing to enter into a discussion with an open mind.

I don't see how the Genocide deniers section in question is warranted as it is not adding any sourced information to the article. Instead, it's quite clearly an attempt to label/taint all of those who hold a different interpretation of events, akin to calling all those who dare oppose Israeli policies as "anti-Semites" or, for that matter, all those Croats who support an independent Croatian state "neo-Ustasha" or "fascists" and then going on to say that these people, incorrectly, try to call themselves "anti-Zionists" and "anti-Communists". It's simply not a very encyclopedic way of presenting the issue and it lowers the overall quality of the aticle.

I absolutely believe that the Bratunac research by the RDC should be mentioned. I just believe that it's one of several sources that should be mentioned as there doesn't seem to be any consensus on the total number of Serb casualties around Srebrenica. By the way, only the press release is available on the RDC website, has anyone found the entire report? Any other mentions of it?

Finally, I realize that the whole Serb casualties issue is often used by Serb nationalists as a way to justify or diminish the Srebrenica massacre (or other crimes). However, there seems, maybe because of this, to be similiar knee-jerk reaction by Bosniaks to diminish the magnitude, nature of and consequences of the crimes against Serbs. There is a pretty good recent article from Transitions Online on this in relation to the verdict in the Naser Oric case at the ICTY (read the end). I recommend it. Osli73 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a text in the Casualties section of the Bosnian War article that I find as quite good regarding different estimates of the numbers of people killed. It reads:

Large discrepancies in all these estimates are generally due to the inconsistent definitions of who can be considered victims of the war. Some research calculated only direct casualties of the military activity while other also calculated indirect casualties, such as those who died from harsh living conditions, hunger, cold, illnesses or other accidents indirectly caused by the war conditions. Original higher numbers were also used as many victims were listed twice or three times both in civilian and military columns as little or no communication and systematic coordination of these lists could take place in wartime conditions. Manipulation with numbers is today most often used by historical revisionist to change the character and the scope of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, most of above independent studies have not been accredited by either government involved in the conflict and there are no single official results that are acceptable to all sides.

I think something like this (granted that the number of people killed in Srebrenica is better documented) is what is needed for the Srebrenica massacre article. Also with regard to the Serb casualties section. Osli73 07:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Any reactions, comments? If noone is willing to enter into a (serious and open minded) discussion of my proposed changes on these Talk pages I might as well edit the article directly.Osli73 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dado, I see that you added the Srebrenica Blogspot as a source for your Srebrenica genocide denial section. I'm sorry, but a Bosniak nationalist blog (the kind that likes to present Naser Oric as a war hero, etc) isn't exactly a credible or relevant source. The Srebrenica genocide blogspot is exactly the kind of site that is trying to use the massacre to hit political opponents over the head with, which is what I feel this article sometimes does as well (in sections such as this).Osli73 10:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You put false info in the article. Without source and proof. It is not accepted by all sides that large number of Serbs were killed between 92-95, neither by ICTY nor by IDC, just by Serb propaganda, and you said that you are not Serb, yes sure ordinary Swedish guy...If you want to write about Serbs casulates then write it in Bosnian War or similar articles, but don't spread propaganda. --Emir Arven 08:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir Arven, it's sad to see that your knee jerk reaction to someone challenging your interpretation of events is that they must be a Serb nationalist. Did you read the suggested articles I mentioned above? You reaction is exactly the kind which is described in the Transitions Online article I mentioned earlier.

It is sad to see that you pretend to be a Swedish guy, but you are a Serb. --Emir Arven 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, I'm sorry to have to say this, but your focus on and disbelief in my nationality is symptomatic of true nationalists. You really see the world in black and white, either with me or against me.Osli73 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to hide the fact that you are a Serb. You don't have to pretend to be a Swedish to make a point. I didn't focus on your nationality because you are a Serb, but because of your manipulations. --Emir Arven 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Serb casualties around Srebrenica are a part of the background to the massacre, as they go some way in explaining the viciousness of the Serb forces towards the inhabitants of the town. I'm not trying to diminish the 1995 massacre, just explain the context in which it happened.

False. Serbs are trying to present their military casualties in fights as "a part of the background to the genocide". --Emir Arven 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, the reason the Naser Oric case (and its outcome) gained so much attention (despite him being a minor player) was precisely because some Serbs see it (and the killing of Serbs around Srebrenica 92-93) as a way to put the Srebrenica massacre into a greater context while Bosnian Muslims see it as a threat to their role as the only victims in the tragedy that was the Bosnian war. Please read the Transitions Online article I mentioned earlier.Osli73 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Killing the Serbs" around Srebrenica is propaganda, as it is showed in ICTY judgements. Are you talking about Serb soldiers or civilians? According to the judgement: "As for the destruction in the villages of Kravica, Siljkovici, Bjelovac, Fakovici and Sikiric, the judgment states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Muslim forces were responsible for them, because the Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in those villages. In the case of the village of Bjelovac, they even used the warplanes." But Serbs claimed that this villages were destroyed by Bosniak foreces, as you do. --Emir Arven 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As to the exact number of persons killed, well... no-one seems to know exactly. It seems that numbers range from some 500 to over 3,000. I haven't seen any of the studies (the RDC material is only a pressrelease, which, to me, doesn't sound too academic in its language). So, why not leave it at that?

Because Carla del Ponte and Naser Orić judgement showed that Serb numbers are propaganda. --Emir Arven 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, no neither CdP or the Naser Oric judgement said anything about the number of Serbs killed around Srebrenica (what source do you base this on, by the way). The number of Serbs killed around Srebrenica was not part of the indictment against Oric. Finally, you must not mix up history and legal process - just because someone isn't convicted in a court of law of for a specific crime doesn't mean that they, in the eyes of history, are not guilty or did not play a part in it. Slobodan Milosevic was never convicted of anything and even if he hadn't died prematurely it is not unlikely that he would have been acquitted on quite a few of the charges made against him. Did this / would that have made him any less complicit in what happened?Osli73 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it said that seven people (Serb prisoners) were killed in police station during two years. I just showed you a part of his judgement. In its case, the prosecution tried to show that Oric was responsible for the destruction of about 50 Serb villages in the Bratunac-Srebrenica area in 1992 and 1993. Those acts are described in four counts of the indictment, and are qualified as violations of laws and customs of war. The prosecution claims that Oric, as the commander of the Srebrenica armed forces, is responsible for the "preparation, direction and implementation" of crimes alleged in the indictment, and for failing to prevent them or punish their perpetrators. Prosecution based its case on documents that Serbs prepared for them. But the judgement was totally opposite. It showed that in number of villages Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in those villages. So you are talking about people killed in this fight? --Emir Arven 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The ICTY case you are referring to (the Naser Oric one, I presume) only established whether Naser Oric could be personally tied to some specific deaths and cases of torture, not whether, or how many, Serbs had been killed by Bosniak forces around Srebrenica 1992-95.

No it showed that Serbs lied about number of people killed (soldiers and civilians) as well as destroyed villages. They showed completely opposite picture than presented by Serbs. Serbs commited massacers in every town in eastern Bosnia between 92-95, Foča, Trebinje, Bileća, Višegrad, Rogatica, Vlasenica, Kalinovik, Bratunac etc. so we should include all these massacers as "a part of the background to the genocide". --Emir Arven 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, again, the Naser Oric case did not prove anything regarding the number of Serbs killed. And, as I said above, the Serbs certainly saw the Bosniak attacks on Serbs around Srebrenica 92-93 as background to their attack on Srebrenica in 1995. The issue is also give quite a lot of space in the Dutch government report on the Srebrenica affair (see article external sources).Osli73 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it did. It destroyed Serb myth about 50 villages allegedly destroyed by Naser forces, and number of Serbs killed in Srebrenica. Serbs didn't see "Bosniak attacks on Serbs around Srebrenica as background to their attack" because Srebrenica was under the Serb siege and fire before that, Serbs just see this as an opportunity to justifay that horrible genocide, which was carefully planned and executed with participation of 20.000 Serb soldiers. As I said if you want to talk about casualties before Srebrenica genocide then we must explain about Višegrad massacres (just in one day Serb authorities in Višegrad gathered 70 Bosniak women and burned them in a house, before that they raped them), Bijeljina massacre, Foča massacre, Trebinje and Bileća massacres, Vlasenica massacre, Kalinovik massacre etc. There is more then 400 mass graves of Bosniak civilians found so far in Republika Srpska. That is a proof that no one can deny. So we should write it, as a background of Srebrenica genocide. Emir Arven 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)--15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir, no, the judgement really only stated that Oric could not be tied directly / closely enough to the events for the court to convict him. And, as I have stated before, the significance of the Serb casualties around Srebrenica in 92-95 is that it gave Serb forces a motive for revenge for the massacre, providing an explanation for the savage treatment of the population of the enclave.Osli73 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers,Osli73 09:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Info. box on when, where and how many people were killed

As the article is quite long I think it would be helpful if some sort of info. box were added summarizing where, when and how many people were killed. Maybe even a map, if anyone has time/ability for that. Any takers? Osli73 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Serb Casualties"

Several problems with the "Serb casualties" section.Live Forever 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for being willing to engage in discussion, which few seem ready to do (most seem to scream Serb propagandist, or similar):

1. "It is accepted by all sides that Bosniak forces killed a large number of Serbs". "Large" relative to what? Sentence is also misleading in this context as it doesn't mention that the significant majority of these Serb "casualties" were soldiers killed in military confrontations.

Well, with estimates ranging between 500 to over 3000 I would say that it is safe to call it a "large" number. These are also stated in the ICTY Press Briefing mentioned below as well as by the NIOD report (which is already used as a source in the "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign". Why is "casualties" misleading? With regard to the RDC figure, I have specified the estimated number of soldiers and civilians. As for the other estimates, we just don't know.

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that the majority of the killed Serbs in the region were soldiers; this is confirmed not only by the RDC findings (which, as I said earlier, are far superior to the other sources presented and deserve to be treated as such) but also by various other sources such as the VRS' own report on Kravica. Kravica, taken by some of the biased pro-VRS sources to be the epitome of ARBiH brutality against civilians, turned out to only have resulted in the death of a dozen civilians and a much greater number of soldiers. The nature of the Serb casualties can also be surmised by any nonpartisan observer merely from the basic facts surrounding the situation: ARBiH forces did not go about rounding up civilians and executing them, but conducted raids against VRS villages and positions which were met with armed resistance. To neglect mentioning that the majority of the Serb casualties were soldiers killed in military confrontations implies that they are comparable to the Bosniaks murdered two years later; exactly what pro-RS sources who gloss over these established facts are attempting to insinuate by doing so. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "The extent" to which these killings motivated the VRS forces to seek revenge on the Bosniak inhabitants of Srebrenica isn't disputed; the very assertion that these killings at all "motivated" the VRS to seek revenge on the Bosniak inhabitants of Srebrenica is disputed. VRS forces had been attacking Srebrenica for years, and had already conducted massive massacres in comparable near-by towns that they had managed to take over. What were these massacres "revenge" for? To many (including the United Nations, a fairly neutral source) such opinions are simply apoligism and excuses, no different than earlier claims that the mass killings the VRS conducted throughout Eastern Bosnia were "revenge" for the Ottoman conquest. It should certainly be noted that Serb apoligists regularly claim the Srebrenica massacre was "motivated" by these killings, but to accept it as fact is preposterously POV.

"The extent" wording could certainly be qualified. However, I recall seeing quite a few sources which state that the Serb lust for revenge for losses 92-93 may have motivated their behavior in June 1995. For example, the Dutch govt. (NIOD) report says (see bottom of the page):

The Muslim attacks during the first year of the war appear to have caused the most resentment among the Serbs, who felt deeply humiliated by Oric. It is primarily defeats in places such as Zalazje, Podravanje, Fakovici and Kravica that Serbs wanted to avenge. Probably, that thirst for vengeance was one of the main driving forces behind the massacres in July 1995.

Calling the Dutch govt. Serb apologists seems a bit paranoid. Also the NIOD report has already been used as a source in the "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign" section. I'm sure there are plenty of other non-Serb sources as well (By the way, why would a Serb source be less qualified tha, for example, the Srebrenica genocide blogspot, which seems to be a very popular source here?).

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The NIOD is, as far as I can tell, a fairly unreliable source with wildly flawed information that seriously jeopardizes the validity of its conclusions. Please refer to the section where the report talks about the "total annihilation" of the population of Kravica. If it adopts such well-documented Serb propaganda as that into its findings, then it is no wonder that it would also adopt the pro-RS stance that the killings "motivated" the Srebrenica massacre. If the NIOD is used as a source elsewhere in the article, then I suggest it's immediately taken out and replaced with more credible material. Considering the well-documented nature of the section you mentioned (i.e. "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign"), finding a superior source should not be hard to find; I myself have several candidates. Basically, this article is supposed to deal with facts and there is simply no way to firmly establish the "motives" of those who perpetrated the Srebrenica massacre (are we to assume that had it not been for the ARBiH raids the VRS would not have conducted mass killings of Bosniaks upon taking over the city, even if they had already done so in Bratunac, Bijeljina, Visegrad, etc.?). Thus, putting them forward as facts is simply wrong. The only thing that could be written that is factually accurate is that VRS sympathizers have put forward these raids as having motivated the Srebrenica massacre (although, in this case, the wild exaggerations of documented casualty numbers put forward by these groups would have to be noted). The fact that non-Serb (and presumably impartial) sources also put forward this "theory" is irrelevant, as because we are dealing with "motives" it is evident that they are merely echoing the Serb sentiments. As for your question in which you brought up the validity of Serb sources and the Srebrenica genocide blog, you're completely missing the point in your witch-hunt for fallacies. The Srebrenica genocide blog is a perfectly valid source because the information posted there that is used on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, is original material from the ICTY, United Nations, etc. If you can find Serbian sources not based on original material but information from credible and legitimate sources, then perhaps they can be worked into the article. Unfortunately, sensationalistic Belgrade media posting inflated victim numbers do not fit these criteria. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

3. The section conveniently glosses over the fact that the Serb "villages" the ARBiH troops were raiding weren't simply civilian communities of Serb peasents as the name implies.

Again, only the RDC pressrelease comments on the breakdown between soldiers and civilians, which I have included in the text. I'm certainly not trying to gloss anything over. Otherwise we might as well state in the intro what portion of the 8,000 killed and missing were soldiers/of military age.

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's because you're contorting my arguments into ones you feel you could answer or because you're woefully uninformed, but my comment was not related to "the breakdown between soldiers and civilians" per se, but rather to the proven and well-document nature of many Serb villages as military outposts - facts which your section on Serb casualties wholly ignores. As for your contention that the RDC press release is "[the] only" source that comments on the above-mentioned "breakdown between soldiers and civilians": false. Once again, as the RDC represents the only professional multiethnic effort to carefully document and analyze the casualty figures of the Bosnian war it deserves to be given more weight, but either way there are numerous sources and facts which testify to the fact that most Serbs killed in the region around Srebrenica were soldiers. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Quoting Lewis MacKenzie is simply pathetic. Not only was MacKenzie outside of Bosnia for two years by the time the massacre in Srebrenica happened (not to mention that considering his location in Sarajevo, general ineptitude, and overall lack of UN presence in Srebrenica at his time, the extent to which he is qualified to talk of Srebrenica is minimal), but he is also funded by Serb lobby groups and accused of rape.

MacKenzie was the commander of the UNPROFOR during 1992, so he would have had a good insight into the events discussed here. As for the smear campaign directed against him by the Bosnian government the Journal of Conflict Studies gives a good overview of it:

Part of the propaganda war was a successful Bosnian government campaign to discredit MacKenzie personally (including stories that his wife was a Serb). The UN's response was to ignore such stories, rather than take action to refute them, and by June they had reached such a level that MacKenzie asked to be relieved as he could no longer function without risk to his troops, identified as "MacKenzie's men." In November 1992, coinciding with the Islamic Conference in Saudi Arabia, the Bosnian government claimed that MacKenzie had raped and murdered three or four Muslim girls obtained for him at a Serb concentration camp. By 1995, this story was being reported as regular visits by MacKenzie to a Serb camp brothel stocked with Muslim girls.

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the chief source for the journal you provided is MacKenzie's own book "Peacekeeper". The Bosnian government's "smear campaign" that you refer to includes the testimony of a Serb eye-witness as well as video evidence testified to by witnesses in a special briefing conducted by Helsinki Watch for Congressional staffers. Asides from this lies my point which you completely ignored; the fact that MacKenzie made speaking tours in the United States funded at $15,000 per engagement by Serb lobby groups. As for your contention that MacKenzie's status as commander of UNPROFOR in 1992 means he has "good insight into the events discussed here", were you familiar with the situation in Srebrenica in 1992 and 1993 you would know that UN presence was marginal and minimal, and MacKenzie's ability to have "good insight" while situated in besieged Sarajevo (never mind his apparent pro-Serb sympathies) is highly questionable. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

5. The Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo presented as just another source. In fact, as it has a multiethnic staff and open, detailed, professional, and extensive research into the number of casualties during the Bosnian war, it should be presented with the credibility it deserves. Especially considering that other sources with figures in the section are random Serb media outlets, the Serbian government, and a disgraced general.

Well, I am citing it so it's there. I suggest reading this briefing with Florence Hartmann, Spokesperson for the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICTY specifically on the subject of the number of Serbs killed. Basically, she recognizes that there is a wide range in the estimates, which is exactly what I do as well. Again, the NIOD report has been used as a source elsewhere in this article, why not on this topic?

Osli73 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be cited in the article, but the manner in which is done is wrong (see above). As for the briefing with Florence Hartmann you provided, it takes place well before the RDC date pertaining to the issue was released, but still reinforces most of the points I've raised. While it is important to maintain an N-POV on Wikipedia, this does not mean treating all sources in a debate equally despite an obvious gap in credibility. Live Forever 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, don't you think it would make more sense to move this section to after section 1.1.2, which, in my opinion, leads more naturally to the "Serb casualties" issue?

Cheers Osli73 09:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360,

I read your text on the "Serb casualties" section. Although I am not against editing the previous text I feel that your suggested text is not presenting the various findings in a NPOV way instead of letting the sources speak for themselves. Please see Wikipedia on Let the facts speak for themselves and what Wikiepdia says about Fairness of tone:

"Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

"We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."

Regards Osli73 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."[11]

I don't know if you've seen the above section of Wikipedia's NPOV policy (that you apparently skimmed through for aspects that support your position), but it does a nice job summarizing exactly what is wrong with what you're doing here. Although the controversy regarding the number of Serb casualties perhaps deserves to be mentioned, the views of biased Serb sources, political propagandists, and sparse international figures that are clearly grounded on demonstratably false facts certainly do not deserve to be given equal validity to the facts of the matter expressed by credible international humanitarian organizations, courts, the United Nations, etc. Live Forever 12:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, you need to be more specific about which sentences you dislike. For instance, I do not agree with the following fragment:

"The investigation further established that of 383 Serb victims buried in the Bratunac military cemetery, 139 (or more than one third of the total) had fought and died in a different region of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite this, the buried at the military cemetery are presented as having been killed as the result of actions taken by ARBiH units from Srebrenica."

The logic indicated by the "despite this" seems to be wrong here. The fact that the 139 victims have not died in Bratunac does not mean that they haven't been killed as the result of actions taken by ARBiH units from Srebrenica. In fact, according to the RDC, 38 were killed in Srebrenica itself.

The sentence "Many consider that such insinuations about the motivations for the Srebrenica massacre are merely revisionist attempts to justify the genocide that ensued" has no source. It is certainly not supported by the quote from the UN report that follows, which says merely that the Bosniaks did no major raids out of the safe haven after it was established.

I think that RDC's estimate for the number of victims (300-1000, namely 3-9 times smaller than the "over 3000" mentioned by Serbia) should also be mentioned. In fact, if this is the most credible estimate, then it should be mentioned at the very beginning. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please disregard the last paragraph. The "3 to 9 times smaller" refers to the total number killed (civilians and soldiers) in the Bratunac region. I did not find an estimate from the RDC for the number of civilian victims (in Bratunac and elsewhere) of attacks out of Srebrenica. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to disagree with in that statement? Some 1/3 of the people buried in the cemetary were found to have died fighting in completely different regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina; namely around Sarajevo during fighting in the siege of that city. After the war their remains were reburied in Srebrenica. Now every year, coincidentally coinciding with the anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, Serb politicians pose in front of cameras at the cemetery and present it's buried as victims of "Naser's rampage". Live Forever 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Dado, why have you added the NPOV dispute tag? [Wikipedia] defines NPOV as "In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts." This is precisely what I am doing!

I suspect you put the tag there simply because it goes against your own ideological conviction (Wikipedia warns that "For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough.).

Maybe I should enter a NPOV dispute tag on the sections of the article which I feel are biased as well. Osli73 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Notice to Osli73

You can agree or disagree, it's up to you. However, we will not let you post already discredited Serbian information and present it as a fact in Srebrenica Massacre article. Although I salute your decision not to deny Srebrenica genocide, I must condemn you for spoiling the article with moral relativism and already discredited Serbian sources (e.g. the number of Serbs killed, adventures of accussed concentration camp raper and Serb lobbyist Gen. Mackenzie, etc). --Bosniak 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, you are bent on calling anyone who challenges your highly biased presentation and analysis of events as "vandalism" or "moral relativism". I get the feeling that you see the Srebrenica massacre as more of a political than a historical topic. You choose to only present your numbers and dismiss any source or text which does not fit your view as "Serb propaganda". And, no, Lewis MacKenzie was no "concentration camp raper" - as I explained/showed above to Dado, that was a smear campaign by the Bosnian government during the war. Cheers Osli73 06:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NIOD REPORT IS BIASED

Read here: RELATIVISM OF JUSTICE: Thoughts on Noam Chomsky, NIOD Report, Dutch Government, U.N. & more... --Bosniak 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, the NIOD report has been criticised by some (mainly for being too large or being used by political opponents), but that is something that is always going to happen in such a controversial issue as the Srebrenica massacre. Certainly, Bosniak nationalists seem very intent on pinning as much blame as possible on the Dutch government for the massacre.

Finally, nationalist blogs such as the Srebrenica Genocide blogspot are not very good sources. Otherwise I could easily start referring to the rantings of a slew of Serbian nationalist blogs. Osli73 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence

I think the changes need to be discussed one by one instead of the wholesale reversions that seem to have become the norm. So let's look at the first sentence:

"The Srebrenica massacre was the July 1995 killing of up to 8,373 (killed or missing) Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska under the command of general Ratko Mladić."

The question is whether to include the parenthetical remark "(killed or missing)". I think that the sentence does not make much sense with it, in the view of the word killing before. On the other hand, the list where the number 8373 comes from indeed talks about "missing or killed". Finally, I think that mentioning the number "up to 8373" suggests a precision which is simply unattainable. For that reason, I prefer a vague formulation like "the July 1995 killing of around eight thousand Bosniak males". In a footnote, or perhaps a section further down the article, we can justify the number 8000 by mentioning different estimates like the Federal Commission for Missing Persons and the first ICTY judgment against Krstic (the latter says that the number is likely to be within the range 7000 - 8000). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, I think your suggestion is good. I think it would be good to include a summary stating how many are confirmed dead and how many are missing as well as providing information where what number of persons were killed, f.ex. how many were executed in Srebrenica and how many were killed while making their way towards Tuzla.

Cheers Osli73 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre Article Placed on Protection

I have placed the article on protection due to never ending vandalism. We cannot allow people to delete factual statements if they don't like them, nor we can allow already discredited Serbian sources to be entered into the article. --Bosniak 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Placing Template:Sprotect on the article does not place it under protection. In fact, you cannot place an article under protection yourself, only administrators can do that. I suggest you read our protection policy for further information, including the steps to take to request protection. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just silly, frankly - semi-protection only protects the article against editing by new and anonymous users. If you have a content dispute I suggest you work it out with the other editors. -- ChrisO 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Genocide

I noticed that there is a disagreement about whether the sentence that the Srebrenica massacre was the first legally established case of genocide in Europe. This is actually correct - nobody was prosecuted for genocide over the Holocaust, for the simple reason that the offence of genocide didn't exist in international law until 1948. The first convictions for genocide were in Rwanda in 1998, and Krstic was only the third person (and the first European) to be thus convicted. See Genocide Convention for more. -- ChrisO 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli73 is wrong, yet another time!

You stated that this statement is not in reference to the ICTY:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide."

Yet, another time, I am proving you wrong, read here: http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/krs-aj040419e.htm --Bosniak 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, again, you didn't read my text "the reference isn't to the ICTY document, but to some Bosniak NGO". I was referring to the reference, not the text. Pls read more carefully.Osli73 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert and protection of the article

Why was the article reverted and then protected? I have a long history on Wikipedia, I have offered to discuss my changes (but received no reply), explained the changes that I have made, and included plenty of reliable sources and references to the edits I have made.

So, please explain exactly what it is that you will not accept? Osli73 21:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now made a request to unprotect the article.Osli73 21:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the article was never protected. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, rather than finding excuses to erase statements that anyone familiar with the Srebrenica massacre know are true, for example, that some preteen children were killed, why not help find better primary source material? You could contribute your time to researching ICTY or ICMP documents. Your penchant for erasing accurate statements or relegating them to obscure places in the article creates the impression that your goal might be to obfuscate what happened rather than make it more clear. As it stands now, you erased the statement that preteen children were killed because the source material was not sufficient in your opinion and yet the source material included verbatim text from the ICTY? Why would you erase the statement that preteen children were killed? If you want to improve the article, then find better source material. --Fairview360 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, that statement is not important enough to be included in the lead section. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding that sentence (a) the quote was from a rather nationalist blog (even though the source stated that it was from the ICTY document). This makes it difficult to know in what context that quote was made and (b) I'm not sure it is necessary to include that information in the introduction, which should be a summary of the article.Osli73 15:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Adjustments

The article is good, mainly because it contains a lot of information about the massacre. However, it has some faults as well, mainly relating to the tone in which it is written and that it, in some places, only present one of several common interpretations of events. I have focused on three areas where this is evident before:

1. Introduction: the text talks about "up to 8,373 Bosniak males" when in fact the figure quoted is typically 7-8,000 and that includes missing. Also, the Holocaus was never legally defined as Genocide.

1. Stuggle for Srebrenica: this section glosses over the effect which the Bosniak offensive 1992-93, including the killing of a large number of Serb civilians, had on the behavior of Serb forces in 1995. I provided several sources which stated that Serb losses during this period gave rise to feelings for revenge.

1. Serb casualties around Srebrenica: this section only presents one study's findings on this issue instead of presenting the range of estimates which are out there (and which are quoted). I sources this from the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor's press brief regarding the Naser Oric trial. I also included the RDC finding. You also omit any text about the significance of these losses, which is what is at the root of the controversy - that Serbs feel their losses are being neglected while Bosniaks feel that discussions about Serb civilian losses somehow reduces their status as victims.

These are only three sections of the article which the Bosniak editors refuse to accept, even though I have provided plenty of reliable sources (ICTY, Dutch government reports, etc., compared to the natinalists blogs which are used by some as a source). Instead, these sources, which don't fit your view, are leballed as "vandalism" and "Serb lies". If you are not able to discuss this topic rationally, then maybe you should not be editing the article.

Please provide me with some comments.Osli73 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, if a mafia boss gives the order to have someone murdered as part of a turf war, the salient issue is that there was a turf war going on. Why was the order given? Because there was a turf war. If Luka Brossi the hitman takes pleasure in the killing for personal reasons of revenge, yes that is relevant, but it should not be construed as the reason for the murder. The murder occurred because orders were given as part of a turf war. Where did they come from. Why were they given. Ultra-nationalist Serbs -- Milosevic, Seselj, Arkan, etc -- had a goal of creating an ethnically pure greater Serbia. That is the underlying reason why the Srebrenica massacre occurred. Orders were given as part of a well thought out plan. So be careful in explaining why you want to include an explanation as to the particular glee some individuals took in slitting the throats of innocent people because you border on blaming the victims of Srebrenica for their own massacre when it was behind a desk in Belgrade that the relevant decisions were made, not in the heads of some hate-filled individual executioners. --Fairview360 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360, holy wise fairness personified; Milosevic was a Socialist, do you remember? just tapping your brain for bugs... --Arsenio 23:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Arsenio, do you really believe Milosevic was a Socialist? Really I think he was only acting in one role or another and that he did not believe in anything. He was not a Socialist, a nationalist, nor a Yugoslav, nor an anti-imperialist. He was just an opportunist who wanted power and simply did not care what effect his choices had on everyday people in the former Yugoslavia. What do you think?Fairview360 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction

Some comments on the introduction:

• Since the ICTY document states the range 7-8000, based on confirmed killed and missing, that is also the figure which should be used in the introduction
• Srebrenica is the first legally defined case of Genocide in Europe, since the Holocaust was never legally defined as Genocide
• We need a link to the actual ICTY judgment for the citation at the end of the introduction. The current reference is the ICTY judgment, but the link is to a Bosniak NGO in NYC

If you disagree with the above, please comment here, instead of just saying it is all lies. And, please, stay polite. Cheers Osli73 08:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, according to the legal definition of genocide, the holocaust was a case of genocide, however the law against genocide did not come into existence until 1948, hence you are correct that there was not a legal verdict establishing the holocaust as genocide. In regards to the Srebrenica massacre, "The first established case of genocide since the holocaust" would be accurate. It has been fully established that Nazi Germany committed genocide. Please tell me that you are not questioning whether the holocaust was genocide. --Fairview360 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Struggle for Srebrenica

• I have included sourced comments from the ICTY and the RDC in Sarajevo regarding the estimated number of Serbs civilians killed during this period
• I have included statements from both the Dutch government NIOD report and Lewis MacKenzie, the UNPROFOR commander at the time, stating that revenge for Serb losses during this period (however large they actually were) was a major motive for the 1995 massacre.
• I have previously (see above) provided a link to an article in the Journal of Conflict Studies outlining the Sarajevo governments smear campaign against him (which

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosniak/Archive is referring to).

• The NIOD report was carried out by Dutch academics under the auspices of the Netherlands Instutute of War Documentation and has been often cited by both the prosecution and the defence in ICTY trials (of both Bosniaks and Serbs). It is also used in the section "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign" as a reference to the number of Bosniaks killed by Serb forces (Footnote 5). Calling it biased or pro-Serb simply because its presentation of events differs from what certain editors believe says more about these editors own bias than about the report. If this report is biased, we might as well take out most of the sources used in this article.

If you disagree with the above, please comment here, instead of just saying it is all lies. And, please, stay polite. Cheers Osli73 08:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy about Serb casualties

Same comments as for the "Struggle for Srebrenica section" but as some might have specific comments to this specific section, I will include them again:

• I have included sourced comments from the ICTY and the RDC in Sarajevo regarding the estimated number of Serbs civilians killed during this period
• I have included statements from both the Dutch government NIOD report and Lewis MacKenzie, the UNPROFOR commander at the time, stating that revenge for Serb losses during this period (however large they actually were) was a major motive for the 1995 massacre.
• I have previously (see above) provided a link to an article in the Journal of Conflict Studies outlining the Sarajevo governments smear campaign against him (which

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosniak/Archive is referring to).

• The NIOD report was carried out by Dutch academics under the auspices of the Netherlands Instutute of War Documentation and has been often cited by both the prosecution and the defence in ICTY trials (of both Bosniaks and Serbs). It is also used in the section "1992 ethnic cleansing campaign" as a reference to the number of Bosniaks killed by Serb forces (Footnote 5). Calling it biased or pro-Serb simply because its presentation of events differs from what certain editors believe says more about these editors own bias than about the report. If this report is biased, we might as well take out most of the sources used in this article.

If you disagree with the above, please comment here, instead of just saying it is all lies. And, please, stay polite. Cheers Osli73 08:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Emir Arven - your recent edits

Emir Arven, I have a cople of comments to the edits you made (mainly erasing my previous edits):

• The 7-8000 figure (missing and killed) is what is referred to in the ICTY documents in the reference
• The preteen text is (a) sourced from an anonymous blog (the Srebrenica Genocide Blogspot) and (b) is not crucial information for the introduction, which should be a summary of the article.
• Better to just use a neutral term like "offensive" with regards to the Bosniak raids in 1992 as "counter-offensive" is a value-loaded term. Also, if they were attacking Serb villages, couldn't that be seen as an offensive?
• I removed a link which referred to an empty page. I entered the "citation needed" to remind editors that a new one was needed
• The Srebrenica Genocide Blogspot is used as a sournce in for a lot of statements. This is a pro-Bosniak anonymous blog, it is not really a good souce in such a controversial topic
• You seem to want to criticise the NIOD report. Yes, there is a mention that an academic opponent (he also wrote a book on the Srebrenica massacre), Jan Willem Honig "is critical of its length" and that there apparently is a factual error with a map that doesn't quite fit with the text. Also, the editors of the different parts of the report have made somewhat different judgements about what sources to use. However, in a 6,000 report made by several different editors, this is hardly something which calls for discrediting the report. That the Srebrenica Genocide Blogspot does so is neither surprising nor significant enough to mention in the article. The NIOD report has been used for a long time in the article to provide an estimate of the number of Bosniaks ethnically cleansed from Eastern Bosnia in the beginning of the war. Why is it, all of a sudden, not good enough?
• MacKenzie, well, the Bosniak government launched a smear campaign against him which has been outlined in the Journal of Conflict Studies paper linked to above (see previous section).

As you appear completely unwilling to engage in any kind of discussion on these talk pages but seem to prefer to just make the edits you want without any comment other than "Serb lies" and "moral equivalence" then I will have to assume that you are driven by political bias rather than any academic interest. Cheers, Osli73 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Understanding why some editors are unwilling to discuss the Srebrenica massacre rationally

I found this article by Czech non-profit organization covering Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Transitions OnLine (TOL) on the issue of the NIOD report and why many Bosniaks, including, apparently, the Bosniak editors on this article, are so negative of it.

The NIOD report also provides the Bosniak establishment in Sarajevo with a solid platform from which the Bosniaks' own role in the Srebrenica massacre could be examined. The problem is, of course, that most Bosniaks find the characterization of themselves as anything other than passive victims deeply insulting, and that feeling is not limited to the Srebrenica massacre. The reactions of Srebrenica survivors' associations and Bosniak politicians and the media to some of the report findings confirm this.

The Bosniak public expressed anger at the Dutch for failing to unearth evidence that the massacre was prepared in advance, or that Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic was behind it. Some were also unhappy that the report failed to find active Dutch involvement in the separation of Srebrenica men and boys from the women, children, and elderly.

This is not the first time that Bosniak leaders and opinion-makers have reacted angrily when told that the truth does not correspond to their own mythology of the war, even when that truth doesn't deprive the Bosniaks of their victim role.

Cheers Osli73 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your remarks about our "Bosniak" reasons for contesting a report riddled with inaccuracies I won't even get to. However, I think it's interesting to note that this article is four years old. Live Forever 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

• How can you expect to be taken seriously if you are unwilling to discuss comments or sources (other than saying they are "riddled with inaccuracies" in general)?
• Well, the NIOD report came out 4 years ago, that is why this article, on the reactions to the NIOD report, also came out 4 years ago. Besides, nothing has really changed since then. For example, you and

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosniak/Archive certainly seem completely unwilling to accept any data which indicates that there are other than Bosniak victims. Osli73 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to lecture anybody on being "taken seriously", then I would suggest you cut down on the Ad Hominem attacks that do little more than emphasize your own ignorance. I am more than willing to discuss comments and sources; in fact, that's what I just did by writing several paragraphs in response to our earlier discussion in the "Serbian casualties" section and by carefully explaining every individual edit I have made. Live Forever 14:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of being "taken seriously", why in the world is it necessary to provide sources to prove that "food, medicine and other essentials were extremely scarce" in a besieged and overpopulated town with obstruced access to the outside world? I still added a source that carefully documents the state of the city at that time, but this is a basic fact to anyone at all familiar with the situation. I can only wonder how things would be if you treated absurd "Serb" claims with the same incredulous scrutiny. Live Forever 14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, I see that you are quite motivated. That can be an asset. I return to my suggestion that you build credibility by finding the primary source material quoted in the blog (pre-teen killing). I believe we are all in agreement that the primary source material (straignt from the ICTY) would be better than the blog. How about harnessing some of that fountain of energy you have and helping those who question your commitment to improving the article just as you question their commitment to improving the article. I still see that you have erased accurate statements based on less than perfect source material rather than finding better source material. We all know that pre-teen children were killed during the massacre. So help with that source material and I for one will put some of my energy into places where I see some validity in your challenges to the article. With all this energy, if we aspire to wikipedian ideals, then the article will be improved. --Fairview360 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview,

What I objected to was describing the source as the ICTY when it in fact was linked to the SG blog. This makes it very difficult to understand the context in which the citation was made. I'd be more than willing to help to find this information.

Cheers Osli73 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli73

He wants to deface Srebrenica massacre article with already discredited Serbian sources. He wanted opinion (moral equivalism) of accused Serb-run rape camp participant - Gen Lewis MacKenzie - to be heard on Srebrenica massacre article. You know what Osli? Keep MacKenzie's Srebrenica genocide denials for left-revisionist websites. They are not welcome here. Osli73 also wanted to include Belgrade's already discredited lies about 3000+ Serbs killed to be included in the article (when they were already discussed and discredited). This article is not about Serbian nationalist lies, this article is about 8,000 + victims of Srebrenica genocide. I will not allow Srebrenica massacre article to be poisoned by moral equivalism and already discredited Serbian nationalist lies and left-apologist opinions. What a loser! --Bosniak 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, the best way to defend the article is with continued diligence and cool headed determination. So think of those killed and those who survived and for their sake, be vigilant, be determined, and don't be a hot head. Please. I strongly suggest you edit your comments and present your determined stance in a more constructive manner. Desribing Osli as an apologist for ultra-nationalist Serbs and their sympathizers is more effective than using names that belong on an 8th grade playground. Think about what you are doing. Calm down and preserve your credibility. --Fairview360 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, I have provided legitimate references for my edits and have been willing to discuss. As there are three contested sections (mainly) I have provided my arguments and sources for each above. It would be best if you discussed these specific arguments and sources above. However, if you prefer personal insults to discussion then maybe you do not belong in this article.Osli73 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, please do not claim that Lewis MacKenzie is a legitimate reference, a man who is on the ultra-nationalist Serb lobby payroll and who has discredited himself as an objective source by making statements that are clearly at odds with well established fact. He is a mouthpiece for ultra-nationalist Serbs and an unabashed revisionist. Lewis MacKenzie will not be a source for this article. If you want to start your own article with him as your feature, let's say with articles about how Elvis lives, the World Trade Center was not brought down by planes, the holocaust never really happened, and we never went to the moon, go right ahead. But not here. --Fairview360 00:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Bosniak for 24 hours for the above personal attack. Could everyone please calm down - making personal attacks is forbidden by Wikipedia policy and doesn't help anyone. -- ChrisO 18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While MacKenzie's opinions are clearly not mainstream and should be treated accordingly, we should also keep in mind that blogs aren't considered reliable sources either. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360, I'm not aware that MacKenzie is on anyone's "payroll". If so, could you please provide some kind of "proof" of this (not a Blog edited by See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosniak/Archive). I've shown you above how the rape accusations against him are an organized smear campaign. As for his views, well, they may not tow the official Bosnian government line but as the commander of UNPROFOR at the time of the first fighting around Srebrenica, MacKenzie's interpretation of events at the time should be considered relevant. Cheers Osli73 14:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this how its going to be Osli? You are going to spoon feed us revisionist propaganda and then dare us to prove it wrong? I don't think so.

Read the Globe and Mail piece that Mackenzie wrote. That clearly shows where he is coming from. As far as MacKenzie's UN position automatically giving him credence, Ramsay Clarke was a ranking member of the Carter Administration. He is still a member of the Leftist lunatic fringe obviously warped by his own ideology. Yes, MacKenzie held a position of some significance, but his behavior and statements since then give rise to the suspicion that, not only do they pay him, but also ultra-nationalist Serbs do indeed have something to blackmail him with. In any case, he does not belong in this article as a credible source.

In regards to receiving funding, do your homework. MacKenzie conveniently forgets if he received money from the ultra-nationalist Serb lobby:

"The former U.N. commander in Bosnia has participated in a speakers tour funded by a Serbian-American advocacy group that seeks to dispel the internationally accepted view that Serb fighters were principally responsible for the mass killings, rape and ethnic cleansing that has destroyed the former Yugoslav republic. In an interview with Newsday, retired Canadian Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie said he has done nothing unethical or improper in connection with last month's tour. MacKenzie last week acknowledged in a telephone conversation from Ottawa that his tour was funded by the group, SerbNet, but said he does not know how much he was paid. In his public appearances, including congressional testimony last month, MacKenzie never disclosed SerbNet's financial support.

MacKenzie said that he customarily receives up to $10,000 an appearance and that he "wouldn't be surprised" if SerbNet paid that rate through his agent."

Osli, it is indeed offensive when people want to cover up or distort the truth of what happened in Srebrenica. For many of the survivors, that is all they have left. Having eliminated their loved ones from the face of the earth, ultra-nationalist Serbs now want to obliterate or at the very least distort any record of what actually happened. While Bosniak was out of line in the language he chose to use, it is legitimate for Bosniak to question your motivations and try to defend the article from your attempts to introduce MacKenzie-skewed material. Hopefully, when he returns he will have calmed down and will help provide the needed vigilance to protect this article from your attempts to distort it with revisionist propaganda. --Fairview360 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak and Fairview,

Bosniak, you state above that "This article is not about Serbian nationalist lies, this article is about 8,000 + victims of Srebrenica genocide. I will not allow Srebrenica massacre article to be poisoned by moral equivalism and already discredited Serbian nationalist lies and left-apologist opinions".

Fairview, you do not provide any credible source for why MacKenzie cannot be cited in this article. Instead you use name-calling such as "Leftist lunatic fringe".

No, this article is not a memorial of "those killed and those who survived", it should be an encyclopedic article about the massacre. So, if you are not able to edit this article in an academic style using a fairness of tone, then I suggest that you use you energies on the Srbrenica genocide blog and other such personal forums which do not require NPOV.

Cheers Osli73 08:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Genocide Blog

Bosniak, Are you (one of) the editor(s) of the Srebrenica Genocide blog? Just to set the record straight. Osli73 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, Reading through Bosniak's User page it is apparent (see here)that he is the editor of the Srebrenica Genocide blog. In light of this, is it correct to use this blog as a source/reference for statements in the article? Under what circumstances could it be correct? Cheers Osli73 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi ChrisO

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The article is cited to:

COPYRIGHT PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE 450 Mission Street, Room 506 San Francisco, CA 94105 415-243-4364 Date: 06/04/1993

The fact that someone posted it on geocities has nothing to do with the credibility of the article; this is original article with full copyright notice. It's over 13 years old and was published when internet was only barely beginning to be used.

What's the problem? Is the truth problem again? I would not be surprised if you banned me and all your opponents from wikipedia. Now, I see, we are not even allowed to use this article as a source, but our opponents are allowed to use Lewis Mackanzie's genocide denials as a source ?

Don't you see double standard here? Bosniak 04:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

******* Double Standard Against Bosniaks ***********

ChrisO doesn't want me to use copy of the original investigative article that was published in 1993 by David Bernstein (Pacific News Service). The reason is because he thinks this is a personal website http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/general_lewis_mackenzie.html . What difference does it make? It's still original article published 13 years ago by Pacific News Service with full copyright notice? http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/general_lewis_mackenzie.html

On the other hand - he allows use of personal "lists" or "groups", such as "mail-archive" and Serb-run "balkanpeace" from Toronto when reading articles republished from Canada's Globe and Mail, example http://www.mail-archive.com/serbian_way@antic.org/msg00008.html

Anyways, balkanpeace.org is Serb-run website in which Bosniaks, Croats and other ethnic groups are portrayed as the worst of the worst, while Serb crimes are excused.

One more thing - if I stop being active here, then you will know that they banned me. And if that happens, it will be clear example of pro-Serb one-sidedness and double-standard that is attempting to plague this very important article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre .

I urge ChrisO to protect Srebrenica Massacre article in a same way Israel's article is protected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel .

And remember: Srebrenica massacre article is not about Serbs or pro-Serb lobbyists such as General Lewis Mackenzie. Srebrenica massacre article is about 8,000+ victims of genocide. Let's focus on the victims and honor them.

How would you feel if you lost your children, mother, grandmother, grandfather and all people that you loved and lived for? Ask yourself this question every time you edit Srebrenica massacre article. Search for love and compassion in your heart, you will find it.

And remember: Sreebrenica massacre article is not about failed politicians and their adventures in lobbying for Milosevic. Srebrenica massacre article is about victims of genocide, not failed political figures such as MacKenzie who was kicked from Sarajevo due to his open pro-Serb leanings.

Peace! Always! Forever!

Bosniak 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, you rally should learn to detach yourself emotionally from the subject if you want to work on the article.

The question is whether the text posted on the geocities site is indeed the original article by the Pacific News Service. It is a grave accusation, so we need to be careful.

The Globe & Mail article is posted on their website, so I changed the link to point directly to it. However, I removed his opinion that it was not genocide because only the men were killed: his reasoning is directly contradicted by the ICTY Appeals Chamber judgment so I don't see why we should mention it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lewis MacKenzie

Jitse,

I am putting the second MacKenzie quote back in. I realize that his view that the massacre does not constitute Genocide is contrary to the ICTY's judgement. However:

1. it is clearly stated that the quote is his opinion; and
2. it is appropriate to have the quote is in the "Scepticism" section

Finaly, there is a difference between law, in particular international law, and history. So, just because Miloseivic was never convicted of anything doesn't mean he's not guilty in the eyes of history or that his crimes should not be described in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Likewise, someone who is acquitted by a court is not necessarily innocent / not guilty in a historical sense.

Cheers, Osli73 11:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, can you come up with a few examples of Western observers who are merely skeptical about the number of 7,000 to 8,000 who do not have an obvious agenda? Fairview360 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360, why is it not appropriate to have a quote from a former UNPROFOR commander regarding the massacre in the "Deniers and revionists" section? Isn't that what it's there for? And what is his "obvious agenda"? Should all quotes from sources with an "obvious agenda" be censored? I've illustrated before (see above) how MacKenzie was the target of a Sarajevo government smear campaign.

Osli73 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, MacKenzie went before Congress and presented himself as a non-biased observer keeping it secret that he was being paid by a nationalist Serb lobby. Are you denying that? When I put his quote clearly in the category of being a denier, you edited it back to presenting him as merely a non-biased skeptic who is allegedly a part of a whole group of Western observers who believe the range of 7,000 to 8,000 killed just doesn't add up. Where are all these informed non-biased Western observers to which you refer? Fairview360 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360,

Yes, MacKenzie is obviously no friend of the Bosnian government (not surprising since they falsely accused him of being a concentration camp rapist). As for being "paid by a nationalist Serb lobby" (I presume you mean the SUC) please provide me with some proof that he is being paid. Or does merely speaking at a function organized by them (if he did that, I don't know) qualify?

Since he has been published by the Guardian (I believe it was) as well as been allowed to testify in the US Congress (as you stated, I didn't know) I presume his views are considered worthwhile to listen to by at least two well regarded 'western' institutions.

I agree that it may be misleading to call him "Some Western observers". I have now changed the wording to "One Western critic".

Cheers Osli73 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360,

I don't see how you can censor comments by MacKenzie purely by claiming, without providing any proof that he is "on the Serb nationalist payroll" (I'm not talking of blogs or obscure web pages). He has been invited to speak in front of the US Congress as well as the Canadian House of Commons and his articles have been published in a major newspaper, such as the Canadian Globe & Mail. This would hardly have been the case if he was "on the Serb nationalist payroll".

As for the Journal of Conflict Studies reference on the Bosnian government's smear campaign against MacKenzie. Well, Stephen Badsey who is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of War Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst as well as being a Senior Research Fellow of the Institute for the Study of War and Society at DeMontfort University has obviously thought it credible enough to include in his article and the Journal of Conflict Studies has published it.

That you believe MacKenzie is "on the Serb-nationalist payroll" is your opinion.

Why are you so afraid of including MacKenzie's statements here?

Cheers Osli73 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli , it is pure manipulation for you to say that those who object to your edits are "afraid" of them. In the 9/11 wikipedia article they do not give a section to the conspiracy theorists. That is because they simply object to their presence in the article, not because they are "afraid". Fairview360 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli , it is not merely my opinion that MacKenzie was on the payroll of the Serb lobby. macKenzie himself has acknowledged that he "may have been paid". A June 22, 1993 Newsday article pointed out that while MacKenzie espoused opinions to the U.S. Congress, international media, and think tanks, he disingenuously failed to mention that he was on the payroll of SerbNet, a Serbian lobbying firm. A representative from Serbnet has ackknowledged that MackKenzie was indeed paid. So you think if you keep telling the lie that MacKenzie was not paid by a Serb lobby group, people will accept it? I don't think so. Fairview360 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli , if you think simply being in a newspaper article makes something credible, then, according to your logic, it is credible that MacKenzie did indeed rape young Muslim women provided to him by ultra-nationalist Serbs and that now he will say or do anything to stop them from exposing him. Why do you want to defend MacKenzie so much and Osli, why did you erase the link to the names of people killed or missing and mark it as minor? Why did you mark it as a minor edit, Osli? Answer the question. Or mirroring your pathetic tactics of manipulation should I ask you now are you afraid to say why you marked it as minor? Fairview360 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360,

Regarding the missing persons list. I stated before (see above) that I deleted it because the list (a) was in Serbo-Croatian and (b) it clearly wasn't on any official site, as the link stated.

Regarding MacKenzie, pls read the comment by Jitse above.

Take it easy Osli73 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli ,

What you have not answered, what you keep avoiding, is answering the question why you marked erasing the names of those killed or missing as "minor".

Osli, are you going to acknowledge that MacKenzie was paid by the Serb lobby or are you going to keep trying to say that that is just my opinion? Fairview360 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360,

I have answered you, twice (see above).

Regarding the missing persons list. I have stated that I deleted it because the list (a) was in Serbo-Croatian and (b) it clearly wasn't on any official site, as the link stated. As it stood, it was just a list of names published on some unknown website.

Regarding MacKenzie, pls read the comment by Jitse above (ie he probably spoke at some SUC function because they liked what he had to say, not because he was "on their payroll").

Take it easy Osli73 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli intro edits

I believe Osli's latest edit to the introduction is an improvement. The figure of "7,000 to 8,000" is consistent with ICTY judgements and frankly more sensical than saying an "estimated" and then giving an exact number. The reference provided for the ICTY judgement is much better than a blog. The actual quote of "forty thousand" is better than paraphrasing.

Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionism

While it is a good idea to collect the sceptics of the generally accepted version of the massacre in a separate section I have a couple of problems with it:

• First, it bunches together those who are merely sceptical of the Bosnian government number of 8,000 killed with the conspiracy theory loonies and those who deny that the massacre took place at all. There is a difference between claiming that maybe the number of killed was 6,000 or that it should not be labelled "Genocide" to saying that it is all a giant hoax perpetrated by the Bosnian government and 'Western' media. A comparison would be the Serb tactic of calling anyone who says that maybe 1,000,000 Serbs didn't die in Jasenovac a "Genocide denier" and a Nazi/Ustasha. I would suggest renaming the section "Scepticism and citicism".

• Second, it assumes that there is such a thing as "Srebrenica genocide denial" and that this somehow contstiutes a common, cohesive ideology.

• Third, although the text is good in dealing with the SR and Serbian governments denial of the massacre it could be better in enumerating the main points of criticism of the generally accepted version of events (or how they are described). Each of these criticisms could then be sourced.

Fairview360, you are right, MacKenzie is not representive of 'Western' sceptics or 'Western' observers. So, until we can get a list together (point 3 above) I have added back the MacKenzie comment calling him "One Western sceptic of the mainstream view,..."

What are your thoughts? Cheers, Osli73 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli,

Firstly: 8,000 is not a "Bosnian government" number. MacKenzie is not a dispassionate observer looking at the numbers.

Secondly: There is such a thing as denying the Srebrenica massacre. Those who espouse this view have an identifiable ideology which motivates this phenomenon.

Thirdly: Quite frankly, Osli, when corresponding with you or watching your edits, I feel like I am watching a schizophrenic who has two personalities, one who truly wants to improve the article, and one who wants to foist ultra-nationalist Serb propaganda upon an unsuspecting public. Why did you delete the names of those killed or missing and present it as a minor edit? That appears to me to be deliberate sabotage.

When you improve the article I will say so even though I am highly suspect of your motivations. But as we have learned, ad hominem is not the answer. I do not mean to attack you personally. I am simply pointing out the oscillation that I see in your behavior between forthright and reasonable, and then trying to sneak propaganda into or legitimate crucial information out of the article. Fairview360 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360,

I think no-one is debating what happened. I certainly don't dispute it. The discussion is rather about how the facts are presented and what analysis is either made or implied. On these points (the last two) I feel that Bosniak presents a very one-sided picture. Take the example of the "Serbian casualties around Srebrenica". This is clearly pertinent to the article as it helps the reader to understand one possible motive for the viciousness of the massacre - revenge. However, for political reasons Bosniak (and, I believe, other Bosnian editors as well) is unwilling to include this information or this analysis (made by some of the sources I referenced). This article is not about "remembering those who gave their lives" or any such thing - it is about describing, in an encyclopedic way, what happened, why it happened and what consequences it has had.

In response to your comments above:

• No, the 7-8000 figure above is certainly not the "Bosnian govt." figure, it is better described as the "generally accepted number" or something to that effect. I can understand that you don't agree with MacKenzie's views but I don't understand your opposition to including him in the "denyers" and "sceptics" section since he is, apparently, one prominent (since he was UNPROFOR commander) critic of the "generally accepted view" of the massacre. If he is allowed to testify to the US Congress and the Canadian House of Commons committee as well as be allowed to publish articles in major Western newspapers on the subject, why should he not be allowed to appear in this article (where a lot of other, less reputable sources are used).

• Well, there appears to be broad range of people who are critical of all or some aspects of the "generally accepted view" of the massacre. This ranges from claiming that it never happened and was all a conspiracy to those who challenge the numbers killed to those who have a somewhat different analysis of the massacre. Believing that all of these people have a common political agenda with a common "ideology" is to misrepresent the truth. Branding everyone who is a critic, no matter in what way, as a "Srebrenica genocide denier and revisionist" is tantamount to when Serb nationalists brand all those who are sceptical of the 1 million Serbs killed at Jasenovac as "Nazis/Ustasha" and "Genocide deniers" and when people brand all forms of criticism against Israel as "anti Semitism".

• Well, I have described my motives for editing this article above. Regarding the list of names, well, maybe that was a bit harsh. The reason was that these lists were not identifiably sourced from the Federal Commission (as the source stated), instead they appeared to originate from some Bosnian-language website. As for my motives for editing this article, please see the first paragraph of this entry. Wikipedia is not a blog (like Bosniak's Srebrenica Genocide Blog, often used as a source here, btw) but an encyclopedia.

Cheers Osli73 08:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, but you never explain your motivations for deleting the names of those killed or missing and trying to sneak it by as a minor edit. For that blatant underhanded attempt at sabotage alone, you ought to be banned from editing this article ever again. As far as MacKenzie being paid, he himself acknowledged that he "may have been paid" and the Serb lobby group acknowledged they paid him. Do your homework and stop this charade of not knowing. Fairview360 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli's words "I think no-one is debating what happened. I certainly don't dispute it." No of course you don't dispute it Osli; you just do everything you can to try to make those who do deny it look reasonable. And you try to delete information in the middle of the night while nobody is looking. Why is it you think you can re-invent yourself as an objective person after trying to erase the names of those killed in Srebrenica. Fairview360 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

MacKenzie testified at the US Congress under false pretenses. It was not until afterward that people found out he was on the nationalist Serb payroll. Fairview360 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go again trying to lump deniers of the massacre with people who simply have a different analysis of the motivating factors. You love to blur that line, don't you. Fairview360 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to justify your deleting the names of those killed or missing. You labeled it a minor edit. You knew it was not. Fairview360 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that MacKenzie disagrees with the "official" narrative is worth mentioning, because of his position. I find it hard to believe that he disagrees because he is paid by the Serbs; more probable for me is that he first said that the massacre wasn't that bad, and that the Serbs started paying him afterwards to give talks in lot of places in an effort to get their side of the story told.

However, on reflection I think that neither quote of MacKenzie should be in the article, because they don't add any information. We should not use quotations to simply reinforce what the article says (see any style guide on academic writing).

MacKenzie is not the only Western critic. there is a group of people surrounding Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky with similar views (see the "Srebrenica Research Group" external link). Then there is an even bigger group of people (including Thom Karremans) who think that the reporting of the whole conflict in the media was unbalanced, but this article is probably not the proper place to discuss that.

I agree that "Srebrenica massacre denial and revisionism" is a pretty bad title for the section and I would prefer something like "Alternative views" ("scepticism" has too many positive connotations, in my opinion). I have never seen a point-black denial that the massacre took place in the Western media, and no reference to such a view is given. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jitse,

I think your suggestion is very wise, both with regards to how MacKenzie and similar should be mentioned (without citations) and with regards to the title of the section. I see that you have already adjusted the text. I have now also changed the heading of the section (as well as removed the first para. since it doesn't quite fit).

With regard to your comment about avoiding quotes which can be summarized more easily in text (should be summarized, in fact) I think this is a principle which should also be applied to the greater article as well. Long quotes is one reason the article is so long. These could often be summarized instead. What's your thinking on this?

Cheers Osli73 09:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Long quotes

This article has a tendency to use a lot of very long direct quotes and citations. While this may not be a problem in itself, it is one of the reasons why the article has become so long. In most cases these could be summarized and referenced.

So, I suggest that we review the quotes in the article with a view to summarizing them in text instead (see for example what Jitse Nielsen did with the MacKenzie text and quotes, which I think was good).

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Cheers Osli73 09:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Licemjernost

I just realized what you did in the "Struggle for Srebrenica" section. Sorry Osli, but the nature as well as the number of the Serb casualties is very much disputed. Trying to sidestep the fact merely goes to show your growingly apparent agenda. So does your removal of essentially the entire counterargument, with the reasoning you used to justify this being completely unfounded. That said, I'm removing the entire attempt to explain it there. The question of Serb casualties around Srebrenica is controversial, lengthily, and complicated enough that it cannot be adequately summarized in the "Struggle for Srebrenica" section. I will now go ahead and fix the mess you made of the latter section and add some useful information. Live Forever 15:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What motivated the executioners

Osli, the testimony of Drazen Erdemovic gives a stark example of what motivated some of the executioners: kill or be killed. Why on earth would you want to sidestep that???

Fairview360, I think that would be very good information to include. Certainly many individual soldiers acted under orders while some may have been dehumanized by war and hateful ideology and some out of revenge. What I'm saying is that the overall reason(s) for attacking the enclave are interesting and should be explored in the article. Appropriately in a separate section. Revenge for Serb casualties is one possible explanation for the orders to kill all the military aged males. The strategic reason was obviously to try to create an uninterrupted Serb area in E. Bosnia. As in most wars, there was probably a mix of reasons.Osli73 19:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli ,

Given your apparent bi-polar approach to editing, for the sake of keeping things straight, I am going to give you two names: Osli the Revisionist and Osli the Reasonable. Unfortunately, the second parts both start with R so it will be Osli-Rev and Osli-Reas. Right now, you are Osli-Reas, not to be confused with Reis.

So Osli-Reas, yes I believe we all would like to see a balanced reasonable assessment as to what motivated the killers and what motivated the orders. Mladic himself said just beforehand that he was taking revenge, not for Oric's action but for the Turkish empire invading the Balkans 600 years prior. The greater Serbia project explains the attempt to ethnically cleanse all of Bosnia of all but Serbs which explains the orders to engage in mass expulsions and mass executions. Yes, the soldiers who had had loved ones, civilians, killed by Bosniak soldiers would be motivated not only by orders given but by being overwhelmed by the sickness of hate and malice. So... where do we go from here? Who are you going to be next? Osli-Rev or Osli-Reas?

Hi,

I am simply trying to make this article as NPOV as possible. That means that it will probably not fulfill the expectations of people directly or indirectly affected by the massacre, such as most of the Bosniak editors I have come accross on this article. The reason I have become involved in this article is that I felt that it had become, to a certain extent and in certain sections, an expression of precisely the type of nationalism and victim cult that caused the war. Also, it isn't fitting with what Wikipedia should be. My intention has not been to offend anyone, simply to try to make the article more NPOV. More encyclopedic in tone. Wikipedia writes "you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view"[12]

I would hope that you would refrain from name-calling and such. I have already been personally insulted by one editor on these Talk pages.

I am trying to work to improve the article, but this is very difficult if the Bosniak editors see this article as their personal blog rather than an encyclopedic article about a massacre.

Greetings Osli73 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli-Reas , If you were just trying to improve the article, why would you put so much energy into trying to eliminate one apt sentence from the intro? Why would you try to describe the list of names of those killed or missing as "just a list of names on an unknown website"? Why would you describe the ICTY testimony of Drazen Erdemovic as just applicable to him when in fact it was representative of many soldiers given the choice of kill or be killed? Why would you want to give Lewis MacKenzie so much credibility while trying to delete any reference to credible articles that seriously question his integrity and motivations? Why would you present Chomsky as just a Western observer and fight any attempt to put his criticism in context? And so on... Fairview360 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360,

Look, I feel that you are completely unwilling to discuss these issues sensibly. Instead you choose to call me names and see every deviation from your own opinion as an attack. Since you (and the other Bosniak editors of this page) appear completely unwilling to try to champion a NPOV, I suggest that we take the whole shape of the article to some form of third party mediation.

Regards Osli73 21:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli ,

I am one of the few people who are actually willing to engage you in conversation. Fairview360 22:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360, still you seem unable to do so in a civil tone.Osli73 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli , Given that I genuinely believe that you aid and abet the propaganda of those who committed genocide, I am remarkably civil with you. Fairview360 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation & conflict resolution

Fairview360 and others,

Part of the problem, as I see it, is precisely that you view anything which does not correspond to your view as "propaganda".

• I am not contesting that it happened, that some 7-8000 people were killed or that it was planned by the Bosnian Serb authorities/army.
• However, I think the article could be clearer about the possible motives for the massacre and the fact that there is some uncertainty about the exact number of persons killed.
• These issues should be presented in a neutral way without attempts to immediately discredit or tarnish them (eg saying that MacKenzie is "paid by Serb ultra-nationalists" or that he is a rapists or bundling them all as "Genocide denial and revisionism" which implies that all and anyone who has a different opinion is on par with those who deny the Holocaust).
• I also believe that the article should use less emotional language as well as try to keep the lengthy quotes to a minimum (not least to make the article appear more encyclopedic).
• I believe that the article should use verfiable sources, which excludes the blog of one of the editors (User:Bosniak's Srebrenica Genocide blog) or sources which claim to be official but are in fact sourced from somewhere else.

However, the Bosniak editors of this article seem to feel that it is about "honoring" and "remembering" the victims of the massacre, not producing an encyclopedic article about the massacre. Below two quotes from User:Bosniak:

"Srebrenica massacre article is about 8,000+ victims of genocide. Let's focus on the victims and honor them."

"How would you feel if you lost your children, mother, grandmother, grandfather and all people that you loved and lived for? Ask yourself this question every time you edit Srebrenica massacre article. Search for love and compassion in your heart, you will find it."

Finally, any attempts to edit the article in the direction pointed out above results in personal insults and name calling as well as accusations of being a "Genocide denier".

Please calm down, use a civil language and realize that this is an encyclopedic article, not a blog or a "rememberance" of the victims. I have suggested mediation before and think that this is the only way forward with regards to this article.

Regards Osli73 10:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

All very well said Osli , however, then you go ahead and use the "Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia!" website. Or, immediately dismiss all criticism of MacKenzie as a "slur" just as you accuse others of dismissing all your criticism as propaganda. Or while saying you are not contesting the number killed, you just do everything you can to give credence to those who are. Or, saying that quotes should not be in there, yet try to insert MacKenzie quotes of some length. Verifiable sources, Osli??? And then you rely on the Defend Milosevic! website and the RS news agency??? My guess is that you have lost so much credibility that not many would want to bother entering into mediation with you. It would be rewarding your underhanded hypocritical tactics and attempts at bullying your edits into the article. Fairview360 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview,

Does that mean that you are willing to enter into mediation? How about the other Bosniak editors?

Osli73 08:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli ,

Please read my above sentence again: "My guess is that you have lost so much credibility that not many would want to bother entering into mediation with you. It would be rewarding your underhanded hypocritical tactics and attempts at bullying your edits into the article." Osli, what do you think that means? Fairview360 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

alternative views verses revisionism and denial

Given Osli-Rev's fine example of people trying to make revisionists look as reasonable as possible, that being indicative of future challenges to this article, I think it would be good to have two sections, one for alternative views and one for deniers and revisionists. There are indeed objective people who are looking at the facts and offering alternative views, and then there are revisionists with a hard core Leftist agenda (Noam Chomsky, Diana Johnstone and Edward S. Herman) who should not be presented as neutral observers. The reader deserves to know what motivates these people to offer such drastically different views from what has been established through painstaking exhaustive investigation by the ICTY. If ultra-nationalist Serb apologists like Lewis MacKenzie are going to be included, again, the reader deserves to know about what may or may not be motivating him. If we have two sections, one for alternative views such as that put forth by defense attorney Norm Sepenuk and one for revisionists darlings of the Far Left like Chomsky, Diana Johnstone and Edward S. Herman, then we can both improve the article and better defend it from those trying to slip in propaganda as legitimate references.

If it were up to Osli-Rev, there would be no mention of propaganda, as if those who committed genocide never produced such a thing. The article ought to mention the ways in which ultra-nationalist Serbs tried to cover up their crimes and call it what it is: denial and revisionism.

Why should those with a "leftist agenda" be considered any less "neutral observers" than, for example, Bosniak sources? To me it seems like you cannot believe that anyone can have an alternative view on this without being a "ultra-nationalist Serb apologists". Language like this is and the personal attacks are, in my opinion, an example of why you are unable to participate in editing this article in a rational manner.Osli73 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli , well then you do not read what I have contributed to the article. I am the one who did the research and found a defense attorney who argues that Krstic's crimes against humanity do not reach the level of genocide and added the reference. Do you think there is no such thing as propaganda produced by those who committed genocide? Are you suggesting that we can not refer to anything as propaganda? I believe it is you Osli who lacks consistent reasoning and who consistently misrespresents what I have written. Fairview360 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Sepenuk says, and the reference seems not to be included in the article at the moment. We should all be more careful and not blindly revert other edits as this has often led to the unconscious removal of good edits.

Anyway, it's not clear to me how Sepenuk's opinions differ from those of Chomsky et al., so I don't know why you want to put them in different section. As for the possible motives of Chomsky's group, that may be worth including if it can be formulated in a way that does not violate Wikipedia policies like no original research. Specifically, the fact that their are leftist does not explain by itself why they would take a pro-Serb point of view.

As for the title of the section, I think "genocide denial" is very bad because it is not clear what it means. It seems to refer to the opinion that the massacre did not take place at all, but this opinion is not found in any of the references. "Revisionism" has many different meanings (see revisionism), but I can live with that term. Apparently, you're happy to label Sepenuk's opinions as "alternative views", so how about labelling the section "Revisionism and alternative views"?

Finally, I think that mediation, either through Wikipedia:Mediation or through Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, would be a good idea. Everybody here has made many reasonable comments, though occisionally interspersed with barbed remarks, which makes me hopeful that mediation could work out. Too much effort is spent editing, reverting, and re-reverting the article, efforts which could better be concentrated on improving the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jitse , here is the link to the attorney Sepenuk. http://alumni.princeton.edu/~cl1954/NormSepenuk.htm It is currently in the article but with the multiple reverts going on it may appear and disappear.

I agree that being leftist in and of itself does not disqualify a person. If one looked at my opinion of capitalism, socialism, and communism, the label could easily be applied at least some if not a majority of my views. However, Chomsky is not seen as non-biased but rather pushing the agenda that whenever the US government gets involved it is expansionist imperialism. He forces everything into that prism which dovetails perfectly with Milosevic's propaganda that he was only trying to protect communism from capitalist expansionism.

As far as Osli's edits, sometimes they are reasonable, but he does take material off of the "Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia" website, uses that site as a source, and then complains that people are calling him names when I believe it is a reasonable observation that he does at times copy and paste propaganda. No, of course all alternative views are not propaganda; I would like to see more precise language; the article definitely has emotional unfair language like saying the Dutch "collaborated with the Serbs" (they did not share the intent of killing people); BUT at some point we do need to acknowledge that there is such a thing as propaganda, that those who committed the Srebenica massacre did use propaganda to cover up or distract from their crime. The article would benefit from a measured balanced description of what that propaganda is. Thank you for your continuing engagement in this article. Despite all the back and forth, I do believe we are moving forward and I for one am learning alot as I look into the veracity or falsehood of various claims. Fairview360 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, I realize that there is propaganda in times of war. Those who committed crimes wish to cover them up or distract from them just as those whose people were the victims of them want to exaggerate and bring attention to them. This also applies, perhaps especially, to the Bosnian War and the Srebrenica massacre - the Serbs want to deny or diminish the massacre while the Bosniaks want to exaggerate and revel in it.

I believe that Wikipedia should not try to get sucked into this. That would include avoiding using emotional language or sensationalizing events but also noting what exactly happened, how and why, in a matter of fact tone. Today, as I have explained above, I don't believe this is the case. Since some of the editors of this article have been alergic to any changes with regard to the fairness of tone or NPOV I have felt the need to introduce additional sections to provide that balance.

So, in conclusion, either we find some kind of compromise or we definately should seek outside mediation (in that case, I think it would be very good if Jitse could go ahead and organize this, if she is willing). However, I would prefer we found a compromise (as Wikipedia suggests). This requires that editors abandon the attitude that this article somehow is about anything other than setting out the p l a i n facts.

What are your answers/thoughts? What should the process be from now on?

Regards Osli73 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli , to begin with, I think we should refer to Jitse as the man he is. Please look at this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_meetup_2_img1.jpg I would think that with your alleged powers of objective observation you can clearly see that the person sitting on the right is a man. Fairview360 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, do you have any comments about my entry above?Osli73 08:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Jitse. Don't know where I got that from.Osli73 08:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Osli73

Those with leftist agenda cannot be considered neutral observers due to their denial of genocide and open one-sidedness with Serbs and/or Milosevic, see Znet resource for example. When you mention "Bosniak sources", who are you referring to? Do you consider the International Tribunal a "Bosniak source"? Srebrenica massacre is heavily based on International Tribunal's rulling (e.g. Radislav Krstic judgement), and you are trying to destroy the article by inserting revisionist 'garbage' with the purpose of morally equivating victims with aggressors who committed genocide. The bottom line is: Alternative views do not matter, what matters is cold-harded facts from such sources as International Tribunal, Human Rights Watch, State-sponsored Research & Documentation Centre, International Association for Missing Persons etc. When it comes to editing this article in a "rational matter", you are the only one who rejects International Tribunal's version of the article and seeks Serbian (or pro-Serbian) version of the article. As you can see, you are not succeeding and your edits don't stay longer than couple of hours. People will not stand for your version of the article, because this is wikipedia and you cannot force people to accept your opinion and reject already established facts by the International Crimes Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia and other neutral credible sources. If you care so much about alternative revisionist views, why don't you go to Holocaust article and attempt to spread Nazi propaganda there? You think that Jews care about alternative revisionist denials? You think that Tutsis in Rwanda care about alternative revisionist denials? You think that Bosniaks care about alternative revisionist denials? We all care about the facts, cold hard neutral facts, not alternative leftist-revisionist views. Maybe wikipedia is not for you? You are not succeeding here, because you can't force people to accept your revisionist view of Srebrenica massacre. Bosniak 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak,

Pls see my entry above (Mediation & Conflict resolution). Do you have any comments to this suggestion? Take it easy Osli73 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli, how about if you answer some of Bosniak's questions. Do you consider the International Tribunal to be a "Bosniak source"? Fairview360 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, no of course the ICTY isn't a Bosniak source (however, this doesn't mean that all testimony to the court is necessarily true). The reason I don't answer Bosniak is that he writes long, unorganized masses of text filled with catch words like "leftist-revisionist views", "alternative revisionist denials", "revisionist garbage", "leftist agenda" and so on. He also has a history of personal attacks (mild forms of which you have also stooped to, at times). Osli73 08:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever - what the?

EXPLAIN to me why do you keep wasting my changes and coorections because of some unrelated edit war with some other person(s) or something, wasting my time and sabotaging the article? For example, I add dotes on the end of sentence, or change raids into proper raids, or Dutch Bat to Dutchbat, but then you come along and ruin back everything. I told you once, STOP DOING THIS, won't you? --HanzoHattori 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hanzo, it is not Live Forever's intention to waste your time. The multiple reverts as a result of Osli are making it difficult to mend the article without editing out legitimate text. When you repaired your work, you trampled on mine. That was not your intention. It is simply difficult to repair the article without inadvertently editing work that ought to remain. Fairview360 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak

Bosniak, please do not engage in wholesale edits. Take it one at a time and be careful with references. For example, with your last wholesale edit, you deleted direct references to the ICTY and replaced them with indirect ones from websites like the Academy of BiH. Good people. Good organization. But the ICTY has greater credibility. 24.58.6.40 05:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism / Copyright violation (Prosecutor vs Radislav Krstic judgement)

Upon reading the Prosecutor vs Radislav Krstic judgement [13] it becomes apparent that not only have some of the section and subsection titles been copied directly from the ICTY, many parts of the text are also direct copies from that docuemnt. Examples are:

• the entire text in Section 1.1 The conflict in eastern Bosnia is from para. 10 in the ICTY document
• the text in the first paragraph of section 1.1.1 The 1992 ethnic cleansing campaign is from para. 12 in the ICTY document
• most of the text in section 1.1.2 Struggle for Srebrenica is from paras. 13-17 in the ICTY document
• text in the section 1.2.2 Early 1995: the situation in the Srebrenica “safe area” deteriorates is from para. 26 in the ICTY document

There are plenty of other cases where text, and in some cases, entire paragraphs, have been plagiarised from the ICTY document.

Wikipedia policy on Copyright violations is:

"If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored."

Instead of removing the texts which are copyright violations immediately (they are the best parts of the article, which, maybe, explains a few things), I suggest that the appropriate texts are rewritten. If not, they should be removed.

Regards Osli73 12:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As a interim measure, I suggest putting quotation marks around the verbatim sections and reference them accordingly. Fairview360 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli's dishonest underhanded manipulations

Osli claims that he is not trying to deny anything, yet, now he insists on including a document straight from slobodan-milosevic.org that flatout denies that any massacre took place and then insists on calling it simply an alternative point of view. Why on earth would anyone want to engage in mediation with someone as underhanded as Osli. He claims that he is a 33 year old father of two from Sweden but show almost no interest in Sweden and has quite a bit of time to dicker with this article rather than spend his time earning money for his alleged family. He uses ultra-nationalist tactics of trying to take all the benefits of playing fair - mediation - but shows time and again that if ever it benefits him, he will engage in underhanded tactics like making major changes but trying to hide it as minor or putting pure propaganda - Srebrenica did not happen - and try to present it as a legitimate alternative point of view. And then of course he tries to re-invent himself time and again and does indeed make valid points. But for how long must this article endure Osli?

I am taking out the entire "alternative views" section until there is a distinction between legitimate alternative views and pure propaganda -- ie. the massacre never happened. The Alternative views section can not be allowed to serve as a trojan horse for flatout denial. Fairview360 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)