Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Srebrenica massacre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

intro after the last intensive round

This is what the introduction looked like at the end of the last intensive round of edits, arguing, edit warring, interventions, blocked editors, sockpuppets, etc. etc. What survived the rather intensive process is to the point and relatively concise although rich in footnotes:

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide,[1] was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak males, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre.[2][3][4][5][6]

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.[7] In the unanimous ruling "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague, ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide[8], the Presiding Judge Theodor Meron stating:

By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity.[9]

The International Court of Justice subsequently concurred with the ICTY's finding that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide.[10]

The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area", but they did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time.[11] The massacre included several instances where preteen children, women, and elderly civilians were also killed.[12] The list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names.[13]

Fairview360 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your point being?

See discussion above. Fairview360 (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to stop improving the introduction simply because it has been edited before. Of course, if the same arguments reappear, we have to take a look at archived discussions. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

objection to describing the Srebrenica Massacre an atrocity

The definition of atrocity is: an appalling or atrocious act, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners. This would seem a rather apt description of the Srebrenica Massacre. Yet, it is objected to. Would the Srebrenica Massacre need to be more unusual or more illegal or more cruel in order to qualify as an atrocity? The word atrocity is used in wikipedia in other articles to describe... well... atrocities. But it is objected to here. Fairview360 (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that SM was an atrocity. But atrocity is not a neutral word, an encyclopedia should strive for neutral descriptions of facts, not for moral or emotional classification. Let the facts speak for themselves. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it seems to me use of the word 'atrocity' there is just another example of the desire to see more lurid language in a prominent position. Which is not the way an encyclopaedia should read.

I don't think atrocity should be a 'taboo' word or anything, and I wouldn't necessarily object to it per se. Furthermore, I'm sympathetic to Harac's point that the repeated use of 'the acts at Srebrenica' didn't read that well and needed changing (although I've suggested even further editing, see above). But I think FV is being somewhat disingenuous in arguing that favouring the use of a different word is necessarily illegitimate.

Jonathanmills (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does Fairview argue that all alternative word choices are "necessarily illegitimate"? Fairview360 (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly an overstatement on my part, for which I apologise, but I'm just taking issue with your tone of outrage at an editor replacing 'atrocity' with less colourful language.

As I said, I'm not saying words like 'atrocity' should never be used in an encyclopaedia, but I just dispute that it is the right word to use here. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"tone of outrage"? JM is arguing with his own perceptions. Fairview360 (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The other thing is that I honestly thought the use of the word 'atrocities at Srebrenica' there had a potential problem of clarity, ie it could read that 'the atrocities' were a separate phenomenon to the SM as such (a sub-category of the SM). Jonathanmills (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is quite unfortunate that discussions on this article have become increasingly predictable. Thus, before making this edit to quote of the judgment of ICJ, I had to go through the judgment itself to see if and how often the Court uses that term (atrocity) in relation to situation that it characterizes as genocide, or to other acts of "lesser" degree. Needless to say it does quite often (19 times), but mostly in relation to Srebrenica. I am reverting the edit. Regards, --Harac (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a concern regarding the edit "that the atrocities committed at Srebrenica constituted a genocide" is that, while the use of the word atrocity is accurate, the edit is redundant. The description of the ICTY decision clearly states the massacre was an act of genocide. The quote from the ICJ decision states it was a genocide. So why does the intro need another affirmation that it was a genocide? Is it not sufficient to say that the ICJ decision concurred with the ICTY decision? Fairview360 (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Fairview. The quote from ICJ is actually redundant, can possibly be moved to relevant section further down. Re Harac's comment: I disagree. The question here is not if we (editors) or the court at den Haag consider this as "atrocities". The word "atrocity" is not a perfectly neutral and descriptive word, rather a word with clear moral and emotional connotations (and should therefor be avoided in an encyclopeadia). In addition, this word reduces the clarity of the intro, so why not be very clear and write "the Srebrenica Massacre constituted a genocide". Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. Just wanted to add to this that I was quite circumspect about removing the word 'genocide' from the description of the ICJ ruling (and I'm not opposed to re-inserting it per se, either) -- but recall the paragraph previous:

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II. In 2004, in a unanimous ruling on the "Prosecutor v. Krstić" case, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) located in The Hague ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide, the Presiding Judge Theodor Meron stating:

[quote from ICTY judgement]

In February 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concurred with the ICTY judgement that the atrocities committed at Srebrenica constituted a genocide, stating:

[quote from ICJ judgement]

IE, the previous paragraph already makes clear what the ICTY judgement concerned. It just sounds a bit amateur to me to repeat the sentence.

I wasn't trying to minimise the genocide finding per se; it's an important aspect and certainly important enough to warrant mention in the intro.

Anyway, I am going to see if I can't get a sandbox up and running on this, so I can share my own suggestions for the intro and have some direct input from everyone here. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there are still people who do not think it was genocide, so instead of putting forward decisions both of ICTY, ICJ, ECHR, Bosnian and German courts, it was decited that these two should be enough since they represent the highest courts of their kind in the world, although there are views (see above) for it to be edited. Regards, --195.130.46.162 (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Such long redundant quotes are inappropriate in a introduction/summary. In any case, the purpose of an encyclopedic article is not to convince readers. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

SANDBOX for intro

Hi guys,

I've just started a sandbox for the intro (actually it's just a user-subpage, which Wikipedia recommends as the easiest way to sandbox), it's located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jonathanmills/Srebrenica_Massacre_sandbox

As you'll see, I've requested that the actual 'sandboxing' be done halfway down the page, just so we can have 'reference' copies of the current intro and my (very tentative) first draft.

Will probably make more sense to discuss changes rather than actually doing them, or we won't be able to easily see what the suggestions (and/or bones of contention) are.

Rather annoyingly, you can't 'add section' on the subpages, so just have to edit the whole page and add to the bottom, but oh well.

Anyway, I'll just post what I've got over there at the moment as my 'first stab':

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 7,000-8,000+ Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys in the region of Srebrenica, Bosnia by units of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.

[Not sure about exact info here: The Srebrenica Massacre was in fact not a single event but a series of massacres, with executions of male Bosniak prisoners starting when the VRS overran the town of Srebrenica and continuing as elements of the Bosniak Army (ARBiH) 28th Division attempted to escape towards Bosniak-held town of Tuzla. PLEASE NOTE, the details may well be wrong here, but I think we need some sort of overview of the actual events of the SM]

Although those killed were almost entirely males between the ages of 15 and 65 (women, children and the elderly were bused to safety after the fall of the town), the massacre also included instances where boys under 15, men over the age of 65, and reportedly even a baby were killed.

The Srebrenica massacre was the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II. In 2004, in a unanimous ruling on the "Prosecutor v. Krstić" case, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide[1], a judgement which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concurred with in February 2007.[2]

As of 2008, more than 5,600 victims have been identified through DNA analysis and 3,215 victims have been buried at the Memorial Center of Potocari.

Footnote 1: By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity.

Footnote 2: "[T]he acts committed at Srebrenica...were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such...accordingly...these were acts of genocide."

Just want to emphasise that I'm not trying to cause trouble here; I'm more than happy to discuss/change any of this. Over at the sandbox I've saved the pieces of info I removed entirely; while I wouldn't necessarily argue that any of it is irrelevant, I'm trying to pare things down to the bare essentials, which is what an intro should be. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There will be several editors, highly invested in the article, who will not participate in JM's initiative here since he is trying to lead editors down a road they have traveled many times before. It is not reasonable for one editor to expect that the entire group of editors here to go through a detailed re-hashing of arguments all over again each and every time a new editor comes along and tries to start from scratch. Case in point, are the editors going to rehash the following arguments all over again? Probably not: to describe the mass of people desperately trying to escape the massacre as simply "elements of the 28th division" is ridiculous; describing Tuzla as "Bosniak-held" disregards the fact Tuzla was held by a multi-ethnic local government and the ARBiH 2nd Corps which was also multi-ethnic; burying the Judge Meron statement reveals an agenda that is just the opposite of those who want to highlight the severity of the crime; etc.

If Jm doesn't even know if what he is writing is accurate, why would all the editors contributing to this article need to participate in his initiative in order to show their commitment to the article? No doubt, when editors choose not to participate in his attempt to start from scratch, he will erroneously claim that he is then free to change the article as he wishes.

Rather than starting from scratch, what makes sense is to identify specific statements or clauses that could be considered redundant and take it one step at a time working from the current intro. Fairview360 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fairview. Please do not attribute "agendas" to other editors, please assume good faith. In fact, the purpose of the article is not to highlight the severity of the crime (Wikipedia is not a sopabox), the article should describe the facts in a neutral and balanced way. Have a nice day. Mondeo (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Both highlighting the severity of the crime and downplaying the severity of the crime are agendas that have appeared in this article. Fairview360 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(rev indent) Right, but I think putting a long quote from a judge into a footnote (rather than having it as a whole paragraph in the intro) would just be good practice in terms of readability. However, you seem to be ignoring the fact that what I wrote was a *first edit*, which I am more than happy to change in response to editors' input. Jonathanmills (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

FV, did you miss the part where I wrote "PLEASE NOTE, the details may well be wrong here, but I think we need some sort of overview of the actual events of the SM"?? Because it was in bold text to emphasise it.

Obviously, Fairview did notice that and thus wrote the introductory clause: "If JM doesn't even know if what he is writing is accurate,".Fairview360 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(rev indent) Well, then, why did you respond the way you did to the fact that (some of) the details were indeed incorrect? In any event, I'm happy to take your points on board in my second draft. Jonathanmills (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was that we ought to have some sort of overview of *the actual events* rather than just numbers and excerpts from judgements. I'm not particularly wedded to any one description of events... although I think your criticism of calling territory 'Bosniak-held' and referring to a 'Bosniak army' ring somewhat hollow in light of the fact that these descriptors are pretty standard.

The statement from the ICTY is an overview of the actual events. It is better to use the results of an exhaustive judicial process than a novice editor taking a stab at it. Fairview360 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(rev indent) It's not informative at all as to the general events of the massacre. All it says is that VRS troops 'stripped the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them'.

I'm also not sure why you'd describe me as a 'novice editor', as I've been on and off this page for over two years now. In any event, it shouldn't matter whether I came on here yesterday or ten years ago, but rather the quality of my points. Jonathanmills (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As for 'burying' the ICTY judge's comments (to a footnote), this is actually simply an 'agenda' on my part of trying to keep the intro concise (WP prescribes no more than four paras, after all!) However, I also said it was a first stab which I was open to input on.

Finally, you write "No doubt, when editors choose not to participate in his attempt to start from scratch, he will erroneously claim that he is then free to change the article as he wishes." First of all, I would rather you spoke for yourself; how do you know other editors won't choose to participate in an attempt to improve the intro? But secondly, you are implicitly making the (erroneous) claim that because you object to my 'agenda', I DON'T have the right to make changes to the article.

There are editors who have already stated that they do not believe JM is trying to "improve the article". Their description of JM's initiatives are such that someone with a rather low IQ could still reach the obvious conclusion that they have no interest in working with him.

A closer more thoughtful reading of what Fairview has stated would show that Fairview is focusing on what JM will eventually use to justify his edits. There is nothing in Fairview's statements that makes a sweeping claim that JM has no right to make any edits. Fairview360 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, this article is badly in need of improvement, as Mourner has noted...but your input appears to be 'leave it alone, we've been through all this before'. Apart from the fact that this is a misleading view of the history of the article (you act as though the archives show that opposition arguments were soundly beaten, and opponents came around in their positions, which is false), you can hardly expect articles on Wikipedia not to face challenge just because they were previously the subject of edit-conflict. If you're sick of talking to editors who don't share your exact views about the subject, nobody's forcing you to be here. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someday JM will accurately describe the suggestions of other editors. Fairview suggests: "identify specific statements or clauses that could be considered redundant and take it one step at a time working from the current intro." JM translates that as Fairview stating: 'leave it alone, we've been through all this before'. One must wonder how JM goes from one statement to the next. Fairview360 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, please stop fighting about who said what when, this is not very entertaining for other editors. Let us focus on improving the intro. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, FV, but you've also made a fair number of comments along the lines of what I described. However, let's leave it, and I'll address that point.

Namely, in case you hadn't noticed, my edit IS very much based on the current intro.

As for taking it one step at a time, that's a good idea, so how about we start working on the first para?

(CURRENT INTRO)

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. In addition to the VRS, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions participated in the massacre. The United Nations had declared Srebrenica a UN-protected "safe area", but that did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time. After reviewing a comprehensive report, the Dutch government resigned over this matter in 2002.

(MY DRAFT)

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 7,000-8,000+ Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, Bosnia by units of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.

Note, the bit about the "safe zone" would (IMHO) fit better in a proposed second paragraph describing the events of the massacre, but I'm happy to leave it in until that para is finalised. Also, I think the Scorpions tidbit is too minor to mention in the intro, but I'm not worried if you want to leave it there. Jonathanmills (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of those 624 victims were soldiers.Since when are soldiers counted as "victims".Btw Bosnian Serbs soldiers were responsible of numerous warcrimes and genocide.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the word "victim" is ambiguous as it means a person that suffers but with a strong connotation of innocence. "Casualties" and "deaths" are more neutral words I suppose. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Military deaths shouldn't stand in the same group with civilan deaths at all.Cause it helps to inflate the number of Serbs killed in the area.119 civilians were killed there in a course of 3 years.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another concern

Hi all,

I don't know exactly whether this is a no-no as such (in my view, it shouldn't really matter, as long as the info is accurate -- and accurately referenced -- and is NPOV), but I thought it ought to be brought to editors' attention: when I was looking for some info online, I clicked through the 'Srebrenica Genocide Blog' (published, I believe, by User:Bosniak) and noted a startling similarity to our article.

See, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre#Dispute_regarding_Serb_casualties_around_Srebrenica

and compare it to:

http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2008/07/grossly-inflated-numbers-of-serb.html

Like I say, I'm not sure if this matters as such (although I have a number of problems with the info itself, particularly in its presentation), but it seemed to warrant a mention.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I have copied information from WIKIPEDIA and included it in my blog. Therefore, the similarity. Bosniak (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's true, only 1200 Serbs were killed and personal details were only available for 624 victims. So basically its "only" 1200 people. I'm guessing its not in the introduction because 1200 dead people is really nothing?Mike Babic (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:Mike Babic, only 400+ Serbs died around Srebrenica (Podrinje, including Bratunac that doesnt belong to Srebrenica), 80% of them soldiers who murdered Muslim children. ICTY did not say that 1200 Serbs were killed, if you read their Press Release carefully, they were criticizing the book by Srebrenica genocide denier Milivoje Ivanisevic, so they said "Ivanisevic" alleged 1200 Serbs died, which does not meet reality. Read press release carefully before making rush conclussions. You have no credibility, even your Wikipedia profile page justifies Srebrenica genocide. Bosniak (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick note for Mike Babic: Here is a fake picture of non-existend Serb "victim" around Srebrenica submitted by Milivoje Ivanisevic to justify Srebrenica genocide fake photo Bosniak (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mike Babic. No that is not the reason, it is not included in the intro because it is not regarded as part of the massacre. But of course it is clearly relevant information about the context within which the SM occured. So I moved the sentence here for future reference: "1200 Serbs were killed around Srebrenica, personal details were only available for 624 victims.^[1]" Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What kind of context are you talking about? Are you trying to justify individual Serb victims with the genocide of Bosniaks in Srebrenica? They committed genocide because they hated Muslims. They also slaughtered more than 10,000 people in Sarajevo, including 1,600 children, because they hated Muslims. There is no justififcation for genocide in Srebrenica. Bosniak (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The SM happened in a context: the Bosnian war. That is clearly relevant background information. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No Mondeo, it's not "clearly relevant". Bosniak has provided you with the reference of Florecnce Hartmann's ICTY press release and he's also referred to the RDC findings. When you have argued those out of existence you may then have a case for arguing this information is accurate. Before you can suggest that it is relevant you have to evaluate the evidence that revenge was a motive against the evidence of the ethnic cleansing of the Drina Valley in 1992, the sustained pressure on the civilian population of Srebrenica in subsequent years, including the mortaring of schoolyards, and Karadzic's Directive 7. Whatever, there is nothing "clearly" relevant about it. Opbeith (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I agree that the killing of Serbs doesn't belong in the intro, not because it's not important or relevant, but just because it is essentially background info (I mean that the event called 'the Srebrenica Massacre' refers to the killings of the Bosniaks).

On the other hand, the section where the Serb deaths are mentioned ('Dispute regarding Serb casualties around Srebrenica') is IMO sorely in need of a re-write; it's written in a totally biased tone (even the section's title is poor), contains several very questionable statements (eg referring to the RDC as a 'non-partisan NGO' when it was in fact set up to carry on from the Bosnian government's War Crimes Commission, and its founder was the president of the original government commission)... In fact this entire section appears to be more-or-less lifted from the 'Srebrenica Genocide Blog', as I mentioned in my original comment.

: RDC database has been evaluated by ICTY experts and it is the most accurate info about the victims in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosniak (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(rev indent) Well, the ICTY's opinion on the RDC should certainly be included; my objection is to using the RDC's own description of itself, ie 'non-partisan, non-governmental' etc. I think it is misleading, given the facts behind the setting up of the RDC. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So, if you're concerned about this issue, I'd strongly invite you to take a look at improving that section. Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Parts of that section seems to be copied from the Srebrenica Genocide blog (or viceversa), that is perhaps not a big deal but need to be looked into. The section also contains apparently unsopperted claims as well as weasel words like "many consider ....". I have tagged these accordingly. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mondeo, I copied information from WIKIPEDIA and included it in my blog. Therefore, the similarity.Bosniak (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't really care about Mike Babic's opinion on warcrimes issues because he denies the Dubrovnik siege and it's destruction on his users page.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter what his opinion is on this or other issues, but rather the quality of his contributions and edits. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And what is your assessment of their quality? Opbeith (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE on DNA Identification of 5,800 Vicims

Source: REUTERS (Please incorporate it into the article) About 5,800 victims of Srebrenica Genocide have been identified through DNA analysis, but they can be reburied only after 70 percent of the bodily remains have been identified. Bosnian Serbs first buried the bodies near the execution sites but then dug out many of them with bulldozers and reburied remains in secondary mass graves in an attempt to hide the crime. Bosniak (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Maybe we should create a short sub-section called "Forensic Evidence" or "DNA Evidence" and include information about DNA and forensic identification of Srebrenica genocide victims? Bosniak (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We should also create a sub-section about the Nato,Imperialist,Zionist,Vatican-Ustashi-Al-qaida Anti-Serb propaganda it should be called “Serbian truth” – a term used by Serbs themselves to refer to lying.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My attempt for rewriting the intro of the article

Feel free to discuss.

The Srebrenica Genocide, mostly known as the Srebrenica Massacre,[1][2][3][4] was the killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in the region of the town Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina in July 1995.The Genocide was commited by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of Republika Srpska's chief commander General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. In addition to the VRS, at least one paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions participated in the massacre.[5][6].In 1993 Srebrenica became a UN-protected "safe area" due to horrible condition the Bosniak polulation surrounded by Serbs was in.Srebrenica was besieged and it's population was exposed to starvation and constant shelling for 3 years.However UN did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time.[7] After reviewing a comprehensive report, the Dutch government resigned over this matter in 2002. The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.[8]

The article is titled the "Srebrenica massacre" so starting the article about the "Srebrenica genocide" would be incorrect. There have been many discussions explaining the motivation for keeping the title of the article Srebrenica "massacre" rather than the "genocide". Please see those.Osli73 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes,i also wanted to change te title of the article since the genocide in Srebrenica has been established by ICTY and ICJ. The point of calling it massacre is outdated and should be upda6ted to genocide.We can not spread false information in the article simply because there are more hits on the net that call it massacre.We go with the time.Only offical and legal facts and findings should be incorporated into the article and not the personal assumptions.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's both a massacre and a genocide. However, for the time it is more well known as a massacre, which means that is how the article should refer to it as well. Wikipedia is to present the consensus, not drive opinion.Osli73 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Off course it's both a massacre and genocide.But it's LEGAL status is genocide.With your kind of logic we should rename the article about the actor Henry Winkler into Fonzie simply 'cause people know him best for his role as Fonzie in the series Happy Days? Lol --(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to the previous discussion on massacre v genocide for the title. A point though, as an event it doesn't have a "legal status".Osli73 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. Griffin, you either don't understand or don't care about what the rules are for naming articles on Wikipedia. Please read the page on 'naming conventions', specifically "Use the most easily recognized name" and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_creation#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name). Given that the term 'the Srebrenica genocide' is used by less than 1000 webpages (outside blogs) as opposed to some 35,000 for 'the Srebrenica massacre', as I demonstrated above, it is actually a complete fudge to even include it as an 'alternate common name'. The idea that the article should actually be CALLED 'The SG' is simply losing all touch with Wikipedia style rules.

As for the rest of your intro draught, no offence, but I don't think it flows well, it still doesn't give any description of the actual event in question, and it is also hopelessly biased in tone (if you're going to detail the suffering of Srebrenica before the massacre in the intro, I'm not sure why Serb casualties shouldn't be mentioned there either, as Mike Babic attempted to do; also you appear to have no grasp of encyclopaediac style -- "Srebrenica became a UN-protected "safe area" due to horrible condition the Bosniak polulation surrounded by Serbs was in" is simply childish in tone).Jonathanmills (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Search for Un records and general Morrillion and his discription of the situation in Srebrenica in 1993 and why it became a save-haven.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've done a brief search on the matter, and I would make two points: 1) If you're quoting Morillon, make it explicit and use quote marks; whatever words Morillon may have used to describe the situation in Srebrenica don't justify sentences with a childish tone, and 2) While I was looking for this, I came across a couple of interesting discussions of his ICTY testimony -- both are from undoubtedly biased sources, but that doesn't mean their quotes are necessarily inaccurate (http://4international.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/us-in-the-balkans-16french-un-general-morillon-nails-the-kamm-hoare-lie-machine/ and http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg030904.htm) -- you may want to be careful who you hold up as someone whose testimony you want to highlight! Jonathanmills (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your are right about both sources.They are extremly biased.slobodan milosevic.org is runned by milosevic's defence team and intelligence officers.to me that says enough about their "neutrality".There is also video footage from Srebrenica(1993).People were starving.But one question always crosses my mind when talking about these issues.Why do Serbs deny EVERY SINGLE CRIME they commited?Isn't that stupid and pointless?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC) BTW.What do you mean childish?Isn't it a fact that Srebrenica was surrounded by Serbian forces for three years?Also didn't the UN food convoys have trouble getting to Srebrenica because of the Serbian forces there?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

But a biased source doesn't necessarily mean the information is incorrect, as I pointed out; I just didn't have the time or inclination to go check with the primary sources and see what the truth was. As it happens, the same quotes were referenced across a couple of different sites, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

As for 'childish', I apologise for my sarcasm; what I was referring to however was the phrasing of the sentence. It's just not really encyclopaediac style to call something 'horrible' -- you describe what the conditions were in neutral language, or you perhaps use a direct quote from someone describing them as 'horrible', but you don't just call them 'horrible', even if they were. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, out of curiosity I just checked whether the quotes from slobodan-milosevic.org were indeed correct; while I didn't bother to go through the entire article, all the ones I checked were indeed in the testimony on the UN website (some of them are here: http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/040212ED.htm).

Bias doesn't necessarily make someone a liar, it just gives good reason to check the validity of their claims (which is what I was drawing attention to in my original statement). Jonathanmills (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Both sides here are being highly polemical, hyperbolic, and accusatory giving one little hope of establishing consensus. JM starts out by accusing others of not caring and then states the proposed intro above "doesn't give any description of the actual event in question". However poorly the above proposed intro may be, it does in fact describe the actual event (location, who was killed, how many, by whom, etc.). Meanwhile, Griffin characterizes referring to the "Srebrenica Massacre" as spreading "false information", a rather bizarre claim by Griffin.

(rev indent) Perhaps the tone of my contribution was a little harsh, for which I apologise, but I stand by my statement that Griffin's argument that the page ought to be named 'the SG' reflects either an ignorance of, or a lack of respect for, Wikipedia naming conventions.

As for my contention that it 'does not describe the event', this is following on from previous discussion; ie that IMO the intro clearly needs more info about the event itself. As it stands, apart from learning that ~8000 Bosniak men and boys were killed in the region of Srebrenica in July 1995 by VRS units, we know nothing. Were the 8000 lined up in one giant line and slaughtered? How did it happen? (we haven't even pointed out that the VRS overran the enclave). Why was it simply 'men and boys'? We need to write for readers who know little or nothing about the event. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a time when editors of opposing opinions settled on the following intro. The question to consider now is what in the following intro, in the opinions of those currently editing the article, is either inaccurate or incomplete?

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide,[1] was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak males, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre.[2][3][4][5][6]

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.[7] In the unanimous ruling "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague, ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide[8], the Presiding Judge Theodor Meron stating:

By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity.[9]

The International Court of Justice subsequently concurred with the ICTY's finding that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide.[10]

The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area", but they did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time.[11] The massacre included several instances where preteen children, women, and elderly civilians were also killed.[12] The list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names.[13]

Fairview360 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Er... see 'Problem/s with the lead', above, as well as all the subsequent contributions on the topic. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the section just below this one, I've proposed a few (pretty minor) changes to the first para and given some reasons for why (IMO) they are improvements. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First para

Hi all,

Does anyone actually object to the following change/s?

(Current version)

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. In addition to the VRS, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions participated in the massacre. The United Nations had declared Srebrenica a UN-protected "safe area", but that did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time. After reviewing a comprehensive report, the Dutch government resigned over this matter in 2002.

(My draft)

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 7,000-8,000+ Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, Bosnia by units of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) led by General Ratko Mladić during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. In addition to the VRS, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions participated in the massacre. The United Nations had declared Srebrenica a UN-protected "safe area", but that did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time.

I've said previously that I think the stuff about the Dutch peacekeepers might fit better into a proposed second paragraph summarising the actual events of the massacre, but it makes sense to keep the info up for now; I've also argued that IMO the Scorpions' involvement is a) not important enough to include in the intro (and is a little misleading, as it potentially implies an unproven link to the Serbian state), and b) might work better in the para mentioning Serbian responsibility etc, BUT I'm OK with leaving it in for the sake of moving things forward.

The improvements (as I see it) are:

The numbers more accurately reflect RS opinion (as I pointed out a few weeks back, we see 7000, 8000 and a bit over 8000 as casualty figures in RS's);

It clarifies a few terms, ie 'Bosniaks', 'Srebrenica', 'VRS', 'Bosnia and Herzegovina', '1992-1995 Bosnian War' for an English-speaking audience not expert in the subject -- which is who Wikipedia is meant to be for;

It drops the irrelevant info about the resignation of the Dutch government -- although if anyone strongly objects, I don't mind re-including it.

NOTE: I changed the phrase 'under the command of Mladic' to 'led by Mladic' -- this is not intended as any political point, but rather to make a more readable sentence. However, if there is any particular objection here (and I intend to retain the hyperlink to 'command responsibility'), again, I'm not particularly worried about leaving it as is.

Any feedback from other editors? Jonathanmills (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that RS opinion includes the assertion that the massacre never happened is JM going to next propose that the assertion that the massacre might not have actually happened be included in the intro also?

One side can argue that the article should be called the Srebrenica Genocide, another side can try to slip back into the article estimates of only 7,000, but, based upon where these arguments have gone, in the end, the article will continue to state "estimated 8,000" and will continue to be called the Srebrenica Massacre. Fairview360 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Que? "RS opinion includes the assertion that the massacre never happened"? News to me!

RS also stands for Republika Srspka. What current reliable source estimates 7,000? Fairview360 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(rev indent) Oh, OK! A misunderstanding then.

As for Reliable Sources estimating 7000, or rather numbers with a base of 7000, here are a few:

Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/561873/Srebrenica

LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/24/world/fg-karadzic24

Radio Netherlands: http://www.rnw.nl/internationaljustice/tribunals/ICTY/080712-srebrenica-genocide-mc

AFP, quoting the White House (although I'm not sure whether they ought to count as a 'reliable source'! ;-) http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiCB5U0t0v49S4eZYLSWj5SFA_pA

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701733_pf.html

United Nations: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21672&Cr=ICJ&Cr1

NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/world/europe/22hague.html

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/07/10/legacy-srebrenica

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm

The Times (UK): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article529329.ece

RFE/RL: http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1059762.html

And, for good measure, while it's not an RS...

Srebrenica Genocide Blog: http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2005/12/dragan-nikolic-in-pre-trial.html

Actually, I've just done a news-item search for 'srebrenica' and '7000' and there are plenty of RS mentions, see here: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=srebrenica+7,000&as_ldate=2006&as_hdate=2008&scoring=n&hl=en&um=1&nav_num=100 (scroll down for more recent results). Jonathanmills (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Jonathanmills (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The examples from above include dated references from 2005. If one enters "Srebrenica massacre 8000" into a google news search covering the last month, there are 185 results with such reliable sources as the AP, Reuters, AFP, Herald International Tribune, and CNN all using 8000 as an estimate of how many were killed, not 7,000 to 8,000. If one enters "Srebrenica Massacre 7000" covering the last month, there are only 2 results and each says more than 7000. Fairview360 (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's more common to see 8000 than 7000. But the list I've provided above contains the Britannica entry, the White House statement and a number of RS articles from the past year or two. As to 'more than 7000', that just means 'at least 7000', essentially (or perhaps, at least 7001). If 'more than 7000' was intended to mean a number over 8000, they would write 'more than 8000' (8000 is also 'more than 150', technically, but it would be absurd for anyone to write in that way). [PS: If the number was closer to 8000 than 7000, I suggest they would say 'almost' or 'approximately' 8000, rather than 'more than 7000' END PS]

What it means when an article states "more than" or "at least" is that they are not giving an estimate. As demonstrated by the google news search of recent news articles, every single recent article that gives an estimate does not use 7000. Just in the last several months, they have found hundreds of bodies. Fairview360 (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(rev indent) I'm not trying to be argumentative here, honestly, but "What it means when an article states "more than" or "at least" is that they are not giving an estimate"... huh? Of course they're giving an estimate! As I pointed out, it would be logically true to say that 'more than 100' died at Srebrenica, but it would be absurdly misleading. 'At least' or 'more than' estimates are taken from the number which they *estimate* to be the lowest likely (or possible) number.

As for the 'demonstration' you refer to, I'm still not sure how this negates the examples I've given which do cite 7000 as a base number... however, I'll say again that I am not too concerned about keeping the current formulation of 'estimated 8000'. I'm going to reply to Mondeo on this point too, so see below. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is extraordinary how some things need to be explained ad nauseum. The "demonstration" provided by Fairview refers to recent articles, ones that have appeared in the last month. JM, on the other hand, has provided references half of which are 2 or 3 years old. As stated explicitly above, hundreds of bodies have been found since that time. Articles based upon evidence available in 2005, when extensive additional evidence has been collected since then, are obsolete references. The reason recent articles refer to 8,000 is that recent articles are based on the most recent information. In what other way does this need to be explained? If an editor can not discern the difference between an article saying "at least" and an article asserting an actual estimate ("an estimated 8000"), there is not much more one can say. Fairview360 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FV, my point is, some of my refs were NOT two or three years old, and included some pretty important ones, like Encyclopaedia Britannica. Some are indeed from this year: that link I provided to the Google search gave several RS examples. SO, I don't see why the admitted fact that *most* current articles cite 8000 makes this completely irrelevant. As for the idea that 'at least [number]' is somehow not an estimate, indeed, there is not much more one can say, but it's not important for the moment I guess. Are you OK with the rest of the modifications if 'estimated 8000' is retained? Jonathanmills (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

May I also point out that my suggestion is '7000-8000+', given that some RS's claim over 8000 deaths. I just think it's a somewhat more accurate picture of what current RS estimates actually are.

However, as I said, I'm OK to let it go for now in any case. Do you (FV) have any other objections to the tentative first para I've put forward? Jonathanmills (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just a final tidbit: I'm not sure where it fits in (ie the presumed accuracy of it), but the source discussed by Mondeo above (under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#8606_Victims_of_Srebrenica_Genocide) suggested around 7500 deaths, from the looks. Jonathanmills (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When previously published Reliable Source information has been superseded and is then republished without acknowledging and disputing the fact of it having been superseded it is no longer Reliable Source information. Since the International Commission for Missing Persons gave their estimate based on identifications to date no figure citing less than 8000 can be considered a Reliable Source unless it is shown to have taken account of the ICMP's methodology and results. Opbeith (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As to the issue at hand, it seems to me that given the core Wikipedia rule that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true", and the following admonition: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research", the facts presented in a Wikipedia article should reflect RS opinion, nothing more. And RS opinion is quite clearly 7000 to 8000+, not 8000.

Let me know if I'm mistaken in any of this, but if I'm not, your equation of that logic with Griffin's ludicrous position that the article should be titled 'the SG' is disingenuous, and hardly equates to an even-handed view of matters. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you are mistaken in assuming that an authoritative source can be downgraded without substantiation. ICMP are about as close to a primary source as you'll get. Numbers below their figure need a very substantial weight of argument behind them to warrant consideration as a preferable reliable source. And in the light of Aervanath's evaluation of the arguments for and against a change of title, your assessment that Griffin's position that the article should be titled "the SG" is ludicrous will perhaps also provide us with a yardstick for evaluating judgment and reliability. Opbeith (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The other thing is that the full sentence of the Wikipedia rule reads: All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. (emphasis added) So even if there are occasional articles in RS's which assert the SM never happened, their prominence overall would make it unreasonable to include the view in the intro (at least on that basis). Jonathanmills (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and finally, if the numbers issue is too big of a sticking point for now, do you (FV) or anyone else have problems with any of the other proposed changes? I don't see why other improvements should be held back because of dispute over that one point. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re JMs draft: I think this is much better, more to the point. The role of Scorpions can be included in a new paragraph below. The fact that a Dutch cabinet resigned is perhaps not important enough to be included in the intro at all. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Mondeo. I'd like to repeat my point above, for the sake of clarity, and so it doesn't seem odd when I suggest the modifications: I think the stuff about the Dutch peacekeepers might fit better into a proposed second paragraph summarising the actual events of the massacre, but it makes sense to keep the info up for now; I've also argued that IMO the Scorpions' involvement is a) not important enough to include in the intro (and is a little misleading, as it potentially implies an unproven link to the Serbian state), and b) might work better in the para mentioning Serbian responsibility etc. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re numbers (which actually need to be treated more thoroughly in the body of the article): Research by Norwegian demography experts reached an estimate of 7,500: (ref tag) Research by Brunborg, H., Lyngstad, T.H. and Urdal, H. (2003): Accounting for genocide: How many were killed in Srebrenica? European Journal of Population, 19(3):229-248. reaches a conservative estimate of at least 7,475 killed, while their likely estimate is 7,536. Brunborg et al. finds 76 male victims under 16 years of age, 629 male victims over 60, and a total of 48 female victims. (ref tag) Authoritative estimates are then in the interval 7500-8500. It is then fair to write "estimated 8,000" (and provide details in a footnote as well as in a separate section), and in my opinion 7,000-8,000+ is clumsy and perhaps ambiguous. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said to FV, I am not overly concerned with the current formulation; it's not wildly misleading by any means (I'm not disputing the fact that 8000 is definitely the most common number currently used in conjunction with the SM). However, I do wonder whether it's not somewhat breaking the No-OR rule stating, "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research". Any thoughts on this? Jonathanmills (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true. But if two somewhat different estimates exist in separate RS, and it is not the editors' task to choose between these or to synthesize, then the article should report both estimates. Even giving an interval (rather than two independent estimates) constitues OR (in a strict sense) because one is then suggesting that the true number is somewhere between 7,500 and 8,500. To avoid cluttering the intro I guess we can not avoid some kind of synthesis? Regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the above is a bit strict. WP policy guidelines distinguishes between "summarizing" and "synthesizing" like this: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Saying that "around 8,000" (or "7,000-8,000+") were massacred should be an acceptable summary of sources. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that tinkering with the article in this manner will complicate things more, especially since it deals primarily with stylistic editing (which is inevitably subjective), rather than with anything substantive. Additionally, it is even more confusing - isn't it that "estimated 8000" is more accurate than "7000-8000 + ", which could mean pretty much anything (especially when you have enough backing for the first figure anyway). Also, some other issues: For example, in "town of Srebrenica, Bosnia...", should there be a "," after "Bosnia"?; also you can not say "Bosnia", you have to go with "Bosnia and Herzegovina", or accepted abbreviation... I think more time should be spent on unreferenced parts of the article (I have a lot of material, but not time currently, so I'll return to that), than on paragraph to paragraph discussions on phraseology. Regards, --Harac (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Harac, just to explain a couple of issues: 'the town of Srebrenica, Bosnia' -- no, it doesn't need another comma. As for saying just Bosnia rather than Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is common English usage.

I fail to see how 7000-8000+ ...could mean pretty much anything; it means that estimates range from 7000 to somewhere over 8000; however, I'll respond to this specific issue above to Fairview.

More broadly, I think a lot of time needs to be spent on all parts of the article (I was doing this myself until I found my knowledge wasn't sufficient to proceed), but that's no reason to stop improvements on the intro. It seems like nothing much gets written on this article (apart from the talk page) in any event.

The other thing is that, yes, my proposed changes to the first para are pretty minor, but it's an attempt to go slowly, one para at a time, as was requested by some editors. Jonathanmills (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

1. No serious (ie, Western, non-Serb, non-Russian, non-Greek) source today says the sumber of people killed in Srebrenica in 1995 is below 8,000.

2. Jonatham, you must bear in mind that the negation of “Bosnia” as a name and as a country is part of the Greater Serbian ideology of Slobodan Milosevic et caterva. Just look at this quote from the mastermind of massacre Ratko Mladic:

“

I was born in what was called Old Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina was an artificial creation of the Communist system and before that in the Austrian Empire. We Serbs reject the term ‘Bosnia.’ We are Serbs and we know who we are.

”

The source is this 1994 article from the New York Times.

Anonymous editor: "No serious (ie, Western, non-Serb, non-Russian, non-Greek) source today says the sumber of people killed in Srebrenica in 1995 is below 8,000" -- er, you obviously didn't look properly at the list of references I provided to Fairview, above. There are several highly reputable (and, yes, Western) mainstream sources from this year (especially if you follow the Google search link) which give a base estimate of 7000; one of these is in fact the gold-standard Encyclopaedia Britannica.

"you must bear in mind that the negation of “Bosnia” as a name and as a country is part of the Greater Serbian ideology of Slobodan Milosevic" -- whether or not this is true, I am not 'negating' anything; all I mentioned was the FACT (available in any 'serious Western source' you care to check) that 'Bosnia' is basically the common English name for 'Bosnia and Herzegovina'.

Really, we are trying to improve the article here; I don't have time to waste replying to completely wrong-headed criticisms of my points. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as there are editors who don't want to waste their time with JM's "completely wrong headed" suggestions.

According to JM the following sentence makes no sense: "We are not willing to give an estimate, but we are willing to say it was at least 7000." JM would then harangue the person with a scolding lecture that they of course are giving an estimate and for good measure throw in an exclamation point! An editor could waste their time with a tutorial for JM about what an estimate is. An estimate gives one number with the acknowledgement that the actual number is above or below by a relatively low percentage or an estimate gives a range, for example 7,000 to 10,000, acknowledging that the actual number is somewhere in between. Hence, stating only "at least" is not giving an estimate. Do more editors want to waste their time responding to JM as JM states he does not want to waste his time responding to others? Fairview360 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, what a surprise, FV swooping down from his eyrie to intervene in my debates with other editors. Seriously, don't you have something better to do with your time? With your English skills (self-referencing in the third person aside) and your apparent knowledge of the events of the SM, you could actually be a great help in improving this dog of an article, but instead you monitor my comments and quibble over what are actually irrelevant points (I've already said I'm happy to leave 'estimated 8,000' as is, so why keep going on about it?) Jonathanmills (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If JM wants to have private one-on-one conversations, perhaps he should find a private booth or chatroom for himself and his chosen editors. Fairview360 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If FV has nothing to contribute beyond irrelevant quibbling on talk pages, perhaps he should cease being an editor on Wikipedia. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been made perfectly clear to JM that the proper name of the country of which Srebenica is a part is "Bosnia and Herzegovina", and yet he wants to take up reams of editorial discussion quibbling that it ought to state "Bosnia" instead of "Bosnia and Herzegovina". The current article emphasizes Gen. Mladic's command responsibility by correctly stating the troops were "under the commmand of General Ratko Mladic", and yet JM again wants to take up other editor's time quibbling over changing it to "led by General Ratko Mladic". JM issues petty complaints about an editor participating in the discussion as if that is remarkable and then complains about quibbling. No wonder there are those who are dismissive of him. The relevance of this, that which is not simply a matter of quibbling, is that JM proposes that if editors do not engage him on the discussion pages, that is tacit approval for his suggested edits when in fact some editors do not engage him either because they consider his suggestions foolish or do not consider JM a credible editor. Fairview360 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You describe my proposed minor changes to the article as 'quibbling', even though I've specifically shown a willingness NOT to argue and fight over such points, let alone use 'reams of editorial discussion' on them.

As for your point about 'tacit approval', it's hardly binding, as you well know -- I'm simply proposing my edits, giving editors a chance to discuss and make changes to them, before I put them into practice. If you'd rather edit-war once the changes are made, I can hardly stop you. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, out of curiosity, what defines a 'credible editor', and in what respects do I fail to meet this definition? Jonathanmills (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What continues to elude JM is that the tacit approval does not exist. Fairview360 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What eludes you, apparently, is that there are only two ways I can go about making edits: 1) I can just go ahead and make them, 2) I can propose them on the talk page and put them up for discussion. If I choose path (2) and I don't hear any objections (after all, I'm not a mind-reader), then it would be obvious that I will make them. But then after that, there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop editors such as yourself, who shy away from open debate and instead prefer to 'keep their powder dry' by maintaining a sullen silence, engaging in ersatz debate via the process of edit-warring. Jonathanmills (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And I know I should leave it there, really, but I can't help myself: if you Google "estimated at least" OR "estimated more than", so bringing up ONLY results which use either of those two phrases exactly as they appear, you will find 53,000 hits. In fairness, not all of those necessarily illustrate my point, but I think it is FV, not me, who is in need of a tutorial on the meaning of 'estimate'. In any event, I would have thought 'scolding lectures' were more FV's speciality than mine. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The minimum number is what is being estimated, not the actual number. Fairview360 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Right...which would seem to contradict your original statement that "What it means when an article states "more than" or "at least" is that they are not giving an estimate." As I said in response, "'At least' or 'more than' estimates are taken from the number which they *estimate* to be the lowest likely (or possible) number." Jonathanmills (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

When an author states "at least 7000", he or she is stating with certainty that the number of those killed was no less than 7000. When the author states "estimated at least 7000", the author is showing less certainty about the minimum number. Fairview360 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to write something else, but this is just too boring. And it's of zero relevance to anything actually under discussion. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fairview360 has a lot more patience than I would with Jonathanmills's interventions. There is something inconsistent about claiming ignorance as a preface to suggesting controversial amendments or alternatively producing masses of evidence to contest a generally accepted position. Specifically there is no authoritative basis for retreating from a minimum figure of 8000.

Most recently the European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2009 adopted by 556 elected representatives of the population of the democratic nations of the European, opposed by 9, with 22 abstentions stated that "more than 8000 Muslim men and boys ... were summarily executed by Bosnian Serb forces".

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0028+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

"...

A. whereas in July 1995 the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, which was at that time an isolated enclave proclaimed a Protected Zone by a United Nations Security Council Resolution of 16 April 1993, fell into the hands of the Serbian militias led by General Ratko Mladić and under the direction of the then President of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadžić,

B. whereas, during several days of carnage after the fall of Srebrenica, more than 8 000 Muslim men and boys, who had sought safety in this area under the protection of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), were summarily executed by Bosnian Serb forces commanded by General Mladić and by paramilitary units, including Serbian irregular police units which had entered Bosnian territory from Serbia; whereas nearly 25 000 women, children and elderly people were forcibly deported, making this event the biggest war crime to take place in Europe since the end of the Second World War,

..."

There is no legitimate case for mentioning any figure below 8000. Further attempts to tie up editors' time in this way should not be given the time of day and it should be reasonable and not "ad hominem" to question the motives of the proposer. This is not a game. Opbeith (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

International Commission for Missing Persons, who previously were prepared to say that 8000 people had died at Srebrenica, have now adjusted their estimate upward to 8100. The Potocori Memorial Site list 8373 names of victims. Let's call a halt to all the time-wasting, to give it a polite name. Kathryne Bomberger, Director of ICMP, has described wilful obfuscation of the numbers in a rather less gentle way:

"In the build up to the recent conflicts in the Western Balkans opportunistic nationalists exploited post Second World War efforts to conceal previous inter-ethnic and political atrocities. They grossly exaggerated or grossly understated the number and inferred the existence of hidden mass graves to stir up ethnic hatred, fear and distrust. Concealed mass graves are analogous to political landmines that threaten the stability of societies for generations to come.

'There have been more recent attempts to abuse the issue of missing persons for political gain. Extreme examples include the Government of the Republika Srpska, denying that 8,000 men and boys were missing from the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995 ...'" Opbeith (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre defenders on Facebook

I don’t know if this information should be added to a “later developments” section in the article, but anyway, here it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.93.153 (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph on "serb genocide defenders" is about activism, not about alternative views on the event itself (it is in the wrong section and perhaps it also gives to much prominence to fringe groups). I have moved the paragraph here for further discussion:

Serb genocide supporters on Facebook In December 2008, young Serbian ultra-nationalists set up the Facebook group The Knife, The Wire, Srebrenica (Serbian: Nož-Žica-Srebrenica), which celebrates genocide committed in Srebrenica and general Ratko Mladić. The 1000-member group was set up for all those who think that Muslims are best on the spit and while swimming in sulphur acid. (ref tag)Reuters - Bosnians want Serb group shut down on Facebook [1](ref tag end)(ref tag)Radio Free Europe - Skandalozno tolerisanje nacionalizma na Facebook-u [2](ref tag end). In reaction "Society for Threatened Peoples", a non-governmental human rights organization from Bosnia and Herzegovina, made an appeal to the administrators of Facebook to shutdown the controversial group(ref tag)"Zatvoriti Facebook grupu 'Nož-Žica-Srebrenica'", at Sarajevo-x.com (12-11-2008). Retrieved on 12-11-2008(ref tag end), as well as an opposite group with over 14.000 members(ref)Facebook group "CLOSE GROUP NOZ ZICA SREBRENICA!"(ref tag). The group was removed by Facebook administrator on December 11, with new one being created in its absence(ref)(New) Facebook group "Noz Zica Srebrenica(ref tag end)(ref tag)Deutsche Welle - Facebook zatvorio grupu "Nož, žica, Srebrenica" [3](ref tag end). (paragraph ends)

Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondeo (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As you wish, activism it will be. Journalist 007 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it could also be placed in the "Post-war developments", I think it is appropriate for it to be a subsection of alternative views (which it is obviously). Regards, --Harac (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Journalist 007 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Harac: It is misleading to call activism on Facebook "a view" on the facts. The article can of course present the "content" of these views in this section, activism is something else and belongs in a different section. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If this kind of activism is included in the article, it is better placed under the heading "post war developments". In any case, this marginal group gets far too much space in the article. The paragraph need to be shortened. If there are no strong arguments to keep it as it is, I will shorten the paragraph (or remove it again) after seeing reactions from other editors. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not marginal group at all. All media in Bosnia and Herzegovina reported about the group, police was informed. OHR - International Community Representative in Bosnia also made a statement about the group. A thousand people from the group is calling for another genocide on Bosniaks. It's all but marginal. Journalist 007 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources about FB incident:

Journalist 007 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Journalist, I think what Mondeo means when he calls the group "marginal" is that they are of no importance or permanent impact. Granted the incident was widely covered (and rightfully so) but what was notable about the incident is not the influence of the group rather the extremely hateful message that they attempted to spread on a social networking website with 120 million registered users. The group and the people that joined it are not notable, the incident is. That's what makes them "marginal". SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The following would be consistent with the alternative views section and not read like a current event inserted in an ad hoc manner. Fairview360 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

An extremist view that continues to be expressed by some Serbs endorses the Srebrenica Massacre. For example, in December 2008, young Serbian ultra-nationalists set up the Facebook group The Knife, The Wire, Srebrenica (Serbian: Nož-Žica-Srebrenica), which celebrates genocide committed in Srebrenica and general Ratko Mladić. The 1000-member group was set up for all those who think that Muslims are best on the spit and while swimming in sulphur acid. ^[2]^[3] While the group was subsequently removed by the Facebook administration ^[4]^[5] , extremist views such as these continue to be expressed through various media. ^{[citation needed]}

Fairview: Did you do the edit? It was only signed with IP. The paragraph is much better, but still somewhat marginal IMO. It would be much more relevant if can be shown that this isolated incident is indeed example of a more general trend or wide spread beliefs in Bosnia, Serbia or elsewhere. The last part after comma is accordingly moved here for further discussion (vague, unpsecific statement, "weasel words"): "..., extremist views such as these continue to be expressed through various media. ^{[citation needed]}" Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Once an edit is made to the article while mistakenly not signed in, there is no way to go back and add one's name. The above adaptation is an invitation to those who originally inserted this facebook section to improve the entry so it flows with the article. The statement "extremist views such as these continue to be expressed through various media" is not a radical assertion. It is simply true. There are still many Serbs who advocate continuing the ethnic cleansing of the 1990's until a "complete"Greater Serbia is created. The above statement is in the passive voice which can be interpreted as "weasle"-esque, however it is perfectly appropriate if backed up with references showing these extremist views, ie. giving examples of current websites, speeches by extremist ultra-nationalist politicians, accounts of soccer games where "nož-žica-Srebrenica" are chanted,etc.

The facebook entry by itself as originally proposed is not appropriate for a number of reasons illuminated by several editors here. However, the facebook entry could be part of a section describing extremist views ("alternative views") currently being espoused. Then it could be acceptable. Those who want this facebook entry would then be encouraged to do the homework and back up the general thesis with references. Extremist views continue to be espoused. Here are some examples. Etc. Fairview360 (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fairview: Yes, that was essentially my point too. I am not questioning the truth of the statement "extremist views such as these continue to be expressed through various media". The statement is so vague ("weasel-esque") that is in fact difficult to prove or disprove. More important is the relevance: The fact that some anti-muslim extremists form a group on Facebook (or whatever) is not relevant for the section on "views" (nor perhaps for the article). What is relevant however are the kind of arguments, perspectives, facts, analysis etc related to SM (not to muslims in general) these group expresss. It is a regrettable fact that some kids join racist groups, but it is at best marginally relevant for this article. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add: Please se discussion on "recentism" WP:RECENT. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, based upon WP:RECENT, the facebook entry by itself does not appear appropriate. Fairview360 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it. It's clearly of such marginal importance, particularly in light of the 'RECENT' guideline, and it also doesn't belong in the 'alternative views' section, as it isn't questioning the existing version of events, but rather celebrating it. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Asserting the Srebenica Massacre was a legitimate act is certainly not a mainstream viewpoint. Fairview360 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said it was? I was just pointing out that it isn't an alternative view to the commonly-accepted facts -- which is what the 'alternative views' section seems to encompass. (Your crowd wanted to call it 'Genocide Denial' or whatever, and yet those who celebrate it are hardly denying it). Jonathanmills (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you like, but not delete it. It is sourced. Kruško Mortale (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Krusko. Having a reliable source is not the only criteria for inclusion of a piece of information; relevance (including not giving undue weight) are also important. Please relate to the reasons for including or deleting. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Johnathanmills, do not misquote Srebrenica Genocide Blog

If you are sourcing Srebrenica genocide blog in your above comment, then better spend some time and read it before you trash my research. At least I am in touch with Srebrenica NGOs and know the situation on the ground better than you, so stop misusing factual information from my blog in your dicussion. As for the number of victims, they are 8,372 (not 8,373 as you claimed) and that's a preliminary list from the Federal Commission. I have requested they sent me updated list of victims in PDF. You're quoting sources that meet your pre-defined conclussions trying to use description "7,000 to 8,000" which is wrong. The only correct term for Srebrenica genocide intro is "at least 8,000". Want sources? How about CNN? http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/22/srebrenicia.feature/index.html "At least 8,000 Muslim men, boys slain when Serbs overran UN safe haven. If you are going to use my blog in your discussion, at least use proper data which you can find here http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2007/12/srebrenica-numbers-quick-facts.html Bosniak (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica estimate starts at 7,000, but I've already said I'm not bothered to leave the number as is, so who cares?

Then perhaps JM should stop arguing his point. Britannica does not estimate 7000. It states at least 7000. When referring to actual estimates, Britannica refers to estimates that are more than 8000. An example of an estimate that is more than 8000 is 8372. Fairview360 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Er...I DID stop arguing my point, right there. But actually it's you who needs to stop attempting to argue your odd, incorrect, and wholly irrelevant point about what is and is not an estimate. As for "Britannica does not estimate 7000, it states at least 7000", please pay attention: I said "the Britannica estimate starts at 7,000". The full text reads:

Bosnian Serbs laid siege to the town in 1995, massacring at least 7,000 Bosniacs (more than 8,000, according to some estimates). (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/561873/Srebrenica)

The bracketed portion indicates that SOME (ie, not all) estimates are higher than 8,000 -- yet FV uses this to claim that "When referring to actual estimates, Britannica refers to estimates that are more than 8000", with the apparent implication that Britannica only gives credence to estimates of over 8000, which is rather disingenuous. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe JM will get it on this try. When Britannica states "at least 7000", it is, in effect stating there is irrefutable evidence that at least 7000 were killed. Stating that is not giving an estimate. There was a time before enough evidence was collected that reliable sources said at least several thousand were killed. That was not then giving an estimate, it was, in effect, commenting on the evidence at hand to date. One would think that JM has had ample opportunity to make his point. If he wants to continue arguing his point, he of course is free to do so, but, if he is going to continue to argure, perhaps he could refrain from claiming he is finally done. It takes away from little credibility he has left. Fairview360 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If there were 'irrefutable evidence' every time a source said 'at least [number]', then why would we get anomalies like the following?

Reuters UK, July 15 2008: More than 8,000 men died in the Srebrenica massacre (http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKL15646923._CH_.242020080715)

BBC, July 31 2008: the massacre of at least 7,500 Muslim men and boys from the town of Srebrenica in 1995 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1423551.stm)

Basically, the word 'estimate' is often *implied*, and while I actually agree with FV that 'at least' (or 'more than') OUGHT to mean that there is no possibility of a number below the one given, that is not how it works in reality.

As for the issue of 'continuing the argument', I'm happy to let it lie, but FV seems determined to bring it up over and over, despite it being of no relevance to any actual point at issue in the article. However, I will make a strong attempt to restrain myself from now on, given that it is a complete waste of time. Jonathanmills (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

May JM's valiant effort at restraining himself prove successful. Fairview360 (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As for those references you've re-included, two of them are completely irrelevant, and the other is in Serbo-Croat/Bosnian -- and only refers to the 499 who were under 18. The sentence it is footnoting is The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,372 names, of whom some 500 were under 18, and includes several dozen women and some girls, and as I've said before, what is needed there is a link *to the Preliminary List*, nothing more. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Missing Persons list currently posted at the Potocari Memorial Site http://www.potocarimc.ba/memorijalni_eng/favorite.htm numbers the missing presumed dead from 1.HAJRUDIN ABDURAHMANOVIĆ, aged 50, to 8373. ALIJA ŽIVALJ, aged 64. This list is almost certainly incomplete, given the various problems that have been referred to here from time to time in the past, including the wiping out of entire families leaving no-one to report the deaths. Opbeith (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

final (?) draft

Hi all,

Just wanted to bring attention back to my proposed first-para changes (and yes, they are pretty minor, but I'm taking one thing at a time):

(Current version)

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. In addition to the VRS, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions participated in the massacre. The United Nations had declared Srebrenica a UN-protected "safe area", but that did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time. After reviewing a comprehensive report, the Dutch government resigned over this matter in 2002.

(My draft)

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, Bosnia by units of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) led by General Ratko Mladić during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. In addition to the VRS, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions participated in the massacre. The United Nations had declared Srebrenica a UN-protected "safe area", but that did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time.

And, to repeat myself for clarity, I've said previously that I think the stuff about the Dutch peacekeepers might fit better into a proposed second paragraph summarising the actual events of the massacre, but it makes sense to keep the info up for now; I've also argued that IMO the Scorpions' involvement is a) not important enough to include in the intro (and is a little misleading, as it potentially implies an unproven link to the Serbian state), and b) might work better in the para mentioning Serbian responsibility etc, BUT I'm OK with leaving it in for the sake of moving things forward.

So..does anyone have any objections to this draft? I'll leave it here for discussion, but if nobody responds (don't worry, I'll leave it at least a week or so), I'll assume it's OK to proceed. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the country is "Bosnia and Herzegovina". "Led by" is a vague term open to more than one interpretation. "Under the command of" is specific and the term used in the ICTY context. Opbeith (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

'Republic of Srpska' vs 'Bosnian Serb Republic of Srpska'

For some reason FV objects to my formulation 'BSRoS', preferring 'RoS'. There appear to be two issues here:

1. Does the term need explaining, or is the hyperlink enough?

2. Is it fair to call the RoS 'Bosnian Serb'?

Regarding point (1), I think the following information should be sufficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OBVIOUS#State_the_obvious

State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:

"The Ford Thunderbird was conceived as a response to the Chevrolet Corvette and entered production for the 1955 model year."

Here no mention is made of the Ford Thunderbird's fundamental nature: it is an automobile. It assumes that the reader already knows this—an assumption that may not be correct, especially if the reader is not familiar with Ford or Chevrolet.

Now, if Wikipedia recommends explaining that a Ford Thunderbird is a car, there can be no doubt that 'Republica Srpska' demands an explanation (note that hyperlinks do not obviate the need for description). So we move to point (2).

Now, if you look up 'Republica OR republic Srpska' in Google news, it is standard for English-language RS's to refer to the RoS as 'Bosnian Serb' (or some variation thereof); here are just a few examples from a quick search:

http://www.rferl.org/content/Facebook_Row_Exposes_Fragility_Of_Balkans_CeaseFire/1360334.html

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/12/14/ethnic_divisions_fester_in_bosnia/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7742233.stm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a19e86e-c26d-11dd-a350-000077b07658.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSLL60202620081124

I'd actually be a bit surprised if there were any decent English-language source which *didn't* describe the Republica Srpska in that way whenever it was mentioned. (Note that, even if I'm wrong there, and there are instances of alternative definitions, it seems pretty clear that the above is standard, given that I literally checked all the first references from my search). Jonathanmills (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search in Scandinavian sources and it appears that it is customary to add that Republika Srpska is an entity within Bosnia-H. and usually that this entity is the serb dominated. For the novice it is not obious what Srpska is, especially for those not familiar with slavic languages. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Mondeo. Jonathanmills (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is a need to clarify even with hyperlink, it is enough to put a prefix "B&H entity" before it and hyperlink it (if they do not know what Bosnia and Herzegovina is and what entity is it is possible that they would not know what Bosnian Serb is also, a term usually not accepted by Serbs themselves - if that is relevant). More legally, saying that is it a Bosnian Serb entity is wrong since no entity is a property of an ethnic group. Constitution of RS itself states that is it an entity of Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats etc. Regards, --Harac (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stating "Republic of Srpska", describing what it is (an entity within BiH), and providing hyperlinks is more than sufficient. Fairview360 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as it (to repeat) deprives the reader of some important information: namely, that the RS is essentially, or at very least predominantly, the statelet of the Bosnian Serbs, AND in the context of the sentence, it indicates to the uninformed reader why the Serb war-crimes fugitives have found refuge there. Why do you object to it? Jonathanmills (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

JM wants to describe the RS as a country unto itself and doesn't understand why people would object. Truly extraordinary. Fairview360 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Er... where did I ever seek to describe it as a 'country unto itself'? I just want to mention its predominant political/ethnic character, using exactly the same formulation that is standard in English-language reliable sources. Jonathanmills (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

JM: "The RS is the statelet of the Bosnian Serbs". Definition of statelet: "a small state, esp. one resulting from the dissolution of a larger state." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statelet Isn't it interesting that JM's choice of words matches exactly the current goal of nationalist Serbs, the destruction of Bosnia and the creation of an independent country called Republika Srpska. Fairview360 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(rev indent) For the record, I did not intend to promote Serb-nationalist aims in my use of the word 'statelet' (I erroneously believed the word implied some sort of unofficial nature, rather than just small size). On the other hand, given that FV (along with most other editors here) are almost certainly partisans of the Bosniak-nationalist goal of fully integrating the Republika Srpska into Bosnia-Herzegovina, I fail to see how such a stance on my part would make me unfit to edit this page on the grounds of bias (which appears to be the intimation). Jonathanmills (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, what is 'truly extraordinary' is "Fair"view's ludicrous talk-page decorum: he avoids open debate, preferring an aloof, arrogant silence, but then swoops in with scathing denunciations when I fail to mind-read his objections. Jonathanmills (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Harac,

I'm happy to discuss this for the moment (ie not revert back to my 'BSRoS'), but just a couple of points I'd make:

Yes, there is a definite need to clarify, even with the hyperlink -- in the example I quoted above from the WP style article, 'stating the obvious' is not taken care of simply by hyperlinking.

Moving on, I don't think 'an entity of Bosnia & Herzegovina' (with the hyperlink, particularly the useful one you've provided) is a bad description, but it appears we are at odds over the second of the two points I laid out above: ie, there is a political objection to calling the RS 'Bosnian Serb'.

But as I pointed out above, such a description is wholly standard in English-language RS's, which is really the 'gold standard' for inclusion in Wikipedia. And not writing it deprives the reader of some important information: namely, that the RS (as its name, history and ethnic makeup - particularly of its political leadership - suggests) is essentially, or at very least predominantly, the statelet of the Bosnian Serbs. In the context of the sentence, it indicates to the uninformed reader why the Serb war-crimes fugitives have found refuge there. Jonathanmills (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Explaining by hyperlinking of course helps, but as a reader it is often frustrating to read articles full new concepts described only in linked articles. I must admit that I tend to get lost.

I don't really understand why it is wrong to say "Bosnian Serb" when in fact "Srbska" means "serb", that is, the serb republic (entity) within Bosnia. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Bosnian Serb Republic of Srpska" is a jumbled bunch of words which in and of itself is not going to help the novice reader. How is the novice reader supposed to know what all that means? What part of that is the actual title? Is it all one title "Bosnian Serb Republic of Srpska"? Does it mean that it belongs to Bosnian Serbs? Is it only for Bosnian Serbs? And where is it? Is it seperate from Bosnia? Near Bosnia? Part of Bosnia? Saying it is an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina is helpful, understandable to the novice reader, and accurate. Not only is "Bosnian Serb Republic of Srpska" confusing, the prefix Bosnian Serb presents RS as a possession of one ethnic group when in fact RS has three constituent peoples: Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. The RS legislature has Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. And according to the constitution of RS all consituent peoples have equal rights. While the prefix Bosnian Serb can be intrepreted as possessive (as in the Cartright Farm) saying "predominantly Serb" would be descriptive, not possessive, and understandable to the novice reader. But again, for the truly novice reader the starting point is that the RS is an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina not that it is majority Serb. If the reader knows that RS is majority Serb but doesn't know where it is, the reader is going to be confused. Fairview360 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To respond: the reason it will not just be a 'jumbled bunch of words' is because it will read thus: The Bosnian Serb Republika Srpska; ie, 'Republika Srpska' will be hyperlinked.

No it will not. Fairview360 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean it will not be hyperlinked? If it is, then how will it not be clear that 'Bosnian Serb' is a description of 'Republika Srpska'? Jonathanmills (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As for your political objections, they are not accepted by English-language reliable sources, so I don't see why they should be accepted by Wikipedia.

There is nothing political about pursuing language that is accurate.

There can be, because Wikipedia prescribes 'verifiability, not truth' as the threshold for inclusion, and the use of 'common names'. It is standard for English language 'reliable sources' to use the formulation 'Bosnian Serb' when describing the Republika Srpska, so to object to it on the grounds that the country's constitution names three constituent peoples or whatever is clearly a political objection.

However, this argument need continue no further, as it appears we have compromise (see next edit). Jonathanmills (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

However, can I propose the following compromise edit: Republic of Srpska (a predominantly Serb entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Currently it is Republic of Srpska (an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Would that be acceptable to you? Jonathanmills (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

FV and JM: For the novice it is not obvious what the Republica Srpska is, it is not obvious that it is serb dominated (this is the English WP) and it is not obvious that is an entity within Bosnia-H. (established at Dayton). It takes only few words to explain this very crucial fact. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

True. The novice reader does not know what RS is. Adding the descriptive language --predominantly Serb, Serb dominated, entity of B&H -- is fine. Fairview360 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not, and as I pointed out, it is standard to describe it as such in English-language RS's, but for some reason certain editors object to it on political grounds. I don't believe that is a legitimate reason to oppose its inclusion. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

JM seems to have wrapped himself in a cocoon thinking that the only reason editors object to his suggestions is that they are being "political". Fairview360 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I just think clearly political objections are political. Jonathanmills (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey JM and FV, this is not at all entertaining. Please move your quarrels to your own talk pages. It does not help improving the article. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is important to bear in mind that in a situation of conflict the precise meaning of words is often the subject of dispute and wilful disregard of the political implications of the language used is likely to imply partiality as well as possibly leading the novice reader into difficulties. The novice reader may not be aware of the sensitivity of a partiocular issue but no editor of a reputable reference work would seek to offload judgment onto a popularity poll of non-specialists. Reputable sources are liable to publish misleading material where they are insufficiently aware of complex issues. I doubt very much whether Wikipedia require editors to abandon their judgment. In the context of the sensitivity of Republika Srpska's name and ethnic composition any descriptive adjectives should be chosen very carefully or avoided.

The point of hyperlinks is to take the novice reader to an explanation of an unfamilar term or object. The Wikipedia article on Republika Srpska (not "Republic of Srpska") is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republika_Srpska. Opbeith (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dobrica Cosic and the Srebrenica Massacre

I’ve just read it on Radio Free Europe:

“

The Belgrade daily ‘Politika’ recently published a feuilleton by Serbian nationalist ideologue Dobrica Cosic claiming that former Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic was responsible for the massacre of Muslims at Srebrenica. ‘During the brutal war in Bosnia,’ Cosic asserts, ‘only the Bosnian Serb military command behaved with honor and chivalry.’

”

Maybe this kind of declaraion, made in 2008, could be put on the article, too.--BalkanWalker (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But the presentation should clearly distinguish between views regarding facts (what really happened) mere opinions (if for instance some argue that the muslims "deserved it"). I am not sure in which category the above belongs. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

True. The introduction as it stands now only addresses alternative views of what actually happened. As Mondeo points out, there are two types of alternative views, those that deal with the facts and those that deal with the interpretation. The ICTY has established that what happened was mass murder. An alternative view of the Srebrenica massacre is that it was justified. It would be accurate to describe these views as extremist. It would also benefit the reader to hear what those extremist views are. Fairview360 (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I just don't really see the encyclopaedic relevance of any of this, to be honest. Obviously if there were official (or just sizeable) organised celebrations of the SM or whatever, it would be worthy of inclusion..but random expressions of personal views?

However, if editors are hell-bent on including it, it should certainly be in a different section from that on alternative views of what the facts are, given that they are wholly separate issues. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

JM needs to do his homework, Seselj being a good place to start. Fairview360 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just googled Seselj and Srebrenica, and the first hit is a B-92 article from May of this year, which tells us:

During cross-examination of witness Andras Riedlmayer during his trial at the Hague Tribunal, [Seselj] said that it was a “lie” that 8,000 Muslim men and boys had been killed in Srebrenica, because “2,500 bodies were exhumed, of which 1,000 had been shot, while the others had been killed in battle.”

“That’s a widely accepted lie spread by certain courts and Tribunal prosecutors that has been accepted by the Western media. That lie has served as the basis for the International Court of Justice’s scandalous verdict declaring it genocide. That’s a lie because 8,000 men were not shot, and even if they had been, it wouldn’t have been genocide because all the victims were men and prisoners-of-war. Around 1,000 of them were shot,” said Šešelj. (http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=05&dd=29&nav_id=50640)

So in terms of what we're discussing, he's clearly in the category of objecting to the standard version of the facts of what happened, and/or perhaps their definition as 'genocide' -- he's not accepting them and celebrating it. Jonathanmills (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, while I was 'doing my homework' (all two minutes of it), I came across the following rather interesting testimony from Seselj at the Milosevic trial (admittedly the source is biased, but I've double-checked on a number of occasions and never found they've misrepresented the court transcripts):

Srebrenica was another topic that Seselj testified about. He said that the mercenary group “Pauk” was involved with the execution of Muslims from Srebrenica. This group of mercenaries was multi-ethnic and was attached to the 10th Sabotage Division of the VRS, although it was outside of the corps command of the VRS.

“Pauk” was commanded by Milorad Pelemis, and was acting on the orders of French Intelligence in Srebrenica. Serbian intelligence reported that the French had paid “Pauk” 2 million DM to execute Srebrenica Muslims.

Seselj explained that this “Pauk” mercenary group was also sent to fight in Zaiere, and was involved in a plot to assassinate Slobodan Milosevic.

In 2000 the Serbian authorities arrested several members of “Pauk” and charged them with war crimes for the killing of 1,200 Srebrenica Muslim POWs. Unfortunately October 5, 2000 arrived, Milosevic was overthrown, and the DOS regime simply released these men.

Several “Pauk” members were identified by Drazen Erdemovic, who was convicted by the Hague Tribunal because he admitted to taking part in the killings when he was arrested by the Serbian government in 1996.

It is strange that nobody else from this group has been arrested. Seselj explained that men from “Pauk” have no trouble getting passports and they freely travel all over the world, even though Erdemovic identified them as having taken part in the executions. It is also strange that Erdemovic, who admitted to personally shooting more than 100 people, only had to serve 4 years in prison and is a free man today.

The protection that these men enjoy seems to corroborate the thesis that they are foreign intelligence operatives. (http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg082405.htm)

Now, I'm not saying any or all of this is true (I have no way of knowing), but if FV wants to include Seselj's views on the SM, it could be worth a mention (it is ICTY testimony by a prominent political figure, as opposed to, say, a random Facebook group). Jonathanmills (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

JM doing his homework would help him resolve his own self-confessed confusion about the "encyclopaedic relevance" of those who celebrate the VRS takeover of Srebrenica as the "liberation" of Srebrenica. Doing his howework would show him what connects those who deny the massacre and those who celebrate it. But really, JM offers this foolishness above -- the French paid to have Muslim prisoners executed -- and he expects editors to take him seriously? Fairview360 (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My objection vis-a-vis encyclopaediac relevance is based on the fact that the things proposed for inclusion, ie random Facebook groups or the odd published opinion by some Serb or other, don't (IMO) reach the threshold of importance to warrant inclusion. Clearly you want to make political points regarding Serb perfidy, but that is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. As for the material I quoted above, the words are Seselj's, not mine, and I didn't endorse them. Jonathanmills (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As for "Doing [my] howework would show [me] what connects those who deny the massacre and those who celebrate it", while disputing the facts of the massacre may well be popular among nationalist Serbs, there is no logically necessary connection between the two. The members of the 'Srebrenica Research Group', for example, are not generally known for their genocidal views, as far as I'm aware. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument that mercenaries were responsible for the killings at Srebrenica is actually the argument advanced by a member of the Srebrenica Research Group, Dr Milan Bulajic, of the Fund for Genocide Research and former head of the Yugoslav State Commission on War Crimes. He admits to arguing ", as PHD in International Law," that the VRS did not "commit a genocide over the Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica". He maintains that "There could have been crimes of revenge, which should be liegally investigated and prosecuted by identifying both victims and perpetrators. (For instance, there is the evidence of mercenaries, who were wearing uniforms of the Serb Republic Army and killed Muslim POW's, in order to blame their crimes on the Serbs. These mercenaries were paid by gold, 12 kg, DM's, German currency, and some were provided with jobs in Kosovo and Zaire)."

It's a shame that JonathanMills's two minutes of homework didn't extend to checking whether or not Milorad Pelemis was in fact at liberty. He might otherwise have ended up concluding that the force of Seselj's comments is now somewhat impaired by the fact that Pelemis was rearrested and he is currently being tried on a charge of genocide by the B&H War Crimes Court. Opbeith (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, that would have taken me at least a third minute! ;-) Jonathanmills (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairview said: "The ICTY has established that what happened was mass murder." What happened was genocide, not mass murder. Bosniak (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Genocide is a form of mass murder. How does one commit genocide without committing mass murder??? The point being that the mainstream point of view is one of judging the massacre as a crime with no justification whatsoever. Hence those views that try to either deny the act of mass killing or justify the killing are, at the very least, alternative. Fairview360 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dobrica Cosic, who killed people with his “pen” and “academic” dishonesty, is still spreading hatred. Sad, indeed. Bosniak (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but we need to discuss how this kind of information can be included in the article (if at all). Regards, Mondeo (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Time-wasting, Mondeo. ""During the brutal war in Bosnia," Cosic asserts, "only the Bosnian Serb military command behaved with honor and chivalry."" Well we know that the ICTY and ICJ have found the Bosnian Serb military command guilty of genocide so the idea that Cosic's views on the issue of anyone else's responsibility for Srebrenica are worth as much time as his views on the honour and chivalrey of the BDS military command. Why, Mondeo, are you always anxious to divert attention to issues that move away from the substance of the article? There is no need whatsoever to discuss the inclusion of this information. Opbeith (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

SEVERAL BABIES KILLED OF MALNUTRITION AS A RESULT OF SERB OFFENSIVE (Dutchbat Eyewitnesses)

"According to a DutchBat witness, several women who entered the compound handed their malnourished babies to DutchBat members 'because they just didn't know anymore what to do and what their future would bring.' This witness also testified that several times babies were thrust into his arms 'which were so swollen that they finally died.' Another DutchBat witness testified that a total of 11 people died in the DutchBat compound, among whom were children who died of dehydration. It was estimated that the refugees would survive only three or four days under the prevailing conditions." Trial Judgment: Blagojević & Jokić (IT-02-60)

Tragic as that is, it's hardly the same as saying those babies were killed in the Srebrenica Massacre, which is why I removed it. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Death Camp

Term widely used to describe both extermination camps, such as Auschwitz-Birkenau and Treblinka, where people were murdered in assembly-line style by gassing, and concentration camps such as Bergen-Belsen and Dachau, without gas chambers but where thousands were killed by starvation, disease, and maltreatment.

http://www.ushmm.org/misc-bin/add_goback/outreach/glossary.htm

The victims of the Srebrenica Massacre include those men who tried to escape but died of exhaustion and starvation along the way. Many victims died as a result of the VRS takeover of Srebrenica and the decision to eliminate a portion of the civilian population. Not all died from a bullet in the head or a knife along the neck. They are all victims just the same.

Mondeo's shortened version seems most appropriate "reportedly babies were also killed". Fairview360 (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Jonathanmills (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Only thing I would add to this, however, is that this should be clarified in the (yet-to-be-written) proposed second paragraph outlining briefly the details of the massacre. This is particularly as the word 'massacre' DOES imply direct killing (so the comparison to death camps is somewhat beside the point), and because the only description we currently have of the event, ICTY Judge Meron's, states: They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity. (my emphasis) Jonathanmills (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon consideration, I believe it is wholly misleading to let the current formulation stand, and random references to death camps don't change that at all. Most readers will read the phrase 'babies were killed' as a statement that babies were more or less murdered -- and yet at Potocari, according to the ICTY, The Trial Chamber has heard evidence that some efforts were made to assist the Bosnian Muslim refugees in Potocari. The Bratunac Municipal Assembly, acting on orders of General Mladic, together with its counterpart in the Ljubovija municipality in Serbia, organised an operation to gather food for the refugees. Furthermore, the fact that Dutch officers were able to get medical treatment to the babies (who 'died later', remember) would further undermine the idea that either a) the babies were deliberately killed, or even b) the babies died as the more-or-less deliberate result of Serb designs (which is where the death camp analogy might fit). Jonathanmills (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If that doesn't convince editors, I invite them to consider their reaction if the shoe was on the other foot -- ie, one or more babies died of malnutrition after a Bosniak offensive captured a Serb-held town. Would it be fair to say that the soldiers 'killed babies', even if they had NOT made any direct effort to kill them, and indeed made some efforts to help, including allowing UN medical personnel to tend to them? There can be absolutely no doubt what the stance of editors here would be on such a matter, so there ought be no double standard. Jonathanmills (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jonathanmills, I'm not convinced by your attempt to suggest that significant efforts were made to ameliorate the refugees' situation. When I hear the words "The Trial Chamber has heard evidence that ..." quoted in support of some statement or other I'm always a little careful because those words are not intended by the judges to mean that the Chamber found the evidence convincing. I went and had a look at the source, the text of the Blagojevic & Jokic judgment, and found that the supporting evidence you cite for some reason omits some rather relevant additional information.

"148. The Trial Chamber has heard evidence that some efforts were made to assist the Bosnian Muslim refugees in Potocari. The Bratunac Municipal Assembly, acting on orders of General Mladic, together with its counterpart in the Ljubovija municipality in Serbia, organised an operation to gather food for the refugees. Ljubisav Simic testified that he contacted the UNHCR, after which UNHCR sent five trucks with supplies. These supplies were handed over for distribution to the local Red Cross distribution centre set up in Bratunac. Later on 12 July, a mini TAM truck from the Bratunac Brigade was sent to Potocari with a load of bread. This distribution was organised by the Bratunac Brigade Assistant Commander for Logistics, Major Dragoslav Trisic, upon the order of Colonel Acamovic, the Assistant Commander for Rear Services of the Drina Corps. Dragoslav Trisic went to Potocari with a truck carrying bread. The bread was distributed by Bratunac Brigade Military Police and the Bratunac Brigade Logistics Company. The Trial Chamber has also been furnished with evidence of a vehicle arriving with bread, accompanied by a camera crew. There was not a lot of bread to hand out and while the VRS soldiers threw it to the Bosnian Muslims, they shouted at them, mocking them and calling them names. Finally, in the early evening of 13 July, a convoy of humanitarian aid from the Russian Battalion arrived in Potocari, escorted by members of the Zvornik Brigade.

149. Ljubisav Simic, president of the Bratunac Brigade Municipal Assembly, who delivered food to the refugees in Potocari, testified:

The food was a drop in the sea, I must say. I was surprised when I realised what the situation was. I had never seen anything like it. It was shocking and remains shocking to me to this day."

http://www.un.org/icty/blagojevic/trialc/judgement/index.htm

"The food was a drop in the sea". I don't think that the arrival of the vehicle accompanied by a camera crew was the only time Mladic's cameramen at Potocari were used to provide pictures of humanitarian gestures for the outside world's consumption. I remember seeing pictures of this kindly man in military fatigues patting children's heads and giving them sweets. Anyone who considers themselves competent to edit this article has presumably seen those pictures as well and perhaps should consider them to depict an attempt to provide for the nutritional requirements of older refugee children. Jonathanmills, when you reproduced the text in that somewhat misleading way were you convinced that the evidence showed any significant attempt to prevent the deaths of those children? Opbeith (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That was the judges summarising the evidence they'd heard. When we go to their findings

"213. The Trial Chamber finds that there is sufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that elements of the Bratunac Brigade contributed to the inhumane conditions to which the Bosnian Muslim civilians in Potocari were subjected. The officers from the Bratunac Brigade present in Potocari, including Momir Nikolic and Major Dragoslav Trisic, were aware of the conditions to which the Bosnian Muslims were subjected, as were the members of the Bratunac Brigade Battalions and Military Police present. The Trial Chamber recognises that in July 1995, after three years of war, supplies for a humanitarian crisis such as existed in Potocari were very low, and must consider the one or two truck loads of bread distributed by the Bratunac Brigade in that context. The Trial Chamber finds, however, that members of the Bratunac Brigade generally did little to nothing to alleviate the suffering and extreme hardship of the Bosnian Muslims: they did not provide sufficient food, water or toilets. They had directed the refugees into the small industrial area at Potocari which caused severe overcrowding. Rather, the members of the Bratunac Brigade present in Potocari provided “security,” which included keeping thousands upon thousands of hungry, exhausted, terrified people crammed on top of each other. Through this action and their general inaction, the members of the Bratunac Brigade contributed to the inhumane conditions."

The idea that any action was taken to prevent the babies dying in those deliberately induced conditions is ludicrous. Opbeith (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning to rejoin this debate, or indeed this page, but having had a quick squiz over here for the first time in ages I see this comment from Opbeith, which I feel like responding to (ah, just for the hell of it). To wit: Opbeith makes out as if my previous argument is based entirely around the issue of whether (and how much) Serb units provided aid to Bosniak civilians -- throwing in the obligatory challenge to my 'competence' as an editor (laughable given the overall competence of editors on this page). But if you actually read my point in full, this is hardly the sole basis of my argument, and indeed could be omitted from it -- which is that it is misleading to ~~confuse~~ conflate the issue of deaths by malnutrition whilst under occupation and outright killing. Jonathanmills (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (replaced 'confuse' with 'conflate' for the sake of accuracy Jonathanmills (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

to Bosniak re 'removing refs'

Hi Bosniak (and others),

The reason I removed that reference again is because it is in Serbo-Croat/Bosnian, and there's no way an English speaker can work out whether those names listed are indeed part of the Bosnian govt's 'Missing or Killed' list, which is what the sentence indicates. The other thing is that it footnotes the entire sentence: The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,372 names, of whom some 500 were under 18, and includes several dozen women and some girls.

If the former (ie language) objection can be resolved, I can see room for the following compromise edit:

The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,372 names [citation needed], of whom some 500 were under 18 [your ref], and includes several dozen women and some girls [citation needed].

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just further to this, which is what I've now edited the sentence to -- it does look a little clunky, so when Bosniak (or anyone else) manages to get a link to a copy of the updated Preliminary List, it ought to be sufficient just to have that as a single link at the end of the sentence. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As posted above: The Missing Persons list currently posted at the Potocari Memorial Site http://www.potocarimc.ba/memorijalni_eng/favorite.htm numbers the missing presumed dead from 1.HAJRUDIN ABDURAHMANOVIĆ, aged 50, to 8373. ALIJA ŽIVALJ, aged 64. This list is almost certainly incomplete, given the various problems that have been referred to here from time to time in the past, including the wiping out of entire families leaving no-one to report the deaths. Opbeith (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

JOHNATHANMILLS IS VANDALIZING SOURCES

He keeps deleting sources (NGO Women of Srebrenica) for 500 victims under the age of 18. He also keeps deleting Dutchbat testimony about several babies that died. THIS MUST STOP. This is a clear vandalism on the part of this editor that we also had problems in the past. Bosniak (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not -- please see (and respond to) the two sections above. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I only once (well, twice now, but) deleted the Dutchbat-testimony info. You need to get a grip, mate. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you explain what you mean by your claim that you (plural) have 'had problems in the past' with me? I admit my presence must be an annoyance to the cosy Bosniak-nationalist clique who otherwise rule this article, but I've had precisely ONE admin sanction regarding my contributions here (a 24-hour block for violation of 3RR) and have not re-offended since. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, lets focus on content, not contributor. On Wikipedia there is no "we" that have "problems" with other editors. Let's us work together to make the article better. Have nice day. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Mondeo, but I really don't think many of these editors have any interest in improving this article, if by improving we mean following Wikipedia guidelines for making good encyclopaedia articles -- it's just a vehicle for them to push their ethnic-nationalist POV. Proof for this is the fact that I am some sort of hate-figure for them simply because I delete irrelevant or doubled-up references, remove blatant violations of Undue Weight principles, etc. It's not like I've ever sought to have the article be an exercise in 'revisionism', or indeed read as anything other than a summary of English-language reliable-source opinion. Jonathanmills (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but that should not affect other editors' agenda (improving the article and adding to reliable knowledge in the public domain). Have a nice day. Mondeo (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And re your comment above about silence: Editors should engage in a debate here (on talk pages) and voicing their opinion on proposed changes, rather than simply reverting edits they don't like. Mondeo (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bosniak. How can you justify deleting sourced parts such as Genocide supporters section? Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Because something being 'sourced' is NOT the only criterion for inclusion. Jonathanmills (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

adding info

about attempts by the RS government and officials to hide the genocide by moving the bodies few times to different locations --(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied here for further discussion:

"Also the attempts to hide the genocide by moving the bodies few times by the RS government and officials caused the long delay in Serbian chatarisis to face and acknowledge the crimes that were done in their name.(ref start) Moving of bodies and mass graves at Srebrenica [4](ref end) (ref start) Secondary mass graves [5](ref end)"

Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a well known fact that the bodies were moved few times in order to hide what happened there,so what's the problem?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fairview deleted the statement because of "poor grammar .... sentence needs editing..". I copied it to allow improvement and possible reinsert it into the article. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. The proponents of this move have made an excellent case that the use of the term "Srebrenica genocide" is growing in use, especially with the recent declarations by various national and international organizations. However, the opponents of this move also have made an excellent case that "Srebrenica genocide", while growing in use, has not yet achieved the status of most commonly used name. Therefore, while it seems a majority of editors support the move, there is not yet enough consensus for a move. This does not preclude a future move if genocide does become more commonly used than massacre; it's just not there yet, and we are not permitted to read the future. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a different between massacre and generaly declarated genocide. The EU and UN has declarate this massacre as genocide. By the EU in the press release you can see here. This is declarated also in the indictment against Slobodan Milosevic, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadic. Massacre is a civilian crime and Genocide as such can be maded just in War time. I request a move to Srebrenica genocide for a reason given above and deletion of the existing redirect. --Seha (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be redirected to Srebrenica Genocide, because it is a genocide. ICTY also refers to the event as Srebrenica Genocide, here is example http://www.icty.org/sid/10035 Bosniak (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at length, and the established consensus is to leave it where it is. Please refer to the talk page archives for specific details. --Ckatz^chat _spy 02:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See here for the prior discussion on the name: Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_13#Requested_move.--Aervanath (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Aervanath - you beat me to it. The big discussion was in March 2007, and can be found here. More recently, it was proposed here in October 2008. On both occasions, the result was a decision to maintain the title as Srebrenica massacre, as evidence suggested it is the most widely used name for the event in Web, news, and official sources. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As i answer at my talk page, the discussion you mean has been before it was classified as genocide by the UN.--Seha (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

PS:Here is ones more what genocide is.--Seha (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree for the move especially after US Congress resolution, EU Resolution (besides judgments of ICJ and ICTY). To keep it for reasons that "many people still don't know the difference" is stupid argument for encyclopedia --Harac (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the previous discussion was in October. No reason to reopen the discussion so soon. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a big reason - article has still wrong name. The fact is: it is a genocide and it should be named like it is. All major places, such like UN, EU and US-Congress has declarate it as genocide. There is a "Day of Srebrenica genocide" (11. July) in the EU, and not a Day of massacre. There are many things we can call massacre, but this is genocide. Regards --Seha (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - I opposed the move in the past because Srebrenica massacre was the more requently used term. But I have now changed my mind. Since the International Court of Justice confirmed the ICTY's finding of genocide, the slaughter is increasingly frequently referred to as the genocide rather than the massacre. Seha, you're not correct yet. The EU has not yet adopted July 11th as a Memorial Day but on 15 January the European Parliament passed overwhelmingly a motion - 556 votes in favour, 9 against, 22 abstentions - whose text is at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0028+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

The Parliament "2. Calls on the Council and the Commission to commemorate appropriately the anniversary of the Srebrenica-Potočari act of genocide by supporting Parliament's recognition of 11 July as the day of commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide all over the EU, and to call on all the countries of the western Balkans to do the same;"

556 out of 587 of the elected representatives of the population of the member countries of the European Union decided that the event they were referring to was the Srebrenica genocide. I think the passing of their Resolution on 15 January can be considered adequate reason for reopening the discussion.Opbeith (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I took it just as source I found quickly. It was declarated in spring or summer of 2008 by the EU. But it doesn´t metter, the UN has make it before. And the fact is, it is genocide as it just can be.--Seha (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No disagreement, Seha, the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Europe's democratic representatives is in line with your opinion.Opbeith (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - "massacre" is still the preferred term in the English language, as shown by these 7 recent articles from major newspapers: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. If and when common usage does reflect the "genocide" term, then we can move, but until then, we should keep the article where it is. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: It was just a massacre, but it was declarated as genocide in last time. Massacre is a part of genocide but not the same. Thats why I want this article to be renamed. Before, massacre was correct, but not longer.--Seha (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the UN declared it a genocide. For me the question is (because this is what our policies say): do current English-language sources (like books and the press) widely use the term "genocide"? If so, please show them. If not, then we should keep "massacre" until and unless "genocide" becomes more common. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre was not a genocide or does it?!? The only thing I try to say is that those two words have different meaning. And in this case it is genocide as declarated by all major instances and not massacre. Holocoust wasn´t named as Holocoust 60 years ago. --Seha (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul, do these articles show that the term Srebrenica massacre is used or that it is the preferred use? Opbeith (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Seha, what is official and what is widely used may differ. For instance, we call the country Burma even though it's officially Myanmar. Opbeith, they definitely show it's used; as for preferred usage, if you'd like to show the contrary, I invite you to do so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul there is a different by definition! Massacre and genocide is not the same. Massacre can just be a part of genocide but it is still not genocide. Apple is not a apple pie. You can´t take for reason that the most people say massacre. If they are talking or writing about massacre, they don´t know what genocide is. And there is no letter at the whole wide world who is gonna call massacre genocide, before UN or some political majority decide it is one. You can´t talk about pies if you mean coockies. --Seha (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Seha, perhaps you didn't know, but we have a policy on this here: WP:NCCN and WP:UCN. Let me quote the latter: "Use the most common name of a person or thing... Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". Is that clear enough? It's not our concern if the authors of those reliable sources "don´t know what genocide is"; we simply apply what they say here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Biruitoral, "Srebrenica genocide" is widely used, you can check that out with a search engine. That is already the case, and obviously since the ICJ confirmation of genocide and then the offical uses that Seha and I have referred to the expression is not only widely used but authoritative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opbeith (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Opbeith, yes, at least a couple of reliable sources ([13], [14]) do use the phrase, but they also call it a "massacre" in the course of the text. As I pointed out with Burma, official use does not necessarily mean the "most common name" our official policies speak of. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul: You don´t want, or you don´t understand what I´m try to say to you. Once more: If we talk about massacre there should be massacre, but we don´t. Here is genocide what we are talking about. Until 2008. this was been classified as massacre. But from 2008. it´s classified as genocide. Genocide include much more than just a massacre. Take a look here to understand what genocide is. Once more: massacre and genocide are not the same and you can´t compare!--Seha (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Seha, I understand perfectly what you're trying to say. However, we have a official policy here: verifiability, not truth. It may be true (indeed I think it is true) that genocide occurred at Srebrenica. However, that does not matter: what matters is that verifiable sources (ie, English-language news reports and books) tend to refer to it as a "massacre". For our purposes, that's what counts. Again, to quote our policy: "Use the most common name of a person or thing... Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you don´t understand but it´s OK. We are not talking about synonims that WP:V can be used. --Seha (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul, When significant change is taking place in the real world Wikipedia use needs to take account of that change. As Seha points out, "massacre" and "genocide" are not synonyms. Over the thirteen years since July 1995 the use of one or other term has reflected a balance between cautious use of the more restricted term and use of the more informative term ahead of its legitimation.

"Srebrenica massacre" does not encompass the crucial notion of a specific form of criminality legally proven at the very highest level of international law and ignores a key aspect of Srebrenica's place in public discourse. Since the International Court of Justice ruling in 2007 bodies concerned for correct usage have been using the term "Srebrenica genocide" to refer to the event and its public significance while continuing to use the term "massacre" to indicate the physical phenomenon.

"Srebrenica massacre" is no longer as widely used as it once was since it is no longer or appropriate or sufficiently accurate in most contexts. The "most common term" principle is obviously relevant where the use of terms is established on a permanent and stable basis. But here usage is changing for a very specific reason as a result of the change is almost certain to be permanent. The question is whether the term used for the title of the Wikipedia article should be the one that has been used for most of the reference period or the one now being more frequently and more accurately used.

I'm not sure how best the progress of change can be assessed but it seems reasonable to accept changes in highest level official references as indicative of the direction of ongoing change. There have been significant developments recently in the real world, most recently the European Parliament Resolution I have mentioned that was adopted in January following a lengthy period of formulation and deliberation. These developments are proceeding on one direction. I'm afraid, Mondeo, that either Wikipedia usage changes in this direction now or we just have to get used to regular consultations as a means of monitoring the progress of change. Opbeith (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Opbeith. The key here is WP policy. Perhaps "SG" can be regarded as the "correct" name, as you suggest. But the task of WP editors is not agree on "correct usage", but simply to use the most common name as WP policy clearly states. By using "SM" we are not saying that "SM" is the correct name, we are simply saying that it is most frequent. The article should reflect the fact that "SM" is the most widely used and recognized name for this event, our opinion about this fact is not very relevant. At present, "SM" is certainly the most frequently used name. If we disagree with WP policy, perhaps open a discuission on WP's policy pages. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So that means that accuracy of use isn't relevant? Opbeith (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Every time this move proposal has surfaced, there have been accusations that those wanting to keep the present title are in some way seeking to deny that it was an act of genocide. It is important to remember that an event can have a certain name without that name changing what occurred. The name "Srebrenica massacre" appears to be the most common name applied to the event in news reports, official statements, and web searches. This does not change the nature of the event, and it is not Wikipedia's role to rename the event based on interpretations or opinions. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, although to their credit, neither Seha nor Opbeith have done that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4 support-1 oppose and two comments without clearly position. --Seha (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are links to Guardian, New York Times, Amnesty International, ICTY and justicetribune with explicite talking about genocide and not massacre, or massacre as a part of Srebrenica genocide. --Seha (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

By the rules of Wikipedia, every of those links can be used as a source by WP:V. I offer a compromise to move Srebrenica massacre to genocide and redirect Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica genocide. In this case, the article is well named and until jet, the most used word (massacre) is leading (even if wrong) to the same article. --Seha (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose title change. See very precise comment by Ckatz: It is not our task as editors to find appropriate names based on our interpretations. "Massacre" is the most widely used name (see details in previous discussions), it is also a neutral, descriptive name, and the intro clearly states that the Srebrenica Massacre was genocide according to authoritative bodies. In addition, I think it is unwise to reopen this issue every 3rd month when an editor feels that the title is not perfect for some reason. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Massacre is the most used name, because it was not classified as genocide. Now the things are changed. It is classified as genocide, the most reputable newspaper (as you can see above) are talking about genocide, the UN wich is the only institution that can classify, has classified it as genocide. EU parliament and US Congress has make the same. We can´t go against the time and say: it´s has been and therefore should be. There are borders changing, new languages coming out, new nations and we are in the year 1995? --Seha (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP policy clearly states that the most common (most recognized) english name should be used. In the Factiva news data base "Srebrenica Massacre" is mentioned 375 times during the last 6 (six) months, while "Srebrenica genocide" is mentioned 28 times in the same periode. To indicated a specific thing or events the English language uses the article "the". Searching for "the SB" and "the SG" change the numbers to 151 vs 16 respectively. Google News Search for the last month gives similar results. There is no doubt that "Srebrenica massacre" is the most widely used name for this event. There is no basis for changing the title. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Between 1933 and 1945 the Holocoust wasn´t called Holocoust but after this it was. We can compare it with Srebrenica massacre and genocide. It is normal that something what was over years called massacre has more hits. The fact is, that massacre and genocide are not the same! The classification has been changed and so the article name should be changed. If someone change his name after marriage, you can´t call him with his old name. We are nat talking about similar words or synonims, we are talking about two words with different meaning. One is a civil crime description and one is including massacre, rape, homicide and ethnical cleaning at civilian and is a war crime. Degrading a war crime to civil crime is devaluation of victims and that was one of the reasons why this was classified as genocide.--Seha (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see comments by Ckatz and Biruitoral above. Articles must conform to WP standards. Although the event at Srebrenica for several years have been regarded as genocide, the event is still refered to as "the Srebrenica Massacre". For example, AFP on Nov 5, 2008 writes: "Bosnian police on Wednesday arrested two former soldiers of Serb ethnicity suspected of genocide during the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, a court said."; Reuters same day: "Two Bosnian Serbs arrested over Srebrenica massacre. SARAJEVO, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Bosnian police on Wednesday arrested two Bosnian Serb wartime commanders suspected of taking part in genocide against Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in July 1995, a police statement said. (....)" Le Mond Diplomatique on Jan 1, 2009: "One of the most popular books in Serbia today peddles a robust denial of the Srebrenica massacre in which 8,000 Muslim men and boys were murdered." So the common name for the event is clearly "SM", while the event at the same time is described as genocide. The article in no way hides the horror and severity of the crime. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw the comments and once more: there is no critic at the article, just at his name. Massacre is just a part of the srebrenica genocide. We also can make a new article with Srebrenica genocide and live Srebrenica massacre. Becouse it is not the same. I´ve present a link of an american and you can read the differents. Massacre can be part of genocide but it is not a genocide. We are talking about two things. Genocide include much more then just massacre. We can´t call every massacre (like Columbine) genocide. There are conditions wich must be fulfilled by international laws to call it genocide. And just when this conditions are fulfilled we can talk about genocide. In case of Srebrenica this conditions are fulfilled and so it is not massacre but genocide. A part of this genocide was the massacre at more then 8000 civilian. The most of newspapers are talking about just a part of genocide and that is the massacre. The links I put in are talking about whole what happens in srebrenica and was declarated as genocide and not just about this part wich is massacre. --Seha (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Seha: Once more, the current name of the article is the most widely used name for the event described in the article, that is, the name conforms to WP standards. If you believe that the scope of the article is too narrow, than we are into an entirely different discussion. This article describes the killing of around 8,000 men and boys in Srebrenica, if you believe that is too narrow a scope, perhaps you should take a look at the article Bosnian Genocide instead. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, I don't think you've really understood the significance of the distinction in meaning Seha draws attention to. I've discussed the difference in meanings in my reply to Bruitorul. The article doesn't simply describe the killings, it also describes the attribution of responsibility for a specific legal crime. You don't seem to appreciate the significance of all that has gone on over the last thirteen years during which firstly the reports of a massacre were established as accurate and then the allegation that the phenomenon of the massacre constituted the crime of genocide in accordance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide was proven in law at the highest level. That's what the article is about, not just the killings.

The argument isn't that the expression "Srebrenica massacre" has stopped being used. "Srebrenica genocide" is a more appropriate title for the article it is more specific (ref my comments above) and because it's now more accurate in the various contexts in which it is used it's now being used more frequently as well. "Srebrenica massacre" will obviously continue to be used to describe the phenomenon of the killings and probably also as a rough/uninformed synonym for the genocide.

Looking at the uses you cite, the Le Monde Diplomatique headline presumably refers specifically to denial of the physical phenomenon of the massacre; if the term "Srebrenica genocide" had been used it would have been referring to the outcome of the legal process, which is something different - there are two different groups of deniers - thoise who don't accept the fact of the massacre and those who don't accept the legitimacy of the legal verdict. Surely you appreciate the difference? This is a very good example of the problems that arise when people try to shoehorn general Wikipedia principles onto situations where there are significant complicating factors.

The APF citation seems to be a clear example of the use of the term "massacre" for predominantly stylistic reasons - to avoid repetition of the word "genocide" when the context compensates for any loss of precision resulting from the use of "massacre". The Reuters item uses "massacre" in the headline as the rough synonym before supplementing it with the missing meaning in the text below. The Wikipedia article title should use the specific term rather than the rough synonym, following the way that the specific expression "Srebrenica genocide" is now increasingly used for accuracy and economy, even though the alternative "Srebrenica massacre" is still used where appropriate or acceptable, as you demonstrate. Opbeith (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Opbeith: The article describes the background (context), the killing, and the aftermath (legal proceedings). The focus of the article is still the killing of around 8,000 people, the discussion here is the appropriate name for this event (the killing). If you or other editors believe that the scope of the article is too narrow, my suggestion is that you look at the Bosnian Genocide article or perhaps start a new article that covers the massacre as one of several topics. I am sticking to WP policy, if you disagree with WP policy, this is perhaps not the right place to discuss new guidelines. And again: "Srebrenica massacre" is by far the most frequently used name by reputable media sources, even during the last 3 or 6 months, this is a clear indication that "SM" is still regarded as the name of this event. Let me again refer to previous discussion. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Here some words from your talk page Mondeo: Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not about feelings. And it is the verifiable fact that is genocide and not just massacre! --Seha (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Seha, this is not about me, it is about an issue. Please, limit your comments to the issue. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, if we accept the basic principle that words have specific meanings, you seem to be making the case to have one article "Srebrenica massacre" that deals only with the physical fact of the killings and another "Srebrenica genocide" which deals with the establishment of the criminal fact of the killings. I doubt that would be helpful. Opbeith (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo it is just citation. The same words you can see under the edit window: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. And i cant see nobody who says i don´t verify enough. --Seha (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any new arguments above. "SG" and "SM" refers to the same event in 1995, and the article describes the event i 1995, its background and aftermath. Nobody has been able to demonstrate that "SG" has now become the common name for this event, the facts are clear: "SM" is used far more frequent than "SG" as specific name for this event, even during the last 3, 6 or 12 months. WP policy clearly implies that the title of the article remains "SM" until substantial changes in name usage can be observed. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I gonna make a request at: Wikipedia:3O to end this discussion if you agree. Even if there are 4:3 votes for renaming. OK? --Seha (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not edited by popular vote. Let us slow down and let other editors have their say. There is no urgent need to change the title. As I have said several times, we can not reopen this discussion every time an editor comes along and feels that the title is not entirely as the editor would like it. There has been lengthy discussions already and editors get exhausted from reiterating the same arguments. The last big discussion was in October, and there has not been any substantial development during these months. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"No substantial development"? As per previous mentions, the European Parliament passed a Resolution (556 votes in favour, 9 against, 22 abstentions) on 15 January calling for the Council and the Commission to commemorate the anniversary by supporting Parliament's recognition of 11 July as "the day of commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide" - not a substantial development?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0028+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

Opbeith (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"No substantial development" as measured by WP policy WP:NC: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers' over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject. (...) Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. (...) Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. " (Italics added) There is no substantial change in how reputable sources name this event. If the english language news media use "SM" vs "SG" in a ratio 10 to 1 or 5 to 1, this is a clear indication that "SM" is indeed the common name (as required by WP). If other editors believe this is a misunderstanding of WP policy, please correct me. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A search in Google Scholar (search engine for academic publications) reveals that "SM" is used in 475 publication, while "SG" is used in 56. In the JSTORE scientific database the ratio is 13 to 2. Similar ratios are found in news databases. The "commong name" for something is not changed by a vote in the European Parliament. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the length of this reply to the various issues raised by Mondeo. I don't dismiss the argument that many people do use the expression "Srebrenica massacre", I simply believe that "Srebrenica genocide" is now the appopriate expression.

(1) "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

"minimum of ambiguity" implies that the name must be an accuracy indication of the subject matter. The "would most easily recognize" criterion must be understood accordingly. So as long as there's no obscurity this implies opting for the name that most closely describes the subject rather than the less accurate, more ambiguous, term.

(2) The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers' over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Assuming that anyone enquiring about "Srebrenica massacre" can be redirected to "Srebrenica genocide" the impact on uninformed readers should be positive rather than negative, guiding them to a clearer understanding of the subject that they're investigating. And as "Srebrenica genocide" is gaining in currency uninformed readers are as likely to come looking for information on the subject of the "Srebrenica genocide" as they are on the "Srebrenica massacre". Most informed readers are unlikely to have any problem with the more accurate title.

(3) Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject.

There are a variety of different kinds of "verifiable reliable sources". Where usage is changing and reporting of the subject tends to follow authoritative legal and political sources, albeit with a time lag, official use by competent international organisations should be considered as providing appropriate verifiable reliable sources at least equivalent to media reporting (examples below).

(4) Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

This principle should be understood as referring to names used for the same person or thing. The "Srebrenica massacre" and the "Srebrenica genocide" are not identical. The difference in meaning has already been explained and is a substantial one. The massacre is the event itself and the term was used while the legal fact of criminality and the issue of responsibility were still to be resolved. Now that the fact of genocide has been established at the highest levels of international law, references to what happened at Srebrenica in most cases are concerned not simply with the raw event but with the combination of the event and its legal significance, i.e. the genocide.

The massacre can now be considered to be one aspect (a central aspect, of course) of the genocide. "Srebrenica massacre" is used legitimately to distinguish the event from the genocide but it is also used inaccurately as a superseded "relict" term. Relict usage is an inappropriate measure of the term's suitability for an article dealing with the genocide and not just the massacre.

The common use of the term "Rwandan genocide" rather than "Rwandan massacre(s)" supports the case for use of a parallel expression in relation to Srebrenica.

(5) Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another.

Neither "Srebrenica massacre" nor "Srebrenica genocide" can be considered controversial or in opposition to one another. "Srebrenica massacre" ceased to be controversial as the determined efforts to deny its reality were refuted by the exhumations from mass graves and other evidence proved in criminal trials. Since the ICTY's finding of genocide was confirmed by the International Court of Justice in February 2007 "Srebrenica genocide" is no longer the subject of legitimate controversy except in specialist areas of legal theory. Its non-controversiality is confirmed by the term's use by international bodies such as the United Nations, the European Commission and the European Parliament.

(6) If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain.

When there is ongoing and justified pressure for the name to be changed and substantial developments as cited and described provide good reason for change the persistence of the original name should not be described as stability.

(7) There is no substantial change in how reputable sources name this event.

International bodies at the highest level now use the expression "Srebrenica genocide" rather than "Srebrenica massacre" except with reference to the more restricted sense of massacre already referred to. The United Nations, the European Commission and the European Parliament now follow the International Court of justices's determination.

(8) If the english language news media use "SM" vs "SG" in a ratio 10 to 1 or 5 to 1, this is a clear indication that "SM" is indeed the common name (as required by WP)

A search in Google Scholar (search engine for academic publications) reveals that "SM" is used in 475 publication, while "SG" is used in 56. In the JSTORE scientific database the ratio is 13 to 2. Similar ratios are found in news databases.

This disregards the question of accuracy. Numbers of citations even from current published media sources is not necessarily an appropriate indicator, given that inaccurate or relict usage can distort those numbers, as well as legitimate references to a partial meaning within the whole. (Various examples have been discussed with reference to Mondeo's earlier selection of sources - Le Monde, Diplomatique, Reuters, etc.). This is why appropriate weight should be given to the terms deliberated, accepted and used by authoritative bodies such as international organisations.

(9) The common name for something is not changed by a vote in the European Parliament.

No, but the vote in the European Parliament, in which the term was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of elected representatives who would normally be expected to give careful thought to the significance of the words they commit themselves to using, was the outcome of a lengthy process of consultation and deliberation. The MEPs who voted for the Resolution exercise the authority granted to them by the population of most of Europe. No vote in an influential institution takes place as an event in isolation.

Although Wikipedia itself advises against a slavish adherence to general rules where inappropriate experience suggests that that sound advice is honoured more in the breach than observance. I console myself by reminding myself of the reflections of King Cnut/Canute. Opbeith (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP rule for name is very clear: The common name for the thing or event. A vote in the EU parliament does not change that. Opbeith claims that "SM" is a relict. Well, as I have said several times already: If I restrict search to last 3, 6 or 12 months, the result is still the same. I acknowledge Opbeith's arguments, but they are of little relevance as WP is edited according to WP policy and guidelines. So for instance "ongoing and justified pressure to change the name" is not relevant when this pressure is merely based on editors' opinions, and not on changes in public usage of a name. There are good reasons (evidence) for the current title, so there is no need to change it (as WP guidelines says). If other editors are able to produce evidence that "SG" has clearly replaced "SM" as the most widely used name for this event, that is, that there is notable stability in a pedominant use of "SG" in the public, then let us discuss it again. Let us slow down.

If Opbeith wants to change WP policy and guidelines this is not the right forum. I agree that it is an interesting idea to use names defined by authoritative bodies rather than common names (the most widely used and recognized name), but at present this is not in line with WP policy. A change of the title at present will clearly violate WP policy. Don't do it.

Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a misrepresentation of the explanation for the proposal that I and others have offered, that we're dealing with two different concepts, albeit closely related, one of which largely encompasses the other. I hope I wasn't understood to be claiming that "Srebrenica massacre" was solely a relict usage. Opbeith (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand where you are heading. The intro clearly states that "SM" and "SG" are regarded as synonyms, it is one and the same thing. So if I understand you correctly, it all boils down to a differentiation between SM as a historical event and SG as the legal classification of this event, it is the same thing except that "SG" invokes a legal understanding of the event. But if the sources use these words interchangebly (although predominantly "SM"), how can we as editors differentiate? Let me remind you that it is not editors' task to add analysis, our task is merely to summarize material from reputable sources. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mondeo, can I just remind you, from "Wikipedia is not":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. A procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Similarly, do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

Opbeith (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

oppose: Both arguments for and against the move have validity. It has been established beyond a doubt in a court of law that the massacre that took place in and around Srebrenica was an act of genocide. It is the view of this editor that the Srebrenica massacre was one of many acts of genocide, the overall genocide being committed throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina against Bosnian Muslims and against the multi-ethnic society of Bosnia and Hercegovina. This editor opposes the title change to "Srebrenica Genocide" because it combines a limited notion "Srebrenica" with something that in the opinion of this editor was much more widespread. To this editor, the title "Srebrenica Genocide" is like saying "Lower Left Lung Cancer" when the cancer is throughout both lungs but due to political considerations the hospital is only allowed to refer to one section of the cancer. If the cancer is throughout both lungs, saying "Lower Left Lung Cancer" creates the false impression that the cancer is limited to only one area of one lung. Saying "Srebrenica Genocide" implies the genocide was limited to Srebrenica which is not consistent with the views of this editor and therefore this editor opposes the move. In the opinion of this editor, the Srebrenica massacre should not be described as "The Srebrenica Genocide" but rather the largest of many massacres that constituted a Genocide throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. To this editor, the title "Srebrenica Genocide" sounds warped not because this editor questions whether the massacre was an act of genocide, not because the title goes too far or presumes too much, but because it is too limited. It is a truncated term resulting from the international courts failure to prove the obvious, that the actual Genocide was throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Fairview360 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fairview360, I certainly don't disagree with you in principle. All I would say is that on the one hand the Srebrenica genocide is an undisputed legal fact and on the other the existence of an extensive lesion that hasn't been formally diagnosed doesn't stop the identified disease being referred to by its name. Having said that, I share your frustration that the international courts have so far failed to prove the obvious, that genocide was perpetrated across Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the same pattern and strategy. Opbeith (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Along the lines of the above metaphor, in the opinion of this editor, there is already ample knowledge to assert that that there is full-fledged lung cancer. Therefore, saying Lower Left Lung Cancer is absurd. But, it is only the opinion of this editor. Fairview360 (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are perhaps right, but it does not change the criteria for choosing title for this article. The issue of an overall genocide in Bosnia is discussed in a separate article. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support The Srebrenica genocide is fact, changing the article should be a simple task. This is not an opinion people, these are facts, why are you denying this fact with opposing the change of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.157.156.102 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Support Its ridiculous that genocide deniers are still allowed to permeate their rubbish here. --Harac (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I find this debate completely ridiculous. This article should IMMEDIATELY be moved to Srebrenica GENOCIDE. THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL STATED THAT THIS EVENT WAS A GENOCIDE, WHY DO YOU CONTINUE DEBATING ON WETHER IT WAS OR NOT. I think stupid should be the right term to use when talking about those who are against this request of changing the name of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.219.75.2 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reversions for 7 April 2009

I just undid three reversions, two of which are blatant editorializations and one of which appeared to be a deletion for no reason. Let's save the arguments for the talk page, not for the article. Hzoi (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hzoi. The lobby have had to become more subtle since the ICJ verdict, so presumably this was a rather crude and clumsy rogue apologist at work, not the sort of person who engages in arguments anyway. Opbeith (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide also included forced deportations transfer of 25-30,000 people

I suggest we mention in the intro that the 1995 Srebrenica genocide resulted in mass killings of 8,372 Bosniaks, including ethnic cleansing of 25,000-30,000 people. That's a fact, but it would make more sense to mention it in the introduction.Bosniak (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in Krstić judgment it was stated that this fact was decisive in determination of specific intent. When I find time I'll cite it. --Harac (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is quite shockign that this fact... the fact about 25-30,000 refugees being expelled and ethnically cleansed is conveniently avoided being mentioned in the media.Bosniak (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "media"? A search of google [Srebrenica massacre expulsion site:UK] shown plenty of news media outlets that mention the expulsions. At the time is was widely reported in the international news media that many men had been (at first detained and then as the day passed suspected of being killed, and then confirmed murdered) and that women, children and the old were forced to leave with the UN doing next to nothing to stop it. As the numbers in Srebrenica was widely reported (The UN recorded the numbers and in the days leading up to the massacre these numbers were frequently mentioned in the international news media) it was and is simple for any one to work out that if all the population in the enclave either fled were killed or expelled (as it was reported at the time) how many victims were affected by the final assault on the UN enclave. --PBS (talk)

A BBC report "Srebrenica judgement: Excerpts" says "The following are excerpts from the judgement at the trial of former Bosnian Serb general Radislav Krstic, found guilty of genocide for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and jailed for 46 years." and includes "The trial chamber concludes that for legal reasons... there was no expulsion. However, there was a forced transfer of women, children and old people from Srebrenica. Men were systematically separated, forced to leave behind belongings... " which seems curious and probably needs explaining in this article. --PBS (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Trial Chamber's judgment (§§531-532) found that because Bosnia-Herzegovina was the only State formally recognised by the international community at the time of the events and the Srebrenica civilians were displaced within the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina, their forcible displacement could not be characterised as deportation in customary international law, and consequently the civilians assembled at Potocari and transported to Kladanj were not subjected to deportation but rather to forcible transfer. "Expulsion" is only referred to once, in Footnote 1172, in a reference to "the commentary on the ILC Draft Code, p. 122" “Whereas deportation implies expulsion from the national territory, the forcible transfer of population could occur wholly within the frontiers of one and the same State”. On this basis there is no justification for the BBC referring to "no expulsion" rather than "no deportation". Opbeith (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From the history of the article: "22:54, 12 April 2009 Bosniak ... (genocide also included deportations of 25,000-30,000 people)" What is the source that the genocide included the deportations of 25,000-30,000 people? I can understand wording that mentions that the events surrounding the genocide included the expulsion of 25,000-30,000, but not that the deportations of 25,000-30,000 people was part of the genocide unless the ICTY said it was. --PBS (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument is summed up most succinctly in the Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, forming Part VIII of the ICTY Appeals Chamber finding. Shahabuddeen does not dissent with the Appeals Chamber's finding on genocide, he dissents from the finding that Krstic was not a principal perpetrator of genocide but only an aider and abettor.

"34. The third piece of evidence concerns the appellant’s admitted role in organising the transfer of women, children and the elderly by bus out of Srebrenica. In the words of his counsel, “There was unchallenged evidence that General Krstić had organised the transfer of women, children and the elderly from the Srebrenica area so that they would not be affected by the coming holocaust.”

Thus, according to his counsel, the appellant recognised that a “coming holocaust” awaited those who had not been transferred. The transfer and the holocaust combined to constitute one single act of genocide. The Appeals Chamber saw this when it said:

The decision by Bosnian Serb forces to transfer the women, children and elderly within their control to other areas of Muslim-controlled Bosnia could be consistent with the Defence argument. This evidence, however, is also susceptible of an alternative interpretation. As the Trial Chamber explained, forcible transfer could be an additional means by which to ensure the physical destruction of the Bosnian Muslim community in Srebrenica. The transfer completed the removal of all Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica, thereby eliminating even the residual possibility that the Muslim community in the area could reconstitute itself. The decision not to kill the women or children may be explained by the Bosnian Serbs’ sensitivity to public opinion. In contrast to the killing of the captured military men, such an action could not easily be kept secret, or disguised as a military operation, and so carried an increased risk of attracting international censure.

The Appeals Chamber added:

The Trial Chamber – as the best assessor of the evidence presented at trial – was entitled to conclude that the evidence of the transfer supported its finding that members of the VRS Main Staff intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. The fact that the forcible transfer does not constitute in and of itself a genocidal act does not preclude a Trial Chamber from relying on it as evidence of the intentions of members of the VRS Main Staff. The genocidal intent may be inferred, among other facts, from evidence of “other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group.”

35. Thus, standing alone, forcible transfer is not genocide. But in this case the transfer did not stand alone, and that indeed is the basis on which the Appeals Chamber rejected the defence argument that it showed that there was no genocide. It was part – an integral part – of one single scheme to commit genocide, involving killings, forcible transfer and destruction of homes. In particular, it showed that the intent with which the killings were done was indeed to destroy the Srebrenica part of the Bosnian Muslim group. In my view, the judgment of the Appeals Chamber has to be understood as affirming that, by taking on the role of chief executor of the policy of forcible transfer - an inseparable element of the genocide - the appellant shared the intent of the Main Staff to commit the crime of genocide."

The BBC report cited may have been confused regarding the argument whether the crime was one of deportation or forced transfer.

The above seems to me to be another cogent argument for a change in the title of the article to Srebrenica Genocide. The massacre, the forcible transfer of the women and younger children and the destruction of homes were component elements of the one planned act of genocide. Opbeith (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Added subsequently: as mentioned earlier in this section the author of the BBC report appears to have confused regarding the meaning of the Trial Chamber's finding that there had been no deportation, i.e expulsion from national territory, but there had been forcible transfer of population within the frontiers of one and the same State. Opbeith (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of the above I propose that the first sentence of the article now be reworded as follows:

"The Srebrenica Massacre was the killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in July 1995, during the Bosnian War, following the fall of the enclave of Srebrenica in Eastern Bosnia & Herzegovina. Along with the forced transfer out of the area of the remainder of the enclave's civilian population (25,000-30,000 refugees) and the destruction of their homes, the Srebrenica Massacre was part of the Srebrenica Genocide[1][2][3][4], carried out by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić."

As far as I can tell, the ICTY Krstic findings do not not specify the precise number of civilians who were the subject of forced (or forcible) transfer. I put the figure in brackets so that other people can provide the references to support this estimate, which finds fairly widespread acceptance.

The logical conclusion from all this is that Wikipedia should have a "Srebrenica Genocide" article which would absorb the content of the "Srebrenica Massacre" article. Opbeith (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And of course, bearing in mind that the date of the Appeals Chamber's judgment was 19 April 2004, what all the above also does is confirm that Gen. Lewis MacKenzie's article published in the Toronto Globe and Mail on July 14, 2005, under the title “The Real Story Behind Srebrenica“, was an act of genocide denial. Asserting that what he has to say is "The Real Story" MacKenzie dismisses the findings of the ICTY Appeals Chamber. See Balkan Witness Opbeith (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The judgment which should be considered is the main judgment not the dissenting one, however whatever judgment is used, interpreting the judgment in the article -- without a secondary source to do the interpretation -- instead of quoting it, is not the thing to do (WP:PSTS). Having said that as we are discussing it only on the talk page and not editing the article content we can discuss it here. I think it is clear from paragraph 33 of the main judgment. "The fact that the forcible transfer does not constitute in and of itself a genocidal act does not preclude a Trial Chamber from relying on it as evidence of the intentions of members of the VRS Main Staff." indicates that the main judgment does no consider the transfer to be a genocidal act but instead to be an indicator of the intentions of those who committed the genocide. However I can see that in paragraph 37 of the main judgment "They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general." could be interpreted as including the forcible transfer. I think that the key to understanding are paragraphs 25 and 26. It seems that the Appeals court is saying that the trial court is correct in concluding that the genocidal conspiracy was the biological destruction of the whole group but given the constraint mentioned in paragraph 31 they only killed part of that group, but as paragraph 28 points out that was a sufficiently large group for the criminal conspirator to to be guilty of a genocidal act and that it was probably sufficient to carry out their intent of destroying the whole group.

But I think this type of analysis only strengthens the Wikipedia policy of no interpretation of primary sources by editors, as clearly these paragraphs are open to different layman interpretations (and probably different legal interpretations as well), so any interpretation that the genocide included the expulsions, needs an expert secondary source for that interpretation.

I do not agree with you that "The logical conclusion from all this is that Wikipedia should have a "Srebrenica Genocide" article which would absorb the content of the "Srebrenica Massacre" article." What is needed is an article specifically on Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic with analysis from reliable sources of these very complicated legal points. The reason for this is that the points raised in the trial and appeal judgment is not directly to do with the genocide in general, but with the specific crimes Krstic committed and how the court came to the judgment that it did over his crimes. --PBS (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is important to read what Judge Shahabuddeen actually says, rather than remove phrases from their context, misunderstand them and disregard what else is being said. The points raised in the Trial and Appeals judgment did refer to the genocide in general, how else could the finding that genocide had been committed have been arrived at? The point over which Shahabuddeen dissents from the majority, concerning whether Krstic was complicit in genocide or guilty of aiding and abetting genocide - did he share intent or did he only have knowledge of others' intent? - is considered separately from the fact and substance of genocide.

Shahabuddeen clarifies the finding of the Appeal Chamber, of which he was a member, about the place of the forcible transfer in the genocide before proceeding to express dissent over the specific issue of Krstic's complicity. The point at which he starts to express dissent is clearly signalled by "In my view". This is not a complicated legal point, it is simply a matter of reading what Shahabuddeen has said. No "interpretation" is necessary.

The source of the problem is that you have misread one phrase in the text (and have ignored the additional information provided by the text in which the phrase is embedded). The meaning of "The fact that the forcible transfer does not constitute in and of itself a genocidal act" is not the same as "The fact that the forcible transfer does not constitute a genocidal act". You seem to assume that the words "in and of itself" carry no meaning of their own and can be disregarded. That is not an "interpretation", that is a misreading. Opbeith (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to respond to your half-truths excerpted from the genocide judgment. Why did Radislav Krstic forcibly transfer women and children? Did he do it to save them. The ICTY says NO.

31. As the Trial Chamber explained, forcible transfer could be an additional means by which to ensure the physical destruction of the Bosnian Muslim community in Srebrenica. The transfer completed the removal of all Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica, thereby eliminating even the residual possibility that the Muslim community in the area could reconstitute itself. The decision not to kill the women or children may be explained by the Bosnian Serbs’ sensitivity to public opinion. In contrast to the killing of the captured military men, such an action could not easily be kept secret, or disguised as a military operation, and so carried an increased risk of attracting international censure.
32. In determining that genocide occurred at Srebrenica, the cardinal question is whether the intent to commit genocide existed. While this intent must be supported by the factual matrix, the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part. Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent. The international attention focused on Srebrenica, combined with the presence of the UN troops in the area, prevented those members of the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army] Main Staff who devised the genocidal plan from putting it into action in the most direct and efficient way. Constrained by the circumstances, they adopted the method which would allow them to implement the genocidal design while minimizing the risk of retribution.

and

Thus, standing alone, forcible transfer is not genocide. But in this case the transfer did not stand alone, and that indeed is the basis on which the Appeals Chamber rejected the defence argument that it showed that there was no genocide. It was part – an integral part – of one single scheme to commit genocide, involving killings, forcible transfer and destruction of homes. In particular, it showed that the intent with which the killings were done was indeed to destroy the Srebrenica part of the Bosnian Muslim group. In my view, the judgment of the Appeals Chamber has to be understood as affirming that, by taking on the role of chief executor of the policy of forcible transfer - an inseparable element of the genocide - the appellant shared the intent of the Main Staff to commit the crime of genocide."

Bosniak (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PhilipBairdShearer, I'm not clear why you find a clarification by Judge Shahabuddeen unacceptable when it is clear that this is not the element of dissent from the majority. In any case, if you want a more explicit statement in a trial judgment perhaps the Blagojevic case Judgment will clarify the situation for you (Case No. IT-02-60-T / Date: 17 January 2005):

"674. The Trial Chamber is convinced that the criminal acts committed by the Bosnian Serb forces were all parts of one single scheme to commit genocide of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, as reflected in the “Krivaja 95” operation, the ultimate objective of which was to eliminate the enclave and, therefore, the Bosnian Muslim community living there. The forcible transfer was an integral part of this operation, which also included killings and destruction of properties. The Bosnian Serb forces separated the able-bodied men in Potocari, and captured those in the column heading to Tuzla, regardless of their military or civilian status. The separation of the men from the rest of the Bosnian Muslim population shows the intent to segregate the community and ultimately to bring about the destruction of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica. The Bosnian Muslim men were stripped of their personal belongings and identification, detained, and finally taken to execution sites, where the Bosnian Serb forces deliberately and systematically killed them, solely on the basis of their ethnicity.

675. Immediately before and during these massacres, the remainder of the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica was forcibly transferred to Bosnian Muslim-held territory. The forcible transfer of the women, children and elderly is a manifestation of the specific intent to rid the Srebrenica enclave of its Bosnian Muslim population. The manner in which the transfer was carried out – through force and coercion, by not registering those who were transferred, by burning the houses of some of the people, sending the clear message that they had nothing to return to, and significantly, through its targeting of literally the entire Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica, including the elderly and children – clearly indicates that it was a means to eradicate the Bosnian Muslim population from the territory where they had lived.

676. In such a context, the killings in Bratunac town were also a manifestation of this intent to destroy the group. It had an impact on the Bosnian Muslim group beyond the death of the men killed; it sent a message to the remaining members of the group of their fate – that they were at the mercy of the Bosnian Serbs and that their lives, too, could be taken at any moment.

677. The Trial Chamber has no doubt that all these acts constituted a single operation executed with the intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica. The Trial Chamber finds that the Bosnian Serb forces not only knew that the combination of the killings of the men with the forcible transfer of the women, children and elderly, would inevitably result in the physical disappearance of the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica, but clearly intended through these acts to physically destroy this group.

...

"706. The Trial Chamber recalls that the forcible transfer of women and children is an underlying act for two counts in the Indictment, namely Count 5 (inhumane acts) and Count 6 (persecutions). Additionally, as has been discussed above, the Trial Chamber observes that forcible transfer is a related underlying act for the charge of complicity in genocide.

707. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the women and children from the Srebrenica enclave were forcibly transferred to Kladanj on 12 and 13 July 1995."

...

"785. The Trial Chamber finds that Colonel Blagojevic knew of the principal perpetrators’ intent to destroy in whole or in part the Bosnian Muslim group as such. The Trial Chamber infers this knowledge from all the circumstances that surrounded the take-over of the Srebrenica enclave and the acts directed at the Bosnian Muslim population which followed. In particular, the Trial Chamber recalls:

- Colonel Blagojevic’s knew the goal of the Krivaja 95 operation, namely to create conditions for the elimination of the Srebrenica enclave

- Colonel Blagojevic knew that the Bosnian Muslim population in its entirety was driven out of Srebrenica town to Potocari

- Colonel Blagojevic knew that the Bosnian Muslim men were separated from the rest of the Bosnian Muslim population

- Colonel Blagojevic knew that the Bosnian Muslim women, children and elderly were forcibly transferred to non-Serb held territory

- Colonel Blagojevic knew that the Bosnian Muslim men were detained in inhumane conditions in temporary detention centres pending further transport

- Colonel Blagojevic knew that members of the Bratunac Brigade contributed to the murder of Bosnian Muslim men detained in Bratunac

- Colonel Blagojevic knew of and participated in an operation to search the terrain for the purpose of capturing and detaining Bosnian Muslim men, so as to prevent the men from “breaking through” to Tuzla or Kladanj, i.e., territory under the control of the Bosnian Muslims"

According to the ICTY the deportations/forcible transfers were part of the genocide. The Appeals Chamber reversed Blagojevic’s conviction for complicity in genocide on the basis that his knowledge of the forcible transfer operation, the separations, and the mistreatment and murders in Bratunac town were insufficient, to allow a finding of genocidal intent beyond reasonable doubt. The Appeal Chamber did not overthrow the Trial Chamber's judgment that "the criminal acts committed by the Bosnian Serb forces were all parts of one single scheme to commit genocide".

Opbeith (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

6,006 Bodies Exhumed from Mass Graves (Latest Figures)

I added this info, update on the number of exhumed bodies as of May 1st: So far 6,006 bodies of Srebrenica genocide victims have been excavated from numerous mass graves, but the number is not final. See testimony of Dusan Janac and Dr. Thomas Parsons [15].

The number 6,006 is completely controversial and not an established fact. Here's an alternative source that you should probably read. http://de-construct.net/?p=9034 Yugo91aesop (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Testimony of a rape

One of the survivors, Zarfa Turkovic , described the horrors of rapes as following: "Two [Serb soldiers] took her legs and raised them up in the air, while the third began raping her. Four of them were taking turns on her. People were silent, no one moved. She was screaming and yelling and begging them to stop. They put a rag into her mouth and then we just heard silent sobs…." See: (1) http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/refugees-tell-of-women-singled-out-for-19950718-hb/ and (2) http://www.markdanner.com/articles/show/62#fn1 . Bosniak (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

State of Missouri - Srebrenica Genocide Resolution

Missouri House of Representatives passed resolution abotu the Srebrenica genocide. Here is a scanned copy of a document: | http://www.srebrenica95.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98:rezolucija-missouri-kongresa&catid=4:vijesti&Itemid=86. Please include it in the article. Bosniak (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

City of Saint Louis - Srebrenica Genocide Proclamation

City of Saint Louis also issued proclamation about the Srebrenica genocide. Here is a scanned copy of the document | http://srebrenica95.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102:proklamacija-grada-st-louis-a-o-srebrenickom-genocidu&catid=44:vijesti&Itemid=86. Please include it in the article. Bosniak (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Srebrenica Genocide

Since this is a case of genocide, I suggest we rename the article to Srebrenica Genocide. I read the archive and earlier debates and voting process was flawed. Serb editors organized themselves and simply voted "NO," as they don't even accept the term - genocide. There should not be popularity votes and one ethnic group should not be allowed to outvote other ethnic group. We should simply do this by following facts. There was a genocide, more specifically Srebrenica genocide, so why there such a huge hesitation to call the genocide with its proper name? The title of the article should reflect that. I think that we don't need any voting process for such a simple, straightforward fact.Edina1979 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for the title incorporates the fact that it is commonly called the "Srebrenica massacre", an incident that is considered by the world community to be an act of genocide. It also reflects the fact that the predominate use (per searches on the two terms) is "Srebrenica massacre" in both news and web searches. Attempting to dismiss the previous votes and their extensive discussions as "flawed" is incorrect; many of the respondents opposing the move had no connection to either ethnic background. (I, for one, have no "side" to take, not being a part of either community.) As for the idea of ignoring the voting process, that simply won't fly. Given the strong feelings either way, any move proposal would certainly require an extensive discussion. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Edina, as you may have noticed by now - I recently renamed this article to Srebrenica Genocide, but the administrator undid my edit and warned me not to do it again. I applaud Ckatz's civilized response, but I don't understand what he meant by saying "many of the respondents opposing the movehad no connection to either ethnic background." If you go back and see who voted against the idea, it will become obvious to you that Serbs organized themselves to prevent the article being renamed to Srebrenica Genocide. They organized themselves, voted against it, and then abandoned this article. Now we are stuck with "Srebrenica Massacre" even though the International Criminal Tribunal refers to the event as Srebrenica Genocide (example: http://www.icty.org/sid/10124 ). Serbs/Serbians open all kinds of bogus articles, such as North Kosovo - a term that never existed, but was manufactured recently when Kosovo was forced to defend its sovereignity. They also came up with fake definitions, such as "Serpophobia" and spammed search engines to gain popularity of a non-existent word. When we tried to delete the article, Serbs outvoted us. However, when we opened an article titled Bosniakophobia, Serbs came back, outvoted us again, and deleted our article. Wikipedia is being run by popularity. If you have enough activists to outvote other editors, you can create all kinds of articles and promote all kinds of agendas, such as "Serpophobia" (I intentionally misspelled it, as I do not recognize this word), North Kosovo, and other non-existent, manufactured, imaginary words and subjects. *yawn* Bosniak (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"even though the International Criminal Tribunal refers to the event as Srebrenica Genocide"

I agree with your post only because Serbs have been judged inveterateliars by the Hague. The media agrees with it and I shall believe so because I am a commoner who can't think for herself. If I made my own opinions, I might espouse some crazy assed theories regarding Srebrenica that would be reaching levels of absurdity comparable only to the lunatic conspiracy theories claiming 911 was penned by the CIA and not Osama bin Laden and his Bosnian/Kosovar associates, but clearly you are right and the Serbs are the root of all ills in that Bosnian hellhole.

Every single one of us sane thinkers will see the Moslem extermination of the Serbs from Bosnia (whenever it happens) as the only course of action bringing final peace and vengeance for the poor Moslem victims of the Criminal Enterprisers' Genocide. LOL! 09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than throwing out accusations based on ethnicity, it would be better to argue the merits one way or another. Below is an example of an opinion against the name change, offered by an editor who is neither Serb, nor Bosniak, nor from Southeastern Europe, an opinion not based on the notion that the title Srebrenica Genocide goes too far, but that it does not go far enough Fairview360 (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC):

oppose Both arguments for and against the move have validity. It has been established beyond a doubt in a court of law that the massacre that took place in and around Srebrenica was an act of genocide. It is the view of this editor that the Srebrenica massacre was one of many acts of genocide, the overall genocide being committed throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina against Bosnian Muslims and against the multi-ethnic society of Bosnia and Hercegovina. This editor opposes the title change to "Srebrenica Genocide" because it combines a limited notion "Srebrenica" with something that in the opinion of this editor was much more widespread. To this editor, the title "Srebrenica Genocide" is like saying "Lower Left Lung Cancer" when the cancer is throughout both lungs but due to political considerations the hospital is only allowed to refer to one section of the cancer. If the cancer is throughout both lungs, saying "Lower Left Lung Cancer" creates the false impression that the cancer is limited to only one area of one lung. Saying "Srebrenica Genocide" implies the genocide was limited to Srebrenica which is not consistent with the views of this editor and therefore this editor opposes the move. In the opinion of this editor, the Srebrenica massacre should not be described as "The Srebrenica Genocide" but rather the largest of many massacres that constituted a Genocide throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. To this editor, the title "Srebrenica Genocide" sounds warped not because this editor questions whether the massacre was an act of genocide, not because the title goes too far or presumes too much, but because it is too limited. It is a truncated term resulting from the international courts failure to prove the obvious, that the actual Genocide was throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Fairview360 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If editor can prove there was Bosnian Genocide, I invite him to prove it. So far, it has not been proven by the International Criminal Tribunal. Only Srebrenica Genocide stood the test, but not the Bosnian Genocide. I have frequently been criticized by my own people for putting too much effort to preserve the memory of the Srebrenica Genocide. They say that I somehow hurt the tragedy of the Bosnian Genocide, because I focus on Srebrenica alone. It's sad, indeed, that people would think like that. I am not sayinig that the Bosnian Genocide did not happen; all I am saying is that we lack judicial proof. Bosniak (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. I won't go through all the arguments again, since they're clearly set out in the last discussion (see "Requested move" above). They boil down essentially to the fact that the massacre is only one aspect of the genocide; the article is actually about the genocide - the massacre and subsequent events as well, including the unarguable confirmation by the ICTY and the ICJ of the central issue that genocide was perpetrated at Srebrenica. Authoritative bodies such as the United Nations and the European Parliament now refer to "the Srebrenica genocide" in official reports and resolutions rather than to "the Srebrenica massacre". Informed media are following this trend. There is no reason why inquirers searching for "the Srebrenica massacre" cannot be redirected to "the Srebrenica genocide". Fairview360's argument above is perverse since reference to "the Srebrenica genocide" does not in any way compromise the argument that genocide was perpetrated across Bosnia as a whole; the ICTY did not find that genocide had taken place in Bosnia only at Srebrenica, it simply has not so far found the argument proven in the trial of any individual to date).

It's true that a number of objections to the move did not reflect ethnic partisanship but they mostly came from people who had shown a degree of unfamiliarity with / lack of understanding of the facts and issues. (This does not of course apply to Fairview360 - whatever my disagreements in principle with him they do not reflect any lack of respect for his knowledge of and engagement with the subject.) As a supporter of the move I'm also an editor with no relevant ethnic affiliation. On previous occasions I was willing to accept the description "the Srebrenica massacre" because at the time it was the commonest general usage. My view now is that the situation has now changed. There is significantly greater general acceptance and usage of the term "Srebrenica genocide". It is almost impossible to see that trend being reversed. It would be better to make the change now rather than continue to go through these time-wasting discussions again. The case is substantial enough without it being necessary to argue the desirability of due respect for those immediately affected by the reality of the genocide. Nevertheless I hope that no-one contributing will be impervious to the context of this discussion - fourteen years of denial and quibbling over the fact of genocide. Opbeith (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. I am tired of people who are denying that genocide took place in Srebrenica. It has been proven without a doubt, there no arguments to support the view that the article should remain nearly the Srebrenica massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.220.62 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof. It's all a massive conspiracy to reverse reality

Only intelligent people can uncover it, though. You idiots, LOL! 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder from the Krstic Appeal Judgment, given on 19 April 2004, Case No. IT-98-33-A:

§37 "... The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. ..."

Holy s**t you just discovered that the Tribunal sets the tone for the media? LOL! 09:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Opbeith (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, this issue of the name by which the events that will be commemorated tomorrow is rather more complex and important than you appear willing to contemplate in your reversal. There has been extensive discussion of the matter here and elsewhere. The gradual acceptance and use of the term "Srebrenica genocide" in official and informal usage is a clear indication that there has been a change in public understanding. This was inevitable once the controversy over the issue of "genocide" was ended by the International Court of Justice decision in 2007. Actions such as the near unanimous adoption of the European Parliament Resolution clearly indicate that this change is widely accepted. Resolutions adopted by State assemblies in the US show that the change of designation is a global, not just European, trend. The discussions here show that many editors consider this is an important issue. The "simple" form of wording you want to retain fails to acknowledge this. Simplicity is certainly a virtue, but not when it obscures the real state of affairs. Opbeith (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, you have reverted again while I was writing to the discussion page. My change was adequately explained in the header in which I referred in particular to the previous discussions. Your preferred wording is inadequate, indicating that the term "Srebrenica Genocide" is of subordinate rather than competing or greater importance. It is clear from the name change discussions that retaining the name "Srebrenica massacre" is in itself a simplification of the complex and changing real situation. The shortened form of words you prefer is more than "simple", it is "simplistic" and in the context embodies a point of view. Opbeith (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Qutoing once again from the ICTY President Judge Theodor Meron's "Address on the Occasion of the 10th Anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide" at [16], first quoting from the Krstic Appeal Judgment:

"The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act.

These words of the Tribunal's Appeals Chamber are unmistakeable: the crimes that were committed here were not simply murders; they were targeted at a particular human group with the intent to destroy it. They were so heinous as to warrant the gravest of labels: genocide. It is our responsibility at the Tribunal to see that justice is done for those who lost their lives here, and that the people responsible for these unspeakable offences are tried and punished."

Meron repeats that the Appeals Chamber "calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide" and emphasises that "These words of the Tribunal's Appeals Chamber are unmistakeable: the crimes that were committed here ... warrant the gravest of labels: genocide."

And yet Wikipedia not only denies the massacre "its proper name", it stands firm even against adequately acknowledging the weight of legal, institutional and informed public opinion. So if simplicity is to be our yardstick let's sum this all up quite simply as "Wikipedia denies genocide its proper name". Once all the argument and discussion is done, that's what it boils down to. Opbeith (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement you've quoted is in no way at odds with the title of the article, and making spurious claims about Wikipedia "denying" it will not help to resolve the issue. Meron is quite clear; the Srebrenica Massacre was an act of genocide, and the article does not mask that in any way. The most common name for the event, however, is still the Srebrenica massacre, as demonstrated by the manner in which Meron refers to it. ("the massacre at Srebrenica...") --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh? He's saying that the massacre at Srebrenica was genocide. He's saying that what happened at Srebrenica was more than a massacre, it was genocide. That's what I keep trying to say to you and you insist on trying to deal with a different argument.

You persistently mix up two distinct arguments - whether "Srebrenica massacre" is the most common name for the event and whether it's the most appropriate name for it.

You're supposed to be an administrator. You should be helping clarify the discussion. But you don't. You avoid dealing with the "accuracy"/"ambiguity" issue, by persistently narrowing it back down to the issue of common usage. And now you're arguing that because Meron says "the massacre was genocide" and not "the genocide was genocide", that's to be considered evidence that the correct name is Srebrenica massacre.

That's not helpful. I can disagree with people while accepting they have a valid point of view if they're fair. I can understand the common usage argument though I disagree with it. But you don't seem to want to understand the alternative argument. You've never been prepared to acknowledge the close balance of opinion on the subject that Aervanath did in his/her resolution of the name change discussion.

What finally convinced me that you don't have an open mind on the subject was when you reverted the vandalism to the caption over the picture at the head of the article. That caption included both names. There was no absolute principle at stake in acknowledging the existence of both designations in the caption. And yet when you reverted the damage you chose to omit the "Srebrenica genocide" component. You must have been aware what you were doing, you knew the background. So that called for some explanation. I hope you'll provide it, you didn't at the time. Opbeith (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, after examining the four articles used as references for the name "Srebrenica Genocide" in the lead sentence, none of them really support the claim that the event's name is the "Srebrenica Genocide". They all support the assertion that it is an act of genocide, but not a name for the actual event. Frankly, I honestly think you and others are expending an awful lot of effort to try to make a case for changing the article's title against the conventions established by the Manual of Style, when really you would be far better off seeking consensus to rework the lead paragraph to bring the term "genocide" in sooner. (Perhaps something like "The Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide that occurred in July 1995...") That would address the declaration without artificially renaming the article. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The references are old references, and they need updating. There has been change over time. This article is still cluttered with the detritus of arguments over the substance of what happened. The article needs to be updated to reflect what the world knows and accepts about Srebrenica, particularly since the ICJ judgment.Opbeith (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, Srebrenica Genocide term is systematically used in the media, see here

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&q=%22srebrenica%20genocide%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn Bosniak (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And changing the word genocide to massacre more than trebles the number of google news hits. If reliable sources use "Srebrenica massacre" more often than "Srebrenica genocide" then the name should remain at "Srebrenica massacre" until such time as that is clearly not the case (WP:COMMONNAME).--PBS (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree when people say that google gives more answers when using "massacre" than "genocide". One of the reasons is that the term Srebrenica Massacre has been used for a so long time here on Wikipedia and a lot of people, wanting to know wether it was a massacre or a genocide, don't bother about doing all the research and knowing all the facts, the just type srebrenica genocide in google and look at Wikipedia. If Wikipedia tells them it was a massacre, then it will be a massacre and it will stay massacre for longer and longer. People will start writing more and more articles, using the term "massacre", because Wikipedia told them it was the right one to use. People won't use the term "genocide", because Wikipedia told them it wasn't the right term to use. In my opinion, by following what was said the Internation Tribunal, this article should be changer for Srebrenica Genocide, and the google searches result would, not instantly but after some time, show an evident and superior use of the term "genocide" than the term "massacre". The wikipedia community should be ashamed to misinform the worldwide population who trusts it. MidobiM(talk)

DNA Results

New update on victims identified through the DNA analysis: http://www.ic-mp.org/press-releases/dna-results-of-the-international-commission-on-missing-persons-reveal-the-identity-of-6186-srebrenica-victims-dnk-izvjestaji-medunarodne-komisije-za-nestale-osobe-icmp-otkrili-identitete-6186-sreb/ Bosniak (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bosniak you obviously have a very biased pro Bosnian view on the events in Srebrenica. You cannot just post a source like this, expect that it is an established fact and then write the article without considering opposing arguments. Here's a source that directly contradicts the source you provide. http://de-construct.net/?p=9034 This HAS TO BE REFLECTED IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE and you have to acknowledge opposing views. Yugo91aesop (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Serbs Attacked Bosniak Villages from 1992-1995

Oric trial judgment makes it clear that Serb villages were heavily militarized and used to attack Bosniak villages and the town of Srebrenica:

"Between April 1992 and March 1993, Srebrenica town and the villages in the area held by Bosnian Muslims were constantly subjected to Serb military assaults, including artillery attacks, sniper fire, as well as occasional bombing from aircrafts. Each onslaught followed a similar pattern. Serb soldiers and paramilitaries surrounded a Bosnian Muslim village or hamlet, called upon the population to surrender their weapons, and then began with indiscriminate shelling and shooting. In most cases, they then entered the village or hamlet, expelled or killed the population, who offered no significant resistance, and destroyed their homes. During this period, Srebrenica was subjected to indiscriminate shelling from all directions on a daily basis. Potočari in particular was a daily target for Serb artillery and infantry because it was a sensitive point in the defence line around Srebrenica. Other Bosnian Muslim settlements were routinely attacked as well. All this resulted in a great number of refugees and casualties.... The fighting intensified in December 1992 and the beginning of January 1993, when Bosnian Muslims were attacked by Bosnian Serbs primarily from the direction of Kravica and Ježestica. In the early morning of the 7 January 1993, Orthodox Christmas day, Bosnian Muslims attacked Kravica, Ježestica and Šiljkovići. Convincing evidence suggests that the village guards were backed by the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army], and following the fighting in the summer of 1992, they received military support, including weapons and training. A considerable amount of weapons and ammunition was kept in Kravica and Šiljkovići. Moreover, there is evidence that besides the village guards, there was Serb and Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. "

Genocide denial / Alternative views

I did not make the initial change back to "genocide denial" but "alternative views" is unacceptable. It was imposed in an exhausting exchange over a year ago and those opposed to its use did not accept the change, but gave up the battle in order to concentrate on other areas where more specific issues were being fought over.

The poorly substantiated opinions of Diane Johnstone, Lewis MacKenzie et al. have been refuted on numerous occasions. "Alternative views" can be used for a section reviewing about thoughtful appraisal of the findings by legal scholars and other authorities.

Genocide was found to have been perpetrated. If the bare truth is unpalatable, perhaps something like "Speculative or discredited challenges to the finding of genocide" adequately reflects the substance of the content. "Genocide denial" is what the stuff actually is. Opbeith (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be called the `Srebrenica Battle` because the Bosnians had a whole army there. Certainly most of those 'executed' were soldiers. LOL! 10:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndxcl (talk • contribs)

Reverted, because "alternative views" is a legitimate, neutral title for an encyclopedia section. I have to say that, as an uninvolved party (i.e. having no connection whatsoever to the conflict or its roots), there is a real problem with this article in that each and every change appears to be treated as having a hidden agenda, or a subtext. (Frankly, I find it somewhat insulting that I've been implied to be a "denialist" on several occasions despite having no connection to the dispute, nor any connection to the history or ethnicity of the region.) Simply put, Lewis MacKenzie (for example) is not some wing-nut with an agenda, and if he has an opinion that differs from the court's, that is his right. We don't have to tag everything and everyone that differs from the court's verdict with confrontational tags that only discredit the neutrality of the article. If anything, "alternative views" actually helps maintain the quality of the article. An "alternative views" section, as with "criticism" sections in other articles, tends to be edited fairly conservatively to ensure that only reputable opinions are included. "Genocide deniers", on the other hand, tends to suggest that it is fair game for any individual who happens to have an opinion (and I highly doubt that is a direction in which anyone wants this article to go). --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, Once again your neutrality avoids uncomfortable facts. You put your own gloss over all that passed previously here. You are not "neutral", as your remarks regarding Lewis MacKenzie demonstrate. You tend to summarise situations in a way that appears slanted towards allowing challenge to the judicially established reality of Srebrenica while showing an unwillingness to allow interventions that seek to assert that reality. That tendency is not neutrality.

For example, you assert that Lewis MacKenzie is not some wing-nut with an agenda, and if he has an opinion that differs from the court's, that is his right.

No-one has claimed that MacKenzie is a right-wing nut but he certainly has an agenda and there is a reasonable volume of evidence to support that argument that has been presented here on numerous occasions (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_11).

You choose to refer to one side only of the MacKenzie case. MacKenzie's agenda was adequately illustrated by Roy Gutman's investigation of the payment received for a lecture tour funded by a Serb lobby and MacKenzie's dissimulation before the US Congress Armed Services Committee on Balkan matters.

As it happens, MacKenzie, who was so notorious here for such a long time, was eventually removed. It's simply nonsense to suggest that the "alternative views" section, has tended to be edited fairly conservatively to ensure that only reputable opinions are included. Diana Johnstone remains, because we have spent our limited energy elsewhere.

Johnstone's genocide rebuttals and other misrepresentations have been refuted time after time, most prominently in the ITN/LM trial. The Serb rubbishing of the argument about mass graves has remained in spite of the evidence of thousands of identifications of bodies of victims mingled by reburial in mass graves. It's time these went. I know you will once again revert me if I simply intervene with a reasoned explanation.

There is no case for the retention of the references to the arguments about the number of victims or the secpticism about mass graves under "alternative views". I propose that either these references are removed or the section is renamed as what it is - views that deny the legal findings, i.e. "denial of the genocide". (The reference to the appropriate location for a mention of the role of the Serbian media is up for discussion.)

Anyone citing the textual references to the figure of 7000-8000 as supporting the case for questioning the number of victims without at the same time acknowledging the subsequent evidence substantiating the higher number can expect a challenge that they are wilfully misusing superseded evidence in order to challenge the findings.

If someone denies the fact of genocide they are a genocide denier. I don't see how you can get away from that fact and why you are so persistent in trying to avoid accepting what flows from the fact that what happened at Srebrenica was genocide, as confirmed by the highest instances of international law.

The debate is open to informed discussion of the legal principles applied by the court or to new evidence and that's all. In the notorious Globe and Mail article MacKenzie dismissed the argument that genocide was perpetrated at Srebrenica using arguments that had already been dismissed by the ICTY finding. He was denying the genocide.

Would you be so willing to accommodate the equal right to preservation of discredited statements about Lewis MacKenzie's views and conduct? Your resolute unwillingness to accept the substance of the finding of genocide has implications.

Please explain why you insist that "Genocide deniers", ... tends to suggest that it is fair game for any individual who happens to have an opinion". You dismiss the arguments of those of us who have an alternative view to yours on the subject of the genocide. I think that it is you who behind the screen of neutrality and authority is expressing an opinion on the subject of genocide denial. Opbeith (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again with the aspersions... "Your resolute unwillingness to accept the substance of the finding of genocide"? That's, quite frankly, a load of rubbish, and sadly par for the course in this rather poisoned atmosphere. When have I ever said I didn't accept the findings of the court? Ever? You're misinterpreting/misrepresenting a reluctance to jump on the "rename-the-article" bandwagon as a stance against the decision, when no such position exists. Believe it or not, there are people who do not have a personal stake in this toxic feud that has paralysed countless articles for years. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, I was expecting a more thorough response from you to Opbeith. I am not taking sides, but Opbeith has won all arguments on this page - fair and square. You may wish to go back and re-read his arguments. I know from my own experience, I could never understand ICTY judgments by reading them only once. I had to go back and spend considerable time until I understand fully what judges wanted to explain and why they arrived to that particular decision. If you read carefully what Opbeith said, then you may learn a lot. Don't put yourself in a situation to "gloss over" the facts without giving them necessary weight. Hope you understand. Do you? Thanks. Bosniak (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What happened at Srebrenica was genocide. You are not questioning that. There are commentators who say that what happened at Srebrenica was not genocide. They do not adduce arguments of principle or new evidence that has not already been taken into account by the highest instances of international law. You argue that this should not be described as "genocide denial".

The issue of renaming the article, though I see it as arising from the same principle of acknowledging the substance of the issue, is a separate matter in which I accept that there are valid arguments on both sides, though of course I find one side of the argument more convincing. I would describe it as an argument of "emphasis on substance + weight of usage" versus "emphasis on weight of usage", in which the main issue is not disagreement on substance but disagreement over the "weight of usage" element.

Taking the position you do in that argument is not denying the substance of genocide, simply excluding it from the equation, which is a legitimate stance although I disagree with it. Any doubts I have as to your objectivity have to do with the way you appear reluctant to give adequate credit to the other argument's evidence, for example your disparaging reference to the near-unanimous opinion of the European Parliament.

When I remarked on "Your resolute unwillingness to accept the substance of the finding of genocide", I was not saying that you had ever refused to accept the court's findings. What I was saying was that you refuse to accept the implications of the ICTY and ICJ findings.

What is at issue in this particular discussion is not the matter of usage, it is the question of acknowledging or denying the genocide. The question, simply put, is: are you willing to accept that people who refuse to acknowledge the fact of the genocide, in the face of the established findings, can be described as denying the genocide? Opbeith (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, you're quick to intervene but no sign of a response to a simple question.Opbeith (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz said: "Simply put, Lewis MacKenzie (for example) is not some wing-nut with an agenda." My response to Ckatz: You must be kidding me? Of course Lewis MacKenzie is wing-nut with an agenda. He was a paid Serb lobbyist! Furthermore, he was charged with rapes in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but due to his diplomatic immunity nobody could prosecute him. Ckatz, I don't think you are denialist, but I think that you are a little bit misinformed. Please inform yourself before you give credit to discredited individuals such as Lewis MacKenzie. And this is a friendly advise, we all make mistakes, we're human.Bosniak (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to shout but this is a pro-Bosnian biased article since it doesn't mention the evacuation of Bosnian citizens by the Serb military.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to shout, Rex Dominator, you're not telling us anything anyway. On line 4 the article refers to the refugees deported by the Bosnian Serbs as part of the genocide. I suggest antiwar.com and Nebojsa Malic can hardly be considered authoritative sources, I think the Krstic Trial judgment is adequately informative on the subject:

"527. In this case no military threat was present following the taking of Srebrenica. The atmosphere of terror in which the evacuation was conducted proves, conversely, that the transfer was carried out in furtherance of a well organised policy whose purpose was to expel the Bosnian Muslim population from the enclave. The evacuation was itself the goal and neither the protection of the civilians nor imperative military necessity justified the action."

and

"530. The threats to Srebrenica residents far transcended mere fear of discrimination. The evacuation took place at the final stage of a campaign conducted to force the population to flee the enclave during a time when VRS troops were actively threatening and injuring the Bosnian Muslim civilians of Srebrenica. The negotiations between the Bosnian Muslim “representative”, Nesib Mandic and General Mladic at the second meeting in the Hotel Fontana on 11 July attest to the intimidating conditions in which the Bosnian Muslim civilians were evacuated.

The Trial Chamber has already found that, despite the attempts by the VRS to make it look like a voluntary movement, the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica were not exercising a genuine choice to go, but reacted reflexively to a certainty that their survival depended on their flight.

Opbeith (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Lewis Mackenzie was a paid serb lobbyist??? HE WAS THE LEADER of the UN assigned to BOSNIA HERCEGOVINA DURING THE WAR. In other words his opinion on the events not just in Srebrenica but in all of Bosnia is of extreme importance. If he disagrees with the court findings then you cannot simplhy dismiss his opinion as irrevelent. Its extremely relevant. The very fact that the talkpage to this article has so many people that disagree shows how biased the actual article is. Bosniak you accuse everyone else of having an agenda when it comes to changing the article, while it is completely obvious to anyone who reads ur posts that IT IS YOU THAT HAS AN AGENDA. the very fact that on your own user page you say you have no patience to so called "Srebrenica genocide deniers" and what not proves the impartiality of your position. This article is beyond hopeless, and is quite possibly the most biased article on wikipedia. Yugo91aesop (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rex Dominator

The so called "evacuation" you point to was nothing more but a massive scale ethnic cleansing of 30,000 Bosniaks, which was integral part of the genocide. User Opbeith already quoted two paragraphs from the ICTY judgement. I take liberty to add two more:

Here is a detailed answer to this question directly from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor vs. Radislav Krstic):

31. As the Trial Chamber explained, forcible transfer could be an additional means by which to ensure the physical destruction of the Bosnian Muslim community in Srebrenica. The transfer completed the removal of all Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica, thereby eliminating even the residual possibility that the Muslim community in the area could reconstitute itself. The decision not to kill the women or children may be explained by the Bosnian Serbs’ sensitivity to public opinion. In contrast to the killing of the captured military men, such an action could not easily be kept secret, or disguised as a military operation, and so carried an increased risk of attracting international censure.

32. In determining that genocide occurred at Srebrenica, the cardinal question is whether the intent to commit genocide existed. While this intent must be supported by the factual matrix, the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part. Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent. The international attention focused on Srebrenica, combined with the presence of the UN troops in the area, prevented those members of the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army] Main Staff who devised the genocidal plan from putting it into action in the most direct and efficient way. Constrained by the circumstances, they adopted the method which would allow them to implement the genocidal design while minimizing the risk of retribution.Bosniak (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Bosniak

You're hiding important facts, and therefore you make this article biased. Serbs did evacuate many civilians in the area by organizing trucks rides. Serbs provided a way for civilians to escape. You should know that Srebrenica was used by Naser Oric to attack Serbs. the proof that this article is pro-Bosnian bias is that it negates the suffering and killings of Serb civilians.Rex Dominator (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE to Rex - From 1992-1995, militarized Serb villages around Srebrenica had been used to attack and terrorize Bosniak civilians living in nearby Bosnian Muslim villages and the town of Srebrenica. Serbs never demilitarized around Srebrenica. In the spring of 1992 the Bosnian Serb Army, remnants of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and paramilitary forces carried out systematic attacks and widespread ethnic cleansing of the Bosniak civilian population of the Podrinje - the Drina Valley region of Eastern Bosnia where Srebrenica is located. In the course of these attacks alone, at least 11,391 Bosniaks were killed and more than 100,000 were expelled from their homes. Thousands of refugees sought shelter in Srebrenica only to find themselves trapped in a crowded ghetto with unbearable living conditions. From 1992 to 1995 refugees were frequently the target of artillery attacks from militarized Serb villages around Srebrenica such as Ratkovići, Dučići, Fakovići and Brađevina. The Serbs around Srebrenica never demilitarized despite of being required to do so under the terms of the 1993 "safe area" agreement. In July 1995 the Bosnian Serb army staged a brutal takeover of Srebrenica and its surrounding area, where they proceeded to perpetrate genocide. Over a period of several days the Bosnian Serb soldiers separated Bosniak families, forcibly expelled 25,000-30,000 people in a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing and systematically murdered at least 8,372 boys, men, and elderly in fields, schools, and warehouses throughout the local area. Despite efforts to conceal the crime, as of May 2009 the remains of more than 6,000 victims of the genocide have been exhumed from some 70 mass graves and more than 6,000 genocide victims have been identified by DNA analysis. According to the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo (RDC), whose work has been validated and certified by experts working for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), at least 24,117 Bosniaks lost their lives in the Podrinje area between 1992 and 1995. This figure includes the victims of the Srebrenica genocide. Source: www.srebrenicagenocide.org. In other words, you ignore suffering of 100,000 Bosniaks that were terrorized by Serbs in Podrinje - region where Srebrenica is located. Additionally, you ignore the suffering of more than 20,000 Bosniaks that were slaughtered by Serbs in 1992 in Podrinje - region where Srebrenica is located.Bosniak (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rex Dominator, you do not answer the points made in response to your original comment. Opbeith (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement doesn't dismiss the event of Serbs evacuating woman and children via buses from Srebrenica. It argues that this "could [have] be[en]" a part of the genocide. The statement, whoever made it during the process, is simply a claim, and does not have within it any evidence. To quote, "forcible transfer could be", it doesnt mean that it is.Rex Dominator (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Rex Dominator, I suggest you go back and read the Court's findings. You've ignored the passages from the Trial Chamber's Judgement that I quoted above:

"The atmosphere of terror in which the evacuation was conducted proves, conversely, that the transfer was carried out in furtherance of a well organised policy whose purpose was to expel the Bosnian Muslim population from the enclave.",

and

"The Trial Chamber has already found that, despite the attempts by the VRS to make it look like a voluntary movement, the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica were not exercising a genuine choice to go, but reacted reflexively to a certainty that their survival depended on their flight."

Bosniak's quotations are from the Appeal Chamber's deliberations considering the appeal against the finding of genocide. At this point the Appeal Chamber is looking at the Defence argument cited in the previous paragraph 30: "The Defence argues that the VRS decision to transfer, rather than to kill, the women and children of Srebrenica in their custody undermines the finding of genocidal intent".

The Appeal Chamber considers the Defence's suggestion and then says that the cardinal question is whether the intent to commit genocide existed. And although the forcible transfer does not constitute in and of itself (i.e. in isolation) a genocidal act, the Appeal Chamber confirms that the Trial Chamber was entitled to rely on it as evidence of the genocidal intentions of members of the VRS Main Staff" (which may be inferred, among other facts, from evidence of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group).

So it was argued that the forcible transfer might not have been evidence of genocide. And the Appeal Chamber then said that the Trial Chamber was right to consider that it was.

Your linguistic hypotheses don't take us anywhere outside the Appeal Chamber's finding that genocide was in fact perpetrated at Srebrenica. Your "evacuation", the Court's "forcible transfer", was accepted as evidence of genocidal intent and hence of genocide. I suggest you read the relevant section of the Trial Chamber's and Appeal Chamber's findings before speculating any further. Opbeith (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Opbeith, please see my response to Rex above... UPDATE: Opbeith, Rex has been blocked "indefinitely", see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rex_Dominator .Bosniak (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bosniak you are completely misrepresenting the nature of the war in that region. In 1992 to 1993 the Serbs could have VERY EASILY taken over the town just as they had done in other similar towns around the area such as Zvornik and Visegrad. This undoubtedly created huge humanatarian problems with many muslims being force out of their homes, many leaving because they did not trust living under Serb authorities. General Phillip Morillon which was the UN commander in that region at the time knew the sufferings it would create towards the Muslim population of Srebrenica as many would be forced to leave to other areas in central Bosnia under Muslim control. Morillon gave his word of honor to Mladic that the town would be demilitirized and in turn Mladic promised he would not take over the town. He allowed it to become a safe area, provided it was demilitirized from within. However this was never done and from 1993 onwards the Muslims were allowed to attack Serb positions outside the town, without the Serbs being able to attack Muslim positions which were based in the town. That is the main reason the Serbs took over the town in 1995 because they were fed up with a situation in which the Muslims were given a free hand to attack Serb positions while the Serbs could not counter attack. The fact that this position is not mentioned anywhere in this article screams of an evident pro Bosnian view on the conflict and any serious editor I think will see this.Yugo91aesop (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yugo91aesop, you seem to be suggesting that Srebrenica was not under siege? You seem to imply that the Serbs were not engaged in military operations in the conduct of that siege? You seem to be suggesting that the fate of the inhabitants of Zvornik and Visegrad was irrelevant to the situation in Srebrenica? Mladic did not allow anything. What he did do was maintain a refugee population in a state of hunger and fear until the time when he believed that the international community would allow him to get away with eliminating it. Opbeith (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

List of victims

As with most statistics about the Srebrenica Genocide, the list is not final. Note: Srebrenica victims are subsequently buried in Srebrenica - Potocari Memorial and Cementery. As of 2009, more then 3700 DNA identified victims are buried there. Memorial Center of Potocari ( September 2009): 3749 victims already buried,

    of them - children:
    13,5 - 14 years old: 5
    14 y. old: 10
    15 y. old: 37
    16 y. old: 65
    17 y. old: 93
    -------------
    total:    210

Federal Commission for Missing Persons; "Preliminary List of Missing and Killed in Srebrenica"; 2005[17]

Regards,77.240.177.27 (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Kutil

Oh dear, why did you put a huge list of names here? This is inappropriate. Rndxcl (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the printed list of children - your reference is still there - it would be useful inside the article - I'll add it if it has not yet been added, but your shown list just clutters the talk page. Also, while I'm sympathetic to your analysis (I agree completely with the tabulation), someone might shout "independent research" (which makes mockery of the standard, but oh well). If you want to add the table to the page, I wouldn't be opposed, but other editors might be. Boeremoer (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It should not come as a shock that children die in war. Stop claiming this is genocide when most dead at Srebrenica were army men. Your sympathies are misdirected at the perpetrator Boeremoer. It's a shame it's come to this.

You should all probably read this http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/texts.htm

Learn something about Naser Oric and his peaceangels, LOL! 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The various legal bodies have decided that the various massacres together constitute genocide - any objections to the term are objections to findings of the court - publish them in respected legal journals, and then they could be mentioned here validly (see e.g. the Mumia rule in Pennsylvania). While I am sympathetic toward Serbian claims, especially regarding Oric (I've known about him for a few years), if (Bosnian) Serbs want historical recognition of Oric's Orthodox victims, they should compile a list of names of suspected Oric victims, with other identifying materials (e.g. ID numbers, place of death, living relatives etc), make sure that none of the people on the list are not alive and living elsewhere, and submit said list to Mirsad Tokaca - he is a Bosnian Muslim demographer, and is the director of the Bosnian Book of the Dead project - you may find him a very honest person - though as a result, he has very high standards of evidence. As for the matter of the victims' status (soldiers or civilians), find competent people, to publish a list of the military and civilian subsets of the victims, in an appropriate scholarly venue, if it has not already, in which case, you could post a reference to such a study. You'll also find that many of the supposedly military personnel were in fact civilians, in particular where the relatives of the dead needed the resulting pensions to survive. This venue (wikipedia) is not the appropriate venue for performing such a study. Boeremoer (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

New Genocide Judgement

Milorad Trbic has been found guilty on one count of genocide and sentenced to 30 years in jail. I have updated this information in the article. For more info, look it up here: http://www.bim.ba/en/188/10/22954/ .Bosniak (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bosnian_genocide_prosecutions#Trbi.C4.87_Milorad_case --Harac (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Harac for updating it. Bosniak (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Judgement of alternative views belongs at end of section

Not beginning - I'm moving the Helsinki group to the bottom. Boeremoer (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you meant to say?

Bosniak (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A reader reading the section head, would want to know what the alternative views are, before they read some condemnation of said alternative views, if they are at all interested in the condemnation of the alternative views. Boeremoer (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are not alternative views; they are genocide denial views. Biserko, who heads Helsinki Committe in Serbia, correctly observed that these views are present in certain circles of society, and therefore, her statement serves well as an introduction to the category. Let's not but heads over something like this. 24.82.187.116 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the views described mainly question the civilian component of the dead, and ask questions about certain survivors. If you mean that they consider the judgment of genocide problematic, then yes in that trivial sense - normally though, the term genocide denial involves denying the death of the bulk of the dead, not the determination of whether or not the killing constitutes a narrow legal interpretation of genocide, e.g. the destruction of European Jews, where no legal determination of genocide was made, at least until much later, if at all. Moreover, as her editorial article does not cite any of the sources listed, it is not at all apparent that her statement applies to the sources listed, and it is as such novel research to claim that her statement applies, unless you can show that the sources listed cite the sources she lists. I'm moving it back down. Boeremoer (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to log in before reverting Harac... Boeremoer (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference icty-july05 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Reuters - Bosnians want Serb group shut down on Facebook [18]
^ Radio Free Europe - Skandalozno tolerisanje nacionalizma na Facebook-u [19]
^ (New) Facebook group "Noz Zica Srebrenica
^ Deutsche Welle - Facebook zatvorio grupu "Nož, žica, Srebrenica" [20]

[icty-july05-1] Cite error: The named reference icty-july05 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Reuters - Bosnians want Serb group shut down on Facebook [18]

[3] Radio Free Europe - Skandalozno tolerisanje nacionalizma na Facebook-u [19]

[4] (New) Facebook group "Noz Zica Srebrenica

[5] Deutsche Welle - Facebook zatvorio grupu "Nož, žica, Srebrenica" [20]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]