Jump to content

Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Serbian deaths ?

Why there is no information in the article about the Serbs who were killed around Srebrenica in 1992-1993? For example: Kravica attack (1993). Соколрус (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is relevance or actually the lack thereof. Was the killing of thousands of civilians in July 1995 a revenge for the killing of a dozen civilians in January 1993? It seems to me that, if past attrocities are to be mentioned, the massacre of "around a thousand Muslim civilians in the town and in nearby villages" in 1943 would be more relevant. Then again, the subject of the article is clearly defined in the lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Really ? According to Serbian sources, around Srebrenica in 1992-1995 were killed more than 3,000 Serbs. All of them were killed during raids of Naser Oric. Соколрус (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and according to Serbian sources, the Bosniaks of Srebrenice committed a mass harakiri in 1995. Please desist. If you have something to write about Naser Orić, do it in the article about that criminal. Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It springs from the Russian Academy of Sciences, not Serbian. For you source from the Russian Academy of Sciences and Human rights watch - it is nonsense? Really ? Maybe you violate neutrality ? Соколрус (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What springs from the Russia Academy of Sciences? I am afraid your English is hardly comprehensible. Once again, we have an article about Naser Orić. Go there if you wish to write about his crimes. This one is about a specific event that took place in July 1995, not about all attrocities committed in the area during the Bosnian War. Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Elena Guskova is from Russia Academy of Sciences. If an article is only about 1995, why does it have information about the attacks on Muslims in 1992? Соколрус (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this article requires the context of the earlier anti-Serb attacks, as they help provide some context to the subsequent genocide of Bosniaks (I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that revenge for these attacks has been a widely suggested motive Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Aardwolf A380, these events (which are frequently invoked among apologists and deniers of the Srebrenica genocide) are since long treated and described in the article under 'analyses'. In fact, they are but a highly marginal part of the context you refer to, blown out of proportion and misrepresented to piece together from sporadic acts of Bosniak resistance a inflated narrative of Serb victimhood around Srebrenica that would allegedly justify and explain a revenge-fueled mass slaughter that cannot be labeled genocide. The context of relevance to the genocide itself (as established by the courts) is the brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Bosnian Serb forces against the Bosniak population in eastern Bosnia at the outset of the war in order to consolidate a homogenous Serb territory, which would result in the establishment of the Srebrenica enclave as well as its final disapperance. I'm sure the perserverance of the enclave and Bosniak attempts to push outward in order to feed the starving population angered the Serbs, but to accept that as a valid motive that supposedly provoked genocide is frankly apologetic (not to mention absurd) and not in concordance with the court rulings and the vast majority of scholars. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Praxis Icosahedron, I am fully aware of the most important context and motivation being the Serb ethnic cleansing campaign, and I believe that at least the cleansing of Srebrenica(with or without genocide) would have occured without the earlier attacks. I was merely suggesting that the incident be briefly mentioned as a POSIBLE contributing factor to the particular violence of the Srebrenica campaign, or at the very least its use as an excuse by the Serb force to carry out the atrocity, for which I believe there is supporting information. Note, I have no conection with any part of the Yugoslav wars, and I wish only for the true complexity (and horrors, including the absolutely inexcusable Srebrenica genocide of Bosniaks) of the conflict and its events to be fairly and accurately represented. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, and like I said, it's already out there in the article where it needs to be. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 10:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

I have asked for the page to be temporarily protected in light of the (not so unexpected) recent disturbances on the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 10:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Security Council resolution for the recognition of the genocide rejected

On July 8, 2015 a UN Security Council resolution for the recognition of genocide in Srebrenica was vetoed by Russia. This means that the UN officially does not acknowledge the predicate genocide for the events in Srebrenica. I believe it would be appropriate to mention this resolution and its outcome in the article, especially because the article does employ the predicate genocide. Also this outcome may affect previous and future convictions of war criminals for genocide in Srebrenica.

I couldn't locate the original resolution, but here are two news articles that cover it: - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33445772 - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/russia-vetoes-srebrenica-genocide-resolution-un — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.157.7 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the original text of the draft resolution and some notes on the meeting where it was vetoed:
- http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/508
- http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11961.doc.htm K2chamonix (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The UN's international tribunal and court has ruled the massacre to be a genocide. The fact that the UN security council has failed to pass a resolution due to a veto handed down by Russia does nothing to change this legal fact. Judicial matters are dealt with by scholars of law, not politicians. The only possible way the Srebrenica massacre could be deprived of its legal status as genocide is if the courts and tribunals were deprived of their authority and jurisdiction (which would more or less undermine the whole idea of having the UN). I don't find your inference especially perceptive. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not only are you completely wrong, but the page name should also be changed to "genocide". As someone above mentioned, the fact that politicians in russia and serbia veto a decision to call it genocide, does not change the fact that historians, interllectuals and scholars have almost all agreed without any doubt that this was a genocide. Why does the page name still say "massacre"? Undermining a genocide in a page name is a very biased way to begin an article and not very neutral. Mozad655 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The current Russian totalitarian regime under Putin is hardly a neutral observer, and Russians traditionally look upon themselves as the "big brother" to the Serbs. Just another flaw in the theory of the United Nations' setup, but that's a tale for another article. What this article should reflect are the statements made in 2nd party uninvolved Reliable Sources from the subject matter experts.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Volhynia and Khatyn compared to Srebrenica

Here is an interesting fact how the western world sees the sufferings of the Polish nation:

  • Volhynia and Eastern Galicia massacre - over 120.000 Polish women, children and UNARMED men killed - verdict - not a genocide at all.
  • Katyn massacre - around 22.000 Polish citizens, including extermination of the Polish intelligence and at least 10.000 army officers - verdict - not a genocide at all.
  • Srebrenica massacre - 8.000 Bosniak soldiers, men and boys killed - verdict - of course, it was a genocide.

I would really like you to look at the article about Khatyn or the Volhynian genocide (known to the world as a Volhynian massacre, not a genocide) and tell me, how do you see it. Is it justice? 192.162.150.105 (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

192.162.150.105, you ARE using the page as a forum and it WON'T help your cause.Pincrete (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now let's precise what I mean - All i mean is, do you think that there should be some referrence in the Srebrenica article to other genocides like Volhynia and Khatyn? 192.162.150.105 (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
A link to genocides in general, such as this bold edit suggests should be in order. Whether other events such as those you refer to should be classified as genocide is out of the scope of this particular talk page, and should instead be discussed on the talk page regarding each such event. Lklundin (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Page statistics - general observation

This page now runs at about 262,945 bytes, my approx word count was 25,000 … … by comparison Adolf Hitler is 158,228 bytes, 40% smaller! Anything that can be done by way of 'see main article' would help keep this article a readable size.Pincrete (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Additionally there are truly massive sections of quotes. While they are attributed, they lend far too much weight to specific opinions or reports. Isn't there a limit as to how much quotation can be done before it starts to become a WP:COPYVIO problem? Scr★pIronIV 14:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Scr★pIron, one section has now become a copyvio problem, in my opinion that section, and much new text has very little direct connection to Srebenica and should be in the 'see mains'.Pincrete (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the article for World War II is 227,000 bytes, 30,000 less than this article. I will be trimming with a chainsaw shortly. There is no need to continue adding anything, contentious or otherwise. See WP:TNT Scr★pIronIV 17:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Scr★pIron, obvious solution to many additions is 'See main article', good luck with the chainsaw! I'm already tied up with too many articles needing 'pruning and pollarding'.Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

POV change needed

During the course of massacre text, its contstantly mentioned that Serb forces commited rape, mass killings. It is missleading as the force was official army of [Serbia] while these are Bosnian Serbs, one of participating sides in civil war (what war in Bosnia factualy was) - Army of Republika Srpska. They were are and factually are citizens of Bosnia of Serbian nationality. Also the use of [Cetnik] in description is more imaginary, then realistic as real Cetnik movement ceased to exist in World War II. Factual would be a Bosnian Serbian paramilitary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.58.133 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential violation for not giving credit for intellectual property transferred from another wikipedia article

I have copied a significant portion of "Hagrup Haukland", into this article. I don't know if there is a procedure for giving credit, to its authors. Is there? --Gazprompt (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not necessary; we editors have no rights to our work here. Scr★pIronIV 21:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Gazprompt, I think there is a procedure for LARGE amounts of text (notifying, not creditting), but I don't think yours would count. I only know that because of seeing people being warned about it.Pincrete (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@ScrapIronIV: Your understanding of how Wikipedia works in incorrect. When an editor makes a contribution to Wikipedia, the editor agrees to release their "contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution". This means that to the extent that what the editor contributes can at all be protected by copyright, the copyright of the contribution belongs to the editor and that the editor among other things allows for the contribution to be used on Wikipedia and elsewhere. By contributing the editor also agrees not to break any laws, including copyright laws, which puts limits on how and what the editor can copy from a non-wikipedia source. For each of the more than 3000 times you pressed the 'Save page' button, you agreed to these terms for using the English Wikipedia. All editors should take the time to read the text above the 'Save page' (and probably follow the links there as well), before they save. Happy editing. Lklundin (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously??? This is beyond ridiculous! How can this kind of stuff be part of an encyclopedia??

This Wikipedia article reads, among other things: " I saw how a pregnant woman was slaughtered. There were Serbs who stabbed her in the stomach, cut her open and took two small children out of her stomach and then beat them to death on the ground. I saw this with my own eyes.[64]"

So, basically, two Serbian soldiers somehow were able to perform a C-Section on very likely premature twins, the twins came out alive, and so the Serbian soldiers beat them to death... Am I the only one to realize how fake and ridiculous this sounds?? This and other parts need to be taken out of the article. --Mondschein English (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What is not credible with that testimony? i) The testimony does not state that the twins were premature, ii) the testimony does not state that they came out alive or crying. As such, your claim is based on multiple personal interpretations. As such, it is technically very possible for a soldier to cut the abdomen, apply ectomies of organs and fetuses, through them afterwards to the ground and kick the parts. Knowing the barbarian style of Mladic troops, what is so technically-impossible here? OppositeGradient (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It's in the official testimony and it's well sourced. Stevetauber (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It may as well be whatever you say, but it goes against common sense. Oh well... --Mondschein English (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
As an outsider to this, based on the testimony along with the testimony of others, it appears that things like this really did happen. An unfortunate time for humanity... Stevetauber (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh I am sure horrible things did happen, but a couple of soldiers performing a successful C-Section with an army knife??? Please!!! Anyway, it is Wikipedia: if there is a source which is deemed reliable by the movers and shakers of Wikipedia, one can even claim the sun weighs three ounces... --Mondschein English (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally Mondschein, I am not one to believe everything he reads and watches either. But whereas the information being contested has been sourced, I don't think it can be removed based on the assessment by editors that such an occurrence is unlikely. I'd hate to go into graphic detail, but we know that in war there are no morals (and every warring faction in the universe is EQUALLY guilty of it, no compassion anywhere) and if a knife is sharp enough to pierce the skin then the rest of the alleged atrocity is plausible. I don't dictate human nature, unfortunately! --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

See my comment above, Oranges Juicy: it is what it is. Yet, any Midwife, any Obstetrician (my aunt is one and I did ask her) will tell you that the story in question is beyond ridiculous, given how unlikely it is. I agree with everything else you wrote, though. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm no medical expert other than some physiotherapy as I played and now train volleyball. I know that many "individual storylines" in wars (all wars past and present) are easily fabricated and projected as factual by human rights organisations, so-called investigators and media but unfortunately it is their word we need to report on this project. What you have to remember here is that there was nothing surgical about what was being reported. I doubt they aspired to take care and therefore an army knife - which can cut a human being to shreds - can easily cut through tissue where there is no bone. It won't have been a C-section in their eyes but merely a savage act. In any case, the family member who is a midwife would not be sufficient to refute a sourced allegation, that would be looked at as WP:OR. Thanks for the interest. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I could have been clearer. Let me try. A) I am aware of the fact that if it has a "reliable source", it is good for Wikipedia (common sense does not apply) and therefore I know the article will stay the way it is as ridiculous as it may be. So be it. I will survive. B) If someone with no medical training tried to open a pregnant woman's stomach with an army knife, the babies would very likely come out dead, therefore the narrative of the babies coming out alive and subsequently being "savagely killed by the soldiers" is very likely made up like the whole story. Have a nice Sunday. --Mondschein English (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Ahh now I see your point. Thanks for that Mondschein. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Removed. See WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Remember the talk pages are for discussion of reliable sources for the improvement of the article, not one's espousal of personal opinions on various ethnicities and "their agendas."
Presumably, the opportunity to prove the medical impossibility of what the witness described, was granted to the defence lawyers!Pincrete (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Too light regarding

Is the article too light regarding the following organizations in italics:

" Rose had ordered each sector commander to make a special effort to achieve a close collaboration with UNHCR, the International Red Cross, UNMO and ECMM, either by maintaining close contacts or sharing the same housing. In the sector command post, therefore, places were reserved for a UNHCR representative"? (On another note: the article needs to prune, add, improve!) --Gazprompt (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is too heavy in all regards. Scr★pIronIV 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Gazprompt, Remove the copyvio please, take it to your sandbox, rephrase it, and bring back something that is REMOTELY connected to Srebenica, or take it to the 'Dutch enquiry' or 'Dutchbat' or UNPROFOR pages, there simply isn't room for that kind of tenuously connected detail.Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
(...) ECMM? --Gazprompt (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your point, is it WP:Other crap exists?Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we remove the last bit about "holocaust expert" denying its genocide. I can understand including serbian officials response but not the israeli academics. Zekenyan (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree, several 'holocaust experts' have voiced similar views, while these are not majority viewpoints, they are a distinct legitimate response and they aren't given much space in the article.Pincrete (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Who are the other several holocaust experts that voiced similar views? List them please. Zekenyan (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Zekenyan, well there are two notable ones in the article. What is the logic for removal? As far as I can see, there are a range of viewpoints here who either deny the scale of the event or deny that the word 'genocide' is appropriate. We are stating their opinions, not endorsing or 'judging' them. Pincrete (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Efraim Zuroff's view is notable enough to stay. --Gazprompt (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Reactions to the massacre

Gazprompt, the text: 'You know the story of a photo taken near Tuzla by a Croatian photographer... of a woman from Srebrenica who had hung herself. She had lost her husband. She hung herself on a tree. It made the front page of the Washington Post. Al Gore, who was then vice president, went to Bill Clinton and said: My daughter is talking about this. When are we going to act? The story goes that Bill Clinton said: It's time to finish this. Then NATO intervened and soon after it was finished.' is effectively saying, that the journalist has heard a story that this is how NATO intervention happened. I'm fairly sure the journalist's underlying point, that the Sreb events changed public opinion, which gave the 'green light' to a more active role is true. However the story itself is hearsay, at best, he doesn't even claim it happened, rather that 'we've all heard this story'. A better source for what public impact was should be found, otherwise I see this being (rightly) removed pretty soon.Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to place the following tags: "(Lust also said that "Al Gore, who was then vice president, went to Bill Clinton and said[additional citation(s) needed]: My daughter is talking about this. When are we going to act? The story goes that Bill Clinton said[additional citation(s) needed]: It's time to finish this. Then NATO intervened and soon after it was finished."[1])". The story/news story/journalist claim is notable - coming from that notable journalist. Being presented in a panel debate held by two reputable organisations, does not lessen the notability.
Or perhaps a rewrite can be done: "Klep infers that the picture on the Washington Post front page indirectly influenced Bill Clinton to ..." --Gazprompt (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Gazprompt, your logic is starting with a text, then looking for refs to justify, my logic is to look for new sources for the notion that public opinion was changed by the event, probably by more than 1 photo (in UK opinion was probably changed, but not by that photo). No matter how many refs found, the text is an 'apocryphal' story about how things happened. Several other apocryphal stories exist, some of which present a very different picture of the relationship between Sreb and NATO action, allowing 'yours', invites inclusion of those others. Pincrete (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I have removed [2] one tag of yours. --Gazprompt (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Gazprompt, you misunderstand my logic, [3], I don't doubt that Lust said this, I don't doubt that Gore is mentioned, what my tag said was 'reason=Lust says this is a story, not that it happened'. This has no more solidity than me saying to you' We've all heard the story of how JFK was killed etc'. It is a story that we all know, it does not assert any truth at all except implied.
Lust's point in relating the story is, presumably, that public reaction to Srebrenica, changed US/NATO policy. A clearer sourced comment needs to be found, otherwise we are simply repeating 'hearsay', and there are other hearsay accounts which we invite if including this one.Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I went 'source hunting' but the best I could find is "The Srebrenica massacre changed the international community’s relation to the Bosnia War, and NATO responded by initiating more aggressive military air strikes against Serbian forces". I'm sure there must be something better in 'books'.Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"the July 1995 killing—referred to as genocidal—of more than 8,000" in lead

There is not an international consensus that it was a genocide (i.e. claim by Russia and Efraim Zuroff and others).
On this topic the lede says that the Srebrenica Genocide is an alternate name. Fine.
The lede continues here [4] to say that it was "a genocidal killing of more than 8000". Not fine. Because it is not a universal truth. The genocidality of the killings are something that many people, and many organizations (including the UN) agree about. However, the lede does not have room to explain about Russia's- and Zuroff's (and others') claims of a non-genocide. Therefore my rewording. --Gazprompt (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Gazprompt your edit is clumsy (all the notable courts in the world is not 'sometimes'/'often', it's 'almost universal'), I have removed and attached the refs to the 'alternative' name, so now it just reads "was the July 1995 killing of more etc." . There needs to be a significant body of opinion to justify such a qualification as yours, otherwise it's WP:Weasel.Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I objected to the phrase "genocidal killing" of 8000 (...). And i do not object to text such as "a.k.a. the Srebrenica genocide". I am fine with your later [5] rewrite. --Gazprompt (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I understood your objection, my own position is that the repetition, 'over-eggs the pudding' and affects readability. There are probably more editors who will insist on the word than those who take your/my position. So don't be surprised if we are both reverted. Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The international and independent courts, sanctioned by the UN, are exactly there for the reason of being authoritative and 'universal'. Fiddling with the credibility of these - introduced for the very sole purpose of being international and non-partisan - simply because their rulings might rub you the wrong way is blatantly POV. The Srebrenica genocide is thus not only a widely recognized genocide in the scholarship, but uniquely also an international judicial fact. By Gazprompts argument, no genocide or conflict ever having taken place can in fact be considered a "universal truth". There will always be differing views in these matters. What we then have is the consensus view, and that view beyond far recognizes the Srebrenica genocide. Russia, and especially Zuroff and a few others, would be considered fringe in this aspect, and nothing that you would undermine a consensus view by. In such case, identical arguments could be made for the consensus views in the ledes on the holocaust or the Armenian genocide. As a matter of fact, there has to this day been less recognition of the Armenian genocide than the one in Srebrenica. Keeping this article named "Srebrenica massacre" is possible only - and only - if the overwhelming consensus view of the massacre as a genocide is fully respected and acknowledged. Fiddling in the style of Gazprompt will only prompt me to support a name change to "Srebrenica genocide" as means to preserve the factuality. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Keeping this article named "Srebrenica massacre" is possible only - and only - if the overwhelming consensus view of the massacre as a genocide is fully respected and acknowledged … … … Wholly agree,Pincrete (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Netherlands and Dutchbat"?

This version [6] says that "i.e. it was the Netherlands and not the UN that had effective control of Dutchbat". I think that at least that phrase can be removed, for not being something that the source (indirectly) says. Does anyone support such a removal? --Gazprompt (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Gazprompt, looking quickly at the source, I would say no it doesn't, it appears to be WP:Synth. I don't know these specific sources, but from others I would say that who had control and to what extent and to what degree different strands were able to act together has been endlessly debated. There are 'operational' and 'moral/legal' consequences to the 'multi-key' nature of the force(s). Constructive suggestion, at this point in the article, would it be clearer to simply explain the 'operational structure' and 'problems of communication' and leave the legal inquiries/ramifications to much later in the article?Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Source .pdf is here:[7] related comment is here:[8] I have only had time to skin either.Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Synthesis moved from the article to this thread, ", i.e. it was the Netherlands and not the UN that had effective control of Dutchbat". During someone else's next rewrite, attention should be paid to any claim (or inference) that UNPROFOR or UN had no effective control. --Gazprompt (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Why? A Dutch court ruling that Holland had sufficient control to mean they should accept some responsibility, doesn't impact on other courts/commentators coming to other conclusions.Pincrete (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
There are also issues with the preceding para beginning 'Furthermore, "In the UNPROFOR chain of command, etc.', … … … it is unclear who is speaking/relies on a single source/ is overdetailed and prob copyvio, (apart from that it's fine!).Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Much the same material (about later Dutch court cases), is repeated in 2/3 places, (I'm changing this section heading to take account of this).Pincrete (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Dutchbat failure?

Praxis Icosahedron, regarding this edit, I think the underlying problem is that text and refs have been tweaked recently in such a way that three matters have become confused, I'll call them WHAT (happened)? WHY? and WHO (is accountable, legally).

WHAT? Dutchbat failed to (ie did not) prevent the fall or massacre. Historical fact, I believe the text until recently said 'could not', which I think is the wording in some of the refs. but the WHAT is indisputable, they did not stop anything, even their own capture.

WHY? an enormous amount of buck-passing has gone on since (withheld air-strikes, hostages, muddled chain of command, the wish for 'tidier maps', (gay soldiers ??) etc.), but most sources agree that Dutchbat had no clear instructions and no support to implement a 'forced peace' ('could not'?).

WHO is accountable legally? I think including refs related to this is what is problematic. Some of the refs used relate to the possibility of UN rather than the Dutch being legally accountable. The 'legally responsible' verdicts relate to only around 300 people who were in the Dutchbat compound, not the whole incident.

While all/most of the refs may be TECHNICALLY valid, I don't think it is good to muddle the three issues. PERSONALLY, I think the 'accountable' refs should go later, in the 'legal' part of the lead, with only WHAT/WHY refs and text in the early 'story' part. Thoughts?Pincrete (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've moved refs that refer ONLY to later legal hearings, leaving 4 that state did not/could not/failed to, hold Srebrenica.Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The number of women or females killed

I can not see any figure in the article, for the number of women killed in the massacre. Or a figure for females or girls ... Google does not seem to be of any help. What can be done? --Gazprompt (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where such figures could be found, but the number of women killed was relatively small, most being bussed out (though mistreated).Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Victims identification - 2015

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 ( 33 under 15), and includes several dozen (76) women and girls. As of July 2012, 6838 victims have been identified through DNA analysis and more than 6000 victims have been buried at the Memorial Centre of Potocari.

Srebrenica victims are subsequently buried in Srebrenica - Potocari Memorial and Cemetery.

Memorial Center of Potocari ( July 2015): 6377 victims already buried, of them 406 boys under 18 and 15 women and girls.

The summary of victims of Srebrenic massacre buried at memorial place in Potocari according to their birthdate: 

     1995:   1       note 1
     1984:   1       note 2
     1982:   1       note 3
     1981:  14

     1980:  47
     1979:  99
     1978: 168
     1977: 221
     1976 - 1955: 3202
     1954 - 1935: 2098
     1934 - 1925:  447
     1924 - 1915:   72
     1914 - 1899:    6
     Total      : 6377

note 1: new-born girl

note 2: Together with his 15 yo. brother killed with grenate explosion during shelling of Srebrenica

note 3: Died in woods after 19.7.1995

77.240.177.27 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Kutil

77.240.177.27, what is the source for this info? (just to help decide how usable it is).Pincrete (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


Source:

http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/War_Demographics/en/popovic_srebrenica_050916.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20140418221608/http://www.potocarimc.ba/_ba/liste/nestali_a.php

http://bh-vjesnik.net/spisak-zrtava-genocida-za-ukop-11-07-2015-u-potocarima/

http://www.oslobodjenje.ba/vijesti/bih/danas-ukop-zrtava-genocida-u-srebrenici-konacni-smiraj-136-dusa--

2014, 2013 , 2012 .....

77.240.177.27 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Kutil

The detailed figures are for identified burials of course, the icty 2005 report seems to say a probable final figure of 7,661 dead.Pincrete (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The ICTY and RDC figures have the reputation of being the most reliable (though generally slightly under estimating) casualty figures for 'Bosnian war'. Initial figures in other areas have generally produced slight over-estimates, due to duplication/mis-reporting. In view of this should text be altered to reflect the 7661 ICTY figure (6377 are 'recovered' and 're-buried' bodies).Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust scholar and why women were not killed additions

24.85.77.121 I have reverted your additions Per WP:UNDUE, as did Scr★pIron, the biggest problem with this article is that it is overlong (longer than World War II), we don't therefore have room for material that is not strictly concerned with the event (and there is much already which doesn't belong). The reasons WHY women were not killed MIGHT belong on another article about one of the trials or inquiries, rebuttals to 'deniers' might belong on individual pages, but there simply isn't room here.Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Title

Why is this article not named "Srebrenica Genocide"? --Tuvixer (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That has been gone into deeply by several editors with persons arguing on both sides. I linked it to you at Talk:Genocide Convention. Plus if you read the lower sections of the article you'll see why it is disputed and moreover how the ICTY is not universally considered a paragon of unflawed decision. --OJ (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Tuvixer, there are several sections above discussing this, those who defend the present title do so NOT because they disagree with 'ICTY', nor because they wish to appease 'deniers'. ICTY and other legal bodies can't dictate to our readers which term THEY ordinarily use. The evidence is that most readers still use 'massacre', just as most people speak of 'Auschwitz concentration camp' (not extermination camp). In neither case are we, or readers, denying what happened. What is most important about this article is that it should be as clear and complete as possible (which it isn't perfect about IMO). We are here primarily to convey factual info as far as poss., not to express approval or disapproval. Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User Gazprompt

Just to note that the editor Gazprompt, has been indeffed {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive As a sock]. Quite a bit of his editing earlier in the year is pretty random/off-topic.Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 118 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Renaming the article in to Srebrenica genocide

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

Because politically motivated declarations aside, most people realize that this was not genocide unless the term has been completely redefined. It was a massacre. A horrible atrocity to be sure. But not the actual mass extermination of an entire race, religion or nationality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, the Srebrenica massacre has been consistently recognised as genocide by the UN as well as international courts; if the majority of the populace (and I don't know where you have gotten your information from) seem to think it isn't genocide, it is irrelevant, as the majority of them don't know the legal definition of genocide and it is up for the courts to determine if a case fulfilled the requirements, which it did. However, regardless of the nature of the crime, I do agree that the article title should not be changed, as the generally accepted term for the incident is the "Srebrenica massacre." Gorčin, "massacre" does not imply that an event isn't genocide, and the genocidal nature of the crime is clearly indicated in the lead. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
In addition, most of the UN security council members voted in favor of calling the events a genocide. 10 nations voted in favor, 1 state against and 4 abstained, sources ABC news, USA Today. (P.s.: On a personal perspective, I feel disguised by the humanity of those denying such a horrible genocide aiming to annihilate the Bosnian population.) OppositeGradient (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Massacre or genocide

I would change article name to "Srebrenica genocide" because it is by all media characterized as such. Also, I support protection because we, on Bosnian Wikipedia, had many attempts of vandalizing articles regarding Srebrenica genocide. --Munja-x64 (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to have the article named "Srebrenica genocide" (which I don't dispute it was). As a comparison, the individual massacres of the holocaust do not in their titles contain suffix "genocide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf A380 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The term Holocaust isn't a term commonly used by Holocaust denialists to whitewash the genocide that was the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a genocide, the Srebrenica genocide was a genocide, real historians will back me on this. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 01:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a false logic here, our job isn't to give or deny comfort to 'deniers', and of course we record that almost all legal bodies and a large number of historians use 'genocide'.Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

I fully agree with the full article being renamed to Srebrenica Genocide, the international community is unanimous on that categorization, except for only a small minority of countries, such as Russia and Serbia. For instance, the recent UN Security Council resolution asking the events as Genocide had 10 votes in favor against 1 vote (Russia) against (see sources above). OppositeGradient (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Please understand, the term "massacre" doesn't imply that an event isn't genocide. Besides, this section has nothing to do with the naming dispute, there is already a section on this page about it. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
If you agree it is a genocide, if most countries view it as a genocide and if a large number of world media call it so, then why do you insist on not titling the article as such? OppositeGradient (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
If you want to argue your case, please use the relevant section of this page. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I endorse everything said by Praxis Icosahedron, nothing is gained by re-titling and the alternative descripion and legal rulings are made abundantly clear. What matters is being accurate about what happened there, then and since. (ps most staunchly denialist Serbs still think nothing much happened in Srebrenica and would be unhappy with either term, it's a bit grotesque to imply that those who oppose re-naming are somehow supporting 'downplaying' the event).Pincrete (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If you do not intend 'downplaying' the event, then why do you defend yourself without being accused? (Freudian symptom of guilt). Nevertheless,
    • if we all agree it was a genocide (as most sources and nations indicate), and
    • if genocide supersedes a massacre in magnitude and qualification, and
    • if Google Scholar has 9,020 results for "srebrenica massacre" and 12,500 for "srebrenica genocide"; then
  • As we know Russia and Serbia oppose the existence of a genocide in Srebrenica. Editors who oppose the usage of the term genocide, against all odds and arguments, should really provide objective reasons to delineate themselves from the Russian-Serbian thesis, or accept the term genocide. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
OppositeGradient the reasons are those given by Praxis Icosahedron, that the customary term has been 'massacre', when a considerable weight of evidence exists that the ordinary reader would not use that term, a change would make sense. I refuse to respond to the challenge of delineating myself from ANYONE's thesis, we are not here to strike poses of agreement or disagreement with any position. Look at my edit record, look at that of Praxis Icosahedron.Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
If the only argument is "the customary term has been 'massacre'", then such a custom is artificial and does not reflect the real-world (I.e. how most scholars, nations and media call the event). As such, I believe it is not substantiated and should be fixed. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
OppositeGradient, your belief is noted.Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Detoner, I can assure you that the people on this page defending the present title, neither come from Serbia nor deny what happened. It might help if discussion rose above the level of 'name calling'.Pincrete (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not calling names, but I'm speaking of the context the term massacre has in Serbia. The term to foreign readers does not appear in contradiction the the term genocide. but in Serbia that term is in the strong contradiction with the term genocide. I support the change since the ICJ (the highest court of the UN, the only one that can judge if the genocide happened) had ruled that the genocide had happened. That is also supported by virtually every expert and the term massacre is incorporated in the term genocide as the genocide is much broader term that the term "massacre". I understand that the foreign readers do not see much difference, so I wanted to help and give the context that two terms have in Serbia. They are in strong contradiction to each other and I think much of the people who advocated for the term massacre would be surprised to know that there are people who agree with them because they are denying the genocide had happened. Also let's not throw the "name calling" accusation in my direction, as you just called me a "name caller". I will support the change of the title. Detoner (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Search results in english return over 4 to 1 results in favor of the use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" over the phrase "Srebrenica genocide" - there is a clear predominance of that term in the english speaking world. Additionally, there is not a significant connotative difference in english between the terms as you have described for Serbia. Thus, for english Wikipedia, both the sources and the WP:NPOV policy support the use of the title "Srebrenica massacre." Scr★pIronIV 19:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I stated the reasoning for my support. There is a significant difference between those two terms in English language as well. The genocide is much broader term and the ICJ is, as the highest court of UN, the only one than can rule upon that. The massacre can be ruled by a number of international and domestic courts. As I said, I support the term genocide as it is a broader term than incorporates the term massacre. Detoner (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Various legal bodies have ruled that Srebrenica was genocide, those rulings ARE stated clearly along with the AKA, early in the lead, as they should be. WP naming conventions are not based on court rulings, nor intended to either emphasise or downplay the seriousness of the event. When/if 'genocide' clearly becomes the term used by the general reader, THEN there would be a case for a rename.Pincrete (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The genocide is a broader term and I support the change, because the term massacre is widely used by the people who deny the genocide. That much proves that the genocide is a broader term. Also I spoke of international court in the same context. There is only 1 court that can rule upon genocide and that much proves that the genocide is a broader term. I'm supporting the change and I can be pinged, since it is obvious that I'm in minority right now. Detoner (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Detoner, I know some people feel very strongly as you do, the only thing which I would hope to convince you of, is that I, and I believe other editors, are not motivated by any wish to 'downplay' the event, nor to give comfort to those who wish to. Personally I think 'deniers' have a very strange moral compass if they think genocide is bad but persuade themselves that mass murder/massacre is somehow OK.Pincrete (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I must to provide some element into this debate strongly question the continued use of the term , "Srebrenica Massacre." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac2204 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Rename this article

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

Ms. Andrea Carter here, there is a fair amount of discussion above about this.Pincrete (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
nb I have taken the liberty of merging 3 sections relating to the article name [9].Pincrete (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pincrete: Well okay then. ~~Motion withdrawn unless I can come up with further reasons that haven't been previously covered to rename it.~~ The discussion seems ongoing, so I'll just add my support there. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 00:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Ms. Andrea Carter here, it wasn't my intention to 'close down' discussion, only to put it all in one place. The analogy I would like to make is that WP refers to 'The Holocaust', even though that term could be construed as a euphemism for 'the genocidal extermination of etc.'. We do so for the reason that the term is the one most commonly used by most readers. This article makes very clear that the event is aka and has been also been defined by many legal bodies and scholars as 'genocide', if it did not do so, I would probably agree with you about 'Undue'.Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I continued the discussion above. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 18:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Gorčin, I assure you that there are no "more sinister reasons" for all or the majority of those who wish to maintain the current title. It is clearly indicated in the lead that the 'Srebrenica Genocide' is another term used for the event, as well as multiple references to the genocideal nature of the crime. It doesn't help to keep bringing up vague accusations implying deniaist motivations of me and other editors to make a point, particually where they have gone out of their way to stress the barbaric (and genocidal) nature of the crime. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Gorčin, I second everything that Aardwolf says, an article title is not there to either condemn or give comfort to anyone. The article about 30+ years of nasty civil conflict in N. Ireland is called The Troubles, why? Because that is the most common name used both by sources and (more importantly) by readers. The Armenian genocide, has never been known by any other name since non-Armenians became aware of it (and a massacre is a single event, not many seperate events, as in Armenia). All the indications are that more people refer to 'Sreb massacre' than 'Sreb Genocide', though the second is becoming more common.
Privately, I find the logic strange that suggests it's somehow OK, or less serious, to murder/massacre about 8000 unarmed people but calling it 'genocide' makes it more serious. 'Genocide' changes the intent of the crime, it doesn't make mass-murder any more or less serious. The article is clear that it is often called 'genocide' and that many courts have ruled that it is legally genocide. 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)
I have to agree with Pincrete here. There seems to be a supposition that "genocide" means a more severe form of "massacre." According to the wiki article, genocide is not simply "mass killing" but a systematic attempt at eliminating a specific group. There is plenty of evidence of a "Bosnian genocide" attempted by Serb forces throughout the span of the war, but it seems moot to nominate a single event a genocide. Theoretically, the planned and deliberate poisoning of a river to cause a local tribe to become infertile is an act of genocide, whereas killing thousands in a bombing of a town is a massacre. The two words do not differ in degrees of evil or number of deaths. They're simply different but related concepts. I don't see what can be gained from confounding concepts, except trying to make inflammatory statements rather than an honest account of the horrors that happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.225.223 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the two postings above, either the entire campaign was a genocide or it wasn't, but no single chapter should be deemed by this term. Furthermore, I'd go as far as to say either it were a three-way genocide or none at all, the suggestion that one belligerent committed this but others did not because they only committed massacres is preposterous. --OJ (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Oranges Juicy, we aren't drawing any such conclusions (nor are they implied in the name). The evidence is that 'massacre' is still the more common name for the event, and that is the only logic to the choice. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

"Remove kebab" redirect

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

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

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

I have blanked, such that it does not redirect, another editor has 'prodded". Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tolimir/acjug/en/150408_summary.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_21&oldid=1033235565"