Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

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

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

Denial of Srebrenica massacre

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

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

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

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

Dutch government

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

Lack of refenence to religion of Bosniaks

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

Proposed merge

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

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

Improving the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. I deal with facts not agendas.

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

I havent heard anything new from Osli73...The article was based on relevant international court decisions...So if you, Osli73, have some neutral court decisions which will support your thesis, then provide those...--Emir Arven 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I have noticed, that the above user is trying to put false information, when he is writing about regular Bosnian forces, Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina...He wants to present it as Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) army, which is not true, as well as Government of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, which was the only legal and recognized by UN, during war in Bosnia. So, what I see here, is not improving the article, but nationalistic game, which starts and finishes from time to time when the date of genocide (July 11th) is coming closer...Read the earlier discussions...--Emir Arven 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Osli73, you made a lot of changes in the article in your effort to make it more concise. Many of them dissociate Serbia from the conflict. You cannot expect your changes to stay. However, that does not mean that you don't have a point, and perhaps some of your changes would improve the article.
On the issue of the Scorpions: It is not clear to me that the indictment of a prosecutor should be more reliable than many citations in various media.
Furthermore, I'm not at all happy with the section "Serbs Never Demilitarized, but Continued to Criticize Bosniaks". The section is too detailed and badly incorporated in the remaining text. It is already clear from the article that the Serb did not demilitarize. Finally, Wikipedia is not a collection of other texts. I'm reluctantly making an exception for the ICTY judgment, because it stopped the edit war. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Scorpions were paramilitary commandos (like all of Serbian Special Police) - it's state forces. --HanzoHattori 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Raped female child source provided

"We saw two Serb soldiers, one of them was standing guard and the other one was lying on the girl, with his pants off. And we saw a girl lying on the ground, on some kind of mattress. There was blood on the mattress, even she was covered with blood. She had bruises on her legs. There was even blood coming down her legs. She was in total shock. She went totally crazy." source

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

Article length (too long)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts about alleged Serb casualties around Srebrenica

A couple of comments on this section:

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

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

"Bosniak" versus "Bosnian Muslim"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bosniak vs Bosnian vs Bosnian Muslim - brief explanation

Simplified explanation of terms:

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

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

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

Formating sources

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

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

Srebrenica Massacre Anniversary

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

Bosniak bias

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

Lack of sources and biased word choices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed pending citation or re-wording

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

  • "Remarkably, a group of ABiH soldiers managed to reach Medjedja in a captured jeep bearing Yugoslav National Army identification marks, having killed the five original occupants of the vehicle (this was the only indication that the Yugoslav army may have been involved in any action against the column)."
Armoured vehicles fire on the people trapped at Kamenica
Serb soldier is seen wearing UN uniform at a roadblock

Are these pictures verified?

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

Seemingly not, although I think the captions need citing more than anything else. It is clear from the clips that they are from TVP. - FrancisTyers · 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What is your point with POV on this article? Be ashamed. It's not hard to go to Holocaust article and put POV because someone once said that numbers are not... hmmm... that high. Apsurd. Leave this article alone, please. You are ruining your image, what you are getting from that when you put POV? Article is full of evidences, citations and references. Remember what I said about Holocaust? It's not good to behave like that and deny genocide. --HarisM 14:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of genocide denial? Where have I ever said that this article is not true? My complaint is that it isn't appropriately sourced in accordance with Wikipedia policies, see. WP:V and WP:CITE. - FrancisTyers · 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Not you, sorry, other one. Guy Montag who started all this POV thing. Unnecesary. --HarisM 18:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply

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

I need citation for this paragraph

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

Can someone format references better?

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


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

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

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

The problems at hand were

  • "Remarkably, a group of ABiH soldiers managed to reach Medjedja in a captured jeep bearing Yugoslav National Army identification marks, having killed the five original occupants of the vehicle (this was the only indication that the Yugoslav army may have been involved in any action against the column)."-an unsourced narration.
  • It is estimated that hundreds of women and female children were raped during Srebrenica massacre. The Serb troops abused women and even children whom they had herded into makeshift enclosures. Due to cultural stigma attached to rape, many women refused to testify against the rapists. -unsourced generalization and narration as to why it is unourced.
  • However when the cameras were turned off the men were slaughtered at the hands of the Serb army. More than 60 truckloads were taken from Srebrenica to execution sites where they were bound, blindfolded, and shot with automatic rifles. Some of the executions were carried out at night under arc lights. Industrial bulldozers then pushed the bodies into mass graves, with some of the victims having been buried alive.
  • Still the number of murdered is presently disputed by some. All nations and international organizations involved consider it to have been a massacre, and most consider it to be a case of genocide. The government of the Republika Srpska has officially condemned the atrocity.

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

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

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

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

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

If that was not mass murder, what is?


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

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

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

I also checked some things. It's a lot of work, so thanks very much for your efforts. I did come across some problems. The phrase "considered by many as one of the most horrific events in recent European history" in the introduction, while true, is not supported by the AP reference given. The link to "Truth about Bratunac (Istina o Bratuncu)" in note 6 is broken and I couldn't find the article on the website (though most of it is Bosnian, which makes it hard for me to navigate). I commented out the text
"The UN did nothing to protect the Bosniak civilians in Srebrenica. One hundred lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers were denied repeated requests for reinforcements and consequently sidelined to witness what was to follow." (at the top of the section "The crowd at Potočari")
because it was not taken from the ICTY judgement while the rest of the paragraph was. I also have some problems with the text by itself ("nothing" seems to harsh, I think there were more Dutch at the time, and it's not clear what the request for reinforcements refer to in this context).
Finally, I fully agree with Dado's request a few sections up that "anyone who wants to add aditional items on this article to provide specific sources", and I'd like to add that if you refer to a long document, please provide a page number or something like that, as it is not easy to find one specific fact in hundreds of pages of text. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Kozluk date

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

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

Non-Serb participants in the killings

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

According to the report by the Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, that led the Wim Kok government to resign (irrelevant to his section and already stated), approximately twelve (I can't find any number stated in the online version of the report,correct me if i'm wrong) Greek volunteers took part in the massacre of Srebrenica. These persons belonged to the Greek Volunteer Guard (ΕΕΦ), an integral part of the Drina Corps and were either members of the Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi group, or mercenaries. Ratko Mladić himself had asked ((Whom?) to put up the Greek flag after the massacre, while Radovan Karadžić had honored the volunteers. [1]

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

"According to the report by Agence France Presse (AFP), 12 Greek volunteers took part in the massacre of Srebrenica [2]. These persons belonged to the Greek Volunteer Guard (ΕΕΦ), an integral part of the Drina Corps and were either members of the Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi group, or mercenaries. According to book by Takis Michas a Greek flag was raised in Srebrenica following the fall of the city [3] while Radovan Karadžić had honored the volunteers. [1]"

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

The whole issue was forgotten for years, due to the tolerance shown by the majority of both Greek media and people (POV blanket statement, what were "the greek people", if we were supposed to consider them some sort of unified group, supposed to do about some obscure issue concerning the wars in Yugoslavia?), until the Greek deputy Andreas Andrianopoulos broached the subject in 2005 and the Minister of Justice Anastasios Papaligouras committed an investigation, which is still underway. All Greek volunteers are still elusive, but many Greeks have sympathy towards these people who they viewed as defending Europe and Christianity against Islamic fundamentalism.(POV blanket statement again."Many Greeks " is a clear example of weasel wording.How many is "many"?Are these certain groups of people?How can this be measured?There's no denying that this idea exists, but the way it is presented leaves much doubt about its prominance.Is this what Takis Michas's book says exactly?) [1] --Jsone 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Clean-up effort

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

Bosniak Message to Dado

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

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

  1. ^ a b c Michas, Takis "Unholy Alliance", Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, pp. 17-41 (Duplicated Reference). [11] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Michas" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ AFP; "Greek Volunteers Fought Alongside Bosnian Serbs." 13 July 1995; [12]
  3. ^ Michas, Takis;"Takis "Unholy Alliance", Texas A&M University Press: Eastern European Studies (College Station, Tex.) pp. 22 [13]