Talk:Bosnian genocide/Archive 7

a choice for Opbeith
Fairview360 is going to introduce text to the introduction that describes what actually happened in Bosnia. This is something Opbeith supports. However, Fairview360 is going to continue to use the term ethnic cleansing. This is something Opbeith does not support. Opbeith can then either support the changes Fairview360 has introduced, or he can join PBS in objecting to the changes though for very different reasons. One will now get to see what happens when Fairview360 introduces the changes. If Opbeith chooses to support the changes, he could help contribute the appropriate footnotes. Fairview360 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, Fairview360, let's see how it goes and proceed from there. Opbeith (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not removed the two paragraphs thate were added to the lead, but they need to be fully cited or removed. So please add the necessary citations, and then we can discuss whether the wording is an accurate summary of the citations. -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS, perhaps you could find a citation for the reference to "a minority of scholars" supporting the wider use of the term "genocide". While this is a logical deduction from references to the majority supporting a narrower definition, your choice to refer to "the minority" rather than to "a considerable  number" of legal scholars, in the way the ECHR Jorgic judgment on which I suspect you base this did, is liable to give a misleading impression.  I presume it is this "minority view" status that justifies the imbalanced weighting of the article's content towards discussion of the legal acceptance of the majority's interpretation and its limited discussion of the events that gave rise not just to that interpretation but also to the differing opinion of the considerable minority and much of the informed public. Opbeith (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a "minority of legal scholars" and it is footnoted (paragraph 47. -- PBS (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See discussion archives for the content behind strenuous arguments over this point. Indeed, PBS demonstrated that the expression "a minority of legal scholars" is accurate and fully sourced. Fairview360 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Fairview 360 and PBS, just go back and read the source (ECHR Jorgic judgment) and tell me where the ECHR refers to "a minority of legal scholars". It simply doesn't. That's  a logical deduction from the reference to "a majority of legal scholars" at the material time so I'm obviously not going to argue that it's not true.  But it's not the whole truth.  The minority view here isn't a trivial minority or a first-past-the-post loser, it's a substantial body of opinion.  PBS uses the simple majority/minority dichotomy to dismiss the changes I have proposed as giving too much weight to a minority view.  I'm not claiming to argue a majority view.  But there is adequate support to justify more adequate treatment of the legitimate arguments that genocide was perpetrated in Bosnia outside Srebrenica, and a reformulation similar to the wording I've suggested.


 * I raised the issue of the specific EHCR citation because the alleged wording is given such prominence in the introduction. The EHCR refers in paras 36, 47 and 111 of the Jorgic judgment to "a considerable number" - rather than simply an indeterminate minority - of scholars/legal scholars who supported the broader definition of genocide, to include the destruction of the group as a social unit:


 * "111. The Court notes in this connection that at the material time the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention, on which Article 220a of the (German) Criminal Code is based, was contested amongst scholars as regards the definition of "intent to destroy a group". Whereas the majority of legal writers took the view that ethnic cleansing, in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide, a considerable number of scholars suggested that these acts did indeed amount to genocide (see paragraph 47 above)."


 * So the reference to ethnic cleansing is a problem, but one which I believe Fairview360 and I can probably resolve within the scope of an article on genocide in Bosnia, given the way in which the use of the expression is qualified. But PBS, if you demand accuracy from other people in their use of citations, you need to show your own good faith in the same way, by acknowledging that a "minority view" is still one which deserves adequate representation.


 * To avoid future distortion, I emphasise that my wish to see more substantial treatment of the events described as "genocide in Bosnia" is not a campaign to see the adoption of the wider definition of genocide. The ECHR and German findings are significant but my basic dissatisfaction is with the scope of the description of the substance of the accusations of "physical-biological destruction". In the Krajisnik case the ICTY recognised the underlying acts of genocide (actus reus) even though it did not find the direct connection between Krajisnik and the direct perpetrators adequately proven to be able to convict him personally of genocide.  Of course the fact that Krajisnik was found not guilty of genocide is important, but it does not contradict the fact that those acts were committed (it simply throws up the anomaly that Edina Becirevic describes as genocide happening by accident).  Slobodan Milosevic's death meant that the ICTY never resolved the issue of his guilt on the charge of genocide in Bosnia, for example at Visegrad.  However the ICTY still has before it the charges of genocide against Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, citing acts in various municipalities as well as at Srebrenica.  (The relevant acts are set out in the Marked-Up Indictment of October 2009 which I have used as the basis for my suggested revision.)  In other words the ICTY has not ruled against the possibility of genocide in Bosnia.  And for the reasons I have given several times here (dissenting opinions of ICJ judges, acknowledged availability of relevant but unconsidered evidence, disagreement of numerous respected legal scholars) nor can the ICJ's ruling, while binding on the parties, be considered as rendering the discussion finally resolved.


 * So PBS, when you criticise the adequacy of Fairview3360's citations, perhaps you should remember your own sometimes irregular use of citations, as well as your habit of misquoting and misrepresenting other people's arguments. For example the way you challenge Fairview360's move to a title that has not yet been turned into a concrete straitjacket by your interventions as having taken place without discussion?  It is the culmination of months and years of discussion.  Who are you to lock the article?  If you believe that's appropriate, ask someone wha is not involved whether they are prepared to take such action.  In James Baker's expression, you have a dog in this fight, you can't be referee as well. Opbeith (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS has shown that the chosen text "majority of legal scholars" best reflects sources when referring to those who support the narrow interpretation. Opbeith has now shown that "a considerable number of legal scholars" best reflects sources when referring to those who support the wider interpretation. Fairview360 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Has PBS reverted the title change or actually used his administrative powers to lock the title into place? If he has actually used his administrative privileges in this regard, it would be such an obvious and egregious abuse of administrative powers that,if he did indeed use his administrative powers, it would be wise to report him to the relevant wiki authorities. He is obviously an involved editor with a conflict of interest. Fairview360 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations on the two new paragraphs in the lead
Fairview the two citations are not adequate the first one "ICTY; "Address by ICTY President Theodor Meron, at Potocari Memorial Cemetery" The Hague, 23 June 2004" does not contain a link to a page on which the address is given. Also there must be a better legal source for that definition. The second citation "ICTY; "Karadzic indictment"" is too vague it need paragraphs also how do you come to the conclusion that this is the definiton that the UN or US congress were using when they linked genocide to ethnic cleansing? -- PBS (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The link now refers the reader to the actual address. To claim that the President of the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia is not a reliable source is a bit strange. If PBS wants to visit the Srebrenica Massacre page and transfer all the footnotes from that article from which this wording comes, he is welcome to do so. The second link now has the number of the paragraph from which this wording comes. The UN and the US were referring to the actions of the ultra-nationalist Serbs designed to remove non-Serbs from areas of their control. This reference provides a description of those actions. Fairview360 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (Incidentally citations do not require a direct link to the address to be "adequate". A direct link is useful to facilitate checking if necessary, but such a detailed reference is not going to be hard to find. Opbeith (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

New title "Genocide in Bosnia"
I have tried to revert PBS's edit overriding Fairview360's move to the more appropriate title but without success. The move took place after lengthy and in-depth discussions over months. The underlying problem with the article that eventually led to the change of title has been an issue discussed for years. PBS has been the only person insisting on the retention of the status quo and his intransigence has resulted in numerous other concerned editors abandoning the discussion. PBS disregarded my suggestion that an informed administrator be asked to join the discussion.

I don't know why my attempts to revert the move are unsuccessful. I'm mindful that PBS has in the past taken pre-emptive action in a less than transparent way, as when he blocked the possibility of the creation of an article under this title last September without informing anyone else. PBS does not deal honestly and adequately with the arguments advanced by the other participants in this discussion. He distorts and confuses and revives old issues without acknowledging that there has been any intervening input by other contributors.

Over the years, while making useful contributions to the article on the subject of legal judgments, PBS has made treatment of the general subject of genocide in Bosnia subordinate to his preoccupations with the legally determined status of the term "Bosnian genocide", failing to give due consideration to the wider interest of the general reader (as evident in various expressions of surprise and disgust at the content of the article that are logged in the discussion archive). Opbeith (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360, this relentless, evasive intransigence on PBS's part is precisely why I was reluctant to get deeply entangled at this particular time. You knew exactly what I was referring to when you chose to be so aggressive and offensive. Opbeith (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Opbeith would do well to simply focus on the task at hand.
 * As you might consider doing when there's no need to be gratuitously offensive to people doing their best to be constructive. Opbeith (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the title choice, "Genocide in Bosnia" could be argued to be more consistent with PBS' view than "Bosnian Genocide". If there were widespread agreement that genocide was committed throughout Bosnia by Serb ultra-nationalists as there is regarding the Holocaust committed by the Nazi's, then "Bosnian Genocide" would be a common term with a common understanding as to what it means. Since there is not such a common understanding, the title "Genocide in Bosnia" could be argued to be the better title. There is widespread agreement that genocide did occur within Bosnia. The title "Genocide in Bosnia" reflects that widespread agreement. The article can then discuss where there is widespread agreement (Srebrenica) and what happened, where there is some agreement (through areas of BSA control)and what happened, then comparing and contrasting the different interpretations. Fairview360 is not strongly attached to either title, however, Fairview360 believes that "Genocide in Bosnia" is more appropriate and, ironically (given PBS' objection) sees how this title could be seen as more consistent with PBS' point of view than Opbeith's. Fairview360 (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said before

"I wanted to give the proposal some thought. I do not think that the move away from a name to a descriptive title is desirable, and so for the time being I oppose the move, and would like a more detailed debate with contributions from more editors. So I am reverting the bold move and the change to the introduction, and suggest that the WP:RM mechanism is used to advertise the move and an independent administrator can decide after a week if there is a consensus for the move. -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)"


 * WP:RM is clear


 * There is not a clear consensus for the move. If you want this move to be made then put in a WP:RM. -- PBS (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * While it is possible that PBS, Fairview360 and Opbeith could reach consensus on the title of this article through arbitration, focusing on the text of the actual article might be a better use of time. Fairview360 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * - PBS, I'm puzzled by the above, has someone been misusing your identity in the discussion that's been going on here for months? Opbeith (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - PBS, I'm puzzled by the above, has someone been misusing your identity in the discussion that's been going on here for months? Opbeith (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Other contributors
In view of the regrettable lack of interventions by anyone other than myself, Fairview360 and PBS, I've informed Mladifilozof, who originally redirected Genocide in Bosnia & Herzegovina to Bosnian Genocide, and Alan Ford, Jnr and Yahalom Kashny, the only other identified contributors on this page, about the proposed move. There are probably others in the more recent archives who might be interersted. Opbeith (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wish to have greater participation in a page move the best forum will be created by a WP:RM request, the people who lurk there are knowledgeable about the criteria of WP:AT and associated guide lines. -- PBS (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're genuinely interested in the principle of locating consensus, PBS, I suggest you contact some of the other contributors to discussions here who've been deterred from further participation by your unwillingness to make concessions to their legitimate queries - people who are knowledgeable about the issue here. Opbeith (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I find there's only one other identified contributor since the start of 2010, Chrono1084, whom I've notified as well. I doubt that it's worth the effort to follow up anyone further back than that, but if anyone else wants me to I will. I've also notified WikiProject Bosnia. Hopefully that might encourage back some interested/informed participants. Opbeith (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that both existing and especially proposed name of the article do not meet the request of Article titles.
 * According to Article titles: “Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.” and "titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously."
 * The proposed title:I think that "Genocide in Bosnia" is not a title which identify the topic of the article unambiguously. There are many other events in the past that are described as genocide in Bosnia in many other sources which claim there was genocide in Bosnia i.e: when Austria-Hungary organized Concentration camp in Doboj during WWI for more than 45.000 Serbs, when Ustaše committed genocide during WWII, when Chetniks committed genocide during WWII, .... Usually, when those sources refer to those genocides they say i.e.: Turks/Austrians/Ustaše/Chetniks... commited genocide in Bosnia.
 * The existing title meets the recognizability requirement (because it seems that it is most commonly used term for the topic of the article) but still it is not identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
 * Conclusion: Both existing and proposed title fail to unambiguously identify the topic of the article, but the existing title meets recognizability requirement more than proposed title.
 * Proposal: OMG. I wanted to suggest adding the year or Srebrenica in the title of the article, but now I see that there is an article describing the topic of this article with name Srebrenica massacre. I am afraid that big part of this article is a content fork and maybe even WP:POVFORK. This article in the first sentence says: "Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War". Quoted source does not mention "throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army" in definition of Bosnian Genocide. The article about War in Bosnia (section) is very clear when explains that Serbs were not the only part involved in ethnic cleansing. If you follow the link to the ethnic cleansing you will see that it is very clearly distinguished from the genocide. Most of the article describes events connected to what happened in Srebrenica, which are already presented in the article Srebrenica massacre. Comments are welcomed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The addition of the third party point of view is very helpful to this discussion. The fork is most probably the result of trying to accommodate two points of view, one being that genocide only occurred in Srebrenica and one being that genocide was committed by ultra-nationalist Serbs throughout areas controlled by the BSA. Opbeith and Fairview360 would most probably agree to referring to two articles "Bosnian Genocide" and "Srebenica Genocide", the former being a description of genocide throughout the area controlled by the BSA in line with the current indictment against Karadzic and the latter being covered by the existing article "Srebrenica Massacre". However, PBS would probably object. (BTW, while perhaps a bit absurd, as a result of the intense acrimony from years past, Fairview360 requires of himself that he always writes in the third person similar to Bob Dole on the campaign trail. It may be awkward but it does have the benefit of limiting the degree to which the acrimony can escalate.) Fairview360 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (I concur with what Fairview360 has said about my probable agreement to a two article solution as defined by him, though with the "Bosnian Genocide" article - or perhaps "Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995)" in line with Antidiskriminator's comments - structured around but not be limited in scope to the current Karadzic indictment. Opbeith (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

The title "Bosnian Genocide (1992 - 1995)" would both fulfill the recognizability requirement and resolve the ambiguity issue. Fairview360 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In anticipation of PBS' upcoming argument, PBS would do well to read the article on Al Capone. It is not confined to only what has been proven in a court of law. If wikipedia restricted editors to only that which has been proven in a court of law, virtually the entire article on Al Capone would need to be deleted. Fairview360 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Antidiskriminator most of the article those bodies that have made statements about a Bosnian Genocide. The UN, the US congress and the Bosnian Government have stated in the past that they view the ethnic cleansing as carried out by Bosnian Serbs was genocide. The Bosnian Government took the Serbian state to the ICJ in what is known as the Bosnian Genocide Case. The latter like this article looked at all the events in the Bosnian War and concluded in the 2007 judgement that Srebrenica was a genocide, but that the Serbian state was not directly involved in that or any other genocide that occurred in Bosnia. Apart from some fringe articles, I am not aware of any that have concluded that anyone other than those in or allied to the Bosnian Serb forces were involved in genocide in Bosnia. It does not seem to me that most of the article is about the Srebrenica genocide as the events that lead to the Bosnian genocide case are also discussed in detail. The details was considerably more until the article List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions was separated out into a separate article. -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (I wondered why I couldn't find them. Opbeith (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Why has PBS ignored Antidiskriminator's observation that the article may be a content fork and maybe even WP:POVFORK? Fairview360 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If it were a content fork and not a summary article I would perhaps agree to making this a disambiguation page and have it direct readers towards the Srebrenica massacre article and the Bosnian Genocide Case but give the usage and the summary style of this article, I no longer think that is the best solution, although I am open to persuasion as at one time I did propose such a solution. -- PBS (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking an article on Bosnian Genocide and putting it under the auspices of the Bosnian Genocide Case would be like taking the article on the Holocaust and putting it under the Nuremberg Trials article. Fairview360 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And why has PBS ignored the concern expressed in this discussion page that he may be abusing his administrative privileges by using them on this article where he is obviously an involved editor? Fairview360 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore observation but the question was a general one and not one addressed to me. However Fairview360 if you wish me to, I will answer your question. -- PBS (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PBS, I asked you directly whether it was appropriate for you to lock the article as Bosnian Genocide when you were one of the parties to the failed effort at consensus and I suggested that if you believed such action was appropriate you should ask someone else to carry it out who was not directly involved. As often before you simply ignored my request to consider whether your actions were appropriate. Opbeith (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than playing around, PBS would do well to assure the editors on this page that he recognizes he is an involved editor and therefore should not be using his administrative privileges in disputes on this article of which he is a party. Fairview360 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PBS has not used any administrative tool on the article Bosnian Genocide since 29 May 2009 when it was protected against vandalism and PBS has never used administrative tools on the article genocide in Bosnia (nor has any other administrator). The lock against moving the article to genocide in Bosnia results from the redirect having an edit history, this is something that any user can do. It is not usually appropriate to do so (which is why PBS had not made a second edit to the redirect until after a revert of a revert move). The option of a WP:RM request (which is the path that should have been followed after the first revert rather than reverting a revert move) is still open and if it is invoked at the the end of the process, an uninvolved administrator can move the page if there is a consensus for the move, as the edit history is no impediment to such an administrative move. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be moved to a new name until a request is made using the WP:RM process to discuss if a new name would be superior to the current name. -- PBS (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Along with a considerable number of legal scholars
This edit that changes a sentence from "in line with a minority of legal scholars," to "along with a considerable number of legal scholars," is misleading as it is not until the next paragraph that one can put it in context that the number of legal scholars is a minority. -- PBS (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? Or are you insisting on your right to distort the wording of the ECHR judgment? Opbeith (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems PBS is showing qualities associated with those overly eager to say as quickly as possible and as many times as possible that the Serbs committed genocide. PBS is objecting to language taken directly from a court judgment "along with a considerable number of legal scholars". He is claiming it is "misleading". Why? Because it is stated 6 lines above another line taken directly from a court judgment "in line with a majority of scholars". Is PBS that irrationally eager to get his chosen point of view across as quickly as possible that he can't wait for the reader to simply read the next paragraph? While those opposed to PBS have an agenda that is quite clear and straightforward -- tell the world the ultra-nationalist Serbs committed genocide, which is true -- PBS rarely shows his agenda that clearly except for a few occasions like this: diminish as much as possible the genocide that took place in Bosnia and disassociate the role of Serbia as much as possible. Which is better, text from a court judgment or what PBS thinks the article should state? PBS tries to make the claim that text in an article should only summarize sources and nothing more. And now he wants his proposed text to take precedence over a court judgment??? It is time for PBS to use his considerable intelligence to reassume at least the air of objectivity and realize that his objection here is not going to hold. Fairview360 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS' earlier entry:


 * I have not removed the two paragraphs thate were added to the lead, but they need to be fully cited or removed. So please add the necessary citations, and then we can discuss whether the wording is an accurate summary of the citations. -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If PBS believes that text should only summarize citations, then what is he doing insisting that his chosen text override the actual wording from a citation? Is it that when editors propose text he personally disagrees with, he assumes a strict citation-only position, but when a citation disagrees with his personal views, he takes a polar opposite position that editors can use their own judgment? Which is it? Does PBS believe that text should only summarize citations or that editors can use their own judgment? Fairview360 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What I am doing is suggesting that summary can be more appropriate than a direct quotation taken out of context. The paragraph in questions mentions first "Amongst scholars, the majority have.." followed by "However, there are also a considerable number of scholars ...." I think quoting the latter before mention of the former is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

2+3=5. 3+2=5. Either way, the reader understands the equation equals five. Fairview360 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"taken out of context"? Opbeith (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The context in the source contains in the same paragraph first "Amongst scholars, the majority have.." followed by "However, there are also a considerable number of scholars ....". In the current text in our article uses the term "considerable number of scholars" without making it clear that the "considerable number of legal scholars" is a minority of legal scholars. BTW minority is not the same thing as a tiny minority. -- PBS (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You simply turn a blind eye to everything Fairview360 and I have said about the intelligectual capabilities of the large majority of people able to read two paragraphs in sequence. Opbeith (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course I did not, which is why I am trying to persuade you that the former wording is better as it is less misleading.


 * "less misleading" ??? PBS is arguing for wording that he himself considers misleading? Fairview360 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have taken the position that as Opbeith changed the wording (s)he assumes it is misleading, so I am trying to accommodate that view as we discuss it -- maybe its a cultural thing, but I think that such accommodation is more appropriate than confrontational language if we are to strive for a consensus. -- PBS (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, due to events in Bosnia and Rwanda there is now a substantial body of cases which set a legal precedence, so it is likely that the ratio is greater now than it was in the early 1990s. That was the point that the ECHR was making in their judgement. It does not matter what most scholars now think, at the time of the German trials it was quite reasonable for the German court's to take the view that genocide means the destruction of a group could take place without extermination of its constituent members, and it was the reasonableness of the German Courts interpretation at that time on which they were passing judgement which the ECHR was ruling upon. -- PBS (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS has been reminded time and again that the ECHR explicitly stated that the German court's interpretation of genocide is consistent with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. That was not a time specific judgment. It asserted the interpretation of genocide adopted by the German courts is valid, now and in the future. So how does PBS argue that the ECHR judgment would reduce the number of those who adhere to the German court's view of genocide? Let's make this really clear to PBS so he knows that the rest of the editors here would find his claiming ignorance unconvincing: THE ECHR JUDGMENT CONFIRMED THE VALIDITY OF WHAT A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF LEGAL SCHOLARS BELIEVE, THAT THE WIDER DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Now this is where PBS tries to change the subject and not once and for all accept that the ECHR judgment did not diminish the validity of the wider definition of genocide but actually reaffirmed its legitimacy. Fairview360 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fairview360, I'm afraid for once I have to accept part - only part - of what PBS is saying. The ECHR judgment confirmed that the wider definition adopted by the German legislation was consistent with the Convention but the reference to the considerable number of scholars referred to the situation before the ICTY and ICJ made their pronouncements on nullum crimen sine lege, ie they interpreted the provisions of the Convention for the purposes of their own deliberations as not including destruction of the social unit, and that is the interpretation that is referred to as far as subsequent proceedings have been concerned.  But PBS is wrong firstly in assuming that the ICTY/ICJ rulings rule out the possibility of substantial disagreement with their findings and thre possibility of reassessment.

Fairview360's reading of the judgment is that the ECHR acknowledged that the ICTY rejected the notion that destruction as a social unit constitutes genocide. Opbeith's reading of the ECHR judgment is that the ECHR not only acknowledged the ICTY interpretation, but also stated that the ECHR also shares/agrees with that interpretation. If so, could Opbeith provide the actual paragraph number in the judgment where the ECHR goes beyond acknowledgment to agreement? Either way, Opbeith and Fairview360 acknowledge that the ECHR judgment affirmed that the wider interpretation of genocide is consistent with the Convention. Does PBS acknowledge that the judgment affirmed the consistency of the wider interpretation with the Convention? It seems that PBS is trying to use the ECHR judgment as a mechanism for dismissing all legitimacy of assertions of genocide based upon the wider interpretation of genocide. If the ECHR judgment affirms the consistency of a wider interpretation with the convention, how can it be used to dismiss that interpretation? Rather, it would seem that the ECHR judgment is affirming the legitimacy of the wider interpretation which is what Fairview360 is affirming above. Is it not true that neither the ICTY nor the ICJ act as a supreme court whose judgments are final and therefore all other judgments must be consistent with the judgments of the ICTY and the ICJ. Is the question not whether a judgment is consistent with ICTY or ICJ but rather whether a judgment is consistent with the Convention? The ECHR is affirming that the German courts have a narrow interpretation and that that interpretation is consistent with the Convention. Is that not then bestowing full legitimacy upon the German court decisions? Does the ECHR suggest anywhere that that German courts should change their interpretation? If so, it would be helpful if Opbeith or PBS would give the actual paragraph numbers to inform readers and editors alike. Fairview360 (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On the issue of principle, the ICTY/ICJ as far as I am aware failed to tackle the issue of the Convention's own inconsistency. As a considerable number of scholars have commented, (d) and (e) of Article II do in fact refer to crimes that involve destruction of the social unit rather than physical-biological destruction.  The Convention was inconsistent because some of the countries involved were reluctant to expose themselves to possible prosecution and worked to thwart Lemkin's intent.  Laws and conventions are often inconsistent,  that's why judges are given the task of interpreting them, taking into account the views of scholars.  Interpretations may evolve over time, taking account of the work of legal scholars.  PBS simply assumes that the ICTY/ICJ rulings mean that the reference to the views of "a considerable number of scholars" has ceased to have validity.  I do not know of any review of the current state of play, unfortunately, which is what is needed, but I do not have the impression that the mass of scholars have now moved over to accepting the unquestionability of the principles followed by the ICTY and the ICJ.  The ICJ in particular has been challenged over the methodology that it employed to arrive at its decision.  PBS needs to come up with some evidence of the state of play today before he can make any assertions about the current balance of opinion among legal scholars.  In the meanwhile both the relevance of the wider interpretation and the unresolved issues within the scope of the narrower interpretation require the adequate consideration PBS appears determined to deny them.  The circumstantial evidence is that a considerable number of scholars (starting with but not confined to the list I have previously provided) still believe that what happened in the Bosnian Serb-controlled areas of Bosnia in 1992-1995, with or without external assistance, was genocide and the article needs to reflect that, rather than continue to maintain its disproportionate emphasis on hierarchised legal findings. Opbeith (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fairview the ECHR judgement is careful to qualify its remarks, with the time of the offences were committed (and not at the time the appeal was lodged), I think this is most clearly stated in paragraph 112 "judgments of the ICTY – ... – were delivered subsequent to the commission of his offences, the applicant could not rely on this interpretation being taken by the German courts in respect of German law at the material time, that is, when he committed his offences." But the whole of the section in which that sentence has to be read so that it is taken in context.


 * As the ECHR judgement makes clear in their analysis the courts dealing with international law use previous judgements to help guide their current decisions (they explain their reasoning in relation to their charter and other courts findings) they also state it explicitly in paragraph 101. "In any system of law, including criminal law, however clearly drafted a legal provision may be, there is an inevitable element of judicial interpretation. There will always be a need for elucidation of doubtful points and for adaptation to changing circumstances. Indeed, in the Convention States, the progressive development of the criminal law through judicial law-making is a well entrenched and necessary part of legal tradition." This is how judicial systems based on common law interpret legislation so it is "normal" to anyone who grows up in all English speaking country and does not need to be explicitly mentioned as it is not at all surprising to the native of an English speaking country.


 * Opbeith the neat thing about the ECHR is that it is an impeccable secondary source for a survey of legal opinion at the time Jorgic committed his crimes. I know of no more recent survey of legal opinion. The point I was making is that however close the opinion was then between legal scholars, given the judgements of the international courts since then, it is unlikely to have reversed the majority minority ratio. My wish to keep a minority of legal scholars is not based on whether it is still substantial or not, because the sentence is talking about the 1990s. To reflect your concern that it was not a small minority, and my concerns that without mention that it is a minority the sentence is misleading, I suggest that we use the term "substantial minority". -- PBS (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can PBS provide a source that uses the terminology "substantial minority"? Fairview360 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS, this is a concoction that allows you to reinsert the word "minority" when it was not originally used and where the textual context makes a specific mention redundant. You seem puzzlingly preoccupied with this objective.Opbeith (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording is a summary of the source, and is it should be a fair and balanced summary (NPOV) of the source it seems to me that "substantial minority" conveys both the size and that it is a minority which is what the paragraph says "Amongst [legal] scholars, the majority have.." followed by "However, there are also a considerable number of scholars ....". -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can PBS provide a source that uses the terminology "substantial minority"? Fairview360 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The ECHR had to determine if the German courts interpretation of genocide, the wider interpretation of genocide IS consistent with the essence of the offence and whether their interpretation WAS foreseeable by the defendant at the time of his actions. One need only look at the tense of the verbs from the ECHR judgment to see that the ECHR determined that the wider interpretation of the German courts is consistent with the 1948 Convention.


 * 105. (my emphasis) The Court notes that the domestic courts construed the “intent to destroy a group as such” systematically in the context of Article 220a § 1 of the Criminal Code as a whole, having regard notably to alternatives no. 4 (imposition of measures which are intended to prevent births within the group) and no. 5 (forcible transfer of children of the group into another group) of that provision, which did not necessitate a physical destruction of living members of the group in question. The Court finds that the domestic courts' interpretation of “intent to destroy a group” as not necessitating a physical destruction of the group, which has also been adopted by a number of scholars (see paragraphs 36 and 47 above), IS therefore covered by the wording, read in its context, of the crime of genocide in the Criminal Code and does not appear unreasonable.


 * One can speak about the evolution of court judgments. One can speak about a particular defendant at a particular time and what was foreseeable at that time. One can speak about how the ECHR was very careful to talk about the timing of these various interpretations as they investigated the foreseeability of a conviction. However, nothing in the ECHR judgment claims the German court's interpretation of genocide was inconsistent with the 1948 Convention. Quite the contrary, the ECHR judgment affirms that, while not consistent with other court's interpretations, the German court's interpretation of genocide is consistent with the 1948 Convention.


 * The underlying issue here is whether an article titled Bosnian Genocide can legitimately be based upon a wider interpretation of genocide. The ECHR's answer is yes. The wider interpretation of genocide adopted by the German courts, the UN Assembly, the US Congress and a considerable number of legal scholars is consistent with the 1948 Convention even if it is not consistent with the interpretation chosen by the ICTY. Fairview360 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure the point you are making here. The article has sections on the various entities that have found a wider genocide took place. It also has sections on entities that have found not found a wider genocide took place. These are listed in chronological order. At the moment the article has a neutral point of view and does not try to prove that one set of view is the correct set of views. -- PBS (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On what basis has PBS objected to a description of the ethnic cleansing campaign being in this article? Fairview360 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That question is better asked in another section. Please keep this section focused on the issue of the edit that altered the wording from "in line with a minority of legal scholars" to "along with a considerable number of legal scholars," -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then PBS can answer this question: can PBS provide a source that uses the terminology "substantial minority"? Fairview360 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations on the two new paragraphs in the lead (2)

 * 1) See above

I am not sure that the wording given the citations are accurate. Starting with the first new paragraph:

Would it not be more accurate to say that "The mass murder of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys captured by Bosnian Serbs in and around Srebrenica was a genocide. The mass expulsion of 25,000–30,000 Bosnians Muslim women, children and elderly that accompanied the massacre was found to be evidence of the genocidal intent of members of the VRS Main Staff to destroy the Bosniak population of Srebrenica and confirmation that the massacre was a crime of genocide."

--PBS (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The introduction is written with the anticipation that the rest of the article will then describe the different interpretations of the facts presented in the introduction. The article itself can explain that the wider interpretation of genocide considers the expulsion to be an inherent part of destroying the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica as a social unit and therefore an inherent part of genocide whereas the narrower interpretation would consider it as evidence of genocidal intent but not an inherent part of genocide since the act lacked destroying Bosnian Muslims biologically. Complexities such as this need more than a sentence to explain. Several paragraphs in the article itself can address these different interpretations of what actually happened. Fairview360 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the wording I have suggested is a more accurate description of the source provided. Do you have a source that says that the expulsions were part of the genocide and not indicative of the mindset of the criminals who committed the genocide? -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would Fairview360 try to find a source that states the forced transfer was not evidence of genocidal intent? Fairview360 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording offered above by PBS is according to the ICTY's narrow interpretation of genocide. This article is not solely based upon nor limited to the ICTY's narrow interpretation. The introduction gives the facts of what happened. The article will describe what happened and then provide the interpretations of what happened ranging from the wider interpretation of genocide which considers the entire ethnic cleansing campaign to be genocide to the narrow interpretation which does not. Fairview360 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording offered above by PBS is a summary of the source that Fairview360 provided which is an ICTY source. Fairview360 if you want to keep the wording you wish to have, then I think you need to provide a source that says that the mass expulsion were part of the genocide, otherwise the wording is not a summary of the source. -- PBS (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To be going on with, here is the indictment of Dusko Jevic et al. by the B&H War Crimes Court (Court Ref. X-KRN-09/283) which basically works within the ICTY framework with a panel including international judges. The case has now been merged with the Nedjo Ikonic trial.  Unfortunately the B&H WCC website maintainsd that there are no case documents available but there's a copy of the Jevic indictment in what appears to be authentic format at Scribd.  Jevic et al were involved in the sweep at Budak, the White House Killings, the bus transfers, Konjevic Polje killings, etc.  BiH WCC indictments tend to be sourced from ICTY documents, so though this is only an indictment I'm pretty sure with a bit of looking I'll find the source there, but this will serve as a bookmark.


 * "They participated in the systemic joint criminal enterprise in order to forcibly transfer the Bosniak population of Srebrenica and to kill all Bosniak men from Srebrenica fit for military service;


 * Therefore,
 * As co-perpetrators, they inflicted serious bodily injuries and mental pain on a group of Bosniaks who, being Bosniaks of Eastern Bosnia, made up a significant part of the Bosniak ethnic group, murdered male members of the referenced Bosniak group and forcibly transferred women, children and elderly members of the Bosniak population, beyond the Republika Srpska borders, all with the aim to completely or partially exterminate the national, ethnic and religious group of Bosniaks,


 * whereby they committed the criminal offence of Genocide in violation of Article 171a) and b) of the BiH criminal Code, in conjunction with Article 29 and Article 180(1) of the same law."


 * (page 6 of the indictment, relevant further passages on p. 14 and p. 21) ::::Opbeith (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An charge is not proven to be correct, we should be relying on judgements, otherwise one could just as easily present the defences opening statement to prove a crime was not committed. -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can PBS provide a source or a wiki statute that states articles are limited to only that which has been proven in a court of law? Fairview360 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again - we're referring to the use of the term in relation to Bosnia 1992-1995, not to the convictions. The wording seems at least substantially sourced to the ICTY via the Marked-Up Karadzic indictment.  The official prosecution in a major court system ultimately accountable to the UN Security Council does not operate on an arbitrary basis.  It's not unreasonable to consider its output reliable except where shown otherwise. Opbeith (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And here is Lemkin's definition of genocide:

a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_12/section_1/5139.html

And here is a source describing "forced exile" as an inherent part of genocide:

http://books.google.ba/books?id=8QBp0AieNq8C&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=%22forced+transfer%22+genocide&source=bl&ots=bFJYn4qWm5&sig=P4KhzVXrPZkx51qaWytHueddAIU&hl=bs&ei=69qNTd7vBdC2hAfg0OG7Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22forced%20transfer%22%20genocide&f=false

Can PBS provide a source that states that the definition of genocide should be limited only to that which is covered by the 1948 Convention? Fairview360 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The second of those two sources,talks about the forced transfer of children in the context of cultural genocide, and both make the point that cultural genocide is not included in the legal definition of genocide. To answer you question see definitions of genocide and (Adam Jones. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Publishers, 2006. ISBN 0-415-35385-8. Chapter 1: The Origins of Genocide page 24):


 * Adam Jones is a vocal member of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) -- PBS (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS seems to be clinging to the idea that only the legal definition of genocide according to a narrow interpretation of the 1948 Convention belongs in this article. Editors are already aware of the narrow interpretation of the 1948 Convention. However, PBS has failed to provide any sources that state this article needs to be based solely on the legal definition of genocide based upon the 1948 Convention. Fairview360 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS, that's a very useful source but I'm afraid your reference is a distortion of the source. Jones sets out a whole selection of definitions of genocide - including Lemkin's wider vision - before stating his own individual preference.  His reference "There is something of a consensus" needs to be read in conjunction with the previous paragraph which begins "There is a consensus" - the consensus in this paragraph is by inference not as solid.  And in any case although emphasising that he supports the one definition enshrined in international law, that of the Genocide Convention, Jones observes that his analysis refers to the Convention instrumentally rather than as the sort of straitjacket that your perspective has it to be.  Jones also notes that because genocide as a crime is so difficult to prove, for legal purposes there appears to be a tendency for practical purposes to prosecute crimes against humanity instead, which carry a similar penalty.  This would nevertheless leave the notion of genocide as a valuable philosophical and analytical concept and a vehicle for advocacy and the prevention of genocide which was, after all, Lemkin's intention.  So in fact I think it's reasonable to see Jones not so much as insisting on the boundaries of the legal crime as emphasising the need to consider the reality behind it, as we are trying to do here. Opbeith (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lemkin coined the term genocide. That term is what lies at the heart of this article, not one formal interpretation of it. The article is about actions that took place in Bosnia 1992-1995 that are described as genocide. The article should give an account of the events that attract that description and the reasons why they are given that description. It should refer to different interpretations in an appropriately balanced manner without a disproportionate concentration on one particular perspective that unreasonably marginalises others in the way this article has done in recent years.Opbeith (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyhow, while this argument continues, there's still the gaping hole at the centre of the article, which is an account of the events that are the subject of the discussion. In that the Prosecution at The Hague are obviously using the narrower definition in order to do their best to secure a conviction, PBS should not object to a basic summary drawn from the Karadzic charges that can subsequently be refined as we go along. So I'll leave the matter open a bit longer for any latecomers to the discussion to comment but in one week's time I propose adding the summary of the Marked-Up Indictment as the starting point for an account of the events. Opbeith (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many legal and scholarly genocide definitions. It is not for Wikipedia editors to analyse a series of events and state that they are a genocide because they fit a definition. It is to do what this article does and state that these reliable notable institutions and people have examined the evidence and either declared them to be a genocide to not to be a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS, you seem to be suggesting that I am proposing we analyse the events ourselves. What I have said is that the article should do what you say it does but that it should do it in a less skewed way and it should also include an adequate account of the events themselves. Opbeith (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and there are many sources that have declared that the ethnic cleansing campaign carried out by ultra-nationalist Serbs throughout the territory of BiH was genocide. This article will therefore include a description of what the ultra-nationalist Serbs did throughout the territory they controlled including Srebrenica and then describe the interpretations of what they did in terms of the various concepts of genocide. And yes, it will all be based on sources. So, what exactly is PBS' complaint? Why has he resisted doing this? And why should Opbeith and Fairview360 continue to listen to his complaints? Bosnian genocide... hmmmm... what might that article be on? Let's see... something that happened in Bosnia that is considered to be genocide. So, shall the editors get to work on actual text or shall they all go round and round some more? Fairview360 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Most reliable sources follow the lead of the ICTY and other international courts, this article should reflect the usage of the reliable sources. Since the ICJ gave its judgement most sources state the massacres in Srebrenica in 1995 were a genocide and do not state that the broader ethnic cleansing campaign was a genocide. When judgement in the current ICTY court cases are in, it is possible that more incidents that occurred during the war will be found to be genocide. When/if that happens this article should report that fact and then if the majority of sources start to state that there was a wider genocide then this article should reflect that. To the best of my knowledge since the ICJ ruling, there have been no statements by any international body that has advance a resolution that the events usually termed ethnic cleansing were a genocide. If there has been such a statement then it should be included in this article. But a general description of ethnic cleansing in this article unless it is unequivocally linked to a reliable source describing it as genocide is a from of synthesis of published material that advances a position. PBS (talk)


 * All editors agree that the article should be based upon reliable sources. Reliable sources provide the facts of what actually happened. Reliable sources then provide an interpretation of what happened. All editors agree that a majority of legal scholars consider the overall ethnic cleansing campaign as not amounting to genocide according to the 1948 Convention and the article will reflect that. The overall ethnic cleansing campaign has already been linked to reliable sources that describe such as genocide. So what exactly is PBS arguing against? If all agree that the article will provide facts substantiated in a court of law and through reliable sources, if all agree that the interpretations of what happened will be based on reliable sources and the article will accurately reflect the preponderance of one interpretation or another according to reliable sources, what exactly is PBS disagreeing with??? Fairview360 (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The conversation in this section has rather wandered from the specific point that the current wording of the first new paragraph does not summarise the given source accurately. Is there another source which we can use that states that the expulsion of the survivors of the massacres was genocide and not an indicator of the genocidal intent of the perpetrators of the genocide? If not we should amend the wording of the first paragraph to accurately reflect the content of the cited source. -- PBS (talk)


 * Perhaps PBS is not reading the reliable sources that have already been provided to him that explicitly describe forced exile as a part of genocide. Fairview360 (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the two sources provided above and did not appreciate that you were suggesting that they should be used as a citation. Now that you have I have posted a comment on them. If you are suggesting other sources please list them here. For example how about paragraph 20 of ICTY Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic (the indictment) we are discussing below? -- PBS (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So is PBS acknowledging that there are reliable sources that assert forcible exile and forced transfer is an inherent part of genocide? Yes or no? Fairview360 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite the contrary. Usually forced transfer is an not an inherent part of genocide (unless there is biological destruction after the transfer -- as was the case in the transfer of the men and boys at Srebrenica). Transfers alone not considered to be sufficient for genocide, as was shown by the ICTY judgement currently being used as source for the paragraph, and the two sources you provided above. But in the specific case of the transfers from Srebrenica it appears that the wording in paragraph 20 of ICTY Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic can perhaps be used to support such a statement, but it is qualified by the sentence "This objective amounted to or included the commission of the crimes of genocide (under count 2), persecution, extermination, murder, deportation, and inhumane acts (forcible transfer) charged in this indictment." because of the word crimes not crime. So I am not sure that we can. I was rather hoping instead of your response Fairview360 we could have a discussion on whether it is possible to do so, or if you have another better source. -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

PBS himself raised the issue of reliable sources with the following entry, but when challenged to articulate what exactly he objects to, he changes the subject:


 * Most reliable sources follow the lead of the ICTY and other international courts, this article should reflect the usage of the reliable sources. Since the ICJ gave its judgement most sources state the massacres in Srebrenica in 1995 were a genocide and do not state that the broader ethnic cleansing campaign was a genocide. When judgement in the current ICTY court cases are in, it is possible that more incidents that occurred during the war will be found to be genocide. When/if that happens this article should report that fact and then if the majority of sources start to state that there was a wider genocide then this article should reflect that. To the best of my knowledge since the ICJ ruling, there have been no statements by any international body that has advance a resolution that the events usually termed ethnic cleansing were a genocide. If there has been such a statement then it should be included in this article. But a general description of ethnic cleansing in this article unless it is unequivocally linked to a reliable source describing it as genocide is a from of synthesis of published material that advances a position. PBS (talk)

Fairview360 (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fairview360 I am not changing the subject, I am trying to discuss in this section, on whether there are sources that can be found to support the recently introduced wording in what is currently the second paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph describes facts that are explicitly supported by the sources provided. As the facts presented in the second paragraph are commonly known events, PBS must be aware that there are probably a hundred supporting reliable sources: books, articles, judgments, indictments, scholars, public announcements, resolutions, declarations, etc., etc., etc. At this point, if PBS is going to persist in calling into question the facts presented in the second paragraph, perhaps it is time to go to arbitration or turn to a third party who can help PBS get settled with the fact that the facts presented in the second paragraph are in fact commonly accepted and fully sourced facts. The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000–30,000 Bosnians Muslims, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, committed by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić. That is a factually correct fully sourced statement. If PBS wants to keep scratching his head wondering if those are fully sourced facts, he is free to do so. But, at some point, other editors do not need to spend their time responding to his questioning fully established and sourced facts. Again, if he wants to offer this up for arbitration, he is free to do so. Fairview360 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fairview360, I have not suggested that the events did not happen. What I have suggested, (as I laid out at the start of this talk page section) is that the presentation of the facts is misleading and that we should present them by stating:

Rather than the way it is presented at the moment because this accurately reflects the source (and is close to the wording used in the lead of the main article Srebrenica massacre):


 * --PBS (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be ensconcing the facts within one interpretation, that of the ICTY. The purpose of the paragraph is to simply present the facts. The rest of the article can provide the various interpretations of those facts. It would be misleading to present only one interpretation as valid. The facts are what they are. There are plenty of sources to choose from. If PBS thinks he can find a better source than the finding of facts section of a trial judgment, he is welcome to choose a different one. Again, if PBS is going to continue to insist on only one interpretation of forced exile/transfer being presented in the introduction or insist that the given source is not an adequate source to substantiate the facts presented in the second paragraph, it may be time for him to seek third party assistance. Fairview360 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the ICTY Popovic et al Trial Chamber Judgement is adequate confirmation:


 * "860. The Trial Chamber finds that the evidence establishes that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim

males was not the result of panic upon the capture of thousands of men, nor was it a response to any military threat the men posed; indeed the men targeted were those who had already surrendered. It is clear that  the males were  targeted by virtue of  their membership  in the Bosnian Muslim group. Further, not even a cursory attempt was made to distinguish between civilian and soldier and the Trial Chamber notes that some children, elderly and infirm were also killed.3013 Searches were conducted in the days that followed the fall of Srebrenica to ensure that no Bosnian Muslim male escaped the grasp of the VRS Main Staff and Security Branch.3014


 * 861. The Trial Chamber finds that the murder operation – from the separations to detention to execution and burial – was a carefully orchestrated strategy to destroy aimed at the Muslim population of Eastern Bosnia. As found earlier, through this murderous enterprise, the underlying acts of killing and the infliction of serious bodily and mental harm were committed. The Trial Chamber is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that these acts were perpetrated with genocidal intent.


 * 862. The Trial Chamber draws further support for its conclusion from "the other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group"3015 in the same time period, notably the forcible Transfer operation and its accompanying circumstances aimed at the population in Potočari. The frenzied efforts to forcibly remove the remainder of the population, while the male members of the community were targeted for murder, provides further evidence that the intent was to destroy.


 * 863. Thus the Trial Chamber is satisfied that genocide was committed by members of the Bosnian Serb Forces, including members of the VRS Main Staff, the VRS Security Branch such as Popović and Beara, against the Muslims of Eastern Bosnia as part of the Bosnian Muslims. 3016"


 * I can't see how the sense of the word "Thus" could be interpreted in any other way than as confirming that the combination of acts proved that genocide was committed. The meaning of the word "confirm" is not the same as that of the word "prove".  The forcible transfer at Srebrenica was not said to prove genocide in itself but the forcible transfer provided further evidence of the intent to destroy.  The first element of the word "confirm" is "con", signifying "with".  The confirming element does not stand alone, its effect is achieved in combination.   In paragraph 863, using the word "Thus", the Trial Chamber declares that the murder operation in combination with the "other culpable acts ... notably the forcible transfer operation" were a crime of genocide.  What else should that be understood to mean than that the forcible transfer confirmed that what happened at Srebrenica - the "Srebrenica massacre" - was genocide? Opbeith (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)