Talk:Siege of Srebrenica

Orphaned references in Operations Krivaja '95 and Stupčanica '95
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Operations Krivaja '95 and Stupčanica '95's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ICTY": From Markale massacres: The Second Markale Massacre Myth . From Naser Orić: ICTY. "Prosecutor vs Naser Orić, Judgment". United Nations. 30 June 2006.  From Srebrenica massacre: ICTY, Prosecutor vs Krstic, Judgement. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Operations Krivaja '95 and Stupčanica '95
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Operations Krivaja '95 and Stupčanica '95's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "un.org": From Radislav Krstić: ICTY official site: "Trial of Radislav Krstić Transcript", October 25, 2000" From Čelebići prison camp: Judgement ICTY vs Delic et al., 16 November 1998  From Srebrenica massacre:  From Croat–Bosniak War: ICTY - Kordic and Cerkez judgment - II. PERSECUTION: THE HVO TAKE-OVERS B. Novi Travnik - </li> <li>From Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia: ICTY: Kordic and Cerkez Judgement - III. EVENTS LEADING TO THE CONFLICT - A. July – September 1992 - 1. The Role of Dario Kordic - </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Expansion
I have included more ICTY-referenced information clarifying the nature and scope of Krivaja '95. More information is needed about Stupčanica '95, preferably referenced to an authoritative source like ICTY> Opbeith (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Concern
This is very worrying. A user has deliberately reverted plenty of sourced content because: "Rv. to last neutral version. Classic Serb POV angling: "the Serbs retaliated", and the massacre was thus provoked by the Bosniaks. You fail to mention the early attempts by Serbs to cleanse Srebrenica already in 1992 including indiscriminate shelling." First of all, where on earth does it say the massacre (which one? the July 1995 one, I presume) was provoked by the Bosniaks? Where does it say this? If you look at my edit I did not touch upon the July 1995 massacre section at all. Second, I put an "under construction" template up and I was planning to touch upon the 1992 period (including the indiscriminate shelling) and the reason for the operation as documented by numerous sources (to free up VRS troops in eastern Bosnia so that they could be transferred to the west in face of Croatian-Bosniak offensives.) If the user in question noticed this "under construction" template, it says feel free to "assist in construction", it doesn't say "lazily revert another person's work because it presents too much information for my liking." Now, please respond here and tell me what your concerns are and we'll do what we can to fix them. Thank you, 23 editor (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say literally that Bosniaks provoked the July 1995 massacre, but the current material surely implies they did. It speaks of Bosniak war crimes and violations of the safe area status in frequent combination with the word "retaliation" on behalf of the Serbs, but makes no mention of early Serb attempts to ethnically seize the area (including proclaiming Srebrenica a "Serb municipality") despite its Bosniak majority population (75% in Srebrenica). These early attempts, as ruled by the ICTY and an overwhelming fraction of scholars, were part of an overall initiative to ethnically cleanse non-Serbs. In effect, the article space is basically employed as a POV fork on the events leading up to the Srebrenica massacre. I am not even certain to which extent events before 1995 should be given relevance; the article is supposed to be on a distinctive military operation. As such I would even remove the part detailing the Srebrenica massacre which ensued. The material from the book by Ingrao moreover appears to have been selectively cited: 1) source says killing perhaps a thousand Serb soldiers and civilians, however this decidedly became  killing 1,000 Serb soldiers and civilians. 2) Ingrao's sentence Hence Mladic's motivation may have included a mix of strategic and political considerations, together with a desire to retaliate for forays launched from within a safe area, became: seeking retalition, General Ratko Mladić of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) ordered the Bosnian Serb forces besieging the town to launch a counterattack in March 1993 once more playing on the implication that Muslims merely had provoked a retaliation. 3) What is more, to compound matters in the sentence before that should be understood as weasel phrasing. 4) While in addition conveniently leaving out the following vital information in the source used: Notwithstanding Mladic's earlier assurances to Lord Owen and others, there is evidence that Srebrenica's capture had always been part of his long-term strategy. In his ICTY-statement, VRS Intelligence Chief Momir recounted how VRS forces were instructed to make life in Srebenica unbearable in order to induce its civilian population to "leave en masse as soon as possible, realizing they cannot survive there". For this reason Nikolic conceded, that civilians were targeted and humanitarian aid blocked while fuel, food and other suplies for UN peacekeepers were halted so that "they could not be ready for combat". 5) Similarly you choose to ignore the following background provided on Mladic in the source: Having the destroyed the credibility of UN deterrence in Bihac and Sarajevo, Mladic now turned to the three Drina valley town of Gorazde, Srebrenica and Zepa, whose seizure would release considerable forces for re-deployment against the expetced HV-ARBiH offensive in the west, while strenghtening the Bosnian Serb claim to the entire Drina valley in a future peace settlement. At first, he attempted to capture Gorazde, which was the largest of the three enclaves and contained a key munitions factory. Yet here the UN stood firm as a handful of Royal Welsh fusiliers fought for several hours to hold onto the heights overlooking the town until they could be reinforced by ARBiH. By contrast, Srebrenica and Zepa were the most militarily vulnerable safe areas. Finally, considering Oric's named is mentioned a lot, you should also consider underscroing that: Nonetheless, the ICTY could not establish that Oric himself exercised sufficient control over the raiders to justify convicting him of command responsibility for the atrocities, except for the mistreatment of some VRS prisoners detained in Srebrenica. And all of this can be read in the pp. 217-218 selectively cited by you. Add these aspects, while also discussing pre-war demographics of the area and politic developments in the months prior to the war. Thank you. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 03:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should split this article into two: Siege of Srebrenica and Siege of Žepa where all of these concerns would be addressed. Operation Krivaja '95 would be included as a sub-article within "Siege of Srebrenica" and Operation Stupčanica would be a sub-article of the article titled "Siege of Žepa". This way the background section would be relevant for Siege of Srebrenica (as it doesn't address Žepa very much in this article as is, anyway) and the two new articles would have much more potential for being promoted to GA status. Thoughts? 23 editor (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say changing the article name is a sensible idea, but I wouldn't like to split Srebrenica and Zepa considering they were linked throughout the war and in the end suffered the same defeat. The genocide ruling also links these two. My suggestion is to rename the article content into Siege of Srebrenica and Žepa, and describe the military operations associated therewith in different subsections using separate infoboxes. The background description, which is currently the main concern, can consist of a general part relevant to both enclaves; i.e. the ethnic cleansing campaign by the VRS in 1992 which left surrounding regions (Bratunac, Rogatica, Visegrad. etc, basically Eastern Bosnia) purged of their previous Bosniak-majority populations essentially giving rise to the Srebrenica-Zepa enclave. At least up until March 1993, the town of Srebrenica and the villages in the area held by Bosnian Muslims were constantly subjected to Serb military assaults, including artillery attacks, sniper fire, as well as occasional bombing from aircraft. Each onslaught followed a similar pattern. Serb soldiers and paramilitaries surrounded a Bosnian Muslim village or hamlet, called upon the population to surrender their weapons, and then began with indiscriminate shelling and shooting. In most cases, they then entered the village or hamlet, expelled or killed the population, who offered no significant resistance, and destroyed their homes. During this period, Srebrenica was subjected to indiscriminate shelling from all directions on a daily basis. Potočari in particular was a daily target for Serb artillery and infantry because it was a sensitive point in the defence line around Srebrenica. Other Bosnian Muslim settlements were routinely attacked as well. All this resulted in a great number of refugees and casualties. Hence, atrocities related to the history of the siege do not begin with "On 7 January 1993, Orić's men attacked the Serb village of Kravica, which bordered the Srebrenica enclave.". In addition to this general background which puts the siege into its proper context, there can be subsections dealing with the two sieges in greater detail, such as the escapades of Mr. Oric and his men. However, I would prefer if we could already address these issues in the current article before making any moves. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 17:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The UN obviously considered Žepa and Srebrenica to be two different "safe areas". The two had different ARBiH and UNPROFOR commanders, and their situations were often different (i.e. Žepa was not subjected to the same amount of killing that Srebrenica was, and it fell about two weeks after Srebrenica did). Just my 2 cents. 23 editor (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's really a minor issue anyway, I'd probably be fine either way. More importantly, I intend on contributing with a number of sources in the course of the next few days.<font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 00:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm sure the article will be great. If you don't mind I'll change the article name to Siege of Srebrenica. I've already started a draft for Siege of Žepa. 23 editor (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Map
In absolutely worst case scenario we can have both. But the first one has a far more wide-reaching implication to explain the enclave's emergence and its strategic position in between Serb territories. In addition, it maps Sarajevo, Gorazde and Bihac also mentioned in the text and which I intend to expand upon, together with a more elaborate background on central Podrinje. Moreover, the map inserted by you lacks any discernible source. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 22:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the map's content. In all honesty, though, it looks rather repulsive and complicated; not to mention that the caption is a bit much. We should consider using less words to describe what the map intends to depict. If you can make the description more consise and find a map that focuses only on the region of eastern Bosnia instead of being a map of the whole country that would be great, otherwise we might have a problem later at GAN when a reviewer brings up the map's relevance. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, however, I'm afraid that by confining the map to eastern Bosnia the depiction of the region's strategic position in between predominantly Serb-territories (i.e. eastern Herzegovina and northwestern Bosnia) is diminshed? The whole point of displaying the country in its entirety, along with the Dayton entity-borders, is to illustrate this "demographic" obstacle which the VRS faced at the outset of the war. On a related note, I'm quite impressed by the interactive map featured under the "Assessment of the battle" section within the Operation Storm article, though, frankly, such a graphic presentation surpasses my wiki-knowledge. It would be marvelous if we could arrange something similar. I appreciate much of the effort you've put forth lately to objectify the article; I have, unfortunately, been too preoccupied to participate but hope to do so soon. Cheers. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 20:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the text and expanded with additional sources I no longer see a pressing need for a map. It might still be a nice feature though, but not a primary objective as far as I am concerned. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul Mojzes
I'm really lost on what this man is trying to say with regard to the pre-war demographics of the Srebrenica municipality. According to him, Bosniaks comprised the majority in the towns of the Srebrenica municipality while Serbs mostly occupied the villages. How many settlements classified as proper towns are there in the municipality of Srebrenica apart from Srebrenica itself? If he somehow means to say that Bosniaks comprised the majority in the town of Srebrenica alone while Serbs predominated in the surrounding villages, one can only assume he must have erred. There were over 20,000 Bosniaks (out of about 27,000 in the municipality) living throughout the countryside making up the majority in at least as many hamlets and villages as a total of 8,000 Serbs did. Also the map which you inserted previously, and which I would not agree with necessarily considering it does not cite any sources, shows a roughly equal proportion of settlements outside the town of Srebrenica among Serbs and Bosniaks. Given the dubious, unclear, phrasing by Mojzes I suggest we omit the details dealing with the distribution across "towns" and "villages" or find a clearer, less senile, source. A third option, of course, is to accept that Srebrenica is not the only town in the municipality (which is undoubtedly what Mojzes indirectly claims). <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 06:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The plural (towns) must have been a mistake on his part or a typo while the book was being published. As for the ethnic makeup of the municipality, there were 25,000 Bosniaks and 8,500 Serbs before the war. The municipality's total population was 36,000. Indeed, Bosniaks made up three-quarters of the municipality's population, and after the war they made up one-third. (see Transitional Justice page 334.) As for the makeup of the countryside, can you please provide sources stating that it was inhabited mostly by Muslims/Bosniaks. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not claiming the countryside was mostly made-up out of Bosniaks; in fact, we have a source (Mojzes) claiming the contrary, albeit confusing. I have no sources describing the ethnic distribution across settlements in the municipality of Srebrenica in 1991, however the map introduced by you earlier (and which I'd perhaps better not cite considering I rejected it) clearly indicates a roughly equal majority distribution between Bosniaks and Serbs in settlements outside the town of Srebrenica. Furthermore, seeing that roughly only 4,000 of the Bosniaks in the municipality lived in the actual town of Srebrenica in 1991 (which had a population of, not 9,000, but 5,746 based on the 1991 census according to a CIA source), some 21,000 most have lived throughout the countryside and, whichever way you look at it, comprised the majority in a substantial number of settlements throughout the Srebrenica countryside. It then falls short of reason to suggest that a total of some 8,500 Serbs in the municipality (including the town of Srebrenica) would have constituted the overwhelming majority in the countryside. I'm very confused to be honest. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 18:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, lets just avoid mentioning the town and the countryside and simply mention that the municipality's entire population was 36,000 in 1991, of which 75% was Bosniak and about 25% Serb per Mojzes (because a few other sources say the exact same thing). This way it will be far less confusing for you, me and the reader. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Massacre
The section detailing the Srebrenica massacre is disproportionate when compared to the rest of the article and is over-detailed considering that the massacre occurred once the siege was over, while the article is explicitly about the April 1992-July 1995 siege itself. I do believe that the events of the massacre should be covered in the aftermath section; however, the coverage should avoid disproportionately focusing on one event over others (i.e. several paragraphs on the Dom Kulture and Kravica executions) and individual testimony from people like Erdemović. These things will definitely bog the entire article down when it comes to a GA review. It would be great for Srebrenica massacre, but seems a bit over-detailed and disproportionate for the scope of Siege of Srebrenica. Thoughts? 23 editor (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a tricky question. Where does one definitely put an end to the siege? One could just as easily argue the massacre events to be part of the final days of the siege. I really don't have a definite opinion. The details of Erdemović's testimony are surely disproportionate, if taken at face value, but less so if understood to describe the systematic nature of the killings in the wake of Operation Krivaja. I would suggest that you carry out the revisions you consider necessary. I will provide feedback accordingly. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 16:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Trahan
What seems to be the problem? <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 00:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What the source is saying makes no sense whatsoever. It says: "Without Srebrenica, the ethnically Serb state of Republika Srpska would remain divided into two disconnected parts, and its access to Serbia proper would be disconnected." Not true. Muslim territory would be disconnected, not Serb territory. On the other hand, if the Brcko corridor (unrelated to Srebrenica) was captured, then the RS would be disconnected; however, this makes absolutely no sense in Srebrenica's case, or east Bosnia's for that matter. For anyone who knows anything about the war and about Bosnia's geography, Srebrenica had no impact on the RS's access to Serbia-proper. A mistake or misquoting, perhaps? 23 editor (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're entirely correct 23, the contradiction did not occur to me before you mentioned it. I have removed the statement and source. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 00:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Radovan Karadzic ICTY.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Radovan Karadzic ICTY.jpg