Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 13

I just have to say...
...that I think this is a very informative and detailed page. I am not well-versed in the history of eastern Europe and following this link from the ITN page today I read the whole thing from top to bottom. I'd just like to give warm fuzzies to people by saying that, while a brief review of mine is not professional or academic nor any sort of prognosis, despite what edit warring may have gone on here (and I'm sure there was/is plenty of it) this article was useful for me to learn this snippet of history. I was only 5-6 at the time and can only remember 'Bosnia' being in the news a lot; learning finally of the events which transpired during this period in this country was a good half-hour spent. Thank you. Lady BlahDeBlah 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why it is still massacre? it is GENOCIDE...officially..

Bilal


 * Bilal, Srebrenica massacre has been ruled Genocide several times. First with Krstic judgment, then again for the second time when Krstic apealed, and then again for the third time with Blagojevic, and if I am correct, again for the fourth time when Blagojevic apealed, and again for the fifth time with ICJ ruling... So we had 5 judgments in favor of Srebrenica Genocide. Bosniak 01:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica Genocide
In the rulling of Internatinal court of justice, it is said that the Srebrenica massacre is regonized as a genocide. I think we should move the article to the Srebrenica Genocide.--Kahriman 15:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kahriman, Bilal, I suggest we don't complicate the situation. It was genocide, that's now legally established beyond the reach of the deniers. But it's known much more widely as the Srebrenica Massacre, a crime of genocide. What we need to concentrate on is filling in the details that are still missing, and in particular following all the lines of responsibility. --Opbeith 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Opbeith here, the "Srebrenica massacre" is by far the more well known of the two. Regards Osli73 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While not wanting to complicate things further, I agree with Kahriman and believe this should be moved to Srebrenica Genocide. There is Armenian Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, etc, and obviously this is Srebrenica Genocide, and not simply a massacre; it's a genocide. Let's not make a big fuss about this and let's just rename the article to Srebrenica Genocide and move on. Let's not waste time on endless discussions and disagreements. It's clearly a genocide. This is the fifth judgment confirming it (krstic + krstic appeak, blagojevic + blagojevic apeal, and Bosnia vs Serbia case)Bosniak 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that ICJ didn't actually ruled anything, but just restated ICTY's ruling. And ICTY's ruling suffers from known problems. Nikola 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, the reason the article is called "Srebrenica massacre" and not "Srebrenica genocide" is because the former is by far the most commonly used term. Googling the former return 203,000 hits while the latter returns 53,000 hits excluding your own blog and 55,000 including your blog. I'm sorry, you may want it to be known as the Srebrenica genocide, but, despite the ICTY ruling, it is most commonly referred to as the Srebrenica massacre. Cheers Osli73 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"" Osli73, you said that Srebrenica Genocide term returns 53,000 hits excluding my blog, a nd 55,000 including my blog. That is inaccurate and easily verifiable. The term Srebrenica Genocide returns 297 results with my blog click to verify. Otherwise, the term Srebrenica Genocide returns around 56,000 results click to ve3rify. '''Since when is Google indicative of anything? One can search for the term Bosniakophobia and that term will yield 330 results click to verify, the term Servophobia returns around 600 results click to verify. Of course, you all voted against the article Bosniakophobia on wikipedia. You need to understand that Srebrenica massacre is Srebrenica Genocide due to international rullings. Google is not indicative of anything and it is not the one to shape judicial rullings...''' Your arguments are weak Osli73, but at least you acknowledge Srebrenica Genocide, so I am not going to jump on you too much. Bosniak 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you using Google or International court of justice as source? If you'd use Google than article would be a nonsense. --Emx 09:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, I am mostly known as Kahriman, but I will use my real name when I am signing some papers or describing myself on some official place. --Kahriman 13:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Osli73, when you tell us your name, we will tell you ours - providing that you don't lie (heheheh) Bosniak 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear friends, the importing thing is the "legal situation" of event. not what is common in public.Because genocide is an very important act and should be consired alot while writing. And now there are alot of court resolution that it is a "Genocide". This is reality that is why we have to change it. the information will be more accurate for future searches in internet if the reference point is googling. i insist on changing the topic into Srebrenica Genocide.

Bilal


 * I agree with you Bilal. So, are we going to move it? --Kahriman 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Srebrenice genocide" just sounds awkward. "Bosnian genocide" would be better, but seriously, come on. --HanzoHattori 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Srebrenica genocide" sounds just fine to me. --Kahriman 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am moving an article. Nobody didn't give a good reason for not doing it. --Kahriman 19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't (in the interests of avoiding move wars), a good reason has been given - Naming conventions (common names). If you badly want to change the title and make it stick, you should follow the guidelines at WP:RM.--Domitius 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Who determes witch of these two names is more in use and how can we be sure witch one, of these two names is more common? Can we know this by googling? Of course not. Many websites are taking wikipedia content and putting it on their webpages. So, I think we should choose the official name. --Kahriman 20:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who decides? Wikipedians decide, there has to be a vote. The section you created below should look like what is prescribed here. To be honest, I'm not really bothered either way what the title is, but you need at least 60% to succeed. Somehow though I don't see that happening.--Domitius 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Looking through the ICJ document, I see many references describing the massacre as an act of genocide; that is not in question. However, as to the proposed move, I don't see any indication that the court officially refers to the event as the "Srebrenica Genocide". In fact, the words "Srebrenica" and "Genocide" are not paired anywhere in the document in that fashion, either as "Srebrenica Genocide" or as "Srebrenica genocide". There are three occurences of the term "Srebrenica massacres", and numerous uses of the phrase "genocide at Srebrenica" (small-g "genocide"). It is accurate to say the the ICJ declared the events at Srebrenica to be acts of genocide. Hoever, I think it is inaccurate to claim that "this case is officially called Srebrenica Genocide", contrary to what is stated in the move request. --Ckatz chat spy  20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarajevo/Tuzla's "insane tactic"
An interesting accoun is given in a book published by in association with The Bosnian Institute in London last year. In “How Bosnia Armed”, Marko Attila Hoare writes as follows:

“The counterpart to the Sarajevo offensive was the abandonment of the besieged enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa in East Bosnia to Serb forces in July. Izetbegovic, Ganic and other SDA leaders had discussed handing over Srebrenica and Zepa to the VRS on several occasions, in exchange for Serb abandonment of the occupied Sarajevo suburbs of Vogosca and Ilijas that separated the capital from the rest of government-held territory. In March 1995 Naser Oric, commander of the 28th Division in Srebrenica, and fifteen of his officers were withdrawn from the enclave for ‘retraining’ and never returned; yet in June the defenders of Srebrenica were required to launch diversionary attacks on the VRS in support of the offensive around Sarajevo, a tactic General Divjak condemned as ‘insane’ since it provided justification for the Serb counter-offensive and occupation of the ‘safe area’. The order to launch diversionary attacks was for this reason resisted by the commander of the ARBiH’s 28th Division in the enclave. While insisting on diversionary attacks from Srebrenica, the Staff of the 2nd Corps moved its elite units away from Srebrenica and towards Sarajevo, a mere four days before the enclave fell. 2nd Corps commander Sead Delic resisted all calls from his officers for a military push to link up with soldiers and civilians fleeing from Srebrenica. On 11 July, the day VRS occupied the town, Rasim Delic devoted only five minutes of his twenty-five minute military report to this imminent military catastrophe. The SDA leadership also ignored the latter, preoccupied as it was with finding a replacement for ‘Vice-President’ Ganic who had been injured in a road accident. This was despite the fact that the VRS’s conquest of Srebrenica was followed by the cold-blooded massacre of at least 7 000 Muslim men and boys. The ARBiH General Staff made no military effort whatsoever to assist Srebrenica, for whose survival the regime chose to rely solely on the international community. Delic subsequently blamed Srebrenica’s fall on the incompetence of its defenders. Izetbegovic admitted that the town could have been held out for a further month had it received the support of the Army. Naser Oric accuses the Bosnian regime of having deliberately sacrificed the enclave; his own prior power struggle with the SDA for control of the town might help to explain the failure of coordination between him and the commanders of the General Staff and the 2nd Corps. The fall of Srebrenica was followed by the VRS’s conquest of Zepa on July 25, an event that received even less attention from the Bosnian leadership and from Western powers.”

I'd like to recall the article mentions the angry soldiers of the 28th were even trying to kill the 2nd Corps leadership later. --HanzoHattori 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


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

no consensus to move. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica Genocide – I have requested for moving this article to the Srebrenica Genocide on the WP:RM. We had desscusion about this on. --Kahriman 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey
Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Notice
Please also note that this discussion is only about whether or not to rename the article. It is not a debate about whether or not the events at Srbrenica are acts of genocide. Voting in support of the move is not equivalent to saying "Srbrenica was genocide". Voting to oppose the page move is not equivalent to saying "Srbrenica was not genocide".

Also, please note that this is not a vote. The issue will be decided not strictly on the number of people choosing one side or another, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Participants should therefore explain the reasons for their opinion, and should view and consider the explanations offered by others.

Survey - in support of the move
— Lanchez (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — The Dragon of Bosnia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Zumbulka (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 1) Support According to the decision of International court of justice this event is proclaimed as Srebrenica Genocide. I think that the decision of the International court of justice is more relevent than googling. The only reason for this amount for "Srebrenica massacre" is the name of the article on the wikipedia. Many websites are taking wikipedia's contant and putting it on their webpages. --Kahriman 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I agree --BiH 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Maybe this survey is pointless. Court decided that was genocide. End of story. We can't write articles and name it because someone's opinion about some topic. That is making mockery of Wikipedia. International court is international court. Rename to what it is. Genocide. End of story. --HarisM 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rename it!--Elvir.doc 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC) — Elvir.doc (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 5) Support It's clear that it was a genocide. --Emx 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support That it was a genocide.Lana Zeherović
 * 1) Support According to the decision of International court of justice AdnanSa 09:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support ICJ Lysandros 11:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support accorting to ICJ --Sirmelle 13:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. ICJ verdict uses Srebrenica Genocide name many times. For instance (Page 138: (3) The question of attribution of the Srebrenica genocide to the Respondent on the basis of the conduct of its organs, Page 158: In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Respondent violated its obligation to prevent the Srebrenica genocide in such a manner as to engage its international responsibility., also article 442, page 158; Page 160: For the purposes of the present case, the Court only has to determine whether the FRY was under an obligation to co-operate with the ICTY, and if so, on what basis, from when the Srebrenica genocide was committed in July 1995. etc. PDF - ICJ Verdict in English and French). The Dragon of Bosnia 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The same verdict uses "Srebrenica massacre", "Srebrenica massacres" or even "massacres at Srebrenica" many times, actually more times than it uses "Srebrenica genocide". This also invalidates vote of Fairview 360. Nikola 11:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Suport According to ICJ - Zumbulka 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Suport - Live Forever 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Suport, It is clear now. Emir Arven 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --demicx 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - This title is equally descriptive and far more accurate. Asim Led 22:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - this move was my original suggestion. --PaxEquilibrium 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - given that the ICJ uses the term "Srebrenica Genocide" (see voter #10 above), given that the word "massacre" can be in reference to a group of victims as few as five http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre, given that "Srebrenica Genocide" most accurately describes what actually happened, given that the term "Srebenica Massacre" started before the court cases that have clearly established that genocide occured at Srebrenica, even though "Srebrenica Massacre" is at this time more common, I support "Srebrenica Genocide" as the title of this article. Fairview360 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - I think that since it has been legally accepted as genocide in judgements of ICTY, ICJ and in declarations of USA Congress etc., it should be moved to Srebrenica genocide. Calling it Srebrenica massacre would be denying the genocide (in Krstić case it is wisely said that this crime should be called by its proper name - genocide) --Harac 23:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I support the notion to rename Srebrenica Massacre into Srebrenica Genocide. Bosniak 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Definition on Oxford Dictionary is telling us that Massacre is kiling large number of people, and for Genocide it is also deliberate and particular ethnic group (also a nation). If you think that common word is enough reason, not to rename it, than you have to draw the line between M(m)-word and G(g)-word . ICJ did. There is a huge difference. - Elvir.doc 13:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide.-- Hús  ö  nd  15:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with this argument, based on a straight reading of the Wikipedia naming policies ("use the most common name"). Just taking New York Times references as representative (all other reliable sources show a similar pattern), I found 50 hits for "srebrenica massacre" and 1 hit for "srebrenica genocide" -- and that one was in a letter to the editor, not written by a New York Times reporter.  And 22 of those hits for Srebrenica massacre were published in the New York Times after the ICTY genocide ruling of 23 June 2004.  We can speculate that the most common name in English might one day be Srebrenica Genocide, or the Srebrenica Holocaust, or something else altogether.  But as of today, the name used overwhelmingly by reliable sources is Srebrenica massacre -- and that's the name that readers are most likely to look for on Wikipedia.  Most of these "Support" comments appear to be based on the argument that "Srebrenica was a genocide" -- a point that's irrelevant to the article naming discussion.  Based on that argument, it would be equally valid to rename Holocaust to Jewish Genocide. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem is that Serb nationalistic party called Serb Radical Party, which is the strongest party in Serbia with the tradition of fascism ("chetnics" during WWII), use this name, as an argument that Srebrenica was not a genocide despite the ICJ and ICTY judgements. The second problem is that there were so many massacres commited by Serbs which will be written here some day (many of them are proven in ICTY), that were not genocide, but crimes against humanity, so this name should be different to distinguish those terms. Emir Arven 17:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: Refer to the detailed discussions below, Emir. We can only consider objective facts: most notably, that the overwhelming number of references to this event in reliable sources, almost three years after the initial ICTY genocide ruling, continues to be Srebrenica massacre.  A Wikipedia editor's belief that a particular name is the morally correct one doesn't factor into our decision about how the article should be named. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) Oppose We should use the common name, which is currently "Srebrenica massacre". That the incident was a genocide is irrelevant.  Not even the ICJ, whose decision many people are appealing to here, refers to the incident as the "Srebrenica genocide". —Psychonaut 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The move proposal misrepresents the ICJ judgement, which does not use the term "Srebrenica Genocide" as an official title. The ICJ uses the terms "Srebrenica massacres" and "Srebrenica genocide" almost equally (7 uses vs. 8). Their press release regarding the judgement does not use the term "Srebrenica genocide" at all. Finally, as stated elsewhere, this proposal does not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions, even going so far as to capitalize "genocide". --Ckatz chat spy  17:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My initial response, based on the ICJ press release used as the basis for the move request, is below. I have stricken this text and rewritten my response above based on the updated information presented. The original (and subsequent replies) are retained for the purposes of the discussion. If others feel it is more appropriate to move this text to the "Discussion" area, please feel free to do so. Ckatz
 * XOppose The move proposal misrepresents the ICJ document, which does not use the term "Srbrenica Genocide" or "Srbrenica genocide" at all. The ICJ uses the terms "Srbrenica massacres" and "genocide at Srbrenica". This proposal does not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions, even going so far as to capitalize "genocide". --Ckatz chat spy  22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. It uses the term Srebrenica Genocide. I gave examples of that above. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, Ckatz referred to the press release and not the full judgement. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the press release which was initially used as the basis for the move request. That link has now been updated to point to the full judgement. However, it is important to note that the judgement only uses the term "Srebrenica genocide" (small-"g"), not the title "Srebrenica Genocide" as claimed in the request. Furthermore, use of the term is almost equally split (8 to 7) with the use of "Srebrenica massacre". --Ckatz chat spy  17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose WP:NAME. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Wikipedia articles are named based on the most common term used to identify the subject.  In this case, the recognized term is "Srebrenica massacre". -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Naming conventions the proposed move is not commonly used (see discussion below), and the ICJ does not use this specific name to describe it in link provided. // Laughing Man 00:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per WP:NC, which calls for reflecting common English usage. The examples presented below by Domitius, Jim Douglas and me show an overwhelming preference for "Srebrenica massacre" (see "Examples of usage"). As mentioned above, even the ICJ uses this form in the press release presented by the nominator, when finding that in legal terms the "Srebrenica massacre" constituted an act of genocide. It's the difference between actually naming something and merely mentioning an attribute of this subject. - Ev 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Addition: The ICJ Judgement (.pdf) mentions "Srebrenica massacre" seven times and "Srebrenica genocide" eight times. For the specific purposes of WP:NC, the document doesn't support a name change. - Ev 16:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose People are missing the point here. You don't negate the genocide if you refer to it as a massacre?! The simple fact is it is referred to as the Srebrenica massacre. Jamie 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Whatever we feel about how it should be called, we have to look at the arguments, and to be honest, I haven't seen a good reason for the move yet. Yes, the courts (ICTY and ICJ) decided it was genocide, but they also say it was a massacre and they also used the term "Srebrenica massacre". So, the argument being used in favour of the move can just as well be used against the move. Give me a good reason and I may switch. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain . After reading Kahriman's analysis below, I'm no longer sure. Yes, "massacre" is used more often, but not by an overwhelming margin (in my opinion) and "genocide" is more precise. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Switching back to "oppose". Looking at the serious press, "massacre" is used quite a lot more. See the analysis of User:Ev below. Just to check, I tried one more: Time magazine, 3 results for "Srebrenica genocide" and 16 results for "Srebrenica massacre". The Nanking Massacre shows that the word massacre is also used for the killing of many thousands of people. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The primary finding of the ICJ is that "Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law", although the full judgement does refer to both genocide and massacre. In customary English, Srebrenica could be regarded as "an act of genocide", but not really as "Srebrenica Genocide", since in English the term "genocide" is normally used to refer to killing on a much larger scale. In summary, it's not genocide, but it is an act of genocide. To rename the article "Srebrenica Genocide" would therefore be misleading. --NSH001 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We have to distinguish some terms that we use here. The court concluded that the other crimes commited by various Serb forces during the war, such as mass killing, mass rapes, siege of Sarajevo, ethnic cleansing, detention camps (especially in Prijedor, Banja Luka, Brčko and Foča death camps - Manjača, Omarska, Trnopolje, Keraterm), destruction or deportations, are "acts of genocide" according to the Convention, but could not be qualified as genocide. They are crimes against humanity. But the crimes commited in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia by Republika Srpska are in fact the genocide with the clear intent to destroy as much people as possible (males mostly, Serbs did't plan just to kill 8000, they decided to kill as much as possible), so the ethnic group (Bosniaks - Bosnian muslims) will never be able to regenerate, because they destroyed the male population, which is really devilish, horrific plan. Who commited crimes againsta humanity? They are commited by various Serb forces included those from Serbia. Who commited genocide? The courte concluded it was Republika Srpska, but could not find direct Serbian control of the Serb forces from Republika Srpska entity during that specific event. The problem is that Slobodan Milošević, the president of Serbia died during his own trial so he was not convicted, and the evidence that were used against him on his trail, could not be used in Bosnia v. Serbia case according to the law. This event, Srebrenica Genocide, is the most horrific crime commited in modern Europe at the end of the 20th century, so it should be called by its real name. Serbia is the only country in the history of the world found guilty of failure to prevent and punish genocide. So as the courte concluded Serbia violated the Genocide Convetion. You can read very detailed reports directly from ICJ for more information: Serbia found guilty of failure to prevent and punish genocide The missing link. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neil, you've fallen into the same misunderstanding that I see in many of the "Support" comments above. This discussion is not about whether the Srebrenica massacre was or was not a genocide.  This discussion is only about the title of the article.  The Holocaust was clearly a genocide, and yet the name doesn't contain that word.  The Darfur conflict is widely considered to be a genocide (although not by the United Nations), but the article title, again, reflects the common English name of the event.  On the other hand, the Rwandan Genocide and Armenian Genocide articles use the common names of those events in English, which do use the word "Genocide". -- Jim Douglas (talk)  <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - strange, that's exactly the point I thought I was making (in addition to other points)! --NSH001 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NHS001, Srebrenica was genocide, full stop. It's known as the Srebrenica Massacre, that doesn't stop it being genocide.  Whatever point you were trying to make you need to go back to the Genocide Convention and remind yourself that the Convention doesn't discriminate between smaller or larger genocides.  An act of genocide is part of a process and at the same time it is that process.  The title Srebrenica Genocide is perfectly legitimate, it's just not the most useful title to give the Article. --Opbeith 00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's even more than that. The 1988 genocide of the Iraqi Kurds is known as the al-Anfal Campaign, and the extermination of the Jews as the Final Solution (including Operation Reinhard, that is the death camps) - sanitarized names given by the perpetuators themselves. --HanzoHattori 00:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Srebrenica massacre is the most commonly used term. Nikola 11:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. As long as Katyn massacre is under that name, Srebrenica massacre must be under `massacre` as well! (Katyn massacre took about 3 times more victims than Srebrenica massacre.) -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Common term for that event is Srebrenica massacre and its known as Srebrenica massacre, not negating that there was genocide acts like in many other massacres, conflicts or "operations".  --JustUser 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. --Kaster 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kaster, note that this is not a vote. It is not sufficient to simply state your support or opposition; you should provide a rationale as well. —Psychonaut 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) -- Sasa  Stefa novic  &bull; 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Opose. That was massacre. --Djordjes (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Opose --Jovanvb 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Opose. One should first read the text of UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide before deciding if this crime should be named Genocide. The definition of Genocide is so broad that every crime committed against a national, ethnical, racial or religious group during Civil war in former Yugoslavia could be considered as Genocide. --Marko M 22:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Opose --Djus 09:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Allowing this to go through will open the floodgates for others to demand that their massacres be retitled genocides. -- Groggy Dice T | C 03:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose We follow common usage precisely to avoid giving our own yes/no answers to such questions. Put "this was genocide" in the article, and source it; include the qualifications and arguments. In the long run, convince the world to speak of the Srebrenica Genocide. But until then, do what English does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Do I detect signs of a mass mobilisation above? There seem to be rather a lot of visitors who've never seen fit to comment before. Including someone who doesn't even seem to have noticed that genocide has been found proven under the terms of the Convention by the ICJ. --Opbeith 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First examples of usage
Google tests: --Domitius 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 193,000 hits for "Srebrenica Massacre" (excluding Wikipedia and forks, and User:Bosniak's blog)
 * 73,400 hits for "Srebrenica Genocide" (excluding Wikipedia and forks, and User:Bosniak's blog)


 * According to the decision of International court of justice this event is proclaimed as Srebrenica Genocide. I think that the decision of the International court of justice is more relevent than googling. The only reason for this amount for "Srebrenica massacre" is the name of the article on the wikipedia. Many websites are taking wikipedia's contant and putting it on their webpages. --Kahriman 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The document you have linked to doesn't use the term "srebrenica genocide" anywhere; it uses "srebrenica massacres". Nikola 11:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times takes its terminology from Wikipedia, Kahriman? WP:NAME. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive; it simply reflects the most common name already in use for any given subject. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  21:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 50 hits for "srebrenica massacre"
 * 1 hit for "srebrenica genocide" (in a letter to the editor, not written by a NYTimes writer)

On basing the request on the ICJ judgment
As I stated in the "Srebrenica Genocide" section, the ICJ document has many references describing the massacre as an act of genocide; that is not in question. However, as to the proposed move, I don't see any indication that the court officially refers to the event as the "Srebrenica Genocide". In fact, the words "Srebrenica" and "Genocide" are not paired anywhere in the document in that fashion, either as "Srebrenica Genocide" or as "Srebrenica genocide". There are three occurrences of the term "Srebrenica massacres", and numerous uses of the phrase "genocide at Srebrenica" (small-g "genocide"). It is accurate to say the the ICJ declared the events at Srebrenica to be acts of genocide. However, I think it is inaccurate to claim that "this case is officially called Srebrenica Genocide", contrary to what is stated in the move request. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * '''That is making mockery of Wikipedia. International court is international court. Rename to what it is. Genocide. End of story. --HarisM 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

'''
 * Since when is accuracy construed as "making a mockery of Wikipedia"? --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is not possible to convince you that International Court explicitly said: Genocide happend in Srebrenica. You want keep it just as massacre, for me known reasons, which i will not discuss here. That's simple. Anyway, this is sad to watch, all this disscusion about bosnian war and genocides. What decision what international court must decide to convince you and others with "alternate views" (funny, ha) that genocide happend? If genocide happend - than article should be named in that way. End of story. --HarisM 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm... please read my posts. I've never once claimed that the IJC didn't call it a genocide. This discussion is (or should be) only about the correct title for this article. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, very funny... as I excepted. I can't convince you. What I can i do. Dragon of Bosnia above posted official IJC statment about Srebrenica... I can't discuss anymore, I have nothing to add... --HarisM 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to add only one thing - what, exactly, is your point? You said "funny, very funny" - but I wasn't making a joke. You claim you cannot convince me that acts of genocide happened. When have I ever (ever ever) claimed they did not? Furthermore, it is extremely unfair to casually toss out the term "alternate views" (which, in the context of this article, refers to groups and individuals questioning the actual events at Srebrenica) as a means of negatively labelling Wikipedia editors who are only discussing the title of the page. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ckatz, if I remember rightly you turned up here saying you knew nothing about the massacre before you chose to intervene. Surely you've had plenty of time since then to familiarise yourself with the issues, including the argument about "Alternative Views", which had to do with characterising all forms of revisionism, denial and minimisation, and in particular the denial of genocide.  All the arguments like MacKenzie's nonsense and the man in the street's do-it-yourself notion of genocide claiming that the Genoicide Convention and the ICTY judgments were irrelevant were part of that ragbag.  They weren't simply talking about "actual events", they were talking about the designation given to those events, and that's very relevant to the title.  I certainly feel uncomfortable finding myself in the company I'm in when I say that the title should stay Srebrenica Massacre, because a lot of them are the self-same proponents of that deliberately misleading title of "Alternative Views".  All the same I still think keeping the title as it stands is the most effective way of ensuring that the reality of the genocide at Srebrenica is brought to the notice of as many people as possible (and I don't care two figs if I'm called a genocide denier by someone who I didn't notice here arguing for the reality of genocide and against the untruth of "Alternative Views" before we had the weight of the ICJ's ruling to reinforce the ICTY's finding).  --Opbeith 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And they really said "Srebrenica genocide"? It sounds really awkard. Maybe "Genocide in Srebrenica". "Bosnian genocide". Whatever. --HanzoHattori 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your question is a good one, given the way the RfM is formed. However, the ICJ's document did not say "Srebrenica genocide" - it said "Srebrenica massacres" and "genocide at Srbrenica". --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples of usage
A few more examples of usage:


 * Google Print test: "Srebrenica massacre" 127 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 5 books.
 * Google Scholar test: "Srebrenica massacre" 248 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 23 results.
 * Amazon.com test: "Srebrenica massacre" 211 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 6 books.

The ratios are: Google Print test 25:1 — Google Scholar test 10.7:1 — Amazon.com test 35:1

Regards, Evv 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Press:
 * The New York Times: "Srebrenica massacre" 51 ; "Srebrenica genocide" 2 results (1 letter, 1 editorial piece that mentions "Srebrenica massacre" once & "Srebrenica genocide" once).
 * The Times: Srebrenica+massacre 74 ; Srebrenica+genocide 1 result (using "Srebrenica genocide" in the title but "Srebrenica massacre" in the body).
 * International Herald Tribune: "Srebrenica massacre" 49 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 1 result (an editorial piece).
 * The Guardian: "Srebrenica massacre" 129 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 4 results (1 using "Srebrenica genocide" in the title but "Srebrenica massacre" in the body, 1 only in a link to the name of another article, 1 possible error ).
 * The Southeast European Times: "Srebrenica massacre" 101 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 2 results (1 quote).
 * The Economist: "Srebrenica massacre" 20 ; "Srebrenica genocide" 1 result (with the brief description: "A definitive ruling that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide").
 * BBC: "Srebrenica massacre" ca. 243 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 6 results (1 letter, 1 denial, 2 quotes & 2 possible errors ( &  ).
 * CNN: "Srebrenica massacre" 70 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 0 results.

Up to this point the press uses "Srebrenica massacre" almost always.

Regards, Ev 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Press usage from 26 February 2007 to 5 March 2007 - That is, since the ICJ Judgement (.pdf) :
 * The New York Times: "Srebrenica massacre" 3 ; "Srebrenica genocide" 1 result (an editorial piece, included in both counts, since it mentions "Srebrenica massacre" once & "Srebrenica genocide" once).
 * The Times: Srebrenica+massacre 4 ; Srebrenica+genocide 1 result (included in both counts, since it uses "Srebrenica genocide" in the title but "Srebrenica massacre" in the body).
 * International Herald Tribune: "Srebrenica massacre" ca. 10 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 0 results.
 * The Guardian: "Srebrenica massacre" 3 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 0 results.
 * The Southeast European Times: "Srebrenica massacre" 1 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 1 result.
 * The Economist: "Srebrenica massacre" 1 ; "Srebrenica genocide" 0 result.
 * BBC: "Srebrenica massacre" 2 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 1 possible mistake, for it uses "Srebrenica massacre" only.
 * CNN: "Srebrenica massacre" 2 ; "Srebrenica Genocide" 0 results.

Regards, Ev 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Massacre & Genocide
Massacre : The savage and excessive killing of many people indiscriminately. E.g. "The Hutus massacred the Tutsis in Rwanda"

Yes genocide happen in Srebrenica but by referring to it as a massacre you do not lose sense of crime? Indiscriminately killing thousands of people regardless of ethic origin, race or religion is awful. In my opinion adding genocide does not add weight to the subject matter it just furthur defines the subject matter, which can be done within the article and does not need doing in the title. Jamie 09:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is kind of lost, because genocide is worse then massacre. And, about the common naming, Srebrenica genocide was called Srebrenica massacre in press, before the verdict of ICJ. Now, after the verdict, I am pritty much sure that they will start calling it Srebrenica Genocide, by the name witch is used in the verdict. And Ckatz, you were saying that "Srebrenica Genocide" isn't mentioned in the verdict? How about this ?--Kahriman 15:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First, you may be right, and after the ruling "Srebrenica genocide" may become common English usage. But only if/when that happens should the article be moved, not before: Wikipedia should passively reflect usage changes instead of actively spearheading them.


 * Furthermore, renaming the article before we can prove a corresponding change in common English usage, and doing so based solely on our personal perception that the usage change will certainly happen (no matter how sure we feel of it), would certainly infringe WP:NOT.


 * Second, as Jitse Niesen mentioned above, Ckatz referred to the ICJ press release that you presented, and not to the full ICJ Judgement (.pdf). - Best regards, Evv 16:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Announcement on bs:wiki
Comment. Apart from WP:RM, this debate was announced at bs:Wikipedia:Čaršija by User:Kahriman. Translation: "I would only like to ask you to vote for moving of Srebrenica massacre article to Srebrenica Genocide on English Wikipedia. You can vote here. Thanks in advance." Duja ► 11:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have explainded that on my user talk page. --Kahriman 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Taking arbitrary action without respect for other contributors is just as bad whichever side of the argument it comes from. We've had enough of that sort of aggression from other people, but I don't remember even the worst of the revisionists and genocide deniers simply taking the whole article off somewhere else. Genocide is now an undisputable fact, but that doesn't mean to say that specific instances will necessarily be referred to generally by the word itself. After all we don't call the Holocaust "The Genocide of the Jews of Europe". We ought to see what actually happens in the aftermath of the ICJ decision. --Opbeith 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I perfectly agree with Opbeith. We don't call Holocaust of Jews "Massacre of Jews", we call it Holocaust. Srebrenica was not simply a "massacre", it was genocide - confirmed at least 4 times (Krstic, Krstic apeal, Blagojevic, ICJ). Srebrenica Genocide is undisputable fact. It's been legally established, just like Holocaust and Rwandan Genocide. Allegations of 'Armenian Genocide' have not been legally established, and as such they are perfectly open to be disputed until and "if" Armenians prove that Turkey in fact committed genocide against them (which will simply not happen, as it is extremely hard - if not impossible - to prove that a state committed genocide). The point is --- you can dispute other allegations of genocides as much as you want, but you cannot dispute judicially established/proven FACTS such as Srebrenica Genocide, Rwanda Genocide, and Holocaust. They were legally established.... period. Bosniak 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, you don't agree with me, you've simply not bothered to read what I said. You're not related to Osli73 by any chance?  We're not talking about fact itself, we're talking about communicating facts and making factual reality as accessible as possible to the world that doesn't always know things by the name that you think it ought to.  --Opbeith 23:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's response to my friends: Kahriman, Haris, Opbeith and other friends - there are more important things to work on. I don't quite understand what the issue here is? Let's keep the article titled Srebrenica Massacre for now. Of course it was Genocide, as Opbeith pointed out, the fact that Srebrenica massacre was a genocide is undisputable. When it comes to Google: the reason term Srebrenica Massacre returns more results on Google is because it took 6 years after the massacre to be established as genocide. I agree with all of you that Srebrenica Massacre was a Genocide. Osli73 has been blocked for 2 weeks if I am not mistaken, so there should be less interruptions. I disagree that those who prefer to call it Srebrenica Massacre are genocide deniers; that's simply not true. The best way to solve this issue is by voting (I will cast my vote last), as I am still not sure what the real issue here is. Bosniak 21:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To the Bosnian people
Okay, please try to calm down. It's (an act of) genocide, okay? But the even is known internationally as "Srebrenica massacre". You react almost as the issue was a name like "Srebrenica hoax" or whatever.

The other day I was watching a movie about the war in Sarajevo. There was a sniper who was shooting children, and when when he was found and killed, he was shot again and again, even if already dead. I see something similiar here - look, how enormous this talk page is just in one month or something. Seriously guys, you may stop now. --HanzoHattori 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Brother, you seem to be Bosnian too. The article should be renamed to Srebrenica Genocide. It's simple as that. We don't have to waste time arguing about this. All the best. Your brother Bosniak 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary
This section is not a summary of the arguments above, but a discussion on the WP:NCON table. - Ev 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found this table on the WP:NCON, and this table can help us to get consensus.


 * First, about first criterion, we saw that google is showing 75,600 results for Srebrenica genocide and 195,000 results for Srebrenica massacre. Although, as we can see, both versions are common and widly accepted (we cannot say that 75,600 results is negligible), but "Srebrenica massacre" is more common then "Srebrenica genocide", so 1 point goes for Srebrenica massacre. About the press witch is mentioned above, of course they used term "Srebrenica massacre" because using "Srebrenica genocide" in 2002 would be point of view, and they would loose neutrality and professional reporting. But now, after ICJ's verdict it is certain that this case is genocide, they can use it whenever they want, because in 2002, massacre was fact and genocide was POV, but now genocide is also a fact.


 * Second, we agreed that official name is "Srebrenica genocide" (right?). We know that this case was genocide and we should call it by it's name. When some psychopath shoot 10 person on some marketplace - that is massacre. When thiefs enter the bank and kill 5 bankers - that is also massacre. These cases are not genocide, because in first, purpose of massacre was mental condition of attacker and in second, it was money. But, purpose of Srebrenica massacre was extermination of one nation or ethnic group. By definition, that is genocide, and that is proven in ICJ. We need to make a difference between first two cases and third. If we don't, that is great insult for the victims, their families, Bosniaks and every Bosnian who feels that his/her homeland is BiH. Massacre doesn't imply genocide, but genocide implies massacre. Calling it just a massacre, we are denying genocide. And denying genocide is as bad as antisemitism.

--Kahriman 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And third, self-identifying implies to the taking point of view of the person(s) who is/are the most related to the case. Who are those person? Relatives of the victims (we cannot know victims' opinion because they are brutaly murdered)? Mothers who lost their underage sons? Bosniaks? Bosnians (those who feels like that)? All of them think that was genocide and they are calling it "Srebrenica genocide".
 * I dispute your claims that "Srebrenica genocide" is the "current undisputed official name of entity" and the "current self-identifying name of entity". For one thing, there are numerous "official" sources involved.  If the massacre was planned and executed by the Army of Republika Srpska, as the article states, then surely this entity has some claim to officialdom over its name.  Certainly the ICJ's official name should also be considered.  However, you have not given any evidence that "Srebrenica genocide" is the ICJ's official name for the event.  In fact, editors here indicate that the ICJ variously uses "Srebrenica genocide", "Srebrenica massacre", "genocide in Srebrenica", and possibly other terms.  With respect to the "current self-identifying name of entity", this criterion simply doesn't apply because the "entity" in question is an event, not a person or an organization, and thus cannot name itself.  Even if you want to get around this fact by claiming we should consider the name used by those individuals most involved in the event, consider that most of them do not speak English, and therefore would not have a preference for either "Srebrenica genocide" or "Srebrenica massacre".  If they do have such a preference, you have not provided any evidence for it. —Psychonaut 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As Psychonaut mentions, points 2 & 3 ("current undisputed official name of entity" & "current self-identifying name of entity") do not apply to this event. This is simple common sense.


 * Regarding point 1, the "most commonly used name in English" is overwhelmingly "Srebrenica massacre", as proven by the examples of usage given in this discussion.


 * It is quite possible that this usage may change as a result of the ICJ ruling, but the change has to be proven. Let's wait a few months for new sources to appear, and only then, if "Srebrenica genocide" becomes common, request a move. In any case, the current request is premature. - Regards, Evv 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * About "current self-identifying name of entity", if we accept that survivors of the Srebrenica genecide have right to give the name to the event (because event cannot give the name to itself), then we are sure that they would prefer "Srebrenica Genocide". Here are some statments: . There are thousands of other examples on the internet. And about "current undisputed official name of entity", it is simple,  "genocide" is "massacre in purpose of extermination of one nation or ethnic group" and "massacre" is  "mass killing". So saying genocide is purporting massacre. Genocide includesnationalism and it is worse crime than massacre. We need to make a diffrence between massacre and genocide. This case is massacre, but it is also a genocide.  --Kahriman 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On point 3: Kahriman, that's a huge "if" :-) and the answer is no, at least I don't accept it. The survivors of Srebrenica have every right to give a name to the event, just as every single individual of this planet has (including the perpetrators themselves). However, the name used by those survivors can't be considered "current self-identifying name of entity". First for the simple reason that the Srebrenica massacre is not an entity, but an event, unable to "give itself a name". Second, because even if we were to accept that the criterion includes events and persons involved in them, then all individuals who took part in it would have equal rights to name it, including the perpetrators.


 * On point 2: the notion of "current undisputed official name of entity" could apply to events too, if certain requisits are met. First, we would require an institution with the attribution to give official status to the name of this kind of events. Second, the said institution should use that attribution in a clear manner (and not merely use a certain name sometimes, along with other equally valid designations). Third, we as editors would need to archieve consensus on that both previous requisits are met. It would probably mean another long page to add to the archives :-) Best regards, (the editor formerly known as Evv) Ev 16:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the table as I see it, based on the discussion presented to date: I'm willing to entertain the speculation that this event might one day be referred to as the "Srebrenica Genocide", or as something else altogether. But Wikipedia articles aren't named based on speculation, nor are they named according to an editor's belief that a particular name is the morally correct one. Articles are named according to the policy guidelines described in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCON. Based on those policy guidelines, it's clear that the article is already named correctly, as Srebrenica massacre. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Srebrenica massacre is clearly the common name in English, and remains so, well after the ICTY ruling.
 * 2) There is no "official name" for this event, nor is there any body with the authority to impose any particular name (as there is with a nation-state, for example, which has the clear authority to name itself).
 * 3) An event doesn't have a "self"; it cannot have a "self-identifying name".

Srebrenica Massacre, rename to Srebrenica Genocide (problem)
"The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." Bosniak 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to ask an administrator to move the page and he will do that only if he is satisfied that it is the right thing to do (I'm neutral on this which I why I didn't participate in the survey - don't kill the messenger).--Domitius 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, your attempted page move is premature, don't you agree? The overwhelming weight of policy-based arguments above make it clear that the article should not be moved. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that. - Ev 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak's Reply: Vast majority of users voted in favor to rename page to Srebrenica Genocide. However, I don't really see big problem with any of this. If we keep it titled Srebrenica Massacre - fine with me; if we change it to Srebrenica Genocide - fine with me. I also notice a big surge of Bosnians... my question is - where have you been all this time? Me and several other foreign contributors had a hard time dealing with vandalism associated with this article and perpetrated by genocide deniers, revisionists, and negationists in the past. Where have you been in the past? Please answer. Me and few other contributors felt like lonely donkeys on this page being outnumbered by revisionists and negationists. Thank you for coming, but why haven't you come here earlier? I am a little bit pissed, a little bit confused. Bosniak 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, I know a survey seems like a vote, but it isn't really a vote in the sense of "majority rules"; it's a discussion that should be focused on Wikipedia policies. You might want to take a look at this page: WP:!VOTE: "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to be an assistant to discussion, and should be used with care." -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  01:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and the classic "Wikipedia is not a democracy" :-) Ev 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim Douglas, the problem with these rules is that you guys used them only when it works for your conclusions. When I suggested Bosniakophobia article, it was decided by a popular vote (mostly ultra-nationalist Serbs who voted against the idea). Then, you guys voted whether to use "alternative view" or "genocide denier" terms, and it was voted by popular vote in favor of "alternative view". So, it seems that you guys use different rules for different conclusions. Bosniak 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, you've been warned below [at "Dr Mitov's response"] (yet again) to curtail the personal attacks, so I'll respond only to the substance of this comment. Articles for deletion/Bosniakophobia was not a popular vote; AfD is never simply a popular vote. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
According to the above poll I moved the page. Emir Arven 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Or this should do an administrator? If I did smth wrong, I am sorry, but this poll was long time here. Emir Arven 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You should avoid cut and paste moves. Where is this poll? Did you employ the WP:RM format? El_C 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See .--Domitius 16:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That at least answers the first question. El_C 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry. Kahriman employed the request according to Wiki policy. I thought, it would be ok to move the page because the poll is pretty clear. Emir Arven 16:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a closed WP:RM entry (link?), and the poll seems to lack supermajority consensus (unless there were a lot of socks on one side). El_C 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You mean the poll I linked to above has not been closed and had the result pronounced by an admin?--Domitius 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is the second attempt to move the article before the move request is properly closed by an administrator, and that both attempts have been based on the number of votes alone.

Please, see the "Srebrenica Massacre, rename to Srebrenica Genocide (problem)" sub-section above, and the arguments made there. Nothing has changed in the last five days. - Regards, Ev 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, you should find an uninvolved admin (such as myself) with the time (not myself) to study the RM &mdash; because it is really disorganized & confusing. And certainly, avoid supplanting a redirect for a move. El_C 17:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, El C. I will add/modify a few sub-section headings to make the discussion more comprehensible (following the talk page guidelines) . In any case, I will appreciate if you could keep an eye on this page, in case a similar thing happens again. - Regards, Ev 17:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My edits. - Ev 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I sent some notes about this to Husond a few days ago as well (User talk:Husond). I probably should have posted them on this page, but they would have gotten lost in the mess. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  17:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A picture request
Hello, does anyone have the picture of the Dutch soldier crying after kid and men were deported. It was on this article before, but now removed, please add a link here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.46.183 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean this one? http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3b/180px-Sreb8.JPG Bosniak 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Can you answer this question?
During International Court's Judgment, Serbia appointed ad hoc Judge Mr. Kreća, while Bosnia-Herzegovina appointed British ad hoc Judge Prof. Elihu Lauterpacht. Now, when judges voted FOR or AGAINST certain notions (example here) we could notice votes from Serbian ad hoc judge Mr Kreca, but there were no votes from British ad hoc Judge representing Bosnia-Herzegovina. '''The question is why? How come Serbian judge voted, and British Judge who was appointed by the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not vote?''' Bosniak 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the actual Bosnian ad hoc Judge was Mahiou. Live Forever 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ICJ February 27, 2006 Public sitting (.pdf) (page 10): BiH originally nominated Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, who acted as ad hoc Judge of the ICJ in the Bosnia v.Yugoslavia case during 1993-2001. After his resignation, BiH chose Mr. Ahmed Mahiou. - Regards, Evv 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Mitov's response
Dr Mitov's response to everybody who reads this: What if I tell you that I know how aproximately there were killed muslims after serbian attacked Srebrenica and why they attacked that city? Dr. Mitov 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I would ask for you to provide citations, otherwise this would simply violate WP:NOR. Djma12 02:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Bosniak, 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC), removed. Please keep in mind No personal attacks. Djma12 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Mitov's response:

Well, I just heard several stories from the people who were there at this time. Even they don't know the right number of murdered men, but they claim that 8.000 is too much even for their counts. Some of them said that they would like to be even more counted, more then 8.000, more then 10.000 men, but in reality, by their count is about 2000-3000. The reason why they did that is simple - revenge. Why revenge? Because, in earlier years, 1992-1995., muslims from Srebrenica killed about 1500-2000 people from surrounding villages, around Srebrenica, example village Kravica, just to clear what ever is serbian, to become clean muslim land. And they killed, men, women, children, even cows and pigs.

You also have to know that in II World war, there were lot of masacres from all sides, but mostly from Croats, Ustashas, which killed in Jasenovac http://www.jasenovac.org/ more then 500.000 people.

Image: Children in Jasenovac

Image: Read some books.

[Jasenovac] http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/007.shtml by Carl Savich

''Dedijer, Vladimir. The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican: The Croatian Massacre of the Serbs during World War II. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1992.

Fotich, Konstantin. The War We Lost:Ý Yugoslavia's Tragedy and the Failure of theÝWest. New York: Viking Press, 1948.

Gutman, Israel,ed. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. 4 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Markovic, Marko S. Half a Century of the Serbian Calvary (1941-l99l). Birmingham, England: Lazarica Press, 1992.

Paris, Edmond. Genocide in Satellite Croatia, 1941-1945: A Record of Racial and Religious Persecutions and Massacres. Chicago: The American Institute for Balkan Affairs, 1961.

Wiesel, Elie. Letter to the Author, October 31, 1995.''

So, at the end. If you can not accept what I heard from people. Fine, do what you got to do, but the only one who will judge to all murderers will be God, history and their own conscience. Dr. Mitov 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dr Mitov, this article is concerned with genocide during the Bosnian war of 1992-1995 and specifically at Srebrenica. The ground has been covered extensively.  What you say you have been told has a core of truth, insofar as there were innocent Serb victims, but that core of truth has been inflated and exaggerated to the point where the suffering of those real victims is overlooked precisely because of individuals like yourself who deny the reality of the suffering endured by thousands of others in the course of the systematic campaign of genocide undertaken by the people you seem to be defending.  Whatever second-hand evidence you have would presumably have been submitted as direct testimony to the defence teams of individuals such as Krstic and Blagojevic.  Their defence did not hold up when it was put to the test in court proceedings. Until as you say God eventually judges those involved we will have to make do with the findings of the ICTY, the ICJ and the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian courts.


 * Please check the references in the article to the subject of villages around Srebrenica and if, you can make the effort, look at the discussions on this talk page, now in the Archive files, that led to the inclusion of those references. --Opbeith 13:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see the relevance of selectively quoting WW2 history here other than to assume that Dr Mitov is mistakenly justifying the Srebrenica Genocide as revenge for WW2. But he ignores that WW2 was as much an idealogical conflict within national groups as it was an ethnic conflict between national groups.  The selective reference is to Jasenovac, but there is no mention of Sajmiste, Bleiburg, the treatment of Bosnjiaks during WW2, or the Moljevic plan etc.  And I don't think these issues can be looked on as an accounting ledger.  There is scope for an section on how such events affect subsequent political programs, and how national mythology can be based on them.  But I think it would need to be a separate article and does not fit in this article. iruka 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Mitov and Jasenovac (his off topic rumbling) - my response
Dr Mitov was influenced by Serbian mythology which claims that half a million people died in Jasenovac Concentration Camp, which is just another example of unprovable allegation. No international court has rulled that so many people died in Jasenovac, and I hate to say it, but I am sick of Serbian lies and propaganda regarding historic events that took place in the Balkans. Dr Mitov failed to acknowledge mass scale massacres committed by Serbian Christian Orthodox terrorists and butchers who slaughtered over 100,000 Bosniaks during World War II. Dr Mitov also failed to acknowledge that Serbian Christian Orthodox Terrorist Gavrilo Princip was responsible for starting World War I, and World War I pretty much pulled World War II. Of course - Dr Mitov, like most Serbs - are brainwashed by Serbian historiography and lies about alleged genocides against Serbs that never happened (no international court confirmed them - they are just plain allegations). If there was genocide against Serbs in the World War II, then there was certainly a genocide against Bosniaks in the World War II also - however, none of these allegations were proven, they are just allegations and one can use any number one sees fit. Bosniak Institute published documentation that Yugoslav/Serbian government kept secret and it involves the number of dead at Jasenovac Camp, which was well under 50,000 read here. Of course, Serbians are known to exagerate things, so they claimed 10 times more dead, and their allegations were never proved in the court of law, however Bosniak allegations of Genocide in Srebrenica were proven in the international courtroom at least 5 times so far!Bosniak 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep... being this civil, choosing this kind of wording, and calling users and whole nationalities "brainwashed" is exactly what our policy on personal attacks encourages us to do. - Ev 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, you sound exactly like the people you despise. Fairview360 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He must be related to them ;) Nikola 11:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The ones who are truly despicable are the ones who try to rehabilitate mass murderers such as Radovan Karadzic. But really this entire section should be deleted since it does nothing to inform this article. It belongs on some irrelevant chat page. Fairview360 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True, because I am sick of genocide deniers. I am sick of these monsters. Bosniak 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "True, because I am sick of genocide deniers. I am sick of these monsters" well what are you bosniak when you say "Of course - Dr Mitov, like most Serbs - are brainwashed by Serbian historiography and lies about alleged genocides against Serbs that never happened" Are you saying that the killing of AT LEAST 70 000 never happened and it wasnt genocide? Paulcicero 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Legally established genocides include Srebrenica, Rwanda, Holocaust. I have yet to see one internation court's rullinig handing down judgment that genocide was committed against serbs. Of course, in serbian propaganda historiography, you will find all kinds of garbage - according to them, they survived 100 genocides. However, not even one international judicial judgment confirms anything they say. The point is - no matter what serbs do to deny Srebrenica genocide in which over 8,000 Bosniaks died - the fact is that Srebrenica genocide is undeniable at this point and confirmed in at least 5 judgments of both ICTY and ICJ. So, serbs can continue to live in their dreams and propaganda, but the fact is - we won, we proved your propaganda wrong at International Courts, and we will keep exposing your lies at ICTY and other corts, including state court of Bosnia Herzegovina where dozens of serbs are currently on trial. Bosniak 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This kind of talk is exactly the kind of talk that preceded every major clash between nations, ideologies and religions on Balkans. Hate is a strong motive. The truth is that we were killing each other for centuries and that nothing is changed. Call it what you want, massacre or genocide, the dead would not mind. --Marko M 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Bosniak, it was never established in a court of law that the Holocaust was genocide because the legal crime of genocide did not exist then. Still the Holocaust, Armenia, and Cambodia are accepted within the academic community as instances of genocide in the 20th Century. Who are you to deny genocide in Armenia and Cambodia because it wasn't proven in a court of law? Your standards are arbitrary. Your rhetoric self-defeating. Your rants undermine the credibility of those trying to preserve the truth of what happened in Srebrenica. With comments like yours above, you are satisfying yourself but doing a disservice to those you purportedly want to defend, the victims of Srebrenica. For their sake, I suggest you take an honest look in the mirror and stop using the Srebrenica discussion page as an avenue for your own self-indulgent convulsions.Fairview360 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, i have been reading your ramblings above and i cannot get enought of your self-indulgence. What are you talking about? According to Jewish sources(find them on your own, i have read them, i am not going to search for you), around 600,000 Serbs were murdered in Jasenovac camp during WWII. Those are NOT Serbian sources, they are Jewish. That's enough for me. What you think, i don't care. Or maybee you deny the Holocaust as well? And off course Jasenovac was not declared a genocide because that term was coined in 1948. Second, you keep saying that you are winners. Besides the fact that you constantly mentioning it points to a serious complex, exactly what did you win? Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? To me it seems like you lost because Alija Izmetbegovic wanted to have a clean muslim Bosnia, but he failed because you, and your co-conspirators Croats have 51%. And from the looks of it, if backward minded Muslim government in Sarajevo keeps calling for the abolishment of RS, RS will break away and you can have your Federation. You, next to your muslim Albanian breathren are the biggest cowards in the region, not winners. You start the whole mess and then when you get pounded like you should, you go asking for war reparations from me in Serbia, who along with most of my countrymen has never even seen the Bosnian border. Good thing that i won't have to pay from my pocket so that you can sit on your ass, build mosques, harbour terrorists and be a Muslim. And lastly, you keep alluding to some mythology, genocide denying and whatnot. If that many people were killed(which i doupt), then they were killed. I have not met a single person here in Serbia that denies that. Its a war, and people die in wars. What did you expect, people to tickle each other? It is what it is, and i accept that. But don't go calling every one of us out, because we in Serbia had nothing to do with it. Quite frankly, it's a war that happened in Bosnia, not Serbia, and most of us don't really care. We had and still have our own problems. And lastly, if you have a problem with anything i said, i'll be more then happy to explain a few things to you face to face. Maybee you will get a different perspective.68.9.45.195 23:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Aleksandar V.

As far as I followed what he was saying Bosniak was expressing his exasperation at Dr Mitov's tendentious and undiscussed editing of the article to read "of an estimated ***, still not proved and confirmed, 2,000 to*** 8,000 Bosniak males" (twice), followed by a round of post factum self-justification taking the foorm of anecdotal evidence that took no account of the legal findings previously dealt with here and included in the text of the article. Bosniak expressed his exasperation by pointing out that there is a repeated pattern of unsubstantiated allegations, exaggerations and lies refuting established evidence which is very rarely challenged by the sanctimonious guardians of the truth who are so prompt to weigh in with their condemnations. Yes, Bosniak goes over the top, but I seem to remember him acknowledging Jasenovac in the past so I assume his reaction was not to deny the reality of Jasenovac as such but rather the way Dr Mitov called in a claim of 500,000 dead at Jasenovac to support his denial of the genocide at Srebrenica, without challenge from the fact-police. Bosniak's going over the top pretty much follows a pattern of reaction to the genocide denial that's been a routine feature of this Discussion Page. Given the prevailing atmosphere of complacency in the face of denial and the meddling with established fact that goes on here that seems quite understandable. I note that the outraged comments that follow his angry outbursts are rarely seen in response to the wilful inaccuracies, misrepresentations and downright lies often purveyed here. --Opbeith 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, exasperation is not a valid excuse to infringe the current policies on civility and no personal attacks. It is perfectly possible to express exasperation in a civilized manner, without resorting to the kind of comments User:Bosniak made.


 * User:Bosniak didn't "point out a certain pattern of behaviour", but instead responded with his own list of "historical truths", well seasoned with what can only be described as inflammatory hate speech. It was bound to be followed by outraged comments.


 * I haven't read this talk page, nor the article for that matter, but having seen "wilful inaccuracies, misrepresentations and downright lies" in discussions concerning many other articles I do get the idea. Nevertheless, nothing can possibly justify a comment like the one User:Bosniak made – at least not in Wikipedia's talk pages. - Best regards, Ev 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, if we are going to present ourselves as defending the standards of civil society, we must hold our own accountable. There really is no excuse for Bosniak's behavior and I believe your better self knows it. Often the abused become the abusers. That cycle must end. It ends by holding all accountable for their actions, not by making excuses.Fairview360 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fairview360, you don't like how I read Bosniak's comments. I suggest you reread them.


 * Dr Mitov in his response refers to hearing "several stories from the people who were there at this time. Even they don't know the right number of murdered men, but they claim that 8.000 is too much even for their counts. Some of them said that they would like to be even more counted, more then 8.000, more then 10.000 men, but in reality, by their count is about 2000-3000. The reason why they did that is simple - revenge. Why revenge? Because, in earlier years, 1992-1995, muslims from Srebrenica killed about 1500-2000 people from surrounding villages, around Srebrenica, example village Kravica, just to clear what ever is serbian, to become clean muslim land. And they killed, men, women, children, even cows and pigs."


 * OK, is this business of numbers on one side and the other and the story of revenge not what we've discussed umpteen times and been informed umpteen times about by the ICJ and the UN Secretary General's report? And Dr Mitov still comes along and amends the article without discussion (and acknowledgments to the editors who corrected his revisions).


 * Dr Mitov goes on to say "You also have to know that in II World war, there were lot of masacres from all sides, but mostly from Croats, Ustashas, which killed in Jasenovac more then 500.000 people."


 * What's the relevance of Jasenovac except as an attempt to provide justification for Serb actions? Various sources seem to put that the total number of deaths at Jasenovac at somewhere in the very rough region of 80,000, including 40 to 50,000 Serbs, the rest being Roma, Jews, Catholic Croats, Muslims classed as Croats and others.  I accept that the numbers may have been greater but there doesn't seem to be substantiated evidence of up to half a million as Mitov alleges.


 * The figure is terrible enough anyway. It is clear that the Ustase set out to exterminate large numbers of Serbs and other national, religious and ethnic groups at Jasenovac, and did so under conditions of barbaric cruelty and wilful neglect. The regime seems to have been vile beyond belief to normal people (until you stop and consider what was done in Croatia and Bosnia from 1991 to 1995).  Jasenovac cannot be excused.  But Jasenovac does not excuse Srebrenica or the rest of the atrocities perpetrated in Bosnia and Croatia, not exclusively but very largely by Serbs.


 * If all the succession of Dr Mitovs won't accept that Srebrenica was really a genocide even after it has been proven several times over under the terms of the Genocide Convention, what does that tell us about the reliability of their version of history? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, the saying goes. If you insist on denying a particular aspect of reality because it suits you to, and you misrepresent another reality to consolidate your evasions and denials, there comes a time when someone is going to point out exactly what what you're doing means.


 * If you deny that what happened at Srebrenica was genocide, if you minimise the number of victims, if adjust the number of deaths on your own side upwards in order to achieve some sort of parity, if you turn the chain of aggression and reaction back to front, if you claim a historical justification and disregard contemporary motivations and you then magnify the scale of your historical inspiration, and you do all this time after time, then there eventually comes a time when you're going to be offered a reality check, by being shown what it means to have your own source of pain treated in the same way that you treat others'.


 * Fairview360, that's how I interpreted what Bosniak was saying. A not too precisely thought out reality check.  But that's what it was - a long-due reality check.  I'm afraid my better self and my ordinary self still happen to be the same person, and they read what Bosniak said in just the same way.  Perhaps you might try and read what he said yourself again, a little more slowly.


 * You might understand why Bosniak makes the point about exaggeration. I do.  Certainly not all Serbs/Serbians exaggerate, and honour to the truth-bearers, but I've heard an awful lot of Dr Mitovs minimising in one direction and maximising in another.  And I've heard plenty of insistence that Srebrenica wasn't a genocide because it wasn't proven, because the court was wrong or was biased or the wording of the Genocide Convention wasn't right, or because the numbers weren't enough, and now we're even being told that the ICJ verdict isn't conclusive because the US challenged the ICJ's jurisdiction after its US-Nicaragua verdict.  Well, if that's the argument, then when the revenge card gets played, that's when it's about time to point out what the implications of that argument are for allegations of past "genocides".


 * The list of victims at https://cp13.heritagewebdesign.com/~lituchy/victimlist.php deserves my respect and the list of victims at http://www.srebrenica-zepa.ba/srebrenica/spisak.htm deserves equal respect. --Opbeith 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, I agree with your assessment of Dr. Mitov. He is what he is. Meanwhile, Bosniak is as dismissive of the crimes against Serbs ("just plain allegations" "lies" "brainwashed") as Serbian ultra-nationalists are of the crimes against Bosniak. Meanwhile, the Serb-bashing by Bosniak is indiscriminate ("Dr Mitov, like most Serbs") and racist. This kind of nationalist rant only empowers Serbian nationalists. It gives the majority of reasonable citizens of Serbia nowhere else to go since according to petulant racist rants like Bosniak's, they don't exist. According to Bosniak, there is no majority, not even a plurality of Serbs who simply want to live normal lives free of nationalism. Bosniak obviously hates Serbs. His hatred blinds him, is divisive, and will only fuel further conflict. Furthermore, it pushes him constantly into behavior that is in violation of numerous wiki rules. The rules exist for a reason. Osli73 is not the only one who ought to be held accountable for his actions.


 * If Bosniak can not act in a civil manner, he does not belong in wikipedia.


 * In the political arena, such rants only hurt the cause of creating a lasting just peace in the Balkans.


 * Bosniak needs to look in the mirror and get past the rage. He is headed down the wrong path. I have many good Bosnian Muslim friends who have suffered abject humiliation and torture at the hands of ultra-nationalist Serbs, who have been raped, beaten, had their loved ones butchered before their very eyes. They seek justice against those who are responsible for these crimes but with maturity, having gotten past the cesspool of rage that Bosniak currently stews in. They do not lash out with hatred but rather live in peace with their Serb neighbors. If they can do it, Bosniak can. I have no more tolerance for these destructive rants by Bosniak. He needs to be held accountable just as Osli73 with his sly manipulations must also be. Enough is enough. Fairview360 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There can be no comparison between terrible events in Srebrenica and genocide against Serbs in Independent State of Croatia during World War II. Any licitation with number of victims is irresponsible. But comparing Srebrenica to Jasenovac is nothing more than Holocaust denial. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, the events in Croatia during WW2 were part of the Holocaust. On the official site of this museum there is special chapter dedicated to this events under the name “Holocaust Era in Croatia 1941-1945 Jasenovac”. The research of this museum offers more objective approximation of number of Serb victims killed during Holocaust. Not as high as some other estimated numbers of victims, it’s still terrible high, quote: The Croat authorities murdered between 330,000 and 390,000 ethnic Serb residents of Croatia and Bosnia during the period of Ustaša rule; more than 30,000 Croatian Jews were killed either in Croatia or at Auschwitz-Birkenau. These victims weren’t part of any armed formation or army, they weren’t armed, they didn’t burn croatian villages or slaughter their women and children and they didn’t have protection of UN forces. I believe that Wikipedia shouldn’t be used for making new or changing old history. I do not usually engage in long and fruitless discussions as this one. But people like Bosniaks motivate me to contribute to the truth by offering the sources that are more reliable then someone subjective view of past events. I am sorry that I can’t contribute at the same way to this article. Only time will tell how many people died in Srebrenica and if this was genocide or not. I don’t believe that Wikipedia could cope with responsibility for making judgment on this matter. Wikipedia is a powerful tool and it should not be misused. --Marko M 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Marko, your account of WW2 is well argued but you take a jump off the deep end when you say "Only time will tell how many people died in Srebrenica and if this was genocide or not." Time enough has passed for us to know that at least 8000 lives were lost during the Srebrenica massacre and there is plenty of evidence and several court decisions to decisively conclude that Srebrenica was an act of genocide. Fairview360 22:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was this. All the archives open after 50 year period. All the major actors of events at Srebrenica are free. Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are at large and Naser Oric was sentenced by ICTY to two years in prison and immediately released. Justice is not only slow but it’s blind too (Sorry, couldn’t restrain my self from making this comment). There is still a lot of research to be done in future. --Marko M 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you said,"Only time will tell more clearly how many people died in Srebrenica and to what degree genocide was committed.", then combined with your clarification, we would have no disagreement. I agree that we need to see documentation and hear testimony that is currently unavailable to get a clearer more comprehensive picture. And I agree that it will take about 50 years for more of this to get out in the open. Given that you are ten years younger than me, it is more likely that you will have a chance to see these documents. But then again, given the nature of Balkan politics, I think there will be a pressing political interest to keep things secret for, unfortunately, hundreds of years. My guess is that we agree that the answer to stability is to get the whole truth out in the open. It is a worthy endeavor. Fairview360 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We can agree to some extent that establishing the truth is essential for resolving issues surrounding Srebrenica but only in order to start reconciliation process. If the sole purpose of establishing the truth is to point the finger to one nation and mark it as genocidal, we couldn’t agree less. That kind of approach will lead as nowhere. Having in mind all the reasons that you stated in your reply, I don’t think that even I will live long enough to learn real truth about events in Srebrenica. --Marko M 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fairview360, calm down. No international court has ruled that genocide was committed against Serbs in the world war II. They are voluntarily coming up with numbers of their dead, some of them even claim 1.5 million dead, with no valid documentation whatsoever. Srebrenica Genocide list of victims is well documented, with first and last names, birth dates, fathers' names, SSN numbers, etc. Ultra-nationalist Serbs (and their historiography in general) keep pushing their genocide claims onto us in their anti-Srebrenica propaganda. Instead of wasting so much energy to hold me accountable, I suggest you focus that energy to hold Srebrenica Genocide deniers accountable. While I appreciate your work in Bosnia where you help innocent civilians overcome traumas of war, I condemn your unfair criticism towards me. Your energy would be better wasted into holding Srebrenica Genocide deniers accountable for their fascist views. I do not believe that all Serbs are same. There are good and bad people everywhere. Those Serb individuals who recognize genocide in Srebrenica are good people, and those who don't are scums. I have a friend who is from Serbia (and still lives in Serbia), he is Serbian and he condemns Srebrenica genocide denial. He's a good person, I have kept in touch with him for over 3 years. He's a wonderful human being and I might even introduce you to him. You need to calm down and stop throwing your allegations of racism and hate at me. I haven't seen you yet be as rude to Srebrenica Genocide deniers as you were rude to me on this talk page. You know my email. I am not going to argue with you publicly. If you have anything else to say, you know my email. And I hope you start holding fascists accountable more than you hold me accountable for pointing out that no international court confirmed genocide against Serbs in world war 2. If you want to accept voluntary numbers made by Serbian historiography, go ahead. At least Srebrenica is well documented, so we can say without reasonable doubt that the genocide was committed. I condemn your unfair rage on this talk page.  Bosniak 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak,


 * The absence of a court decision does not prove that genocide never occurred. It simply means either a) it was never taken to court or b) there was not enough conclusive evidence according to the judges to prove genocide. You use the absence of such a judgement to deny the occurence outright. If you look at what the Ustasa did during WW2-- putting aside the Serbian ultra-nationalist distortions (I am intimately aware of Serbian ultra-nationalist propaganda) -- it is perfectly legitimate to describe the Ustasa's mass killings as genocidal. but instead you dismiss it outright.


 * If I am going to spend any of my time holding people accountable, I ought to do it evenly. I am not intent on giving you a free pass or anyone else. And if ever I cross the line, I too ought to be held accountable. One way I deal with Serbian ultra-nationalists on wikipedia is to ignore them. One way I deal with abusive wiki editors is to ignore them. So it goes.


 * It is good to hear that you have a Serbian friend. Unfortunately, one can be friends with someone from a different group while still being prejudiced. Given your apparent appreciation of your Serbian friend, I suggest you think of him and his family while writing what you write. When I read your caustic dismissive words littered with comments such as "like most Serbs", I think of my Serbian friends. They do not deserve your insults. You can describe the power of propaganda and how it has influenced collective opinion in Serbia but virulent personal attacks are not warranted. Calling members of the Serbian Orthodox Church "scum" is abusive. You can indeed communicate what you want to say in a far more constructive manner.


 * I do not believe my description of your behavior is inherently rude. Your language is indeed abusive. And your recent entry at the Kosovo article (It's just a great feeling to watch Albanian Kosovo become independent. It's a wonderful, fullfilling, satisfying, feeling. It's like an orgasm, in political sense of the word. Bosniak 20:34, 9 March 2007) shows me that you are not too interested in civil behavior. If you are going to present yourself as someone dedicated to helping the victims of Srebrenica, someone holding the moral high ground, you ought to behave better. Given the subject matter, the mass killing of innocent people, your behavior ought to leave some room for dignity. Instead you descend into behavior more apt to be found on an elementary school playground. It is disappointing to say the least. I do not believe my words now are rude, but rather present a legitimate description of and understandable reaction to your behavior.Fairview360 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

David Rohde
David Rohde won a Pulitzer prize for exposing the Srebenica massacre and the Serbs jailed him until his release was negotiated. --HanzoHattori 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture regarding Orthodox Church priest
By my opinion this picture gives wrong impression that Serbian Orthodox Church supported Srebrenica massacre, or generally war. Priest couldn't know what will that soldiers do tomorrow, and his duty is to "give a prichest" (i really don't know what is the word for this religious ceremony in english) to any who "demands" it. Not that I'm religious person, quite contrary, but I think that connecting massacre (genocide) with SOC is insult for any Orthodox Christian. Dragoljub Kojadinovic 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy Communion or the eucharist I think is the word you are looking for? iruka 07:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Sells is of Serbian origin and in this book he documents the role of the Serbian Orthodox Church in fostering ethnic hatred. You might want to read it.


 * "Michael Sells' The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia is essential for anyone who wants to understand the forces manipulated by those Balkan leaders who orchestrated the violent assault on the Slavic Muslims of Bosnia. Sells documents the way in which this assault was a religious genocide perpetrated by both Serbian Orthodox and Croatian Roman Catholic Christian extremists. He shows why and how politicians, intellectuals and clergy exploited ancient religious mythologies, ethnic loyalties, and nationalistic ambitions and used them to fuel an unholy fanaticism."


 * http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Betrayed-Religion-Genocide-Comparative/dp/0520216628 Fairview360 01:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link - looks interesting. Particularly that Clinton thought so highly of it - will be reading it. iruka 07:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dragoljub Kojadinovic, as already documented, Serbian Orthodox Church was fostering hate. You might to more research before starting to defend those scums. Bosniak 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Serbian Orthodox Church was fostering hate" - Why are you so hateful? You are worse then both Karadzic and Mladic. You were saying that serbs werent victims of genocide during ww2 and now you are saying that the serbian church was fostering hate? Are you stupid or something? Paulcicero 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, if you keep using abusive language, I am going to lodge a request that you be blocked. Paulcicero, it is utterly absurd that you say an abusive wiki editor is worse than two wanted war criminals indicted for crimes against humanity. Please do research on the role of the Serbian Orthodox Church during the war in Bosnia. It is entirely legitimate to describe the Serbian Orthodox Church as fostering inter-ethnic conflict during the war. Fairview360 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are saying that the whole SOC were fostering hate which isnt true, sure som individuals probably were but you cant describe the whole church as such. Regarding Bosniak, he is below my level and I wont sink to his, I just want to say that I think he is a sick indivdual whose main purpose here on Wikipedia is to spread hate. Paulcicero 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. The Serbian Orthodox Church is not a religion but an institution, and as such is a perfectly legitimate target for criticism. It did foster hate - anyone who claims otherwise is simply naive and/or woefully uninformed. Their anti-Bosniak rhetoric was not simply the work of "individuals" (a logical fallacy the size of greater Serbia), but institutionally supported and espoused through official publications, statements, and the highest representatives. They not only "fostered" hate and helped lay the psychological ground for genocide, they actually directly participated in it by organizing, financing, and arming some of the most notorious paramilitary units that ravaged Krajina, Podrinje, and Posavina - Arkan himself personally thanked them "above all" in December '91. Live Forever 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesnt even deserve a response Paulcicero 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. Analogous to what Live Forever is saying... I protested Bush from the day the 2000 Florida fiasco started. Large portions of America have always opposed what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have done. Still, two years from now, no one in the USA can say... oh that was just a few individuals, we are not responsible. America is responsible for what it does. I as a citizen of the USA and every other citizen is responsible for what our country does. An entire country can not hide from its responsibilities by blaming a few individuals. Shirking it off as just a few individuals is irresponsible and inaccurate. Fairview360 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Legally, those killed under the age of 18 are Children
There were many individuals killed during Srebrenica Genocide who were under the age of 18. Legally, individuals under the age of 18 are considered Children (in the eyes of law). I propose we incorporate this fact into the article, by stating the following intro:

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as Srebrenica Genocide,[1] was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak males, ranging in age from children (under 18 years old) to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of general Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, you probably remember that after the reference to "including many children" was deleted at the Srebrenica article I found that the Federal Commission for Missing Persons list includes five names of 12- and 13-year-olds, one two months short of his thirteenth birthday, the other four without accurate birth dates/months. There are also 16 dates of birth in 1981 and 53 dates of birth in 1980. For the purposes of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child "a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." I don't know the age of majority in Bosnia in 1995, but even if it was as low as 16 more than 70 children were killed and that's not counting any of the names with dates of birth in 1979, many of whom would still have been under 16 at 11 July 1995. --Opbeith 23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ICMP claimed they found targeted children shot in the head which should void the introduction that men and boys were targeted only, children under the age of 7 should not be labeled as just boys, ICMP was not gender specific with it's findings. http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2007/10/mass-grave-children-shot-in-head.html NeutralBosnian (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not formally educated in the law, however when I read 'children' I imagine minors that are not of military age. I remember several years ago that military age in the F.R.Yugoslavia began at 15 years of age. Perhaps this was available in the 2002 CIA world fact book. I'm not entirely certain. If we are mentioning 'children' I would specify the number of military age and the number below military age. 70.171.46.92 (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See recent discussion in separate section. Mondeo (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Article lenght > 130 KB
Article size has a "strong recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32 KB in size". Given that the article is now over 130 KB long the editors should focus on shortening the article, either by summarizing certain text, moving text to other articles or splitting the article. Your thoughts? Regards Osli73 11:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that I hope you're not going to be taking wilful and arbitrary action again without waiting for general agreement. --Opbeith 00:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that you will use a reduction in article size to proportionally increase emphasis on discredited fringe opinions. Live Forever 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Given his past deceitful behavior, I consider the proposition of good faith discussions with Osli to be patently absurd. Fairview360 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Irregardless of what Osli's motivations may be, the point is still somewhat valid. The article in the current form is difficult to follow as there is no good synopsis of events.  Each subsection is long enough to form its own article.  Please note that I am not advocating that anything needs to be censored.  However, given the expansiveness of this subject, not everything needs to be on one page.  For example, the "mass executions" section, though definitely notable and important, takes up 1/3rd of the article and detracts from readability.  This could probably be made into its own sub-article. Djma12 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is a valid point. Osli makes many valid points. It is what he does between and behind the valid points that is a concern. Hence, few are willing to engage in any collaborative effort with him. Fairview360 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then how about working with me ;-) ? Look, I assume the point of this article is to inform a new reader about the horrendous magnitude of this event.  No one is served if the reader is bogged down halfway into Section 1.1.  While we wrestle with the proper nuances of the Sandići massacre, perhaps we are missing the larger point of succinctly informing the public about this event. Djma12 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I try to limit my editing to the introduction given a shortage of time, but there are some level-headed editors here who would work with you. The challenge is to prevent a good faith effort from getting comsumed by edit wars propagated by editors pushing their own agenda, sometimes aggressively, sometimes in an underhanded manner clothed in seemingly legitimate discourse. Given the amount of energy that can get wasted in this environment, as I said, I am strongly inclined to confine my editing to the introduction. But I wish you well if you want to take a shot at it. Fairview360 05:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear coeditors, my motive, which I have stated many times before, is to make this article a good presentation of the massacre in line with Wikipedia recommendations about NPOV, style and, as we are discussing here, article lenght. We may have different opinions about what constitutes NPOV (which, in turn, I believe has something to do with your 'motives'), but there is no reason for disagreeing about following such a clear Wikipedia recommendation as a maximum article lenght limit of 130 KB. Just as an article about WWII doesn't have to include lengthy descriptions of all theaters of war, all battles and all aspects of the war, neither does this article have to include mini-essays on the various parts and aspects of the massacre. Regards Osli73 10:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Osli, which parts do you think could use reduction? Djma12 (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we are talking about a reduction by about 75% it would have to include a combination of summarizing existing text and removal of entire sections (and perhaps replacing them with links to separate in-depth articles). A couple of suggestions: Cheers Osli73 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Background: could be summarized with a more extensive description in a separate article (perhaps called "Bosnian War 1992-1995: Eastern Bosnia and the Srebrenica Massacre" or something similar. Here, the Serb strategy of ethnic cleansing, the fighting around the Srebrenica enclave 1992-93, the role of the UN safe havens and the final assault on Srebrenica could be described (as well as events after the fall of Srebrenica until the end of the war). Instead, a summary text of about one or, maybe, two, paragraphs could be included.
 * 2) The Massacre: this is of course the main part of the article and would be difficult to include in another article, so this section would just have to be heavily summarized. Perhaps a greater use of references to the appropriate para in the ICTY judgement against Krstic (where most of the text has been taken from) could be used.
 * 3) the remaining sections (3-7) could much more easily be moved to separate articles and replaced by very brief summaries since they are more about the politics of the massacre rather than the massacre itself.


 * Um, I think at 75% reduction is a bit extreme. Let's focus on one section at a time, and we should not remove material until the sub-articles are created. Djma12 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Djma12, well Wikipedia strongly recommends 32 KB and we're today above 130 KB. What would your recommended target be - 50 KB?. Cheers Osli73 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, WP:SIZE. Don't ask me how many times I've caught flak for trying to implement that...  .Yes, 32 kb, but that's a suggestion only.  However, I do think the article could use work for readability.  Instead of aiming at a size limit, let's work one section at a time, in increments, and see where we end up.  If we're still way over, we can reassess then. Djma12 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, while WP:Size says that "Though article size is no longer a binding rule, there remain stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues". So, if we are not going to aim at the 32 KB limit outright, I do think it would be helpful to aim at some size limit, if only to contain the article's size in the future. Cheers Osli73 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, same old Osli73 back again. "Since we are talking about a reduction by about 75%" = "I'm going for a reduction of about 75%, so we'll proceed from there".  In principle I agree to the idea of using sub-articles to slim down the main article but it's hard to believe that there'll be agreement on the details.  I'm not sure about working one section at a time.  It's important to have a coherent overall structure. The inclusion of significant content within that overall structure is a more important consideration than achieving an arbitrary target, particularly where there's a need to resolve controversy and misrepresentation. There must be no "heavy summarising" in order to impose an agenda.  One advantage of having the source wording included is that it ensures that the practice of misleading summarisation of source texts that certain individuals engage in can be kept under some sort of control.  Osli73, please bear in mind that this is one of the reasons why the article has grown to the length that it is.  --Opbeith 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, I understand your reticence to streamline an article so prone to POV attacks. However, in our efforts to please everyone, we've created an article that is borderline incomprehensible to the article's intended audience: people with no knowledge of these events.  Sure, figuring out what to sub-article vs. what to keep will be difficult, but I think its a task we need to undertake if we really want to preserve a clear public record about this event. Djma12 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith:
 * I agree that it will be difficult to agree on the details (which, we are already having problems with). However, that shouldn't stop us from trying
 * I agree that we should try to stick to the ICTY (and possibly other sources such as UN reports, NIOD report and IWPR) as a source. However, I don't think we need to use its paraphrase entire sections of the Krstic judgement to avoid controversy. It shouldn't be that difficult to summarize it.
 * I agree that we should try to take a comprehensive approach, rather than taking it one section at a time. Outline what the sections should, their approximate length and then apportion responsibility to the various editors for writing these sections.
 * I absolutely agree that we should avoid selective or misleading summarization, since that is precisely my fear about your (and certain other persons) edits.
 * The main reasons that the article has grown so long is (1) because it was very easy to simply copy entire sections of text from the ICTY judgement against Krstic rather than summarizing it and (2) because have added long texts about their special detail of interest.
 * Osli73 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the full ICTY Statement in the Intro?
The intro already describes the atrocity fairly fully, and states that two seperate independent agencies define the event as a genocide. The whole point of the intro is that readers can gain a succinct idea about the event. Adding the quote only detracts from readability. Djma12 (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, this issue has been discussed before. The reason for keeping the full quote is that it resolves the central controversy that bedevils this article. It sums up beyond denial and misrepresentation the legal finding that genocide was perpetrated at Srebrenica, clearly, specifically and forcefully. Isee you have just gone ahead and deleted the text. This is a pattern of arbnitrary action that we're familiar with from Osli73. This is unacceptable. Please revert all your changes until they have been adequately discussed. --Opbeith 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, saying the quote only detracts from readibility is an overstatement. In fact, it very clearly and succinctly states what exactly happened and provides context. Fairview360 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is actually one of the better quotes (there are other, longer quotes of more dubious value to the article). However, it should be quite enough to state that the ICTY found that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide and that the ICJ later confirmed this. The quote really just reinforces that. I would prefer to include info in the intro about where and how the massacre took place. Cheers Osli73 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! Sorry if I stepped on some toes.  Would it make more sense to place the statement about the UN Peacekeepers before the section about the event being qualified as Genocide, though?  Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits (Djma12)
I am currently undertaking a number of ambitious edits to this article. My goal is simple: organize the article so that even a school child researching this atrocity can understand it, but provide enough internal wiki-links so that the dedicated researcher can get more info when needed. I am not trying to hide any information about this atrocity. However, by trying to include everything in one article, I feel that we actually discourage readers from learning about this event.

Please voice your concerns with my edits here.

Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I object very strongly to your talking arbitrary action before proposed changes have been adequately discussed. This is behaviour that we're only too familiar with here and is unacceptable. --Opbeith 00:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you find the edit unacceptable, please feel free to revert. I am merely following WP:BOLD on something I feel would improve the article.  I feel this discussion, even though difficult, should be undertaken.  Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note, I have not removed any information. Information has merely been organized into a sub-article which I feel improves readability.  As stated before, I appreciate outside input on whether this is appropriate. Djma12 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Djma12, at first I thought you had simply deleted information and then saw that you added a link under mass executions. What I would suggest is not reducing all of that text to one link, but rather a paragraph with several linked words. Otherwise, it does obscure this description of what happened. One paragraph could refer to the specific locations or dates of the massacres with each word linked to the longer description in the sub-article. Fairview360 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your suggestion. We could keep the link, and have several linked words.  That way, no one gets lost.  Any idea where in the paragraph would be good for an internal wiki-link? Djma12 (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Djma12, I notice that you've added additional information to the sub-article to the effect that an estimated 6000 persons were killed in the mass executions. Can you confirm your source?  This is of course the problem with creating sub-articles.  It makes it a lot easier for information that was previously part of the main article to be altered without this being apparent to the general body of contributors.  This is arbitrary action and I disagree with it.  It's not good enough simply to suggest reverting.  Reverting of wilful interventions has triggered "edit wars" here in the past.  Reverting also tends to lead to confusion when changes in the article that are not the target of the reversion get lost in the process.  Please desist.  Discussion is the first step.  --Opbeith 00:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but do you have any proposals for improving readability? Instead of complaining about an imperfect solution, let's work on making a better one? Djma12 (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Djma12, Opbeith is not complaining. He is rightly asking you to provide a source. Where did you get the number of 6000? If you ad lib the number of innocent people killed, you're are going to lose credibility rather quickly. I strongly suggest that you give Opbeith an explanation, not characterize him as a complainer. In fact, he is one of the few editors here who takes the time to give full explanations for his edits and his opinions. Fairview360 01:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have removed the statement pending citation. However, does anyone have suggestions for readability?  All I get are statements on why it's too hard to do.  Surely people don't believe that the article in its current form is well-organized.  Please people, I'm trying to work with you but all I get is derision. Djma12 (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not giving you derision, I am asking you a question. Where did you get the number 6000? By the way, thank you for cleaning up the redundant footnote in the introduction and reformatting. Fairview360 01:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6000 per the exhumed burial number later in the article. But I agree that it should be removed until more definitive citations can be arrived at.  I don't feign to have as much expertise as you guys have on the subject.  I merely see my role as someone who cleans up the article for clearer readability.  Djma12 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Djma12, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names. This is very well documented. Hence, there appears to be general agreement among the editors that it is accurate to say an estimated 8000 were killed during the Srebrenica Massacre. Fairview360 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The corresponding article is now being edited to reflect that. Djma12 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360 put this suggestion on my talk page. Would people prefer this to the single sub-article?

''With that said, as you've suggested, each specific massacre could be put in a sub-article, but I believe it must be done in a way that does not obscure them. Hence, I do not agree with taking out 6 to 10 paragraphs and replacing it with just one link. Rather reduce it to a few sentences with reference to each massacre with each reference linked to the sub-article. Fairview360 00:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)''

Djma12 (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick to the "estimated 8000" figure to avoid confusing readers. This will be especially important if certain sections are moved to separate articles. However, since there are different numbers for "identified" and "unidentified" bodies, "estimated killed" and "killed and missing" I think it would be a good idea to include a paragraph on this somwhere in the article instead of spreading out the info in various sections. Osli73 09:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I apologise if you think I was deriding your efforts, that wasn't my intention. But you don't seem to have sufficient awareness of the underlying issues to be proceeding with large scale changes without consulting more widely. For example you need to understand that the number of victims is one of the key areas of dispute between people who accept that the massacre was genocide and the people who in spite of legal findings still seek to minimise and excuse what happened. However well-intentioned efforts to render the article readable by a schoolkid might be, they are liable to fuel controversy and unresolved disputes. Regrettably I have to say that there are many articles in Wikipedia that no-one, let alone a school-child, should be reading without an informed perspective. These are areas where "the truth" is, rightly or wrongly, hotly disputed and unless you know the map of the minefield you risk making the situation worse rather than better. --Opbeith 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 10:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies if the edits were too abrupt -- my intention was simply to encourage a conversation on how to increase the article's readability. Looks like I've not only stirred that up that discussion, but also personal attacks concerning sock-puppetry...  Seriously, will some one actually work with me on improving the article's architecture?  I'm starting to feel as if an Rfc might be required. Djma12 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12 and others, considering that the article is so conflict ridden, in my opinion, any revision of the article structure and text would have to be based on some type of consensus/compromise and an acceptance by the majority of editors certain basic rules/principles. I've suggested this before but, unfortunately, none of the 'Bosniak' editors (sorry for the clumsy grouping, but it's the best I could think of at the moment, of course this is not a 100% homogenous group) have shown any interest. I can only see two reasons for this lack of interest: (1) they're happy with the status quoe and/or (2) they fear that rewriting and reducing the lenght of the article will present a view of the massacre not to their liking. I'm sure something could be done to assuage at least point no. 2. Otherwise, I think that Rfc might be the best route forward, though I would prefer A Fresh Start. Regards Osli73 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, you know very well what the third possible explanation is - that the pattern of your previous interventions does not inspire trust. Go back to my previous dealings with you and in particular the results of my checking your misleading use of sources. It's your determination to press ahead with an agenda of your own under cover of that veneer of cooperation that has been the cause of a lot of conflict here. --Opbeith 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, KarlXII, Djma12
I have conducted an analysis of Osli73, KarlXII, and Djma12's edit histories, and unfortunately, they could all be the same person. (We already know that Osli73 and KarlXII are one person.)

It was a little strange that someone allegedly entirely new to the article would be so bold in making wholesale edits without any attempt to create consensus first.

I have reverted the article back to before Djma12's edits and hereby call upon Djma12 to at least attempt establishing general agreement before making significant edits. Fairview360 13:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fairview360, kindly take the time to actually examine edit histories before making serious allegations. Defaming editors simply because they disagree with you violates WP:CIVIL, and is quite frankly beneath you.




 * Djma12 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did. And rather than seeing any understanding from you about past experiences at this article which would naturally spawn such suspicions, I see the same self-righteous posturing exhibited by KarlXII. In any case, you are not be rejected outright. Rather you are being asked to attempt general agreement before engaging in wholesale edits. Fairview360 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that discussion is invaluable before making edits, but let's be clear. I started entertaining the concept of a sub-article in the discussion page a full day before I edited. The consensus I received was that it was a good idea but difficult, therefore no one was willing to work with me on it (except Osli.) If you'll recall, I even requested your help before editing. Fairview, you do not have ownership of this article. I am willing to discuss and work with you out of respect and professionalism, but I do not need your approval for edits, especially if you will simply be abusive. Djma12 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making the observation that no one editor has ownership of this article. Fairview360 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One full day? You waited one full day and then declared an alleged consensus for you to move forward with wholesale edits? An alternative way for you to establish consensus would be to state exactly what you are proposing and then solicit the feedback of the most engaged editors of this article. That might take a little bit more than one full day. Fairview360 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing inherently abusive about stating the possibility that you are a sockpuppet of Osli73. When it was stated the KarlXII might be a sockpuppet of Osli73, was that inherently abusive? How could it be abusive when it turned out to be a simple statement of fact? Presuming that you are not a sockpuppet, rather than self-righteous posturing and presenting yourself as the victim of alleged abuse -- something rather Osli-esque -- why not just take it in stride and keep moving forward? The invitation to attempt genuine consensus building is still there. You might also want to spend some time looking at KarlXII's behavior (Osli73's behavior) and then you might see why some here are understandably skeptical. Fairview360 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't you be offended if people went around claiming that you and Opbeith were sock-puppets just b/c you share similar edits? I've been called many a strange name in wiki before, but this accusation is a first. Djma12 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I have been accused of being a sockpuppet before. I found it amusing. I was waiting to find out who the editor thought I really was, but he/she never followed through with the specifics. Given the amount of sockpuppetry in wikipedia, I don't think anyone should be surprised by people having their suspicions. For the record, I am still not convinced that you are not Osli73, but will continue dialoguing with you. You may notice that I no longer address Osli directly since I believe good faith discussions with him are not possible. Hence, I am implicitly giving you (Djma12) the benefit of the doubt. Fairview360 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, For somebody who turns up with little knowledge of the subject but simply expressing a well-intentioned desire to help make the article more accessible, you seem to have a rather pressing need to make large scale changes without much concern for the views of other people who've been involved here over time and have some knowledge of the issues. You say "I agree that discussion is invaluable before making edits, but let's be clear. I started entertaining the concept of a sub-article in the discussion page a full day before I edited. The consensus I received was that it was a good idea but difficult, therefore no one was willing to work with me on it (except Osli.) If you'll recall, I even requested your help before editing. Fairview, you do not have ownership of this article. I am willing to discuss and work with you out of respect and professionalism, but I do not need your approval for edits, especially if you will simply be abusive." You decided a full day was long enough to allow everyone here the time they needed to agree or disagree with you. You didn't secure a consensus, you had a few cautious comments.

If you really are interested in this article you must have looked back over previous discussions on this page and seen that quite a few other people might have wanted to have an input before you embarked on drastic action. Didn't that give you cause to think that you should act with a little less haste and a little more restraint? Instead you decided that other people's hesitation about working with you was reason enough to proceed without delay.

You comment on my edits and Fairview360's edits as if you're familiar with them. One moment you seem quite innocent and the next you come across as knowing rather more than might be expected of a well-meaning ingenu. You must surely be familiar with the controversy aroused by Osli73's precipitate and wilful interventions. But you follow in his footsteps. So, a simple question Djma12 - is Fairview360 mistaken or is there a relationship between you and Osli73? --Opbeith 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My first interaction with Osli was when he wrote me on my discussion page back in Feb. 27, 07, during my first attempts to edit on the page. I have had minimal contact with him since.  If you still feel suspicious about my identity, I urge you to have an admin perform an IP check -- I would have no objection.


 * As for my suggestions and edits, please note that I started a similar discussion thread concerning sub-articling on the Iran page. Similarly, I was accused of pushing "american imperialism" at the time by some of those editors. Djma12 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To your question "Is there something inherently controversial about sub-articling that's landing me in such hot water?", the answer is no. It was hot before you stepped into it. In principle, I believe there are a number of editors who would agree to sub-articles. Fairview360 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, Djma12, thanks for clarifying your position with regard to Osli73. I hope you're now a bit more aware why people reacted so strongly when you came along and started imposing changes in the same way he's done in the past.  What Osli73 does causes controversy but it's also the way he does what he does that makes people angry.  I think you'll find people more willing to work with you if you start by working with them.  Perhaps your experience with the Iran page could have led you to be a bit more cautious.  --Opbeith 09:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If nothing else, this experience has taught me to modify WP:BOLD for controversial articles like this one.  I am still willing to work with you guys, and would appreciate your input on how this article's structure could use improvement. Djma12 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What I believe you will find is that editing and discussion here is disrupted by both guile and overt sheer aggression. Fairview360 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Djma12, it is unusual for me to have this much time for wikipedia and in a matter of days, I will have drastically less time available, but in addition to seeing the sub-article on the executions, I would like to see an attempt to synchronize the terminology in the article. I believe "Bosnian Serb forces" or "Serb soldiers" is better than "the Serbs". That is more consistent with ICTY terminology. Plus, in the article, the defenders of Srebrenica are alternatively refered to as Bosnian and Bosniak. Of course, they are both, but we should use one word for consistency sake. The word Bosniak is far more prevalent, hence I would say that gets the nod. Fairview360 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've glanced over the edit history of the page and have noticed the warring that occurs over terminology, so I'm not going to touch that with a ten-foot pole ;-) My expertise is in formatting, and I will stay within my niche, if you don't mind. Djma12 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Playing it safe definitely has its advantages. Fairview360 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sub-article format
(Takes deep breath...) Alright, would anyone like to suggest how/if sub-articles might improve the architechture of this article? Djma12 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest going with the initiative of creating a sub-article about the specific massacres but not reduce the entire section to just one link. Rather, write a paragraph that clearly describes the locations and dates with links to the sub-article. Then the reader would see the sequence of events, but the details of said events would be in a sub-article thereby reducing the overall length of the article without obscuring the events themselves. Fairview360 01:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will try to have some type of rough draft ready in the next couple of days, and will post it in my user sandbox. Djma12 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, here's a rough draft of what I have in mind. Notice that I have only completed July 13th so far.  The process for re-writing and internal linking is fairly time-intensive, so I don't want to complete it all if this turns out to be controversial.  Let me know what you think. Djma12 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To give editors here an example, here is a sentence from your proposed draft: "The executions began on July 13th, when seventeen men were transported by bus to the banks of the Jadar river and shot. By the afternoon of the 13th, large scale executions had begun near the River Cerska (150 men), Tisca (22 men), and the Agricultural Cooperative in Kravica (1000-1500 men.)"


 * I think it is very well done. It explicitly refers to each massacre and gives the reader a chance to learn more of the details if they so wish. It does not detract or obscure the events. And it makes the article more concise. If the rest of the proposed text is this effective, I would support reducing the text of the main article along these lines as long as the sub-article is of good quality. Fairview360 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, then I'll proceed from here and will update the discussion page when a new Sandbox version is available. Of note:
 * Keep in mind that I may need help with some of the text in the "Chronology" section, so let me know if I've glossed over too much.
 * Likewise, I think the text for the "Preparation for executions" section could use some tightening, but am under-qualified to do so. Help in streamlining would be appreciated.
 * Djma12 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Other than the executions section, are there any other sections that are readily amenable to sub-articling? Djma12 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the article is to succeed in being more concise I think it should focus on the actual massacre. If so, I think it would be a good idea to summarize the current sections 3 through 7 (which deal what happened after the massacre in particular the political repercussions of it) and move some of the material to sep
 * Don't see any at the moment. I suggest going with this attempt and see if it can be handled in such a way that it does not provoke an edit war. My guess is that if it does not appear to be an attempt to obscure the events, it could be accepted. Fairview360 21:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think there are. If the article is to succeed in being more concise I think it should focus on the actual massacre. If so, I think it would be a good idea to summarize the current sections 3 through 7 (which deal what happened after the massacre in particular the political repercussions of it) and move some of the material to separate sub-articles. I would be willing to rework the text, either alone or with someone else. Any comments? Regards Osli73 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To all editors: Kindly take a look at this proposed replacement to the "Mass executions" section. Input, especially on tightening the "preparations" section and expanding the "chronology" section would be appreciated. Djma12 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi,

I have not contributed to the article enough to earn to qualification of being an "editor"; (although I have "followed" this article since around January; and I'm familiar with the events as well); so this response is only my own personal response and nothing more. But, I have to agree with Fairview 360; I think you have done a very good job with the sub-article. It both clearly explains the magnitude of the event (as well as the logistics and operational aspects of the massacre; without being so "wordy" that we lose focus on the main factors.)

If no one minds me offering a bit of a suggestion however, I think that there should also be a reference to the reburial of the bodies in secondary grave sites; because 1. the "cover-up" aspect was a part of the crime; and 2. it deals directly with finding the remains of the victims. Unless others have a difference of opinion; perhaps it can have its own seperate mini-paragraph between the chronology section and the forensic paragraph? Or, perhaps it should be included with the forensic paragraph? Again, just a suggestion. (And I'm sorry if there is a reference to the reburials; and I missed it!) As someone who has followed this article; but hasn't contributed much; I really appreciate the sub-article contribution you've made.


 * BTW: This may or may not be of use to the article. A collection of comments by Adam Boys of the ICMP on the forensic and recovery aspects. http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0703&L=justwatch-l&D=1&O=D&P=37095

Gardenfli 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gardenfli, Thank you for the feedback. Would you be willing to write a paragraph on the reburials as you have suggested and insert it into the proposed sub-article as it appears in Djma12's sandbox? Also, if you have time, the sub-article would benefit from a brief introductory paragraph. Fairview360 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the sub-article itself also needs help with citations. Can somebody help me out with that? Djma12 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not have any part in writing that section of the article, but I believe most of it is based upon ICTY Findings of Fact. Perhaps one of the original editors will help us out here. (?) Fairview360 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to sort through the article history and see if I can find the original editor. Until then, it might be helpful to add a link to the ICTY Findings of Fact as a "See also" in the bottom. Djma12 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Fairview. I've put together a VERY rough draft copy of a paragraph under Djma12's sandbox page. Obviously this paragraph needs to be better formated grammatically and stylistically (i.e. using the same tense; punctuation, etc.). I've tried to cite references within the paragraph, but it doesn't look as if they showed up properly. (If you couldn't tell, I've really never edited anything for Wiki before ;-) ). And the last sentence also needs to have  citation too.
 * Nevertheless, hopefully the paragraph will provide at least a base to build a better paragraph; or at the very least provide some sources and links regarding the reburials for the other editors to build upon.

Gardenfli 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gardenfli, I'll take a look at it. Fairview360 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gardenfli, take a look. I believe my edits were an improvement. Let me know what you think. Fairview360 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks.

Gardenfli 22:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Added some additional ref. sources.

The statement about the reburials being evidence of the organized nature of the killings has been cited back to the Durnford article. Bone and Blood (gray paragraph) The statement about the reburials being evidence of the status of the victims has been cited back to a [ BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3640788.stm]. In particular, this sentence: " Bosnian war criminals tried disguising their acts of genocide by exhuming mass graves and reburying bodies in smaller graves, claiming they were the result of minor battles." Gardenfli 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To Gardenfli: Thanks a bunch for the edits, they have really improved the article! (err, my sandbox, but eventually...)

To the editors: Though the sandbox version could still use fine tuning, are we nearing something that would be ready for presentation? Djma12 (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, except for one sentence in the introduction which Fairview360 insist on despite ICTY findings to the contrary (see Sandbox Talk page). Cheers Osli73 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Planning of massacre
To state that "The vast amount of planning and high-level coordination invested in killing thousands of men in a few days is apparent from the scale and the methodical nature in which the executions were carried out." contradicts what the ICTY states in its press release following the conviction of Krstic. About 2/3 down in the section "II - Which are the crimes that were committed?" the ICTY states:


 * The Trial Chamber points out that the decision to kill all the Bosnian Muslim men of fighting age was taken after the decision to transfer the women, children and old people.


 * The Trial Chamber is not stating, nor does it wish to suggest, that a plan to commit genocide existed prior to the attack on Srebrenica or even right before the city fell.

Thus, the ICTY is quite clear in that neither the decision to kill the Bosnian Muslim men or the plan to commit genocide existed prior to the attack. I'm not sure how this could be interpreted in any othe way. Neither am I aware of any other opinion offered by the ICTY on this issue.

Fairview360, your statement that this is "obviously" is a perfect example of WP:OR. Regards Osli73 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

More sophistry.

The ICTY statement is specifically referring to the intent to commit genocide. It in no way refutes the statement that the killing of 8000 people in the manner the VRS did it requires a high level of planning and coordination.

Here is wording directly from the ICTY describing the massacre:
 * -|"carefully orchestrated mass executions"
 * -|"mass executions followed a well-established pattern." "Immediately afterwards, and sometimes even during the executions, earth moving equipment arrived and the bodies were buried, either in the spot where they were killed or in another nearby

location.
 * - The operation to capture and detain the Bosnian Muslim men was |"well organised and comprehensive"
 * -  "evidence demonstrates a concerted campaign"

Review the reports from the ICTY and the Bosnian Serbs themselves. Thousands of VRS soldiers and support staff, using buses, trucks, tanks, guns, fuel, warehouses, communications, burial selection, and bulldozers, conducted multiple executions and burials killing over 8000 people. Looking at the details as established by ICTY and corroborated by the ICTY's description of event, that obviously took a high degree of planning.

Fairview360 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, Regards Osli73 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) your examples do indeed state that the massacre was "organized", "comprehensive" and "followed a well-established pattern". I agree with that. However, here the ICTY is commenting on the nature of the massacre, not when it was planned/when the decision was taken.
 * 2) The "concerted campaign" you cite above refers to the attempts to conceal the massacre, not to the massacre "The reburial evidence demonstrates a concerted campaign to conceal the bodies of the men in these primary gravesites, which was undoubtedly prompted by increasing international scrutiny of the events following the take-over of Srebrenica." (para 78 )
 * 3) However, if the ICTY states, in the ICTY source that I refer to above, that "the decision to kill all the Bosnian Muslim men of fighting age was taken after the decision to transfer the women, children and old people." then I don't see how we can claim that there was a "vast amount of planning and high-level coordination invested in killing thousands of men" since this implies that the massacre was planned beforehand.
 * 4) I don't know why they had trucks. I guess they were used to transport soldiers or had been intended to be used to transport the population out of town as was done with the women and children. However, the point of WP:OR is that we don't need to solve this problem and we definately shouldn't draw our own conclusions. Instead, we should rely on the sources.
 * 5) I'm more than willing to ask for an external opinion on this issue if you insist.


 * What more does one need to say? Look at text from the ICTY judgement: (my emphasis)


 * "Radislav Krstić aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of genocide against the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica."
 * "The international attention focused on Srebrenica, combined with the presence of the UN troops in the area, prevented those members of the VRS Main Staff who devised the genocidal plan from putting it into action in the most direct and efficient way. Constrained by the circumstances, they adopted the method which would allow them to implement the genocidal design while minimizing the risk of retribution."
 * http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/krs-aj040419e.pdf Fairview360 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, in para 572 of the judgement the Court discusses what "planned" is: Article 4 of the Statute does not require that the genocidal acts be premeditated over a long period. It is conceivable that, although the intention at the outset of an operation was not the destruction of a group, it may become the goal at some later point during the implementation of the operation. So, when the Court says that the massacre was "planned" and that Krstic participated in this planning it is not necessarily saying that this was planned long in advance. Regards Osli73 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone want to comment here? I do not see how one can coordinate mass executions and primary burials at this level without planning. Are we to accept that it just happened spontaneously? At some point, someone had to sit down and make a plan for exterminating this many people in this manner. Fairview360 00:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, since you insist I'll repeat what I said above: Regards Osli73 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ICTY source tells us that the massacre was planned. Krstic was convicted of aiding in planning this. No one is denying this.
 * However, as I point out in point 3, the ICTY source is also quite clear that the decision to kill the Bosnian Mulsim men (ie the massacre) was taken after the decision to transfer the women (ie after the town was taken). Therefore it would be incorrect for us to imply that the massacre had been planned (ie decided) before the attack on Srebrenica.
 * Pls read WP:OR. The idea is to use the sources not draw your own conclusions. We don't need to figure out how or when the massacre was planned. We should stick to what the sources tell us.


 * Does anyone want to comment here? Osli73 has deleted a statement that the mass executions required planning but states that he is not denying that the executions required planning. He is arguing against the assertion that the executions were planned long in advance while no one is claiming the executions were planned long in advance. And then sights the wiki rule to not use original sources when this is based on ICTY findings of fact, not original sources. Oy. It seems only Opbeith has shown the patience to engage these contortions. Opbeith? Comment? Fairview360 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A relevant statement from a member of the RS Srebrenica Commission (my emphasis):


 * "When we talk about the documentation required by the Commission, I must say that the VRS and RS Defence Ministry made original documentation available to us, especially useful was the VRS HQ documentation covering the month of July." To the question of whether crimes in Srebrenica were planned or just happened, Cekic says: "The crux of the matter is that crimes were, unfortunately, planned with morbid perfection. The Krivaja-95 Operation, which was actually the taking of Srebrenica, was composed of three phases: taking the town, deportation of civilians from Potocari, and killing of men and boys fit for military service. Cekic calls the fact that the Serb members of the Commission signed the report a turning point, and says it is extremely important to him as a historian, because, Bosnian Serbs have now accepted and confirmed the fact that genocide was committed in Srebrenica. There was no dilemma about this among the Serb members; they signed the report and said that they wanted to make a distinction with Serbs who did not take part in the events in Srebrenica and who have no blood on their hands now".


 * http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:1Z9S5OoxNEQJ:www.nato.int/sfor/media/2004/ms040618.htm+%22Srebrenica+Commission%22+rs+final+report%22+planned&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us
 * Fairview360 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, the source you site is a comment by Smail Cekic, a historian and Director of the Institute for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law, was the only Bosniac member of the RS Commission on Srebrenica. If you read the text you will see that he states that it was planned and wasn't a spontaneous act. This is also confirmed by the ICTY and NIOD reports (as I wrote in my proposed text). He says nothing about when the massacre was planned, by whom or why. However, it is not clear what the text you are referring to is (though it appears to be on the SFOR site). Certainly, the findings of the ICTY and the NIOD report are far more weighty sourcces. Regards Osli73 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As usual trying to create doubt and controversy where it does not exist. The text is quite clearly the words of Smail Cekic presented by a reliable source.


 * The other concerns raised above belong in the discussion below about section 2.3


 * Section 2.4 simply states that the executions were well planned and then describes what exactly happened. If anyone wants to continue this discussion of when and why the decision to commit mass murder was made, they can join the discussion below. Despite attempts to make it so, the fact that the executions were well planned is not controversial. In order to supply and direct thousands of personel and equipment engaged in the liquidation and burial of approximately 8000 people, there must be a high degree of coordination and therefore yes planning. I really have no interest in spending more time arguing this point. Again, if anyone else wants to engage this user, so be it. Fairview360 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, I will ignore your uncivil behavior and reply to the questions only: Regards Osli73 09:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) what I am opposing is the wording that the massacre involved a "vast amount of planning and high-level coordination". Not only is this statement unsourced, it also implies that the massacre was planned prior to the attack. The ICTY source is quite clear that the plan to kill the Bosnian Muslim men took place after the attack on the town.
 * 2) if you insist on keeping such an ambigous sentence I will have to insist on including at statement that the massacre was not planned prior to the attack but only after the decision to transfer the women and children, based on the ICTY source referred to above. I'll make the edit and then you can see what you think.
 * 3) since the preceeding section ("A plan to execute the men of Srebrenica") already deals with the massacre I suggest that whatever the decision the sentence be moved to the previous section.

Following up on this discussion I have rewritten the section on the plan to kill the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica and published it on Djma12's sandbox. Comments welcome. Regards Osli73 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The objective of this endeavor is to make the main article more concise. If one wants to write a sub-article on the nuances of exactly when the decision to commit genocide was made as opposed to "ethnically cleanse" Srebrenica, perhaps that can be the subject of another sub-article. Fairview360 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, Osli73 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) pls don't delete text from the sandbox
 * 2) I state quite clearly that the intention is that the text would replace the current section dealing with this (which, by the way, completely lacks sources)
 * 3) a lengthier subarticle on the reasons could certainly be written, this is a summary.


 * One may want to note that this all started when Osli deleted text from the sandbox. Furthermore, regarding the second statement, I see no evidence of that.


 * Lastly, rather than a long drawn out saga, to counter the potential implication that Osli apparently fears,
 * all that is required is one parenthetical statement in the "A plan to execute the men of Srebrenica" paragraph indicating the timing of the actual decision to commit genocide. Fairview360 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, not only do you not 'own' the Srebrenica massacre article, you also don't 'own' the sandbox in question. The text I wrote is meant to replace the current section which does not cover the 'plan' nor cite any sources. Osli73 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is really rather simple. The sandbox is for replacing section 2.4 mass executions, not section 2.3. See below. Fairview360 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Scorpions footnote
There introduction of the article includes the sentence "In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre" A dispute has now arisen between Fairview360 and myself about how this statement should be references.

Fairview's proposed footnotes:


 * 1) "Serbia: Mladic “Recruited” Infamous Scorpions". Institute for War and Peace Reporting.
 * 2) Srebrenica Video Vindicates Long Pursuit by Serb Activist;
 * 3) National Public Radio programme "All Things Considered, June 3, 2005" - Dejan Anastasijevic of Vreme Magazine tells Melissa Block "... This specific paramilitary unit is not a Bosnian Serb unit, it is a unit which comes from Serbia and the people from the Unit were actually members of the Serbian police force, so this is the first hard evidence that Serbian troops from Serbia were involved in the Srebrenica massacre. So far Serbian authorities were always claiming that troops from Serbia were not involved in the Bosnian War, just Bosnian Serb units. ...";
 * 4) [http://www.ex-yupress.com/vreme/vreme126.html Scorpions'Trail by Dejan Anastasjevic, Vreme, Belgrade, 9 June 2006

Osli73's proposed footnote

Although the unit originated from Serbia it has not been proved that it was under the control of the Serbian government. The Bosnian government has long alleged that the Scorpions were a part of the Serbian military police (MUP). There has also been circumstantial evidence to support this. In the court case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague the alleged link between Serbia and the Scorpions was one of the key issues. In its judgement in the case on 26 February 2007 the ICJ could not find that the Scorpions were under Serbian control or influence, de-jure or de-facto. In para. 389 it writes: "Judging on the basis of these materials, the Court is unable to find that the Scorpions were, in mid-1995, de jure organs of the Respondent. Furthermore, the Court notes that in any event the act of an organ placed by a State at the disposal of another public authority shall not be considered an act of that State if the organ was acting on behalf of the public authority at whose disposal it had been placed." In para 413 it concludes: "As for the killings committed by the “Scorpions” paramilitary militias, notably at Trnovo (paragraph 289 above), even if it were accepted that they were an element of the genocide committed in the Srebrenica area, which is not clearly established by the decisions thus far rendered by the ICTY (see, in particular, the Trial Chamber’s decision of 12 April 2006 in the Stanišić and Simatović case, IT-03-69), it has not been proved that they took place either on the instructions or under the control of organs of the FRY." Why do I wish to change the reference? To avoid an edit war on this topic I would appreciate some comments from uninvolved editors. Regards Osli73 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fairview's reference does not mention the recent ICJ ruling on the issue of Serbia's culpability for genocide in Bosnia/Srebrenica where the nature of the Scorpion's connection with Serbia was a central point. The ICJ did not find evidence of an alleged link to the Serbian government.
 * While my proposal does state that there is circumstancial evidence linking the Scorpions to the Serbian government, where I cite three of the sources Fairview uses, it clearly states what the ICJ has found.
 * The ICJ should be a much more reliable source than interviews with journalists and commentators.


 * What is being characterized as "Fairview's" sentence and footnotes is rather the product of ample prior discussion and contributions from many editors.Fairview360 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, you are the one arguing that it should not be replaced.Osli73 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Therefore, what we have is several editors having contributed to the sentence and footnotes as they are now with Osli73, along with his sockpuppetry, doing everything he can to either delete it or change it. Fairview360 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who these editors are. All I know is that I believe the current footnote is not complete and therefore I am proposing a more complete footnote (which includes three of the previous four) based on the findings of the ICJ, which considered the Scorpion's connection with Serbia closely. I believe the reason you do not want to mention the ICJ finding is that it does not find that the Scorpions were controlled by Belgrade.Osli73 20:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All one needs to do to learn who contributed to the sentence and footnotes is do some homework. The footnote as proposed by the above editor reads like a rebuttal to a statement that is not made. The sentence in the intro makes no claim that the Scorpions were under direct command of Belgrade. Furthermore, footnotes are not a place for writing ad nauseum rebuttals to possible implications but rather should direct the reader to the relevant source material. The reason there is an abundance of footnotes to that one statement added by a number of editors is that Osli and his sockpuppet KarlXII have been so aggressive in trying to get the sentence deleted. Fairview360 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to the original footnotes, the intro sentence refering to the Scorpions now has an additional footnote directing the reader to the ICJ judgement with the relevant paragraphs cited. Fairview360 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

proposed replacement for section 2.3 "A plan to kill the men of Srebrenica"
Given that the current text in section 2.3 does not cite any sources nor, in my opinion, deals with the issues of who planned the massacre, when and why I have proposed a new text (see below), based on the findings of the ICTY and the NIOD report on this matter (sourced). I have attempted to put this in Djma12's sandbox but the text was deleted by Fairview360. I'm not sure why. However, to avoid conflict I am putting it up here for discussion before editing the article. Regards Osli73 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Responsibility and motives for the massacre

Although General Krstic of the Drina Corps was convicted by the ICTY for aiding and abetting the massacre it has not been established who took the decision to kill the men of Srebrenica, when the decision was made or why. In its judgement against Radislav Krstic the ICTY found that the decision to kill the Bosnian Muslim men of military age and thereby commit Genocide was taken only after the town had been taken and the women and children sent away on buses: "The Trial Chamber points out that the decision to kill all the Bosnian Muslim men of fighting age was taken after the decision to transfer the women, children and old people… The Trial Chamber is not stating, nor does it wish to suggest, that a plan to commit genocide existed prior to the attack on Srebrenica or even right before the city fell." The ICTY believes that the initial intention was to carry out the “ethnic cleansing” of the enclave. However, it is unable to determine why the decision to kill the men was finally taken. The 2002 report by the Netherland’s Institute for War Documentation (NIOD), commissioned by the Dutch government, confirmed the ICTY’s picture: "These factors suggest that there was no proof that the mass murder of the men may have formed part of the plans for the capture of Srebrenica before the operation itself. It is therefore plausible that the decision to execute all Muslim men of combatant age was taken some time after 11 July 1995."

It states that the “The question of why the executions took place at all is not easy to answer.” Although it suggests that revenge most likely played a role in some of the massacres it rules it out as the driving factor of the massacre. In line with the ICTY, the NIOD report concludes that the decision to kill the men of Srebrenica was the result of the general policy of "ethnic cleansing", revenge and unforeseen circumstances. Although it is unable to determine who made the ultimate decision, it lays most of the blame on General Mladic.


 * It is really rather simple. The sandbox is being proposed to replace 2.4 mass executions. If Osli73 wants to open up a discussion of 2.3 "A plan to kill the men of Srebrenica", which is seperate from the sandbox text, so be it. With that said, his suggested replacement for 2.4 seems more inclined to create doubt than describe what actually happened. For comparison, here is the existing text:


 * Although Bosnian Serb forces have long been blamed for the massacre, it was not until June 2004 — following the Srebrenica commission's preliminary report — that Serb officials acknowledged that their security forces planned and carried out the slaughter. A Serb commission's final report on the 1995 Srebrenica massacre acknowledged that the mass murder of the men and boys was planned. The commission found that more than 7,800 were killed after it compiled thirty-four lists of victims.


 * The question of why the executions took place at all is not easy to answer. During the Radislav Krstić's trial before the ICTY, the prosecution's military advisor, Richard Butler, pointed out in taking this course of action, the Bosnian Serb Army deprived themselves of an extremely valuable bargaining counter. Butler suggested that they would have had far more to gain had they taken the men in Potočari as prisoners of war, under the supervision of the International Red Cross (IRC) and the UN troops still in the area. It might then have been possible to enter into some sort of exchange deal or they might have been able to force political concessions. Based on this reasoning, the ensuing mass murder defied rational explanation.


 * Although a number of women and children were murdered, together with a relatively large number of older men, the main focus of the VRS was on able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60. The buses which transported the women and children were systematically searched for men. Although very few, some exceptions were made; they included the casualties in Bratunac hospital who had previously been treated in the Dutchbat compound at Potočari. Thus, a concerted effort was made to capture and kill almost all Bosniak men of military age. All of them were targeted regardless of whether they chose to flee to Potočari or to join the Bosniak column.

Fairview, Osli73 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * the text neither deals with who made the decision to kill the men, when that decision was taken or why
 * the text does not cite any sources


 * The ICTY Krstic decision indicates the decision came from the VRS Main Staff.


 * Indeed the section could benefit from footnotes. Perhaps, there is an editor who would like to use of their time constructively and find the relevant source material. Fairview360 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, I know you are an intelligent person. Could you please comment on my proposed text. It is sourced and based on the ICTY and the NIOD findings on this matter. Regards Osli73 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that Osli73 is currently attempting to re-invent himself as an intellectually honest editor who is only acting in good faith. Perhaps, there is an editor here who would like to engage Osli in direct dialogue. Given his past track record of making patently false statements that he knows are not true, his use of sockpuppets, his apparent agenda to create controversy, his constant posturing, I have neither the patience nor time -- in the long run -- to continue this exchange.


 * I would like to see Djma12's initiative with section 2.4 succeed. He deserves that. And then I hope to return to focusing only on the intro as I so decided months ago. Fairview360 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sub-articling implemented
Per the above discussion, I have implemented the sub-article format for section 2.4 I would like to extend my thanks for all the editors involved for helping to improve the article. Djma12 (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

invitation for feedback regarding editing section 2.4 and the creation of sub-article
Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank Djma12 for having the gumption, goodwill, and endurance for seeing this initiative through. Fairview360 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to second the appreciation; as well as my support for the new text.Gardenfli 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. I look forward to working with you all again in the future. Djma12 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision of text
I've been pretty much knocked out for the last three days. So I'd like to express my admiration for all the hard work that's been done on the text. And I'd also like to express my appreciation for the advance warning that the changes will be made on Sunday. I haven't been up to reading anything as yet and would like the chance to do so and to be able to comment as well. That's why it's important to have a reasonable period of warning before significant changes are made. --Opbeith 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * glad to have you back

Gardenfli 03:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gardenfli. Building on all the hard work everyone else has been doing I've had a go at revising the version at Djma12's Sandbox0. I've tried to rework the text into a more easy-to-follow sequence that will hopefully also make it easier to provide references (and revise). I've also rewritten some of the text and broken it down into shorter and easier to read but hopefully still coherent paragraphs. I've completed the first half but still have to go over Chronology of events, Reburials and Forensic evidence, hopefully tomorrow. The suggested revised version is added at the end of Djma12's version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Djma12/Sandbox0. Comments awaited. --Opbeith 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, I'll have time tomorrow to take a look at this. When you are done, could you insert all of your edits to the existing version? Then we can compare the versions and see the actual changes highlighted in red. When I read one version on top of the other, it is hard to see what the differences are. Fairview360 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Djma12, I suggest we hold off on making the major edit to the article until after Opbeith completes his suggested edits. We can then take a look at them and see what the general consensus is. Our target is Sunday for making the major edit. We may still achieve that goal but it looks like Sunday evening by the earliest. Any thoughts? Thank you again for initiating this constructive positive atmosphere. Fairview360 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, I don't have much time right now, but a cursory look gives me the impression that most of the changes are in formatting. Are there prose that you are suggesting we delete? Is there any that is reduntant? My concern is that all the essential information from the earlier version is preserved in this new suggested version. From past experience, I know some editors are concerned that major edits are a ways of confusing things and eliminating relevant information. I want to keep track of things very closely so that we can explain or show what was changed. I know you share that concern so I do realize this is singing to the choir, but what the heck. Fairview360 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, if I inserted the edits it would be quite hard to compare versions as there'd be a mess of red that would be difficult to read. So what I've done is to break doen the first version and my suggested reworking into smaller sections that can be compared with one another and added my explanation of significant changes in bold. I hope that's acceptable. It's taken a lot of the time I was planning to use for finishing the rest and I have to go out now - I'll try and finish the rest this evening, but can't promise I'll manage it. --Opbeith 11:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In advance I'd say that my inclination is to give a much fuller version of the events detailed in the Chronology, removing most of the individual witness testimony but nevertheless keeping some detailed information about what happened at the different sites. Djma12, my view is that since the article is about the Massacre it's important to restore some of the detail that will provide a more informative narrative of the core events, particularly given the level of attention we are paying to the preliminaries of capture, assembly and transport. Anyhow I'll go ahead and other people can tell me whether my suggested version includes too much of the original information. --Opbeith 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, thank you for investing your time in this effort.


 * A few comments. In the suggested version it describes the pattern of mass executions in two different ways. In one, it says they usually held the men in warehouses for a few hours and then killed them. In another, it says that they usually held them for one or two days and then killed them. That needs to be reconciled.


 * It is not a big deal, but I like this sentence more: "The vast amount of planning and high-level coordination invested in killing thousands of men in a few days is apparent from the scale and the methodical nature in which the executions were carried out." It is difficult to argue with that sentence. It says the amount of planning is comensurate with the actual complexity of the mass executions. Just from a writing perspective, I like the cadence of that sentence more than the offered alternative. Do you have a strong opinion about this? Is there a significant difference in meaning that I am missing?


 * "Most of the prisoners were captured by the VRS on 13 July," vs. "The VRS took the largest number of prisoners on 13 July,". I do not see the advantage of using the passive voice. Hence, I prefer the latter.


 * There will no doubt at some time be a request for a citation on the aerial photographs sentence. Do you have one? I assume you are refering to the documents provided to the ICTY from the US government.


 * Adding more detail to the chronology of the massacres makes sense since the title of the article is Srebrenica Massacre. With that said, the objective here is to make the overall article more concise. It stands now at 132K which is more than the Holocaust article. There are other parts of the article that suffer from redundancy and long-windedness (if that is a word), so I would support a few more sentences in the chronology of events with a mind towards shortening other parts of the article in a subsequent editing effort. Fairview360 19:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview 360, re your specific points: (1) If something is apparent it begs the question - to who? (2) "Took the largest number of prisoners" is ambiguous - it could be that the reference is to the number captured by the VRS compared with the MUP or another group whereas in the context the reference (not sourced yet) has to be to the date on which most of the prisoners were taken (of significance in relation to what was going on in the outside world) (3) I haven't referenced the aerial photos yet (or anything else - although the Chronology is pretty verified by the Beara indictment); my assumption is similar to yours. (4) I've come up with an abbreviated Chronology based on the text placed into the sub-article with revisions based on the Beara indictment, but I should be able to cut it down further - I need to be able to take a fresh look to decide how much burial/reburial material is worth retaining here for the information it gives about the killings. I'll post my temporary version at Djma12's Sandbox0 but will come back with a rather more concise version. Also (1) The reburials section could perhaps be slightly rewritten but as it is it seems to contain the most important information. (2) The Forensic evidence section needs updating, not done yet. --Opbeith 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith,

Thank you again for seeing this through.

1. OK. Let's work with your suggested sentence. It needs to be tightened up. As it reads now, "The scale of these executions and the methodical way in which thousands of men required a vast amount of planning and high-level coordination.", I think you meant to say something more about the "thousands of men". How about this: The scale and methodical nature of the executions required a high degree of planning and coordination. 2. OK. Got it. 3,4,also 1, and also 2, OK

Lastly, how do we reconcile a few hours verses a day or two? One way is to simply say people were held in warehouses and not say how long. What do you think? Fairview360 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fairview 360, I lost your query. Can you repeat it - it didn't seem a problem as far as I remember but I need the details again.  --Opbeith 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised Chronology and updated Forensic evidence sections now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Djma12/Sandbox0 around Reburials section with a couple of minor changes. --Opbeith 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, one part says: "The mass executions followed a well-established pattern. The men were first taken to empty schools or warehouses. After being detained there for some hours, they were loaded onto buses or trucks and taken to another site for execution. Usually, the execution sites were fields in isolated locations." Another part says, "The killings generally involved a pattern of separating men and boys and assembling prisoners for transport to temporary detention facilities, including schools and warehouses, where they were held for one or two nights before being taken to open fields for execution and mass burial." The pattern is that they were held in schools and warehouses and then killed. What we need to do is reconcile the two statements in regards to how long they were held. Any suggestions? Fairview360 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll sort that out tomorrow, it's a matter of differences in different situations - but almost all were held for one or two nights (generally in or around Bratunac before being taken to other facilities near the execution sites for a few hours before being taken to be killed.  I'll sort out the wording tomorrow.  --Opbeith 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reworked the three paras of the "The mass executions" intro as follows:


 * "Following the detention of prisoners on 13 July and subsequently [some referred to later in the Chronology were detained after 13 July], the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) conducted a number of mass executions between 13 and 22 July. The scale of the executions and the methodical way in which thousands of men were killed and buried required a vast amount of planning and high-level coordination. [I've revised my suggested wording - this version omits the word "apparent" - so may be contentious, but I think it sticks to the sense of the original].


 * The killings generally involved separating the men and boys from the women, young children and the elderly, moving prisoners to the Bratunac area where they were detained for one or two nights, and then transporting them to temporary holding centres (including schools and warehouses) near the execution sites where they were kept for a few hours before being taken out to open fields for execution and mass burial. [Rewritten for consistency with the detailed content]


 * As of 2007, the remains of more than 6500 individuals have been exhumed from the Srebrenica region and identified or DNA-profiled. [My summary of Adam Boys comment on Scotsman article - reference given in Forensic evidence section] The number of people missing or killed as compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons includes 8,373 names so far." --Opbeith 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, are we ready now? If all of your suggested edits are now in order. How about changing the main sandbox version and we'll ask Djma12 for feedback. If Djma12 accepts, then we can go ahead with it. If not, we are still probably rather close. User:Fairview360 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll change the main sandbox version. Referencing still needs to be completed. I'll do as much as I can manage now and I'll complete the rest when I can. --Opbeith 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just lost all I'd done to the sandbox version when I clicked on the wrong part of the browser tab. Very annoying as I'd been incorporating some changes based on the Popovic et al consolidated indictment, which is dated June 2006 and so presumably provides the best resolution available of a number of areas of doubt. Will have another go tomorrow. --Opbeith 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Best laid plans of mice and men... sorry to hear of your misfortune. Wish you better luck tomorrow. Fairview360 02:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have put revised version up at Djma12 sandbox. Not thoroughly checked through and still needs referencing but that can be sorted. Perhaps I've taken it back to being a bit too wordy but a lot has been cut out and personally I'm happier to have reasonable coverage of the core events making up the actual massacre.


 * edit choices


 * I've made edits to the sandbox version according to the following.


 * Mass Executions: Suggested version "Following the separation of men and boys at Potocari and the taking prisoner of members of the break-out column," verses my edit "Following the detention of prisoners,". I strongly prefer the latter. The former is cumbersome and redundant. By that time in the article the reader has been repeatedly hit over the head with reems of information that these were not your average prisoners. The reader has already been told that the prisoners came from Potocari and the column. The reader does not need to be reminded of that again. They got it.


 * Preparations: I reverted the preparations section back to the original except minor changes. The suggested version has less details and leaves the reader wondering how one knows that 6000 people were captured in one day. The one thing I changed is the first sentence according to earlier discussions. Also, the new suggested first sentence is cumbersome and redundant yet again. "The execution of the plan to murder the able-bodied men of Srebrenica began" verses "the executions began". Why does the reader need to be told of the plan to murder able-bodied men from Srebrenica? They have already been told that. Do we need to explain that every single time? The reader gets it. And if someone wants to communicate the morbidity and gravity of what was happening, I believe "The executions began" is more effective than the overly wordy repetitive convoluted alternative.


 * Pattern of Executions: "Almost all of the thousands of Bosniak prisoners..." Does the reader need to be told again that there were thousands of prisoners and they were Bosniak? Don't they already know that? How many times do they need to be told that? "Almost all of the prisoners..." communicates clearly what happened with the reader having been completely informed as to what exactly that means. "Commencing on July 13." That piece of information is given repeatedly? Why? And why add that to the patterns section? The pattern is what it is without being told again and again that date. "After being detained for one or two nights, mostly in or around Bratunac, the men were taken to empty schools"... no, they were detained in the schools during those one or two nights.


 * Chronology: I reverted the entire chronology section since the longer version defeats the purpose of this enterprise and repeats information already detailed in prior sections. If the Holocaust can be described in less words than the Srebrenica Massacre, then why can't we do it? The idea is that if the reader wants more details, they can get it by clicking on the sub-article. Furthermore, when the reader has already read in prior sections the specific details about opportunistic killings, why do they need to read the exact same information again and again? Give the reader a choice. If they want more details, they can click on the sub-article.


 * Djma12, Opbeith, Gardenfli: I am running out of time. I will have virtually no time in April. It has been about 2 weeks since we started this effort which included quite a bit of effort establishing trust with Djma12 and going in tortuous circles with Osli73. I want to see this through to success, but I am pretty close to walking away from this since it does not feel like we are moving forward and I just do not have much time left.


 * PLEASE stop and, before we do any more edits, look at these comparisons:


 * Djma12's compared to the latest:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADjma12%2FSandbox0&diff=118811440&oldid=117060942
 * Opbeith's compared to the latest:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADjma12%2FSandbox0&diff=118811440&oldid=118746923


 * Please ask yourselves if you have major objections to going with the latest (save some minor editing). If there are major objections and this needs to go another round of major discussions and major edits, I simply do not have time to do that. Also, if the underlying issue is the length of the sandbox section, then there is a greater issue to be addressed which is the overall length of the article and what is appropriate. Does the reader need to be stabbed with each and every detail so they know just how bad it was? Do they need to be told the same thing again and again? I think they get it. And, given what I thought was the basis of this initiative, those details can be made available in a sub-article. I see no reason why the Holocaust which involved millions of people can be summarized in less words than Srebrenica. Hello?


 * I would like to see success with this initiative before I need to step back, but if that is not going to happen so be it. Thank you for your efforts. Best of luck. Fairview360 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks to Djma12, Opbeith and Fairview360 for working on this section.


 * About the terminology for the mass execution. What about "following the detention of the men and boys?" That seems a bit less cumbersome than the first description; while at the sametime, states clearly that these weren't "typical" prisoners. Perhaps in follow up references in the paragraph,we can use the terminology "prisoners." Perhaps that would be the best option? In the first sentence, mention the men and boys being held in detention/prison/captive; and then in subsequent mentions, use the term "prisoners" when describing them? (I realize that I'm probably going into too much detail here, especially when we have broader range issues to work on as well.)


 * My own preference would be to cut down on the Chron. section. Especially when the mass killings are described in detail in the sub-article. It is kind of redundant to have a sub-article, if the details are explained in chronology. My own preference would be to keep the sub-article on specific massacres and use the older version of the chronology with the dates and numbers of dead from each massacre. That way, the information is presented more clearly. We aren't obscuring what happened either, the details, including eyewitness/survivor statements, further details, descriptions of the massacres is clearly displayed in the sub-article. I think the chronology just with the numbers of those murdered also speaks volume as to the human loss. So, to make my rambling short(er); my preference would be to have the Chronology section like it was in the older version, with the dates and the locations, and approx. numbers killed in each massacre; and perhaps one or two other sentences related to the chronology if needed; and have each massacre linked to a paragraph on the sub-article about the massacres; and if the reader wants more specific details, she can click on the sub-article.


 * I do think however that the new forensic paragraph does add important details to the article; and I'd like to see that version included.


 * I also think that it is important to make the article concise without obscuring what happened. I don't think that it is impossible. I think that we can give a clear idea of the magnitude of the event; without being overly verbose. I certainly understand that some editors in the past have edited the article in order to seemingly downplay the event; or obscure the massacres. That's why it's so important to obviously have discussions before editing, etc. The tragedy or importance of Srebrenica is not diminished in anyway by making this article more concise and not including *every* specfic detail. If need be, for sections other than the massacres section, we can use sub-articles. I do think that the article is too wordy as it is. I think that we can work on making it more concise; to give a clear picture of what happened; without having a 17 page article.


 * So, in the end, my own personal preference would be to keep Djma12's version of the chron (with perhaps a few minor changes if need be.) Have it linked to the sub-article on the specific massacres; and use Opbeith's version of the forensic. I honestly think that this way the magnitude and the organization and the logistics of the massacre is clearly stated; in a concise way.


 * P.S. I realze the irony of mentioning that we should be concise, when I've repeated myself constantly writing these past paragraphs. ;-)

Gardenfli 05:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand people not appreciating my lengthy version. In justification I'd like to emphasise that I believed the details of the killings which are after all at the core of the article warrant inclusion in the main article, even if my version could be shortened. I don't feel they should simply be relegated to a sub-article. Also I was attempting to bring the details and organisation of the account of events up to date in the light of the most recent ICTY source document I have found, the Popovic et al consolidated indictment of 2006. This corrects some of the information given in the article/subarticle. If I hadn't, the incorrect information would have remained in place.

It took some effort to reconcile the two texts and as part of this I included some wording from the indictment, causing Fairview360 to assume I was simply replacing concise text with clumsy redundancy. Properly revised that clumsiness could have been dealt with. However as Fairview360 wanted something in place quickly I proceeded from his suggestion that I replace the original version at the "sandbox" with my own previous "suggested reworking" (which had not attempted a thorough updating of the information).

I know that my latest version still required some further editing for readability purposes (in updating I'd incorporated some, and I needed to incorporate the references, but that was the best I could manage at that time. I'm sorry that it's considered so unhelpful.  But that's the problem with trying to do something properly - interim solutions that are part of the process may not be vey elegant.  My version may be lengthy and inelegant (although I'd point out that it still represents a substantial curtailment of the original chronology of events).  But I don't agree with the minimal version of the chronology and I don't think that the original text should be parked in the sub-article without any form of correction.

I don't think contrasts with the Holocaust article are appropriate. In the first place there are numerous articles on Wikipedia relating to detailed aspects of the Holocaust. But also Srebrenica is a topic of immediate concern and considerable dispute and it is only to be expected that there will be more attention to detail than to a more thoroughly reviewed and generally consensualised historical topic. --Opbeith 11:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read that again. "In the first place there are numerous articles on Wikipedia relating to detailed aspects of the Holocaust." Exactly. That is what we were trying to do with the sub-article. Create one of the first of many detailed accounts of one aspect of the Srebrenica Massacre. Fairview360 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have run out of time.


 * Here is my main advice. 1) Do not repeat information. 2) Remember that the purpose of this endeavor is to make the article more concise.


 * If one side insists on stuffing every detail in the main article to prove a point, then the other side can say that every other relevant detail must also be included to prove the potential validity of their alternative point of view and then, the article is no longer an encyclopedia (in other words a SUMMARY of what happened) but rather an arena of endless arguing and bickering along with the excessive repetitive sloppy text that comes with it.


 * Best of Luck. I'll check in from time to time. I am returning to my previous stance of focusing what little time I have on the intro. Fairview360 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, I'm SO sorry if I gave you the impression that your hardwork and revision of the chron. section was not appreciated or not important. I think that the information you provided is very important. I think that perhaps a Srebrenica Massacre Infobox and category might be a good way to go. That way we can devote several articles to specific details, i.e. the legal proceedings, the role of international actors. I discussed the potential aspect of a Srebrenica related infobox down on this discussion page. Feel free to add any feedback.

Gardenfli 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica - the ONLY legally established genocide in Europe
I am very surprised to learn there was not even one single judgment confirming genocide against the Jews during Nuremberg trials,

Here are sentences handed down to 22 accused:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/nurembg/NuremJudgement.htm

This confirms that the Srebrenica Genocide is the only legally established genocide in Europe.

Bosniak 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The International Criminal Tribunal which tried 24 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946.


 * The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which for the first time defined genocide as a specific crime was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948.


 * There is nothing surprising about the conclusion one can draw from these two facts which have been refered to repeatedly in these discussion pages. Fairview360 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the observation that Srebrenica is currently "the only legally established genocide in Europe" should not be presented such in the introduction. It gives the first time reader the impression that all potential cases of genocide in Europe were reviewed and only Srebrenica passed muster. It gives the impression that the Holocaust and Armenia are being rejected as cases of genocide. It could be argued that the Holocaust and Armenia have been acknowledged as cases of genocide since European courts have made it illegal to deny these cases of genocide. In any case, this observation, I believe, belongs in the "Legal Proceedings" section with better explanation of what exactly is being asserted. Fairview360 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, the first conviction of genocide under the 1948 convention was against a perpetrator of the Rwandan genocide. Fairview360 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fairview on this one. The Srebrenica genocide verdict is extremely important. However, to characterize it as the 'first and only' legal qualification of genocide in Europe in the introduction without any explanation of the genocide convention, or anything like that is somewhat misleading.
 * It makes it sound as if the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide were tried in a court of law and legally found to be not genocides. Which is not the case at all.

The word genocide did not even come into existence into Raphael Lemkin created it during WWII. The Nuremberg trials took place BEFORE genocide had a legal meaning. So, the Nazis were not even tried with genocide; and therefore, couldn't be convicted of it. I think the issue would be much better fully fleshed out in a section on legal proceedings; where we can more fully explain the importance of the genocide convention; and the specific importance and legal precedence of Srebrenica case in the realm of international humanitarian law; and prevention of genocide convention. Gardenfli 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it was adopted in 1948 the Genocide Convention didn't come into effect until 12 January 1951. The Akeyasu conviction was the crucial first conviction. Krstic's aiding and abetting conviction was the confirmation that genocide had taken place during the Bosnian War at Srebrenica. But neither of those convictions means that the crime that we now refer to as genocide had not taken place earlier or elsewhere. Murder becomes a crime as soon as a community develops a moral framework that condemns the wilful taking of life. The legal framework of control and sanction follows on after that. Using the principles of the Genocide Convention and the reasoning of case law we can form a judgment whether an event or process constituted genocide. What we can't do is say that that judgment has formal legal status. I think it was important for the statement that Srebrenica was the first legally established case of genocide in Europe to appear in the article when the genocide was still being denied. Now that the ICJ ruling has confirmed the ICTY findings I think too much emphasis on Srebrenica's unique status as a legally established genocide risks comforting those individuals who insist that because there has been no legal finding of guilt there was no genocide elsewhere in Bosnia, not just ignoring the evidential issues but disregarding the fact that charges are still outstanding. --Opbeith 10:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And the findings of facts and the judgement from the Nuremburg trials did in effect confirm genocide against the Jews. It is strange that someone would want to argue otherwise. Fairview360 13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment. In the above, I don't know why only is presented as "ONLY" nor do I fully understand the emphatic nature of this assertion when comparing Srebrenica to the Holocaust. Given the subject matter -- thousands of Bosniaks and millions of Jews, innocent people being slaughtered just because they have the wrong last name -- I do not see any place for what could appear to be triumphalism or one-up-manship. How does the statement "the ONLY legally established genocide in Europe" make a moral distinction between Srebrenica and the Holocaust? How does it make any distinction in what actually happened? What is the point of emphatically asserting this in this context? If there were a discussion of international law in regards to genocide, the first instances of the law leading to convictions would be relevant (whether in Europe or Africa), but given the way this has been presented here, especially with direct reference to the slaughter of 6 million Jewish men, women, and children, and given the context, the comment that initiated this section is either utterly meaningless, rather bizarre, or deeply offensive.


 * I believe it would be beneficial if there were a clear assertion by the editor posting the above comment that the facts established and the judgements handed down during the Nuremburg trials affirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that genocide was committed against the Jews.


 * To said editor, I pose this yes or no question. Did the facts established and judgements rendered from the Nuremburg trials confirm that genocide was committed against the Jews? Yes or no? Fairview360 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: Although I do not talk to Fairview, nor do I pay attention to what he writes (however I appreciate his genuine efforts and activism with regards to this article), I feel obliged to come here and state my position about Holocaust more clearly (so other people can understand it). Why? Because my friend asked me to do it and I do care about what my friends think. Neverthless. Srebrenica genocide is the only legally established genocide in Europe. Yes, that is still my position. It is the only legally established case of genocide in Europe. Nobody can deny that and nobody can dispute it. However, this does not mean that Holocaust did not constitute genocide. As Gardenfli pointed out: "Genocide as a legal term did not exist until AFTER the Nuremberg trial. Therefore, there was no law against genocide during the Nuremberg trial and therefore, they [war criminals] couldn't be charged or convicted of a law that didn't even exist yet.... Secondly; the law about genocide did not come into existence until 1948. That law itself came into being largely because of the Holocaust. The Nuremberg trials took place in 1946. The Nazis couldn't be convicted, much less charged with genocide; when the legal term genocide didn't even exist in 1946." In other words, and unquestionably, Holocaust did constitute genocide and trying to prove anything else would be waste of time. I only wish there is a better documented resource about the Holocaust victims (first/last names, date of birth, addresses, fathers names, etc). Why do I think so? It's because the world demanded from us (Bosniaks) to produce these records about our (Srebrenica) victims. I wish these records also exist for Holocaust victims - as each victim deserves dignity of having their name somewhere in the books of history. Being just a number is certainly not what any victim would wish. And there can never be "credible" numbers without documents proving each victim died (or at least, that's what the world told us about Srebrenica victims). Now I will jump off topic a bit: '''When it comes to Bosniaks, I have became unpleasantly furious with Bosniak victimhood politics mostly mirrored in local news sources. I do not believe Bosniaks can achieve any healthy future if they continue living in the past.''' Bosniaks need to accept that Serb entity (Republika Srpska) will be eternal part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, while Bosnian Serbs need to accept that Republika Srpska will be eternally part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosniaks are constitutive people of Republika Srpska with a power of a veto. Republika Srpska is not a "Federal" unit in a state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's simply political entity with broad autonomy. Having said that, they cannot hold a referendum to secede from Bosnia (aka: they cannot make state-level decisions). Even if they do so, Bosniaks have a power of veto. As a result - Republika Srpska will never be able to secede from Bosnia, and it will stay eternal part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Period.

role of Bosniak forces
The previous version of this section raised speculative questions that the subsequent text did not answer, presented quotes that had been edited, and presented the text as being the position of the General Assembly of the United Nations which is not true. The text came from a UN-sanctioned report presented to the General Assembly. If one reads paragraphs 4 and 501 for example, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/, one can easily see that the report is presented in the first person. The report is based on extensive interviews and has the credibility of being sanctioned by the UN. However, it is not the official position of the General Assembly nor should it be presented as such. Fairview360 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that, I'm afraid the link doesn't go to a specific document. --Opbeith 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For whatever reason it sends you back to the home page instead of the document. I'll need to put instructions into the footnotes. (Forgot to sign the above comments.)Fairview360 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is easier, linkwise, Domovina.net has a copy of the report located here: UN report it might be easier for visitors to access that link. Gardenfli 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better!! Thank you Gardenfli. Fairview360 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of the UN safe haven, how it became corrupted and unworkable. Particularly why a supposedly disarmed populace had thousands of troops in their midst. 124.181.120.201 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute regarding Serb casualties around Srebrenica
Opbeith, Gardenfli, Djma12, any editor,

Please look at the changes I made to the "Dispute regarding Serb casualties around Srebrenica" section. There were three long-winded paragraphs making a point that is well argued and documented in the same section already. Those three paragraphs might have been part of previous edit wars for it seems to be a rebuttal to something not currently asserted in the article. If there is a strong desire to include this information, maybe it could be a part of a new sub-article or included in the existing article about Naser Oric.

If one wants to re-insert these paragraphs, would there be a way to make the same point with less text? The edit I made saves 4KB on article length. Fairview360 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, you're correct, those paragraphs were inserted as evidence rebutting claims in an exchange about the nature and the scope of culpability of operations under Oric's command as represented in the article, and they're not essential outside that dispute. I for one am happy with your summary I've done a bit of further revision myself to cut out some redundancy and improve the flow a bit, as follows, which you're free to incorporate if you want, otherwise keep your version. I've also deleted commas from single thousand figures and used the European date convention DD MM YY, which avoids the need for some superfluous commas.

<<Dispute regarding Serb casualties around Srebrenica

It is agreed by all sides that Serbs suffered a number of casualties during military forays led by Naser Orić. The controversy over the nature and number of the casualties came to a head in 2005, the 10th anniversary of the massacre. According to Human Rights Watch, the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party "launched an aggressive campaign to prove that Muslims had committed crimes against thousands of Serbs in the area" which "was intended to diminish the significance of the July 1995 crime."[67] An ICTY press briefing dated 6 July 2005 noted that the number of Serb deaths in the region alleged by the Serbian authorities had increased from 1400 to 3500, a figure the ICTY stated "just does not reflect the reality."[68] The briefing cited previous accounts:

- The Republika Srpska's Commission for War Crimes gave the number of Serb victims in the municipalities of Bratunac, Srebrenica and Skelani as 995, 520 in Bratunac and 475 in Srebrenica.

- The book "The Chronicle of Our Graves" by Milivoje Ivanisevic (president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbs) estimates the number of people killed at around 1200.

- "For the Honorable Cross and Golden Freedom", a book published by the RS Ministry of Interior, referred to 641 Serb victims in the Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region.

The accuracy of these numbers is also challenged. The ICTY noted that although Ivanisevic's book estimated around that 1,200 Serbs were killed, personal details were only available for 624 victims.[68] And the validity of labeling some of the casualties as "victims" is contested:[68] studies that have examined the relative numbers of civilian and military casualties have found a significant majority of the latter.[69] This is in line with the nature of the conflict - Serb casualties died in raids by Bosniak forces on outlying villages used as military outposts for attacks on Srebrenica[70] (many of which had been ethnically cleansed of their Bosniak majority population in 1992).[71]  For example the village of Kravica was attacked by Bosniak forces on Orthodox Christmas Day, 7 January 1993. Some Serb sources such as Ivanisevic allege that the village's 353 inhabitants were "virtually completely destroyed".[68] In fact, the VRS' own internal records state that 46 Serbs died in the Kravica attack: 35 soldiers and 11 civilians.[72]  Nevertheless the event continues to be cited by Serb sources as the key example of heinous crimes committed by Bosniak forces around Srebrenica.[67]  [?add "and justification for the argument that the massacre at Srebrenica was an act of revenge rather than a planned genocide"].

The most up-to-date analysis of Serb casualties in the region comes from the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center, a non-partisan institution with a multiethnic staff.[69] The RDC's extensive review of casualty data found that Serb casualties in the Bratunac municipality amounted to 119 civilians and 424 soldiers.[69] It also established that although the 383 Serb victims buried in the Bratunac military cemetery are presented as casualties of ARBiH units from Srebrenica, 139 (more than one third of the total) had fought and died elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[69]

Serb sources maintain that casualties and losses during the period prior to the creation of the safe area gave rise to Serb demands for revenge against the Bosniaks based in Srebrenica. The ARBiH raids are presented as a key motivating factor for the July 1995 genocide.[73] This view is echoed by international sources including the 2002 report commissioned by the Dutch government on events leading to the fall of Srebrenica (the NIOD report).[74] However these sources also cite misleading figures for the number of Serb casualties in the region. The NIOD report, for instance, repeats the erroneous claim that the raid on Kravica resulted in the total annihilation of its population. Many consider these efforts to explain the motivation behind the Srebrenica massacre are merely revisionist attempts to justify the genocide. To quote the report to the UN Secretary-General on the Fall of Srebrenica:[75]

"Even though this accusation is often repeated by international sources, there is no credible evidence to support it… The Serbs repeatedly exaggerated the extent of the raids out of Srebrenica as a pretext for the prosecution of a central war aim: to create a geographically contiguous and ethnically pure territory along the Drina, while freeing their troops to fight in other parts of the country. The extent to which this pretext was accepted at face value by international actors and observers reflected the prism of 'moral equivalency' through which the conflict in Bosnia was viewed by too many for too long.">>

--Opbeith 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opbeith, I think your version is better written. Could you go ahead and change it? Better you since you know exactly what changes there were.


 * Note: I wish this article -- and the rest of media, academia, etc. -- used more specific terminology. Almost everytime I hear Serbs in this article, I wish it said "nationalist Serbs". Many Serbs fought against Milosevic both in Bosnia militarily and in Serbia politically. I wish our terminology distinguished between ultra-nationalist Serbs and the everyday Serbs. (e.g. We refer to Nazi propaganda, not German propaganda.) I understand the simplified terminology in this article mirrors what is commonly used, even in UN reports so I doubt we are going to solve it here. But still, I do prefer, whenever possible, to avoid expressions like "the Serbs". In this section, it is from a direct quote so there is no changing it. So it goes... Fairview360 01:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fairview360, to be consistent with my own philosophy of "do as you would be done by", I'll wait a couple of days (it's not a major edit and much of the stuff that's being deleted was my own insertion) until other interested parties have had a chance to comment. --Opbeith 07:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this sentiment; whenever possible we should not generalize or demonize an entire ethnic group. (and I'm certainly NOT saying that we've done so in the article at all; I'm pointing out that we shouldn't do so.) I certainly don't think that the writers of the UN report intended to mean the entire Serb people when they wrote "the Serbs" just as I'm sure when they used the term "the Bosniacs" when refering to crimes committed by *some* Bosniak soldiers in the area; they didn't intend to generalize or mean to refer to all Bosniaks from Srebrenica. I mean, when I read the quote I certainly did not think that they meant the entire Serb people; and I hope (and assume) that most wikipedia readers would be able to understand that "the Serbs" does not refer to all Serbs just as "the Bosniaks" does not refer to all Bosniaks.
 * But, I certainly understand the sentiment behind your feelings and statement; and I think that whenever possible we should be careful to specific, and not use blanket or generalize terms against any ethnic group etc.
 * Gardenfli 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(Gardenfli, I think you've missed an indent)

The other point worth stressing is that whatever is said about the controversy, nothing in what has been said about it should be understood as minimising the tragedy of the deaths of indidividuals. The matter at issue is the deliberate attempts to misrepresent the circumstances and scale of Serb casualties in the area and use them to justify the genocide.--Opbeith 07:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (added indent. Gardenfli, each time one hits the return key, one needs to add the colons again to get it to indent)


 * I believe that we are all in agreement. I do believe that in the UN report people understand that when the report says "the Serbs", it is refering to the VRS troops, the militias, those involved in the massacre. It is just that psychologically and in the political realm that can morph into a general indictment against an entire group. Anyway... it is clear that we are in agreement both about terminology and not minimizing the suffering of those who lost loved ones during the war, simply doing our best to be clear about what actually happened and why. Fairview360 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with both of these sentiments expressed. We should be very clear not the minimize or overlook the suffering of anyone. As you pointed out Opbeith; no one is disputing or trying to minimize the tragedy of indvidual deaths; but rather the focus is on the deliberate attemps by Serb nationalists to take the core truth (that war crimes occured) and exaggerate the numbers and the circumstances in order to justify, or at least minimize genocide. I think the first line (of both versions) express this purpose: That war crimes and deaths occured. But that the numbers and circumstances have also been exaggerated to fit a political purpose. Gardenfli 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ICTY stance about allegations of Serb victims is very clear, and I will repeat it from ICTY sources:  Asked to comment on the different number of Serb victims in the Srebrenica region published in Belgrade. Hartmann replied that:

"First of all, the OTP is always very careful in the use of the word "victim". Military or Police casualties from combat should not be considered victims in a criminal investigation context, in the same way people are victims from war crimes, such as summary executions.

Before speaking about the whole area of Podrinja, including at least the municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica and Skelani, I would comment on the various figures circulating around the Kravica attack of January 1993. The figures circulating of hundreds of victims or claiming that all 353 inhabitants were "virtually completely destroyed" do not reflect the reality.

During the attack by the BH army on Kravica, Jezestica, Opravdici, Mandici and the surrounding villages (the larger area of Kravica), on the 7th & 8th January 1993, 43 people were killed, according to our information. Our investigation shows that 13 of the 43 were obviously civilians. Our findings are matching with the Bratunac Brigade military reports of battle casualties which are believed in the OTP to be very reliable because they are internal VRS reports.

For the whole region, i.e the municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica and Skelani, the Serb authorities claimed previously that about 1400 people were killed due to attacks committed by the BH Army forces for the period of May 1992 to March 1995, when Srebrenica was under the control of Naser Oric. Now the figure has become 3,500 Serbs killed. This figure may have been inflated. Taking the term "victims" as defined previously, these figures just does not reflect the reality.

I wish to name various Serb sources on Serb victims which has circulated until recently. They are maybe not detailed but as they were presented. According to the RS Commission for War Crimes, the number of Serb victims for the Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region was until recently 995 victims (520 Bratunac area and 475 Srebernica area), of which Kravica, 43 victims.

According to "The Chronicle of Our Graves"; a book by Milivoje Ivanisevic, the president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbian People, claimed that the number of Serb victims for Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region was 1,200 victims but presented personal details available for only 624 victims. The author claimed that all 353 Kravica inhabitants were "virtually completely destroyed" which is not accurate.

Another book, "For the Honourable Cross and Golden Freedom"; a book (1,508 pages) by unknown authors from RS and in collaboration with the RS Ministry of Interior, claimed that the No. of Serb victims for the Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region is 641 victims, all war-related".

http://www.un.org/icty/briefing/2005/PB050706.htm Bosniak 05:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, I believe that those specific points and general sentiments of the ICTY on the politicalization and misepresentation on the list of Bosnian Serb casualties in the area is expressed in the section.
 * Do you see any spots for cosmetic changes or the like?

Gardenfli 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gardenfli, the one significant additional point that I have seen in Bosniak's post is Florence Hartmann's reference to 13 "obviously civilian" victims (rather than the 11 cited from VRS internal - presumably Bratunac Brigade - sources) out of 43 deaths in the Kravica area.  I'll incorporate that into the amended version as follows:

"For example the village of Kravica was attacked by Bosniak forces on Orthodox Christmas Day, 7 January 1993. Some Serb sources such as Ivanisevic allege that the village's 353 inhabitants were "virtually completely destroyed".[68] In fact, the VRS' own internal records state that 46 Serbs died in the Kravica attack: 35 soldiers and 11 civilians[72] while the ICTY Prosecutor's Office's investigation of casualties on 7 and 8 January in Kravica and the surrounding villages found that 43 people were killed, of whom 13 were obviously civilians. [reference http://www.un.org/icty/briefing/2005/PB050706.htm Florence Hartmann, Spokesperson for the Office of the Prosecutor, ICTY Weekly Press Briefing, 6.7.2005] Nevertheless ... "

and unless there are objections I'll replace the existing text tomorrow. --Opbeith 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

International Court of Justice
Regarding today's edits by Bosniak: I see no reason why to repeat the ICJ case and judgement, which is already mentioned in the "Legal proceedings" section. Furthermore, I think the new text is no improvement on the text in the "Legal proceedings" section, so I'm inclined to revert this block of edits. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jitse. The ICJ judgement is in the intro and the Legal Proceedings section. The Legal Proceedings entry could be improved slightly, but there is no need to create a third entry for the ICJ judgement. Also, before getting too far along with more edits and comments, I would like to see Bosniak explain his comment about genocide against the Jews. Fairview360 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the legal proceedings could be cleaned up a bit; perhaps with a specific emphesis on the Krstic trial judgment and in particular, the genocide ruling? What does everyone else think? I know the statement of Judge Meron is used in the introduction; and we don't have to repeat the exact statement of course; but we could perhaps, work on that section a bit. I'll try to think of some preliminary changes. I don't know how much time I'll have to work on wikipedia  though since I have some other stuff coming up this week; and my time may be somewhat limited; but I'll *try* see what I can do.
 * ETA of course I won't make any drastic changes w/out input from the other editors!
 * Second point, the first person referenced in the Legal Proceedings section, the man who was convicted of genocide in a German national court; was he convicted for crimes related to Srebrenica; or for crimes related to other atrocities in Bosnia? If it was related to Srebrenica of course it is important to the article, however it was related to crimes in Foca (for a hypothetical example) than that fact would probably fit better in with the Foca article and the Bosnian genocide or Bosnian War articles.
 * Third point; and I don't mean to sound dense or ignorant; but could someone please explain to me the significance of the fact that the courts have ruled that the war between Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia was an international conflict to the Srebrenica massacre? I'm NOT saying that it is no significant; just that I think that the article would be better if that significance and link between the decision of the courts regarding the international aspect of the conflict; and the specific aspect of the Srebrenica Massacre, which is the subject of this article, be explained. Because right now the fact is sort of dangling, without any explanation of the importance of this fact. If there is no link; perhaps that specific fact might work better in an article about the Bosnian Genocide, Bosnian wars, wars in the former Yugoslavia, ICTY etc. etc.

Gardenfli 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Gardenfli, the war was an international conflict, governed by international law, and not a civil war as often claimed. Srebrenica was not an incident in a civil war. If it had been I presume Serbia would not have been found to have failed to prevent genocide. This may be set out more authoritatively somewhere else. --Opbeith 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Gardenfli 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Important things, please read - what article is lacking
As you are warrying on the details, you lose some important things completely uncovered - with execption of the lost survivors, it's fast forward to after the war. It wasn't like that.

The story emerged gradually (the original US claim was some 2,400 were killed), and quite a lot happened. For example David Rohde of the Christian Science Monitor got Pulitzer for his discovery ( to see for what he was awarded) and Tadeusz Mazowiecki (the Bosnia UN official) resigned in protest. Of course, the magnitude of the massacre propelled the NATO intervention on part of Sarajevo. Someone should sit and write this and more down.

Rohde's reporting (all articles are on the linked website), including the witnesses' accounts, might be also used to improve the existing article.

Another thing, is the alleged governemnt responsibility. I signalled it there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Sarajevo.2FTuzla.27s_.22insane_tactic.22 Many people allege this, including Oric. There is alo the greater UN responibility than it's written. This Youtube video - they did not that much surrender to the Serbs, but they shamelessly collaborated in the genocide, and they did it HAPPILY. When helping to murder Srebrenica, they were smiling, dancing, handshaking and saluting Serbs, drinking with them, and receiving presents from them for goodbye - all recorded by the Serb and their own cameras.

Also, please archive the older talk, because it's going REALLY long. --HanzoHattori 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree we need to archive this page, because it is really, really long!!! Do we need an admin to archive it? (I'm not really familiar with various aspects of Wiki like that).
 * I also think that we can perhaps write a bridge paragraph between the massacre and the current day. Including, the investigations (including the David Rohde incident etc.) and the impact of Srebrenica on foreign governments policy towards Bosnia, and ultimately, the ending of the war. I think this information is quite essintial because it explains Srebrenica in the greater context of the war, and geo-political sphere; as well as of course, how the evidence of the slaughter was uncovered.
 * As to your second point; perhaps it would be more desirable to have a sub article on "controversies" (or something like that; that title does doesn't have to be used of course) about various debates that have emerged over the role of various actors. I think that it would probably fit much better in a sub-article than as part of a main article though. Because of course, the primary blame for the genocide lies with Gen. Mladic and the VRS officers who organized and carried it out; and we shouldn't lose site of that. However, the role of the other actors, and in particular the actions of the UN hierarchy regarding air strikes; and the various debates and controversies that have emerged over the actions various governments and officials took or didn't take; and whether or not these actions could have stopped the massacres is an important debate.

Gardenfli 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you HanzoHattori, the overall scope and balance of the article is important but we are human - trying to do what we can! --Opbeith 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and also the main article would easily fit on few pages of text (essentional summaries), with a sub-articles with all the details you need. It would also reduce the traffic on this talk page. A Srebrenica-related category and infobox would be created for all this. --HanzoHattori 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hanzoi I think that a section of sub-articles on important aspects of the Massacre is essential. Besides the one that is tentatively being worked on with regards to the specific details of the mass killings; do you see in other potential sub-articles that might be created to make the aticle provide more information, in a more organized fashion?

Gardenfli 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * HanzoHattori, Gardenfli, I suspect there are risks involved in having discussions going on in a number of places away from this main Discussion page, in the same way that there's a risk of more arbitrary and motivated changes to the text of sub-articles going unchallenged. --Opbeith 16:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem actually. And this talk page I can only describe as: "chaos". --HanzoHattori 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, the probloem is that people have carried out lightning changes to the main article that it has been difficult to follow. It would be even more difficult to keep track of ill-intentioned changes across a lot of sub-articles. --Opbeith 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be easier. I'm so confused what's going on there now I'm not doing anything. --HanzoHattori 08:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Potential Srebrenica Info Box/Sub-articles(?)

 * HanzoiHattori suggested in the previous paragraph to perhaps have a Srebrenica-related infobox/category with a series of sub-articles that goes into the specific details relating to various aspects of the Massacres; with the main article being used for a summary of what happened. Is anyone interested in perhaps pursuing that idea? I'm really not sure exactly *how* to create an infobox etc, but perhaps it might be something worth working on? That way, the most important basic facts about what happened (the numbers killed, the organization and methodical nature of the killings, etc. the responsibility of the VRS) is stated for the readers; and details such as perhaps (this is just a hypothetical example:) a more detailed article on the various legal aspects and trials related to Srebrenica can be relegated to a sub-article; where we keep the main article as it is, with a basic summary paragraph about the legal proceedings. That way, the most essential info: that Srebrenica was ruled by several international courts to qualify as a legal act of genocide is clearly presented in the main article; and if the reader wants more specific details on these trials; she can just click on the "legal proceedings" sub article.
 * It is just a suggestion. If anyone has any major objections to creating an infobox with sub-articles please feel free to add to the discussion. I'm sure that there might be some problems that I haven't thought of. But, just for now, I think a Srebrenica related infobox and the use of sub-articles might be helpful.

Gardenfli 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone already mentioned the Holocaust article and category: Holocaust and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:The_Holocaust (of course, it's just an example). --HanzoHattori 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Children of Genocide
Opbeith was researching list of genocide victims and he quickly came up with about 100-or-so children (under the age of 18) who died in the massacre. I wonder what is the total number of children who were massacred? I believe WE should explore this issue further. All the best. '''[http://bp1.blogger.com/_vADGnqDkynw/RhagPzY-6zI/AAAAAAAAABc/H-9B20wg51I/s1600-h/How-Can-Anyone-Harm-Children.jpg How can anyone harm children? - click to view -]''' Bosniak 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I found at least 407 underage individuals, including those who were 17 years old but not yet fully 18. Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious quotations
I find a lot of the references quite suspicious. It seems to me that this article is overly bias. A lot of quotes actually come from websites related to Bosnian side of the conflict, for example in the section on Serbian victims in surrounding areas of Srebrenica. Why are these sources used without the proper explanation where they are coming from and why are there almost no sources from other sides of the conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westtruth (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 April 2007


 * The references used in that section come from Human Rights Watch, the ICTY, the Research and Development Center in Sarajevo, a Bosnian census from before the conflict, NIOD, and AKI (I don't know what that is and I can't track the last reference). Which of them are biased towards the Bosniak side? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, NIOD Report in itself is Anti-Bosniak, because of moral equivalism in their research. Now, for this person to claim that NIOD is "pro-Bosniak" source is just insane. Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Osli back? It seems to me, based on "User: WestTruth's" style of language, wording, and recent activities that he is Osli! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Westtruth Please investigate. Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone -- I'll leave aside whether HRW, the ICTY etc are biased towards the Bosniak side, but I'd have to ask about the 'Research and Development Center', from which a fair bit of the information on this section appears to be based. How many people here wouldn't question the allegations of a source based in, say, Banja Luka, heavy on Serb imagery (including maps and flags of Republika Srpska and a link to click for the 'Serbian version')? And that's even if they did claim to have a 'multiethnic staff'...


 * But more concretely (and importantly), the article ('The Myth of Bratunac') contains no referencing -- and the article 'Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade' (again, the title doesn't have the most neutral-sounding tone) which they cite as evidence is nowhere to be found.. (Tried searching for it on Google, but no joy, apart from un-linked citations). One of the footnotes in the Wikipedia article (number 77) actually cites this more-or-less directly (the title is listed, then cited from 'The Myth of Bratunac' article) -- this seems a bit flaky to me. (Of course, this is *not* saying that any of the information is necessarily false, just a question about reliability and verifiability.) What do others think? Jonathanmills 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, while RDC says that it "was established... to continue the decade - long tradition of the War Crimes Commission established by the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on April 28, 1992", reinforced by the Bosnian flags this implies that it identifies itself with the Bosnian government, which, in Bosnia, I guess is a political statement, it also states that it is and "independent, nongovernmental, non - profit, professional and non - partisan institution". However, given that it appears to be an at least semi-official and intl. respected organization (see the list of donors and partners) I think it is fair to include it as a source.

The article doesn't have to take a stand as to whether or not the findings of the RDC are correct or not, just state that "a study by the Sarajevo-based RDC has found that...". That way, the article is just reporting what an apparently widely respected organization has found and published on its website. This must sure comply with NPOV. Cheers Osli73 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Osli, for your reply. I may or may not have something more to say on this topic, but don't have time right now. Cheers Jonathanmills 16:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify a few things; since there seems to a bit of confussion over the "Warpath" document; and maybe I can help clarify a few points.
 * The document "Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade" is the VRS's(Bosnian Serb Army) own document. From what I've read of ICTY transcripts, "Warpath of the Brigade" is a common title for many military documents. The RDC in their article "Myth of Bratunac" merely cited the VRS' own document, "Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade" with regard to the casualties in Kravica. According to the VRS' internal document ("Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade") the 35 of the victims were military personnel and 11 were civilians. Therefore, the RDC obviously had nothing to do with titeling the document "Warpath of the Bratunac Brigade." because, it is the VRS's document. hope that helped.
 * Gardenfli 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for that Gardenfli; yes, that did answer a big part of my question. I didn't realise about 'Warpath of...' was a common title for military documents -- sounds pretty brutal, but then I suppose you may as well call it what it is!
 * I'm wondering if there's any way of tracking down the document (appended to the ICTY ruling, for example)? Don't worry, I will check myself, just asking if you happen to know off-hand.
 * PS, hope you don't mind I reformatted your indents :-) Cheers Jonathanmills 12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

aljazeera, updates
guys check this out, i think it could help expand this article, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E1E65CD4-1519-49F8-B4B4-5EBF2E43E69E.htm --Towaru 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Already included under Legal Proceedings. Thanks for pointing out. Bosniak 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

serb troops vs. serb forces?
i'm trying to translate this article into some language, the words troops and forces in the article, make me confuse, does troops and forces has the same meaning? if for example, serb forces... is that mean its also included civilian that joint together to form a forces (not necessary a traine army)?--Towaru 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Towaru, in this article, the phrases "Serb forces" and "Serb troops" are used interchangeably to refer to Serb soldiers. From reading the article, one can see that these soldiers came from the RS army and Serb paramilitary units whose actions were coordinated by the RS Army chief of staff. In this article, "Serb forces" and "Serb troops" does not refer to Serb civilians. Fairview360 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see,thanks, i concluded that it is also applied to Bosniak forces.--Towaru 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Category/sub-articles
Examplary proposition. I think the Serb offensive and column articles should be treated as a battles (see here). --HanzoHattori 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do that you're accepting the case that this was a military column rather than a combination of soldiers, most of them poorly armed, and a majority group of civilians whose object was to escape the impending prospect of slaughter. You're also implicitly endorsing the claim that the people killed prior to the mass executions were killed in battle. --Opbeith 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just like the mentioned Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article (a combination of insurgents, most of them poorly armed, and a majority group of civilians whose object was to escape the impending prospect of slaughter) endorse the claim that the Jews killed besides the mass executions were killed in battle. It's a huge conspiracy. Now guess what, it was a battle. Germany won. --HanzoHattori 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the parallel is valid and I am puzzled why you're supporting the revisionist claims that for example the people killed by minefields and the people slaughtered in the ambush at Kamenica Hill were engaged in combat (and so don't count as victims of genocide). A battle is a conflict between two sides in which each is trying to secure some sort of victory over the other. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was a desperate resistance struggle to gain control of an area, not an attempt to escape the area. The column trying to get through to Tuzla wasn't attempting to fight the Serb army, they were trying to ensure that as many soldiers and civilians got out of the area as possible. To quote from the article "The young men were afraid they would be killed if they fell into Serb hands in Potočari and believed that they stood a better chance of surviving by trying to escape through the woods to Tuzla." --Opbeith 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course they were engaged in combat (these armed). They were not only just shooting back, but they even overrun some Serbs later, capturing officer and killing dozens. Still later they broke through the frontline even capturing some heavy weapons. (THE REVISIONISM or whatever you call the basic facts no one negates.)


 * And do you seriously think these Jewish fighters were not "afraid" of being caught by the Germans, or that they thought they would held off whole Germany for more than year? The idea was to resist and possibly escape the last deportation, after it was clear what the deportation really means (hundreds of fighters and civilians indeed escaped outside and then successfully hid, including even several uprising leaders like Icchak Cukierman or Marek Edelman). --HanzoHattori 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Jewish fighters weren't afraid for their lives, the whole point of the uprising was that they had no alternative but to resist - as far as I know mass escape wasn't considered as an option. The leaders of the uprising had decided that they weren't going to die without a fight. So they chose - legitimately - to resist the German forces controlling the ghetto and policing the deportations. So yes, that was a battle and the participants were fighting a battle. I don't understand why you want to call the column - essentially an attempt to avoid engagement with a superior force - a battle. Of course fighting was involved when the route of escape was blocked but does that mean that the column was taking part in a battle? How do you define a battle? And who do you regard as combattants? --Opbeith 09:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how anyone can not say both episodes were the battles in the war. In Warsaw Ghetto the objectives were:
 * German: Kill or capture all the Jews
 * Jewish: Kill as many Germans as possible, survive

Around Srebrenica, the objectives were:
 * ARBiH: Survive, evacuate the civilians
 * VRS: Kill or capture everyone in the columns

By combatants, I mean combatants. --HanzoHattori 15:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHatori said: ''Yeah, just like the mentioned Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article (a combination of insurgents, most of them poorly armed, and a majority group of civilians whose object was to escape the impending prospect of slaughter) endorse the claim that the Jews killed besides the mass executions were killed in battle. It's a huge conspiracy. Now guess what, it was a battle. Germany won.'' '''My response: I honestly don't understand what are you trying to prove? This is not a place for conspiracy theories. I am surprised by your comments and slightly offended.''' Bosniak 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Its a huge conspiracy" was a sarcasm. --HanzoHattori 15:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see your point. The ArBiH were obviously not fighting a battle with the VRS that they would have lost disastrously. They were trying to avoid a battle. The soldiers escaped largely because they managed to avoid any major fighting (the escape corridor contributed to this). Such fighting as there was was largely incidental. --Opbeith 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's refrain from any type of conspiracy theories; they are trully damaging. Bosniak 03:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Like how it was not a battle/operation, and a large-scale to the boot? Let's see...

As the situation in Potočari escalated towards crisis on the evening of 11 July 1995, word spread through the Bosniak community that the able-bodied men should take to the woods, form a column together with members of the 28th Division of the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and attempt a breakthrough towards Bosnian-held territory in the north. (...) The Drina Corps and the various brigades were ordered to devote all available manpower to the task of finding, stopping, disarming and taking prisoner the men of the column. (...) Arriving at Marcici in the evening of July 14, the marchers were again ambushed near Snagovo by Serb forces equipped with anti-aircraft guns, artillery, and tanks. According to Lieutenant Džemail Bećirović, the column managed to break through the ambush and, in so doing, capture a VRS officer, Major Zoran Janković—providing the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a significant bargaining counter. This prompted an attempt at negotiating a cessation in the fighting, but negotiations with local Serb forces failed. Nevertheless, the act of repulsing the ambush had a positive effect on morale of the marchers, who also captured an amount of weapons and supplies. (...) The hillside at Baljkovica formed the last VRS line separating the column from Bosnian-held territory. The VRS cordon actually consisted of two lines, the first of which presented a front on the Tuzla side against the 2nd Corps and the other a front against the approaching 28th Division. At approximately 05.00 hours on 16 July, the 2nd Corps made its first attempt to break through the VRS cordon from the Bosnian side. The objective was to force a breakthrough close to the hamlets of Parlog and Resnik. They were joined by Naser Orić and a number of his men. (...) The column’s advance group took advantage of this to '''attack the Serb rear lines at Baljkovica. During the fighting''', the main body of what remained of the column began to move from Krizevici. It reached the area of fighting at about 3 a.m. on Sunday, July 16, just as the forward groups managed to breach the line of the Zvornik Brigade's 4th Infantry Battalion. Unable to move several captured heavy arms including two Praga self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, they used them to fire into the Serb front line. Thus the column finally succeeded in breaking through to Bosnian government controlled territory and linked up with BiH units which had assaulted the 4th Battalion's front in order to meet the column at between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on July 16.

Not that one-sided. Do you think Ghetto was "not a battle", too? Why it's categorized as such, then? Is it some attempt at Holocaust denial according to you? How do you define the fighting, and why all the "fighting" in the existing article? Do you think practically the anti-partisan operations are "not battles", because the objective of one side is to hide or to get away? How about things like or Falaise pocket, to get this even conventional? --HanzoHattori 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you are seeking to prove. This still wasn't a battle as such, the fighting was incidental to the effort to escape. We don't seem to be speaking the same version of English. --Opbeith 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand YOUR problem. Really. What. --HanzoHattori 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak's Reply: - okay, so let's waste our time again on "same-old, same-old" tricks and conspiracy theories. Let me name a few: "Srebrenica genocide was an invention of the West", "Bodies number in hundreds, not in thousands", "It was all Western conspiracy against the Serbs", "NATO Colonizers invented Srebrenica", "Kangaroo Courts established Srebrenica genocide", "Bosniaks in Sarajevo bombed themselves", "Muslim Army was armed to the teeth and they died in the battle", "You don't commit genocide by separating women from men" etc, etc.... Oh God, it just makes me wanna puke. HanzoHattori - I don't understand what are you trying to prove brother? Are you trying to make victims of genocide "heroes" who died in the battle? Come on, grow up bro. They died like animals in slaughterhouse thanks to the UN. But, we need to put things into proper perspective. What do you think would happen to thousands of women and children had there not been UN to negotiate their transfer to safety? You really think Mladic cared about "Muslim women"? He couldn't kill them because of UN's presence, but had there not been UN negotiating safe transfer of women, they would all be raped and killed. There was too much media attention pointed at Mladic and he let women go - thanks to the UN negotiations. He even gave candies to the kids in front of camera to make himself "better man", only to humiliate them later and kill their loved ones. So, let's at least give UN personell credit for saving women of Srebrenica. Bosniak 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez, what "conspiracy theories" whatosever? I stopped reading by this point, because there is some serious babbling following. Do you think the existing article or the one about Warsaw Ghetto are "conspiracies" of Mladic-Serbs or the Neo-Nazis? I cited the article you wrote, is there anything wrong with these parts? I think you can't acknowledge, for some reason, that you can have a perfectly "good" military campaign to kill everyone. I am yet to hear someone saying Operation Anfal was okay because of the Peshmerga reistance (or someone saying there was no resistance, or maybe that these killed in combat were not killed combat). --HanzoHattori 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I believe you're right to say that Mladic knew that he was not going to get away with eliminating the women and children of Srebrenica under the eyes of the international media. For a long time it looked as if the plan to murder the men and boys might succeed because so many people were prepared to accept the different arguments that obscured what had actually happened - minimising the numbers of deaths (helped by the confusion deliberately engendered by reburials), raising the issue of revenge killings and putting the blame on Naser Oric, and emphasisising that many deaths had occurred "in battle". HanzoHattori, that's why I'm so puzzled by your insistence that the attempted escape of the column was a battle, I didn't have you down as a supporter of those types of explanation.

Having said all that, Bosniak, to return to the issue of the women of Srebrenica, I'd remind you that we know of several women whose deaths can be attributed to Dutchbat's actions or inaction. --Opbeith 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And what, did not many deaths occured in battle? Serb soldiers were killed and wounded in the fighting after the fall of the city or were they not? The officer was captured - by whom? The government soldiers maybe? Who and how broke through the front line? Is it some kind of secret everyone knows? If it is false, why it is in the article? Act of Bosnian villainy to resist, or their soldiers to fight the enemy? Like they were supposed to lie down and die (like the Serbs actually excepted)? Do you think the Jews are to be blamed for the 17,000 deaths in the battle (as opposed to deaths in the camps) because small number of them resisted, or that people would now blame them when they discover their uprising was uprising? I guess people usually rather react in the way "wow, they rose and killed 16 Germans" and not "they killed 16 Germans and so they provoked them to burn down the whole district with flamethrowers" or whatever (I have no idea, the whole concept is quite strange and alien to me, you seems to understand this more or something). --HanzoHattori 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I simply don't accept that many people did die "in battle" as you put it. The ArBiH soldiers seem largely to have escaped with a little fighting while it was largely unarmed civilians who were ambushed and killed in the column.  I don't know the number of Bosnian Serbs killed fighting the ArBiH soldiers but they don't seem to have been significantly high.  So this is rather a different situation to the Warsaw Ghetto battle.  As I say, I don't think we've got the same idea of what a battle is and that's where the problem lies, nothing to do with villainy or blame.  It's a shame it's just us discussing this.  --Opbeith 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * When someone dies fighting, I say "he died fighting". From both sides it was a military operation under a military command, which makes it a military operation. In Warsaw Nazi casualties were not really high, probably over 100 dead and wounded (in the war where the Germans lost over 6 million soldiers killed).

The 1998 UN about the final breakthrough was a bit different than the Wiki version (no real 2nd Corps action):

Interviewed in the context of this report, some of the Bosniacs who survived the six day march through the forest explained how, having passed the first Serb cordon, they encountered a second cordon near the village of Krizavi°i. Several hours of intense fighting had taken place, but they had managed to press on. Heavy rain and hail had provided some additional cover as the column passed through the municipality of Zvornik. As the column of Bosniac men approached the main Serb-Federation confrontation line, they had attacked a Serb command post, capturing two tanks and a 20-mm Praga gun. Using the captured tanks and guns, the Bosniacs then crossed the first of three lines of Serb trenches. They then signaled forward to the Federation, hoping that the ARBiH 2nd Corps would launch an operation to hold down or divert Serb forces as they attempted to cross the confrontation line. The 2nd Corps did not mount any such diversionary attacks. However, Srebrenica=s former commander, Naser Ori°, had assembled a company of volunteers on Federation territory. When Ori° and his men ascertained the location at which the Srebrenica men would try to cross the Serb lines, they attacked the area, causing the Serbs to partially evacuate their forward trenches. This left only limited Serb positions between the column of men and Ori°'s fighters. The men in the column were ordered to use all their remaining ammunition on this last line of Serb defense, including rounds which were being held in reserve for suicide in the event of capture. They broke through the Serb lines and reached ARBiH territory.

Also (now listen):

However, the same report indicated that two other members of Dutchbat travelling in the same vehicle saw only a few corpses. No written record has been located indicating that Dutchbat made either account available to the UNPROFOR chain of command on 14 July, or in the days immediately thereafter. Thus, it is not clear how many bodies were there are the time, and if they were those of soldiers who had been in the column and had been killed in battle with the BSA, or those of defenseless individuals who had been summarily executed.

You know, they called it a "battle", and I'm quite sure other called it too.--HanzoHattori 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * HanzoHattori, you're right that Oric's onslaught on the Serb cordon could be classed as a (small-scale) battle between his group and the Serbs holding the line. But that's a different matteer from describing the progress of the column as a whole as a battle.


 * Also "in battle" and "in a battle" have different meanings. I could die fighting you with ten thousand of my allies and ten thousand of your allies watching.  I would have died in battle with you but I would not have died in a battle unless our conflict led to our two sets of allies joining in and fighting with one another as well.  The Dutchbat report did not describe a battle and your excerpt does not even confim that any of the bodies seen died "in battle".  You and I have a different understanding of the English terms and it doesn't look as though either of us is going to convince the other.  --Opbeith 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, you're just over-concerned of the people like (I looked up and found this: only battle with "terrorists", no executions). Who cares? Do you see anyone concerned on the opinions like  (only battle, called "German police action" against, yes, "terrorists", and the people captured were simply deported to, uh, not-death camps or something - I have problems to follow this article). But no one cares at all. --HanzoHattori 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're very dismissive, but the argument is out there, and it was here as well not so long ago, when Osli73 was arguing that only those men and boys who were killed after they were taken prisoner should be considered victims of the genocide. --Opbeith 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you care too much. Like if anyone SERIOUS made any difference if the Tutsis defended themselves in this church or on this hill or did they not, or how close/far the RPF forces were. --HanzoHattori 07:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Words and facts have meaning and implications. Certainly we must always be mindful of the wider picture, but to be careful with the details isn't to deny the fact of atrocity, on the contrary being scrupulous in the way we look at the reality of what happened is how we show our genuine respect for the victims.  When you say "Who cares?" you seem to be saying that your only interest is in the story as you want to portray it.  There's no point continuing this discussion if all we have is our two apparently irreconcilable viewpoints, we need other people's perspectives.   --Opbeith 10:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By "who cares", I mean people and websites declaring things like THERE WERE NO GAS CHAMBERS (or maybe HITLER WAS MY MOTHER or whatever). On the Internet you have just anything, from the fans of Khmer Rouge through Stalinists to the supporters of the Hutu nationalists, and everyone just ignores the poor retards. Do you see people seriously arguing with the Neo-Nazis over the Holocaust? They are either ignored or jailed (in some countries). I see absolutely no reason why I should not ignore the weirdos and just write the better article. --HanzoHattori 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think that given the history of the battles that we've gone through here we shouldn't now be agreeing with the arguments that we've disputed when the revisionists put them up, and that's not because it's agreeing with apparently ill-intentioned "weirdos" as you call them, but because their arguments are wrong. If you say it's a battle, you're saying what Osli73 was saying and to the best of my judgment, based on the evidence of the mainly civilian composition of the column and the limited amount of incidental fighting he was wrong. However I disagree with you not because  you're saying what Osli73 was saying but because I believe what you are saying is not correct. --Opbeith 18:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, since you mentioned me I'll take the liberty of replying. If you care to read what I said back then, you'll see that what I argued was that the reason for the difference between the 7000-8000 figure used by the ICTY (at least in the Krstic judgement) and the >8300 "missing and killed" cited by the Federal Commission could be that the ICTY did not include those deemed to have been killed in battle. If you read the judgement against Krstic, you'll see that they refer to those "executed", not those "killed in combat". There is a paragraph in the judgement [www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf] which touches on the subject of the column as a military target:
 * "163. About one third of the Bosnian Muslim column was comprised of soldiers from the 28th Division, and about two-thirds were Bosnian Muslim civilian men from Srebrenica.382 The military experts for both the Prosecution and the Defence agreed that, under VRS regulations, the column qualified as a legitimate military target. Certainly the Indictment in this case does not allege that the combat activities against the column were deliberately or indiscriminately directed against civilians in the column. However, thousands of Bosnian Muslim men were also captured from the column, most of them civilians, transferred to detention sites, and subsequently executed."

In the summary findings of the judgement you'll also see that it refers to "executed".
 * "426. In July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica, Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number of victims is likely to be within the range of 7,000-8,000 men"

Again, this in the context of why the ICTY figure for 'victims' might be lower than the federal commission's figures for "missing and killed". Osli73 09:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Notice: Osli73 is banned from editing this article for a period ending 22 June 2007. You can't ignore him even when he's banned? --HanzoHattori 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Half-a-Cent: Hi Opbeith, As stated in many judgments, including Momir Nikolic (.pdf!), women were forcibly transfered. We are talking about the ethnic cleansing here. Had there not been UN in Srebrenica (who negotiated and ironically participated in the forcible transfer), most (if not all) of those women would be brutally raped and killed. They were lucky. There was a huge hatred of Serbs towards "Muslims" in the predominantly Bosniak Eastern Bosnia, because Serbs mostly lived tribal lifestyle in rural areas, woods, and mountains, while Bosniaks lived in urban areas, such as Foca, Gorazde, Zvornik, Visegrad, etc. Tribal mind does not know civilization, and genocide of people who are "different" came comepletely naturaly. I watched one documentary on Discovery channel about monkeys and chimpanzees in jungles and how they form groups to kill other monkeys and chimpanzees simply because they are not "one of them." It seems that this animal instinct is still present in many tribal minds. In fact, if we turn our head to Darfur, we will notice that Arabs are no different when it comes to extermination of Black Muslims and Black Christians, simply because those Muslims and Christians are "non-Arab." Neverthless, for this session, I recommend you guys read three interesting articles published at the UN's website "ICTY Outreach" @ http://www.un.org/icty/bhs/outreach/articles.htm ==> Articles date back to 2003-2005, but neverthless, it's an interesting read:

1. THE Truth Always Finds a Way to Reveal Itself

2. NOW We Can Colour Bratunac Blue

3. TRIBUNAL Hands Down Second Genocide Conviction

4. HUNDREDS of People Burned Alive in Their Homes (let's also not forget the crimes of late Franjo Tudjman - who prided himself in minimizing Holocaust and whose dream of "Greater Croatia" went debunk).

Bosniak 05:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Legally Established Genocide in Europe
User Fairview360 continues to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing. Again, he is deleting important fact "...the only legally established case of genocide in Europe." + notes: "Note: This does not mean that Holocaust was not a genocide. The Nuremberg trials took place before genocide had a legal meaning." <-- these two factual statements deserve to be included in the article because they are facts. Nobody is saying here that Holocaust was not a genocide. In my mind, Holocaust was even worse than genocide, but user Fairview360 will probably attempt to politicize this issue further. The two statements are facts and they should stay intact in the article. Bosniak 04:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They should not be in the article where you put them because it's not that important. It's just a historical coincidence. It can be mentioned in the section on legal proceedings, with the explanation not hidden in a footnote, but not at the start of the second paragraph. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In the table of contents of this discussion page, topic number 22 addresses this issue. Bosniak has not garnered any support for putting this one statement in the intro. The reason is that, without context, it gives the impression that the article is claiming that it has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holocaust was genocide. Bosniak has been invited several times to include this statement with an explanation in the legal proceedings section. Instead, after receiving nothing but opposition to his desire to put this statement in the intro, he has waited a few weeks and then re-inserted this statement in the introduction with no discussion at all.


 * If anyone wishes to engage in this discussion, some questions one might want to ask: why is it worth distinguishing that this is the first time the 1948 convention has been used to convict someone of genocide in Europe? How is Europe different from Rwanda? Are Rwandan lives and European lives of different value? Is the nature of genocide in Europe different from genocide in Rwanda? Since the first use of 1948 convention against genocide was against a perpetrator of the Rwandan genocide, would it make any sense to put in the intro that Srebrenica was the second time the 1948 convention was used in court to determine the occurence of genocide? Why in the intro? That could be relevant in the legal proceedings section, but why put a statement in the intro that can be misunderstood without more explanation? Bosniak can jump up and down and say his is right!!! and that a fact is a fact. Once clarified and put into context, the statement is indeed a fact, but that does nothing to answer the question as to why this solitary statement belongs in the intro. The intro already very clearly states that Srebrenica was a case of genocide and that was determined by an international court.Fairview360 05:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's Reply: Fairview stated, quote: "Once clarified and put into context, the statement is indeed a fact, but that does nothing to answer the question as to why this solitary statement belongs in the intro. The intro already very clearly states that Srebrenica was a case of genocide and that was determined by an international court." Basically, you state that I am correct but you argue I was wrong on a technicality? Well, as per our discussion, I have placed the statement + notes into Legal Proceedings section:

'''Srebrenica genocide is the first and only legally established case of genocide in Europe. However, this does not mean that the Holocaust was not a genocide, because the Nuremberg trials took place before genocide had a legal meaning.'''

All the best. Bosniak 01:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It turns out that that statement is not true and contradicts the second paragraph in the legal proceedings section. On 26 September 1997, Nikola Jorgic, a soldier in the RS army, was found guilty by a German Higher Regional Court of 11 counts of genocide. The German Supreme Court ruled that under the Genocide Convention of 9 December 1948 (ratified by Germany in 1954) genocide is a crime that all nations have a responsibility to prosecute and that the lower court had been correct in asserting the jurisdiction of the German judiciary. It also confirmed the lower court's finding that Jorgic had committed genocide. These were for crimes not committed during the 1995 Srebrenica massacre but for crimes committed in other regions of Bosnia in 1992.


 * I believe what Bosniak understandably wants to refute is the false claim that all sides were equally guilty during the Bosnian war. Also, I believe Bosniak wants to emphasize that only the nationalist Serbs have been found to have committed genocide during the Bosnian war. However, these objectives need to be achieved through accurate statements. Fairview360 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have overlooked the facts concerning Nikola Jorgic sentence handed down by a German court in 1997, even though I was the one who originally found about it and placed it into the article and subsequently into wikipedia. Thanks for pointing it out. I do believe there were individual crimes at all sides - on a much smaller scale with respect to Bosniak side - however Bosniak leadership did not have a policy of ethnic cleansing and destruction of non-Muslim cultural objects in place. Having said that, Bosnian Serb leadership carries the biggest burden (in a range of 90%) for spreading inter-ethnic/religious hatred, persecution of non-Serbs and destruction of precious non-Serb cultural objects (e.g. Ferhadija Mosque, Oriental Institute in Sarajevo, 100% of mosques on a territory they controlled) etc. Nobody, for example, can bring back these precious original historic documents from the Oriental Institute in Sarajevo. These types of crimes are trully crimes against humanity and crimes against the whole world. 1000 year old hindu temple is as valuable as 1000 old mosque. Cultural heritage is precious, and once destroyed, it's gone forever. Same with human lives.Bosniak 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

New (Revised) Proposition
I propose the following (revised) fact to be inserted:

'''Srebrenica genocide is the first and only legally established case of genocide that was recognized the International Crimes Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, as well as the International Court of Justice. However, this does not mean that the Holocaust was not a genocide, because the Nuremberg trials took place before genocide had a legal meaning.'''

Any constructive objections? Bosniak 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica WAS NOT military battle, but a GENOCIDE
I suggest we get rid off that "military operations" map. It gives an impression that Srebrenica was 'military battle' as opposed to genocide. This image is a work of some CIA employee and he can certainly keep his opinion to himself. He was in no position to judge on this issue. The International Crimes Tribunal has already ruled on this issue. This was not a military battle, but a genocide. Therefore, the image in question is simply innapropriate. Overhelming majority of victims were civilians. Collumb of 1,000 unarmed civilians led by 5 or 6 armed soldiers who were protecting them does not constitute "military battle". Bosniak 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bosnian Serb attack on Srebrenica certainly was a "military operation" and the subsequent movements of the Tuzla column and attacks on it. I guess the massacres could be described as "military operations" since they were carried out by the Bosnian Serb military forces under military command. I don't think it qualifies as a "battle".Osli73 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If so, there was no "war" at all either, and I guess all these Serbs killed during the breakout shot each other in their frenzy. All CIA material on the other countries is usually quite an authority, and is free to use when declassified (as it's the US federal govt agency). Which column do you mean? On the map there's only the general direction of the main one. --HanzoHattori 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we've discussed this before. The map is misleading because after an initial reference to the Bosnian Muslim column it refers to the ArBiH column and ignores the majority civilian component.  However although I disagree with the use of the term "battle" I think "military operations" is legitimate here - the diagram shows the movement of Serb forces and the response from ArBiH who were certainly involved in the column's breakout attempt.  The use of "military operations" doesn't exclude the perpetration of genocide by one of the military parties.  --Opbeith 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The map is informative and accurate. Fairview360 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. What Serbs were killed? Can you please provide their first and last names, dates of birth, father's names, unique Yugoslav JMBR number, as well as DNA match? Srebrenica victims have all these identification components (except that DNA matches have not completed yet for each and every victim). Do your Serb victims also have these identification components in place or is this another conspiracy theory by Milivoje Ivanisevic, who recently published a book calling a Srebrenica genocide Hoax? Ivanisevic's list of alleged Serb victims around Srebrenica contains only names, no other identifiable information, and some names don't even contain last names. Of course, Ivanisevic's followers were photographing several Serb corpses to show the world how bad Bosniaks are. Unfortunately, we did not have time to photograph our victims as you totally erased them from the face of earth, killing them, burying them, reburying them, and again undigging their graves and burying them in another location to hide the crime of genocide...

Opbeith, you are the most reasonable individual on this planet. Thanks for your opinion.

Fairview, you forgot to explain why do you think that the map is informative and accurate? Am I missing anything here? By the way, thanks for sticking up for me on my Talk Page, I appreciate it. Bosniak 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is being refered to in this statement from Bosniak's entry: "you totally erased them from the face of earth, killing them, burying them,"... who exactly is being accused of cold-blooded mass murder? HanzoHattori? Hello???  Fairview360 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I might be jumping into the middle of an argument, but wouldn't it be more correct to refer to Srebrenica as a massacre that ocurred in the larger context of genocide? That seems to fit more with the definition of genocide, and that seems to be how the BBC (to name one source) is wording it . I guess it just seems like calling Srebrenica an act of genocide belittles what happened in the rest of Bosnia. Just a thought... Dchall1 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Dchall1, we are currently waging battles with the international courts which are run by Christians who view Serbia positively. Because Christians keep international courts in their hands, it is extremely hard for us (Bosniaks) to prove what Serbian fascists did to us. They are constantly trying to moraly equate crimes. There were three verdicts confirming Srebrenica as Genocide (Krstic, ICJ, and Vidojevic). Recently, the ICTY, which is based in Netherlands (country complicit in genocide) ruled that Vidojevic is not responsible for his complicity in genocide, etc. So, you got the point. It is very hard for us to get justice in Christian Europe. But of course, Europe is not a Christian continet and it is our right to live on our land. It's extremely hard to prove anything at the International Crimes Tribunal, which is run by Christians in Netherlands - country complicit in Srebrenica genocide - who positively view Serbia. Bosniak 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dschall1, if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing Bosniak, the massacre at Srebrenica has been found to constitute genocide under the terms of the Genocide Convention (a substantial part of the group comprising the "Bosnian Muslims" of Eastern Bosnia) by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and confirmed as such by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
 * The quashing of Vidojevic's appeal does not nullify the findings that genocide was perpetrated. Genocide at Srebrenica does not minimise what happened elsewhere in Bosnia.  In fact it's the deniers of genocide at Srebrenica who tend also to be the deniers of genocide elsewhere in Bosnia.
 * There have been convictions of genocide elsewhere in Bosnia by courts in Germany. The ICTY trial of Momcilo Krajisnik found that even though a finding of "mens  rea" (intent to commit genocide) could not be reached, nevertheless the "actus reus" - the facts constituing genocide - were proved.  And the missing two big fish, Mladic and Karadzic, both have charges of genocide waiting to be tried when they are caught.
 * Srebrenica was a crime of genocide but genocide is already a crime proven in Bosnia and hopefully awaiting the conviction of two of its most important perpetrators. --Opbeith 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, after reading the source documents, it makes more sense. I wasn't trying to argue for moral equality; from my perspective, Bosniaks were the primary victims in the conflict. And I'm certainly not denying that genocide occurred. The way I was thinking about the situation, we don't refer to the genocide at Auschwitz and the genocide at Dachau, not because genocide did not occur there, but because they were part of the larger effort to wipe out the Jews.
 * But since you have legal docs that specifically refer to the "Srebrenica Genocide", I withdraw my point. Anything else would smack of OR. Thanks guys. Dchall1 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Owen and Dchall1 - the third key genocide suspect, Zdravko Tolimir, has been transfered to the Hague yesterday. So, there is a big progress in this regard. Here is a reason why Momcilo Krajisnik avoided Genocide conviction. I have not researched Holocaust enough to make strong points, although millions people did die. Srebrenica genocide is the most extensively documented case of genocide ever. Each Srebrenica victim has its first and last name, fathers name, date of birth, and they are being DNA matched every year (slow process but it's worth it). Jewish database of Jewish victims and survivors of the Holocaust contains 1.1 million names. The program is run by volunteers. Srebrenica genocide project is run by international (UN) experts, archeologists, researches, pathologists, etc. These were some of the points I can draw. There have been cases of double-standard applied against Srebrenica genocide victims in which their statements had been accepted with mean-spirited scepticism. I will be publishing report about this tommorow in my next June 4th-dated article, so please make sure to visit tommorow and comment at Srebrenica genocide blog. Bosniak 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

3000-5000 dead not 8000
http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/03/srebrenica.html http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2114/print Three Thousand “Srebrenica Victims” Vote in Elections

Around 3,000 names on a list of Srebrenica victims compiled by the Red Cross matched voters in the Bosnian election in 1996. “I pointed out to the OSCE that there had either been massive election fraud or almost half the people on the ICRC missing list were still alive,” says Rooper. “The OSCE finally responded that the voting lists had been locked away in warehouses and it would not be possible for them to investigate.”


 * "Approx. 8,000" is the figure most often cited and hence used by this article. Yes, other estimates exist and (some of) these have been mentioned in the article. Osli73 08:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Enought of conspiracy theories please. Get your facts straight (references are included):

1) Facts: 8,106 killed in the Srebrenica genocide and

2) List of Srebrenica genocide victims.''' Bosniak 23:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosniak, I'm not sure how these two documents negate the point raised above. In terms of the article, I'd say this point might be appropriate to put under the 'alternative theories' section (or whatever it's called now! I forget :-) as it fleshes out one of the reasons for the questioning of the 8000 figure etc. Cheers Jonathanmills 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And there's also the small fact that a total of 2000 bodies have been recovered, which includes victims not involved in the massacre itself. The main article is sadly lacking in this area, having been hijacked by a particularly active and highly motivated group unsurprising. The tens of millions spent, the thousands of man hours and we're still at least 6000 short on our body count. 124.181.120.201 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)