Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Naser Oric is not Bosniak hero

I have inserted this important statement in both Naser Oric and Srebrenica Massacre article:

During Serb genocidal attack on U.N.'s "Safe Heaven", Oric shamefully abandoned Srebrenica and left his people fend for themselves.

Bosniak 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I thought he was specifically ordered to leave by the central government.

2. Although that information is notable, stating it in that way is hardly POV.

Live Forever 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak , in the ICTY judgement "prosecutor vs Oric", it states: "In the spring of 1995, the Accused was summoned to Tuzla." Therefore, he was not in Srebrenica during the attack which this article describes. Furthermore, and just as importantly, using the word "shamefully" is highly subjective and judgemental and calls into question the objectivity of the article. It ought to be left to the reader to decide what is shameful. What appears best is including the statement from ICTY regarding the Oric conviction since it summarizes well and all agree on it. What do you think? Fairview360 00:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oric and his staff were ordered to abandon Srebrenica. It's not like if they hijacked this helicopter or something. During the massacre he also reportedly disobeyed orders and led a group of volunteers to reach the column from the Bosnian lines. [1]

Bosniaks' reply - I am not anti-Oric, but let's put things into perspective - First of all, no matter who ordered Oric to leave Srebrenica, you need to understand that what he did was wrong. If he was a true leader, he would have never left his soldiers and people to fend for themselves. I am not anti-Oric or anything, as I hope you understand that I am Bosniak and I love my people. Secondly, Oric did a great job in defending Srebrenica for years before he left; our forces almost had no weapons to defend themselves plus they lacked food and basic medical supplies etc, but they did it, they succeeded to keep Srebrenica free from Mladic's genocidal barbarians for 3 years. However, when Oric left Srebrenica, chain of command collapsed, U.N. refused to return weapons to people of Srebrenica, and Serbs slaughtered over 8,000 people in the worst massacre since the WWII. Although U.N. failed miserably, they did succeed in negotiating forcible transfer of women and small children, and these lives were saved. Older children, ages 13-18 were NOT saved, because genocidal Mladic viewed them as capable of carying guns. Had U.N. not been there, one of two things could have happened: 1) bloodthirsty Mladic would most likely slaughter women and small children too, and/or 2) Srebrenica would never fall under Serb control (remember, Gorazde was in exactly the same situation, except they refused to hand down their weapons to UN, and Gorazde did survive). Oric was wrong to leave Srebrenica - period. Bosniak 06:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Kravica: village or military base?

I believe it is misleading to describe the January 8 attack on Kravica as an attack on a "military base" and I believe it is misleading to call it an attack on just a random village since it obviously had many soldiers in it (35 VRS soldiers were killed and 36 VRS soldiers were wounded in the battle) and it was militarily significant. Still, the attack was not on a military base. A military base has lookout towers, a defined perimeter, only soldiers, etc. Just having artillery nearby does not make a location a military base. Furthermore, none of the source materials supporting this article refer to Kravica as a military base. So how about if we come up with wording that communicates the military significance of Kravica, shows that there was a large number of VRS soldiers there, but does not inaccurately describe the attack as on a military base. That misleads the reader. See wikipedia's definition of a military base. One needs to stretch that definition rather far to make it apply to Kravica and by doing so almost every village in the Srebrenica area on both sides of the conflict would be a military base. Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_base Fairview360 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

-> You could call it 'millitary location' or 'Serb location of military significance', etc. It's obvious that the village was significant because Serb soldiers were stationed there and were attacking Srebrenica. Bosniak 02:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak , what do you think if the article does not say "military base" and does not say "village" but rather simply "Kravica" with a description of its geographical significance and the number of soldiers killed and wounded and the number of civilians killed. The number of soldiers present and the geographical significance speaks for itself. How about something like this:

"By September 1992, Bosniak forces from Srebrenica had linked up with those in Žepa, a Bosniak-held town to the south of Srebrenica. By gaining control of Kravica during a battle on January 8, 1993, Bosniak forces expanded the enclave further to include the previously isolated Bosniak-held enclave of Cerska located to the west of Srebrenica. During the January 8 battle for Kravica which occurred on Serbian Orthodox Christmas Day, 35 Serb soldiers were killed, 36 Serb soldiers were wounded, and 11 civilians were killed. [16] By mid-January 1993, the Srebrenica enclave reached its peak size of 900 square kilometres, although it was never linked to the main area of Bosnian government-held territory in the west and remained a vulnerable island amid Serb-controlled territory [17]

Over the next few months, however, the reorganized Serb military launched a large-scale offensive"

One thing that needs to be done at some point is establishing consistent terminology for the article. I prefer not using "Serb" but rather either VRS or Bosnian Serb. I also prefer Bosnian government held territory as opposed to Bosniak-held territory. I also do not like seeing Bosnian and Bosniak used interchangeably. I understand that in parts of Bosnia -- the Srebrenica area between Serbs and Bosniaks, and in central Bosnia between Croats and Bosniaks -- it was essentially an ethnic conflict, however in other parts and overall I perceive the conflict as the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina defending itself against Serbia's attempt to expand its borders to cover large swaths of Croatia and Bosnia, against the greater Serbia project. But that is a discussion for another day. Fairview360 18:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I suggest reading the ICTY Oric judgement. It does a much better job of putting the conflict into perspective and specifically describes the "New State Project" (otherwise known as the greater Serbia project) and specifically describes how the JNA became essentially a Serb ethnic army by the time the Bosnia war began. The text from the Oric Judgement would probably serve this article better than the text from the Krstic Judgement. Fairview360 18:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Related: Repeated spam attacks on the Bratunac article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratunac&diff=72993813&oldid=72992420

Let me quote:

"During the war in Bosnia, Bratunac was located in defend zone which was administrated by Holland Kfor or Un. The Holland KFOR has the task to protect any residents in this zone but they didn't do it. In 1993 on the Serbian Orthodox Christmas, Muslem Bosnian Army on lead with Naser Oric raided into the willage burned it and massacred Serbian Civil residents in Bratunac.

Today in Bratunac exists monument of 3 286 Serbs who were killed in operation of Muslem Bosnian Army on Bratunac. The commadant of Muslem Bosnian Army "Naser Oric" has the biggest responsibility for bloody killing of Serbian Humans in Bratunac."

Guess you'd keep an eye on this, thanks.

Identity of poster? Opbeith 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi opbeith, to see nick or name of the poster, click on "history". Bosniak 02:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting

The article is too long, it should be split into smaller parts. --KOCOBO 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Kocobo. Maybe the article could be broken up as follows: 49% of the article could be given to nationalist Serbs to use as they wish and 51% could be left for people who want to engage in genuine discussion. Hmmm... why does that sound familiar?

I agree, I can't find anything in the article, its so enormous. --Serb ^talk 02:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC) User:Bormalagurski

Bormalagurski, it is called a table of contents. Do you need help learning how to use it? Perhaps we could offer you tutoring along with basic English reading skills.

Bosniak, sarcasm isn't nice. --Serb ^talk 03:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski, for someone who has been banned from wikipedia and repeatedly warned by several administrators for improper behavior, you are hardly in a position to be scolding anyone about what is "nice".Fairview360 05:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

- A message from Bosniak This article will never be conceded to extremist Serb nationals. You massacred over 8,000 Bosniaks during Srebrenica genocide, and you have no right to deface this article in any way, shape or form. This article is not about you - it's about over 8,000 lives of innocence that were taken by the hands of uncivilized barbarians in the heart of the Europe. If you want to engage in genuine discussion - you may do so only after you recognize that your forces committed genocide. Nobody is interested in your propaganda, and all such posts will be edited and changed within 24 hours or less. We will not allow you to deny Srebrenica Genocide, at least not on wikipedia. Bosniak 02:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing all extremist Serb nationals (A Serb national is any Serb living in Serbia) of killing 8,000 Bosniaks? Are you accusing me? First of all, I think you wanted to use the word "nationalist" and not "national". I think it is you who needs the tutoring along with basic English reading skills. --Serb ^talk 03:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniaks' reply to Serb nationalist Boris Malagurski Don't change the topic. That's a cheap trick. My mother tongue is bosnian. Based on your edits, I can see that you are a Serb nationalist. I am not accusing all Serbs of Genocide, as my best friend is Serb. I am accusing your leadership of genocide, namely Serb forces led by indicted war criminals Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. Bosniak 03:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Serb nationalist Boris Malagurski's reply to Bosniak Don't call me a nationalist. That's a cheap trick. I'm sure your best friend is a Serb, because you are so open minded that your username is identical to your ethnic affiliation. Very entertaining. You're accusing my leadership of genocide? So, I lead the troops to genocide? Jesus, I was never accused of such things untill tonight... For shame. --Serb ^talk 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What I find most amazing is your ability to be so utterly unaware of your own hypocrisy Bormalagurski. Read what you wrote to Bosniak several times and try thinking about it. Bormalgurski wrote: "Bosniak, I hardly find you objective. I mean, your username is Bosniak, I don't trust people who's username is their ethnic affiliation. Please, keep your nationalism at home, thank you. --Serb talk 03:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)" Think about it Bormalagurski. You say you do not trust people who have a user name that shows their ethnic affiliation and then you sign as "Serb"? Are you making a joke or are you really that oblivious? Fairview360 05:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original point. It's true there's a lot in the article and while it's full of important information I don't find as easy to read as it might be. The Table of Contents isn't ideal. But that doesn't mean the article should be split. Simply that care needs to be taken in deciding what's germane, what's opinion/provocation at odds with the established facts, and what's going off at a tangent.

For example there's no point discussing the issue of genocide again unless the ICTY's relevant verdicts are overthrown. The minimum figure for deaths has been established as approximately 8000 but which of the numbers above that figure should be mentioned is a subject for legitimate discussion at present. Malagurski presumably called himself Serb as a legitimate but pointlessly provocative riposte to Bosniak.

Further knockabout argument over Malagurski's motives and practices is a waste of time and energy. Whatever the motives of a question or suggestion the simplest thing is to deal with it as such while noting that the discussion should not necessarily be taken as having implications for other issues that may be raised subsequently. "Trojan horse" suggestions inevitably lead to the exposure of the contributor's motives, but sadly after the futile expenditure of a lot of precious energy and effort. --Opbeith 12:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply to Boris - possible cease fire or more war ?

Bosniak's reply to Boris Hi Boris, of course we can deal in civilized matter. Why do you think that the article is not neutral? Can you at least discuss this in Srebrenica Massacre's discussion page? If you want your edits to stay longer, you need to discuss it before you make any changes. People are very sensitive to any changes to that article. Even when I make a change, they are sensitive to it. Why do you think that the article does not tell all sides of the story? Are you trying to tell that Naser Oric attacked Serb villages and Serbs had to defend themselves from Bosniaks who were under siege? You guys used same argument in the past with Sarajevo, basicly the story goes that you had to defend yourself from Bosniak people in Sarajevo who were under siege. You can try these arguments in discussion page, but it's pointless and offensive to use such arguments as a defence. However, you are welcome to try. Simply go to discussion page, tell people reasons of your edits and sources and then we will all compromise. It's simple as that. No need for personal attacks as we can all deal in civilized matter. Bosniak 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - I already donated my translation to your page, and I copied your translations to my page. I think there is a chance that both of us get along well, because you recognized t hat over 8,000 people were killed in Srebrenica @ Srebrenica Massacre discussion page. That's all I care about. Bosniak 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Serb side of story and Boris

If you want Serb side of the story, why not post this statement: "Most Serbs consider the massacre an act of revenge against Naser Oric and his troops who committed individual war crimes during raids into Serb villages."

The reason these raids cannot be called massacres is the following: Serbs blame Oric and his forces for hundreds of deaths in Kravice during Orthodox Christmas in January 1993. Republika Srpska primary sources state that in Kravica 35 soldiers and 11 civilians died. If we are going to call slaughter of 11 civilians a massacre, then we could apply that term to mostly all killings in Bosnia. What I can agree with you is that individual actions of Oric's troops in Kravica were a war crime and I absolutely condemn these killings. However, they cannot be used for justification of genocide, and I don't believe you are trying to use them as such. Bosniak 04:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise, POV removed Hi Boris, POV is no longer needed. I agree that the following statement needs to be inserted, and I inserted it:

"Most Serbs consider the massacre an act of revenge against Naser Oric and his troops who committed individual war crimes during raids into Serb villages" Bosniak 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Background of conversation between me and Boris can be read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bosniak

UPDATE Boris Malagurski has stated that he does not recognize Srebrenica Genocide. At this point, he should not be allowed to even participate in Srebrencia Massacre edits, because he obviously does not recognize the crime committed at Srebrenica. Here you can find his statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bosniak and you can find Boris Malagurski's page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bormalagurski . Bosniak 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so if I don't agree with every single word that Bosniak writes, I'm out of the discussion? Bosniak, this is not fascism, it's an encyclopedia, live with it. --Serb ^talk 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski, when you write a brazen outright denial of genocide, you have disqualified yourself from being someone who actually wants to improve the article. Too many administrators are wise to your ways. There is no way you will be able to present yourself as simply being reasonable. Your agenda is one of denial and obfuscation. It is obvious. Fairview360 05:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, please go to your admins to sort this out, because you're obviously not up for a discussion. Yes, you would rather inforce your opinion on all of us. The admins are coming to their senses, and so should you. --Svetislav Jovanović 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Svetislav, who are you refering to when you say "us"? What opinion exactly are you refering to? That the VRS committed an act of genocide? Try as you may, but reducing that assertion to simply a personal opinion will not succeed. The ICTY already sorted this out. They convicted Krstic of aiding and abetting genocide. Fairview360 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak Reply to Srebrenica Genocide Denier Boris Malagurski from Vancouver BC, Canada - You don't have to agree with everything I say, but you must recognize Srebrenica Genocide. Otherwise, stay away from the article, because Srebrenica genocide denial edits will not be tolerated. This is free encyclopedia, and not an outlet for Serbian propaganda and vandalism. Bosniak 03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um.. the holocaust, the killing of 6 million Jews was genocide. What happened in Srebrenica, the killing of 8,000 people was a massacre, not a genocide (read the title of the article). Get a life, Bosniak. --Srbijanković 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Srbijanković, read the ICTY judgement. Try as you may to deny it or bully people with "get a life" comments, the fact is that Serb ultra-nationalists tried to create greater Serbia through ethnic cleansing, in other words, genocide. Srebrenica was an act of genocide. That has been proven in an international court of law. So what is it you need to get? A clue? What? Fairview360 06:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

POV - tag

I see that the Bosniak editors of this article still insist on a very POV language and interpretation of certain events while refusing any analysis which they disagree with for political reasons. Please see earlier discussions for details. Instead of entering into a long argument I will place a POV-tag on the article. Regards Osli73 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak Reply to Osli73 Hi Osli73, I am the only Bosniak editor here. Fairview and others are not Bosniak and they are not Muslim. Once again, your assumptions are wrong. You are pulling old tricks with POV tag. Your tricks are getting old man. Bosniak 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, I have added back the POV tag since I believe that this article does not conform to NPOV. I have stated before what my issues are with it. Well, User:Live Forever certainly says that he is Bosniak.Osli73 09:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have added back the POV-tag. Please read below what Wikipedia says about POV-disputes:

"It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

So, clearly it is not up to a single editor to decide whether or not a POV tag belongs there or not. Osli73 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There clearly is a POV issue with this article (pls see entry above). Adding the POV tag is a way of stating this and giving the main editors of the article a heads up about this without engaging in an edit war.Osli73 21:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the POV tag is not about whether or not the article is NPOV or not, it's about there being a dispute about it - ie that some editors feel that it is not conforming to NPOV. Pls leave this tag or be prepared to address the underlying POV issues.Osli73 22:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a POV dispute about an article, clearly either one accepts the POV tag or accepts that a compromise is reached regarding the text in the article. Osli73 22:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Genocide query or denial

One of the problems of Wikipaedia seems to be that matters get announced and discussed all over the place. I've found out from Bosniak's User Talk page that his ISP has been suspended for a week as a result of a heated exchange with another contributor who affirmed his disbelief in the fact of genocide. I'm uncertain whether the suspension is related simply to the User Talk exchange or concerns matters relating to the article itself, but suspension has implications for editing of the article itself. I've posted the following at Bosniak's User Page but I think the subject of the admissibility of certain types of edit and the need to accept a framework of objectively established fact is relevant here.

"Bosniak is very sensitive to the issue of genocide denial, understandably, and doesn't always express himself in tempered tones. But Blnguyen it seems to me that you've simply responded to the tone of his language rather than the substantive justification for his action.

The ICTY, a member of the United Nations family of organisations and the legal authority in the field, has ruled in the Krstic case that the Srebrenica massacre could be termed genocide in accordance with the provisions of the Genocide Convention. No other international forum has overthrown that ruling. The ICTY is currently hearing cases in which charges of genocide are involved. I think it is fair to assume that the defence will present all current arguments challenging the categorisation of the Srebrenica massacre as genocide to the Court. The Court will then rule as to whether its previous opinion should be overthrown. There is no room for any personal expression of doubt in this article. I might dispute the legitimacy of Slobodan Milosevic's assumption of the presidency of Yugoslavia or equally George W. Bush's election as President of the United States but I cannot change the content of an entry to indicate that they were not President of their respective nations.

Bosniak was right to insist that denials of genocide will be edited out of this article. There is no scope to allow any further denial of genocide unless and until the ICTY's ruling is overthrown. Even though I don't always agree with the way Bosniak expresses his views, in this case he is absolutely correct. Personally I find it a moral outrage that genocide at Srebrenica is denied but for the purposes of this article we're trying to pretend that moral outrage doesn't exist and keep to the facts. Genocide at Srebrenica is a fact established in international law. I ask the moderators of this article to accept that." --Opbeith 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it really is very clear cut - the ICTY claims that the massacre was an Act of Genocide. Others disagree. This is what the article should present to the reader. Remember, Wiki articles should not present original research, only other source's interpretation of original research. The Act of Genocide or not is clearly such an issue.Osli73 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Osli making sense? What exactly is being described as "original research" that does not belong in the article? Fairview360 03:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli73, I will repeat once: The ICTY, a member of the United Nations family of organisations and the legal authority in the field, has ruled in the Krstic case that the Srebrenica massacre could be termed genocide in accordance with the provisions of the Genocide Convention. No other international forum has overthrown that ruling. The ICTY is currently hearing cases in which charges of genocide are involved. I think it is fair to assume that the defence will present all current arguments challenging the categorisation of the Srebrenica massacre as genocide to the Court. The Court will then rule as to whether its previous opinion should be overthrown. There is no room for any personal expression of doubt in this article.

The ICTY does not claim that the massacre was an Act of Genocide, it found after hearing the evidence and due deliberation that genocide was committed. Original research? Hmm, a novel way of describing the findings of the highest legal instance in the field. --Opbeith 22:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, anonymous user, it's not very difficult. The ICTY has ruled that it was an Act of Genocide. Others don't agree. That's all the article needs to say. Act of Genocide or not is clearly a judgement issue, not an issue of fact (which is why there was a court case about it).Osli73 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli, not an anonymous, just my same self, I hadn't realised that I'd been logged off so I've now changed the anonymous ISP to my name as a minor edit. --Opbeith 23:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know

$Insertformulahere$ I have been asked by one of the users to help out on this article. I will not bring in extremist views from myself, but I will fight for the right and correct statements.

One thing you all should know is that User:Bormalagurski is a person with totally extremist ideas. I am saying this because he is blocked on the Serbian Wikipedia due to those same ideas and views. I have been analyzing his moves. He not only has problems with how he expresses himself, but also has tried to manipulate other users. He stepped up to the plate when he tried to be my friend through telling me how he wanted BiH to be united (Check my discussion archives). An other case is: (User:Rémih) on the French wikipedia. He convinced Remith to vote for him even though Rémih did neither know Cyrillic nor Serbian. Once he was block indefinitely, he tried to change Wikipedia policies through making a public vote for his return on the Serbian Wikipedia. This was seen by the other Serbian users and it has definitely blocked him for good. Check this:His plea The "Voting"

I just wanted to tell you guys with whom you are dealing with. Srebrenica happened and their is no denying it. There is tons of videofootage from channels such as CNN. My aunt is married to a Serbian man. They both agree that the nation of Serbia still to this day denies any acts such as Srebrenica and even denies BiH TV stations in its nation.

Croatia on the contrary, allowed Srebrenica posters for the ten year anniversary to be displayed all over Zagreb.

Wikipedia should not be a website for one to express his own ideas without any facts to back up with. I will try to bring in a neutral point of view.

Thanks, Kseferovic 17:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been analyzing my moves? This is a clear case of Wikistalking. My actions on sr wiki don't concern the fine administrators here on en wiki, but your actions on en wiki do. I will report you for harassment. Furthermore, I do NOT deny that the Srebrenica massacre happened, I condemn it, but fail to recognize it as an act of genocide, and I think your Serbian aunt's husband would agree with me. Also, Kseferovic, I never did or said anything bad to you, I really wanted to be your friend, but to you, ethnic affiliation is more important. I think I know who the nationalist is here. Have a nice day, --Serb ^talk 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like stalking to me - everybody who edits has their contribs put on a list and will be held to account for their edits. Heaps of people are keeping an eye on me and I know that and there is nothing wrong, unless they follow me around excessively scrutinising my edits across all fields. Unless you can show he is targeting your edits, then there is no violation.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski, all Kseferovic has done is hold you accountable for your behavior. All wikipedians are held accountable by a system that keeps track of all we have done or said. What is wrong with being held accountable?Fairview360 03:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

revisionist blitzkrieg

Are we to believe that users KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, Bormalagurski, and Manojlo all show up at this article at the same time and it is a coincidence? They each take turns deleting part of the article forcing multiple reverts by an outnumbered editor or editors and then when that one editor is blocked, they move in to gut the article. This is gang warfare. This is the wiki equivalent of kristalnacht. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristalnacht What mechanisms does wiki have to protect an article from an organized assault? There are parts of this article that are clearly accurate, that have been very carefully written and discussed, and these editors are just gutting them without discussion. Yes, parts of this articles need help but this is not the way. What has happened in the past is that if they are given an inch they'll tear the article apart or take up immense time discussing anything they can think of all for the purpose of stopping people from creating a well written article. One reason it needs help is that it gets jumbled by edit wars. 128.253.56.172 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, Clearly many editors feel that this article is not POV. So, this warrants a POV tag. Either that or reaching some sort of compromise about a version acceptable to all. I don't see where you are getting all this about Kristallnacht and ganging up from? It seems a bit paranoid.Osli73 23:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone please try to understand a cornerstone of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV. // Lowg ^.talk. 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli73, Lowg, If you want to understand the significance in the Bosnian context of the reference to the Kristallnacht - a campaign of intimidation linked to an ideology of ethnic cleansing - can I point you to Roy Gutman's "A Witness to Genocide". Gutman, you'll perhaps remember, is the reporter whose articles in Newsday alerted the world to the horrific reality of what was going on in Bosnia when the stories of ethnic cleansing first began to emerge.

"The assault against Bosnia's Islamic heritage has been a largely unreported facet of the "ethnic cleansing" campaign, for it occurred in areas now occupied by the Serb conquerors. But accounts by refugees and data collected by the Bosnian government, Bosnian scholars and Muslim leaders point to an irreplaceable loss. ...

Kristallnacht for the Bosnian Muslims came not in one or two nights, as it did for Germany's Jews in Novermber 1938, but was spread over many months, according to information now available. In Zvornik, where it all started on April 8, Serb forces destroyed or damaged 19 mosques in and around the city and at least 50 in other towns nearby."

Gutman of course has lots more examples of physical and moral intimidation in a similar and worse vein. The deliberate destruction of Bosnia's cultural heritage in the Serb offensive of April 1992 and subsequently sent a clear message about the end of civilised discourse and coexistence that was aimed at intimidating the target population into leaving the area under attack.

It's not hard to see a similar spirit at work in the destructive efforts of a number of the contributors to this article before it was protected. --Opbeith 06:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Opbeith, are you referring to me?

Protected

Seeing as this page has suffered 20-25 sets of reverts within 2 hours, it has been protected. Some guys may end up in the cooler for reverting too much. As to why I blocked Bosniak, it was due to WP:LEGAL threats and nothing to do with any article edits by him, Bormalagurski or any other Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Albanian editors. Queries about his block are welcome at my talk page. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

BOSNIAKS CANNOT COMPROMISE WITH FACTS

We cannot compromise with ICTY facts and judgements. If Serbs think that recognition of Srebrenica genocide is pro-Bosniak, that's their problem. The article should be reverted to the last edit by Fairview and then we can continue building and improving the article from there. We cannot compromise with people who deny Srebrenica genocide. Srebrenica massacre article is heavily relied on ICTY facts and judgements, and there is no compromise regarding facts. If Serbs don't like the facts, that's their problem, not ours. The bottom line: The International Crimes Tribunal has ruled that the massacre in Srebrenica was an act of genocide (in the case of Krstic and in the case of Blagojevic). There is no compromise with facts. Those who vandalize this article should be either blocked from editing it or banned, because they are vandals, they publicly deny Srebrenica genocide, and they destroy ICTY facts. We are not willing to compromise with facts. The article is already heavily relied to ICTY facts if Serbs think that the international justice is against them, that's their problem, not ours.

Bosniak , Number 1, nationalist Serbs do not represent all Serbs therefore I would ask that you use more specific language and stop blaming all Serbs for the nationalists in their midst. All Serbs are not of one mentality. Thousands of Serbs this week protested the proposal to name a street after Milosevic. Tens of thousands of Serbs protested Milosevic in 1991. Serbs Stambolic and Dzindic were murdered by Serb ultra-nationalists. Many Serbs were killed by Serbian ultra-nationalists. When you accuse all Serbs of being nationalist, you are helping the nationalists' claim that they represent all Serbs. They don't. Number 2, ultra-nationalist Serbs committed genocide. That is a crime against humanity, not just Bosniaks. Therefore, it is an issue for all humanity, not just Bosniaks. There are people of all ethnicities and nationalities including Serbs who oppose the denial of the Srebrenica Massacre. (Women in Black from Belgrade) So Bosniaks are not alone in the commitment to maintain the truth of what happened in Srebrenica. Do not worry, we are not going to allow this article to become one of denial and obfuscation. Fairview360 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak (if that's you), I hope it's not a matter simply of Bosniaks not agreeing to compromise on the facts, there must surely be some Wikipedia principle of non-interference with facts established in international law. --Opbeith 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If we talk about genocide, that region is subject of several genocides against Serbs. It is well documented in book of independent researcher Milivoje Ivanisevic . Here is summary of book: http://www.suc.org/culture/library/Hronika_Naseg_Groblja/misc/summary.html

Whole book is in serbian http://www.suc.org/culture/library/Hronika_Naseg_Groblja/index.html If we talk about genocide we have to talk about several genocides against Sebs in same region.--Medule 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Medule , could you please explain the connection as you see it between the Srebrenica Massacre and genocide against the Serbs? Is there a cause and effect relationship? Do you believe the Srebrenica Massacre was revenge for previous genocides against Serbs in prior decades or centuries? How would you propose explaining the connection between the Srebrenica Massacre and genocide against the Serbs? Are you proposing that the article become a generalized article about genocide? Please explain. Fairview360 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, hey. There was a link, Mladic was recorded in Srebrenica giving speach about "time to take revenge on Turks, here on the Serb holy day" (this kind of stuff). --HanzoHattori 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Medule, War crimes are war crimes, whoever they may be perpetrated by, and the untimely deaths of Serbs during the war period must be mourned in the same way as those of members of any other community. I think, though, that you've missed the fact that the deaths of Serbs in the area has indeed been discussed here. And also when you raise the issue of the deaths of Serbs in the area over a period of a couple of years it would not go amiss for you to give such deaths perspective by noting that the subject of this article is a massacre in which over 8000 people were killed within the space of roughly one week, and the worst massacre perpetrated in Europe since the end of World War II.

It may well be appropriate for you to write an article about the deaths of local Serbs, alleging genocide if you so choose but noting also that genocide according to the provisions of the Genocide Convention has not been alleged or proven before a court of law. I think if you want to avoid controversy you need to investigate the reliability of your reference - for example it's difficult to credit the claim of a conspiracy by local Muslims to carry out a large-scale ethnic cleansing of Serbs when so many more Muslims were killed in the period around April 1992 than Serbs, and there are other issues you'd need to deal with if you want to establish the book as a trustworthy source.

In any case that would all be matter for another article, this one is about what happened in and around Srebrenica in July 1995. --Opbeith 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article belongs to Srebrenica genocide of 1995, genocide of over 8,000 Bosniaks. If you want to write about alleged genocides of Serbs (which were never legally proven in court), you can go ahead and write somewhere else, but not here. It's off topic. The article needs to be reverted to the version before vandalism, which is this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=73689151 and then we will start building it from there. Everything else is off-topic.

post protected discussions

So how about if we start with the introduction. I am copying the topic #47 discussion below which tracks the edits to the introduction shown in this versions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=73689151

This introduction explains what happened and then puts into into context relying on the ICTY determination which was reached after considering all sides and all relevant facts.

If there is anyone who objects to this version, please explain.

Here is the discussion to date. Please add your comments below.

Hanzo,

"up to 8,373" is not accurate. The data indicates that it was more. That is only confirmed to date. It was not called the Serb Army of RS. The intro makes it entirely clear that it was Bosnian Serbs with help from Serbia that did the killing. No need for emphasis that confuses terms. Please consider this version which includes "at least 8,000" and then the 8,373 number later and answers the questions of who was killed, how many were killed, who did the killing, and gives the context. Fairview360 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Srebrenica massacre (also referred to as: Srebrenica Genocide) was the July 1995 killing of at least eight thousand[1] Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska under the command of general Ratko Mladić. In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre.[2] The massacre included several instances where preteen children and women were killed. [3] While the exact number killed will never be known, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons includes 8,373 names.[4][5]

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since WWII and it is the first legally established case of genocide in Europe[6] (see the section Legal Proceedings). In the unanimous landmark ruling "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide stating in its judgement:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity." [7]

Thanks, this is a good way to resolve the matter. Somebody proposes a version and then we can discuss it. I have some criticisms:

• Why at least eight thousand? You said above that the media reported "eight thousand", without the at least. My quick investigations come to the same conclusion. Associated Press: "As many as 8,000", as reported in ABC News [2] and other outlets, BBC: "More than 7,000" [3] and "about 8,000" [4], AFP: "Some 8,000" [5], EFE Brazil: "cerca de oito mil" (about eight thousand) [6], Volkskrant Netherlands: "7000 tot 8000" (7000 to 8000) [7], ORF Austria "8,000" [8].
• The ICTY ruling was not unanimous; one judge gave a partially dissenting opinion.
• The first sentence is a bit too long.
• The lead section should summarize the rest of the article, but the fact on the Scorpions is never mentioned. I also think that the last sentence is unnecessary detail, but it seems many feel quite strongly about it.
• I think there should be a bit more context. In particular, I think it's important to mention that the people of Srebrenica were supposed to be under UN protection.

So, I propose the following text for the first paragraph:

"The Srebrenica massacre (also referred to as: Srebrenica Genocide) was the July 1995 killing of approximately eight thousand[1] Bosniaks in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War. In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre.[2] The victims were mostly men of military age, but also included some preteen children and women.[3] The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a safe haven, but this did not prevent the massacre. While the exact number killed will never be known, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons includes 8,373 names.[4][5]"

I'm quite happy with the second paragraph, except that the word "unanimous" should be removed. Please comment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Jitse , hopefully we can continue this discussion and come to a "new and improved" intro.

1) I agree very much with including the sentence about the UN's failure to defend the safe area. I am surprised we had not already included that.

2) Given that the intro refers specifically to the killing of Bosniaks (execution), I believe "estimated 8,000" would be acceptable. The "at least" comes from there being 8,370 victim's names on the Srebrenica memorial with those names substantiated with JMBR number (social security number), name of father, dates of births, and other identifying information. I asked a Harvard researcher what he would recommend and he said "at least 8,000 killed". But I would not want to get into hair splitting with someone who wants to say a victim wasn't actually killed if they died of exhaustion while penned in at Potocari or were a woman who committed suicide to avoid being raped or after being raped. I find that kind of hair splitting to be offensive. Hence, I would support "an estimated 8,000" or something to that effect since there is nothing controversial about that statement and follow-up info indicates that number killed is probably higher than 8,000.

3) ICTY questions. One judge from the Trial Court or the Appeals Court dissented? Did he/she support the decision but write a seperate opinion? Or actually voted against the judgement? Most importantly, where can one find the info on how each judge actually voted. I can't find it on this site - http://www.un.org/icty/ . Please help.

4) I agree that the role of the skorpions ought to be described in the article since it is in the intro.

5) I do not see why the memorial info is in the intro. It seems rather non-sequitor. Perhaps, we could get an explanation from whomever believes it should be in the intro. (?)

Jitse, here is an alternative first paragraph that puts back some info but also keeps the shorter first sentence that you are recommending. Perhaps there should be a few more words about the presence of 400 Dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica at the time of the takeover and executions, something to the effect: "despite the presence of 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers". Let me know what you think:

"The Srebrenica massacre (also referred to as: Srebrenica Genocide) was the July 1995 killing of approximately eight thousand[1] Bosniaks in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska under the command of general Ratko Mladić. In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre.[2] The victims were mostly men of military age, but also included some preteen children, women, and elderly men.[3] The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a safe haven, but did not prevent the massacre. While the exact number killed will never be known, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica currently being compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons includes 8,373 names.[4][5]"

Bosniak, Live Forever, Emir, Hanzo, others, what is your opinion on this? Fairview360 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Update 1 : with a 20:53, 20 August 2006 edit, Hanzo removed the sentence from the intro that refers to the memorial. I believe this is a good edit. Will be interesting to see if it remains out. Fairview360 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's all fine with me. I agree with removing the memorial from the lead, and also with mentioning the Dutch soldiers. For instance, we can change the fourth sentence to "The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a safe haven and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but they did not prevent the massacre." I didn't check the number 400 though.

Ad 3) In the Appeals Chamber, Judge Shahabuddeen wrote a partially dissenting opinion. He agrees with most parts of the judgement (including the fact that it was genocide and the sentence). You can read it in Part VIII (Partial dissenting opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen) in the Appeals Chamber Judgement, Case IT-98-33-A.

I don't know why the article currently starts with "The Srebrenica massacre (also referred to as: Genocide on Bosniaks)" instead of "The Srebrenica massacre (also referred to as: Srebrenica Genocide)". Anybody care to explain? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Update 2 : with a 14:59, 21 August 2006 edit, Hanzo changed "Genocide on Bosniaks" to "Srebrenica Genocide". I wish Hanzo would participate in this discussion before making edits, but so far I have agreed with the two he has made. 14:59, 21 August 2006

Jitse , no one has explained why they want "genocide on bosniaks" but from what I have seen, there are some editors who want the reader to know as quickly as possible and without any doubt that Bosniaks were the ones who were killed, and that it was Serbs who did the killing. The same editors then want to remind the reader of that with each and every opportunity. (I prefer more precise language, who exactly, what part of Serbian society, what military units, etc.) In the intro, the quote from the ICTY makes it clear that the Bosnian Serbs were executing Bosniaks, so I do not believe it is necessary to have "genocide on bosniaks" in the first sentence. Also, ironically, while the intention is to make things clear, the expression "genocide on bosniaks" sounds strange and confusing to a native speaker of English. In Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian the preposition "on" is appropriate but in English it is a little strange though technically OK. Plus, the word Bosniak needs some explaining to the average reader. User:Bosniak added Bosniak in brackets in the ICTY quote which efficiently explains the matter.

We do need to check the number of Dutch troops. I was estimating when I suggested the wording.

I'll work on the wording of the ICTY ruling. The judges were unanimous in there determination that genocide occurred, but apparently the entire decision was not entirely unanimous. I assume we just need to reword the sentence. I think it is important for the reader to see that each judge determined that genocide occurred.

O.K. I feel like we are making progress. Hope it keeps up. Fairview360 15:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

number killed : today in the Australia's Herald Sun, the article stated "more than 8,000". "More than 8000 men and boys were summarily executed at several locations around Srebrenica. The lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers protecting the enclave failed to prevent the onslaught, citing limited rules of engagement." In three other papers reporting on the current ICTY Srebrenica case, two said "about 8000", the other just said "8,000". http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20206173-5005961,00.html Fairview360 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak , I would like to put in the intro the sentence about the UN and Dutch peacekeepers. Can you direct me to the best primary source material that shows the declaration of the safe area and the number of Dutch troops at the time the VRS entered Srebrenica? Thanks. Fairview360 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fairview360, the source is already listed in Srebrenica massacre article's references. I would give you direct source, but www.un.org/icty website is down at the moment. Just follow this link (when it's up again) to PDF file http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf#search=%22prosecutor%20vs%20krstic%20judgement%22 and you should find that info there. Let me know results of your search. Bosniak 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak , thank you. I found the exact paragraphs to substantiate the sentence.Fairview360 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Update 3 I added the sentence about the UN declaring Srebrenica a safe area and the 400 Dutch troops not preventing the massacre. The sentence is referenced to the exact paragraphs in the Finding of Facts section of the ICTY Prosecutor vs. Krstic Trial Chamber Judgment Fairview360 17:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Update 4 I took out the parathetical (See Legal Proceedings) from the intro since I believe it was awkward. I assume that it was a relic left over from the revert war and that it is OK with all that it has now been removed. If anyone objects, please join this discussion. Fairview360 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fairview, good job! I knew that source had alrady been listed in the references of the article. Bosniak 02:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Update 5 With a 23:47, 25 August 2006 edit, Dado made the statement refering to the number killed more accurate by changing "may never be known" to "will never be known" and added the word "also" to the following sentence: "The massacre included several instances where preteen children and women were also killed."

Darkoe has proposed the following sentence for the introduction: "In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, including soldiers from Serbian Krajina paramilitary group "Scorpions" participated in the massacre." Source material that I have seen states that the Scorpions were part of Serbia's MUP. Also the above sentence is lacking a subject. Fairview360 13:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Darkoe, in your proposed version of the introduction, the reference to your proposed sentence directly contradicts what you've written. The reference material clearly states that the Scorpions were part of Serbia's security forces. Please read this reference:

http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=260394&apc_state=henitri200603 Fairview360 14:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

While I see that there is a long discussion here taking place and while I am unable to indulge myself too much in this issue at this time may I just bring up couple of minor items in the introduction. In the sentance "While the exact number killed will never be known," I have already once replaced "will" with "may" once, since "will" seams to be to definitive and maybe an overstatement. Someone reverted this so I am posting it here for discussion. Also the image of a hung girl is particulary disturbing and I would prefer to move it to the lower part of the article as it in the introduction it seams as a too strong appeal to emotions. While the rape was common during the Srebrenica massacre it is not the predominant subject of it as the image in the introduction may imply.--Dado 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dado , I believe all agree that "will" is better than "may". If it has been reverted out, it has I believe been by mistake. I'll keep an eye on it. Right now it has "will".

In regards to the photo, I suggest looking at the top of the My Lai massacre wiki article. It also has a stark image of what happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre I believe it is appropriate to communicate the horror of what happened in images and in the beginning. However, along the lines of what you are saying, for the introduction, I believe a picture of men and boys recently executed would better communicate the nature of the massacre with the picture of the girl who committed suicide being moved to the "12–13 July: crimes committed in Potočari" section. Fairview360 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360, just briefly, I think Dado was suggesting "may" rather than "will" and on balance I think I agree. As far as the number count is concerned I think "over 8,000" is fully justified, plenty of confirmation. It's essential no more time and energy is wasted on any suggestions trying to sneak in a suggestion that the figure may be below 8,000. Much lower figures are suggested by deniers still refusing to acknowledge genocide and minimise the atrocity. They're easy enough to dismiss. Figures slightly lowering the numbers below the currently accepted number are part of the campaign of disruption and energy-wasting. Accepting the phrase "over 8,000" gives a round figure that allows scope for certain revision upwards while making sure that there's no risk of the impression being given that "8,000" is an approximation arrived at as a compromise figure which might be revised downward. I'll come back with further thoughts when I can. --Opbeith 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak

If you think that the IP address is Bosniak evadin his block, then please use WP:RFCU to ask for his IP to be checked. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The entry

Somebody please explain to me why

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II and it is the first legally established case of genocide in Europe. In the unanimous landmark ruling, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide stating in its judgement:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity."

was put out from the article (and entirely). Guess it was done by, well, genocide deniers.

Hanzo, it is a shame that that part was lost during the edit war since it provides well documented thoroughly researched context for what happened. The first part of the intro shows what happened. The second part gives context. Hopefully, the second part can be restored. Fairview360 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, first part of the entry

The Srebrenica massacre was the July 1995 killing of at least 8,000 Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska under the command of general Ratko Mladić. In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre. The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but they did not prevent the massacre. The massacre included several instances where preteen children and women were also killed. While the exact number killed will never be known, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names.

should be changed into

The Srebrenica massacre, was the July 1995 killing of at least 8,000 Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of general Ratko Mladić. In addition to the forces of Republika Srpska (RS), special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre. The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but they did not prevent the killings. The massacre included several instances where preteen children and women were also killed. While the exact number killed will never be known, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names.

because the unexplained "VRS"s later create confusion. Also later, the "RS" (with citation marks) should be changed into RS, and crimes against humanity interlinked. --HanzoHattori 12:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hanzo, excellent suggestion. The article definitely needs help establishing consistency in the terminology and explaining abbreviations. Fairview360 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All initials and abbreviations should be rendered in full at the first time of use, followed by the initials or abbreviation in brackets. Also there are a number of unnecessary links. Only links that significantly help understanding should be established. For example at the particular point where the Sabic brothers use a walkie-talkie to establish communication both Motorola and walkie-talkie are linked. The link to the walkie-talkie at this point is helpful, the link to Motorola is not. --Opbeith 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal proceedings

I want to change "Legal Proceedings" to "Legal proceedings" to comply with the MoS, but the article is blocked :-( Could someone fix it when the block expires? Lots of thanks in advance, Shinobu 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Doublestandarts getting brutal

As far as I ve read Osli is patronizing positively towards Serbian fascist. This is a very ironic attitude as I can see on userpage of Osli he is interested in politics. He most probably have some knowledge on eu politics and I know that Europeans are very sensitive on genocides having very deep comprehension on the genocide claims of Armenians or Pontus. However some people especially those who are rather interested in politics tend to get blind when there is a debate about the war crimes in the European continent or more precisely in Balkans. The politics today is not different from the politics 100 years ago, same brutality same doublestandarts...and this will not change, I hope it will be broken, so the eagerness for human rights in developed countries is a big lie. (cantikadam 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

continuing discussions regarding the intro

This was the intro before the edit war, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=73384141 , which can serve as the starting point for this post-protected discussion. To see how the intro got to this form, see topic #47

Please comment on these changes proposed by Hanzo. I have put in bold the parts that are different from the previous version. This new version would introduce terms and abbreviations that the reader needs to understand later in the article. I believe they are good suggestions.

The Srebrenica massacre, was the July 1995 killing of at least 8,000 Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of general Ratko Mladić. In addition to the forces of Republika Srpska (RS), special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre. The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but they did not prevent the killings. The massacre included several instances where preteen children and women were also killed. While the exact number killed will never be known, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names.

Any comments? Any suggestions? Fairview360 02:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If Hanzo's suggestions are incorporated into the intro, it would be as follows. Is there anyone who would like to suggest other edits? Fairview360 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Srebrenica massacre, was the July 1995 killing of at least 8,000 Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of general Ratko Mladić. In addition to the forces of Republika Srpska (RS), special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre. The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but they did not prevent the killings. The massacre included several instances where preteen children and women were also killed. While the exact number killed will never be known, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names.

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II and it is the first legally established case of genocide in Europe. In the unanimous landmark ruling "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide stating in its judgement:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity."

I'd put out the "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of" thing, it's not really that important. --HanzoHattori 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, Hanzo, I'd like to suggest expanding the intro to include some other important elements, as follows (I'm afraid I've lost the links in cutting and pasting):

The Srebrenica Massacre was the July 1995 killing by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić of over 8,000 [13] mostly unarmed Bosniaks in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition to Republika Srpska (RS) forces special state security forces of Serbia participated in the massacre. [14] The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN-protected "safe area". A battalion of armed Dutch UN peacekeepers stationed in the besieged enclave failed to prevent the killings. [15] The victims were mostly men and teenage boys but women and young children were also killed. [16] The dead were buried in mass graves whose existence was denied. In an attempt to conceal the evidence many of the bodies were subsequently disinterred and secretly reburied. The Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons's most recent list of individuals missing from or killed in Srebrenica contains 8,373 names. [17] Sophisticated techniques have been used by forensic scientists to identify bodies as the burial sites have been uncovered. Charges have been brought and convictions obtained against many of the participants at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague and also in national courts in the countries of the Former Yugoslavia.

This massacre was the largest act of mass murder in Europe since World War II and the first legally established case of genocide in Europe. [23] In its unanimous landmark ruling "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY ruled that the Srebrenica massacre constituted an act of genocide under the provisions of the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, stating in its judgement:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity." [24]

I'm in favour of keeping the "Prosecutor vs Krstic" label and the ref to the Appeals Chamber, but those details could be provided in the body of the article. I don't think the number of members of Dutchbat is important in the intro. I haven't included a reference to the war context, but perhaps that's important. --Opbeith 17:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also have a reference to the fact that important trials are currently taking place (eg Beara et al) but the two men generally considered to bear primary responsibility for the massacre, M and K, are still at large. --Opbeith 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of quick comments.

One excuse those intent on clouding the article use to delete parts of the intro is that it is too long. This intro would give them more fodder for such claims.

I believe by saying "mostly unarmed Bosniaks" you are refering to the fact the area had been demilitarized to a certain extent but to the first time reader it sounds like they were fighting when they were killed when in fact their hands were tied behind their backs or they were bunched together in warehouses and executed.

denied by whom?

I don't know why the sophisticated techniques of identifying bodies needs to be in the intro.

I agree with keeping the details of the ICTY ruling. I believe it gives greater credibility when such details of the decision are included. The determination of genocide was in fact unanimous and that is relavant.

Opbeith, thank you for participating in the discussion. Fairview360 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, my mention of "mostly unarmed" wasn't in reference to the demilitarisation of the area, it was to the fact that although some members of the column which set out to cross the lines were armed the very large majority were not, and of course the selectees at Potocari were unarmed. I thought this mention was relevant because of the way the deniers make out that a large portion of the victims whose death they are prepared to acknowledge were killed in combat and that the column was was a fighting force. The reason for mentioning the identification techniques is to make the point that efforst were made to conceal the atrocity by removing means of identification, mass burial and reburials but nevertheles the identity of the victims is being authoritatively confirmed in spite of all the efforts to ensure otherwise. I think that's a point that's worth including and I think the length of the introduction remains within the bounds of what's reasonable. --Opbeith 10:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting....

I would like to suggest Blnguyen unprotects the article. Let's start building it. We can start from previous edit, that was in place before edit-war and vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=73384141 . We can start from there and build the article.

The reason for the protection was that there was an inability to agree on / compromise regarding the tone and presentation of content in the article. There was even an unwillingness to accept that there was a POV conflict (this was the trigger causing the protection of the article). So, I don't see how unprotecting the article will enable us to 'build' the article unless there is some kind of agreement/compromise regarding the tone and presentation of content in the article.

Regards Osli73 10:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Would the person suggesting that the article is unprotected please identify themselves? --Opbeith 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that Serb nationalists: (let's call them the right names, because they are trying to deny genocide proven by international tribunal) KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, and Bormalagurski, are doing what they know the best. Continuing the genocide. So, I think that admins should return the version that was suggested above, and based on international judgements and remove POV tag (or denial tag). It is obvious what is the pathetic goal of this people, to sabotage the articel in order to destroy all the effort made in the past months. I am sorry for this sharp words, but they are the truth and reaction to nationalistic manners of this users. --Emir Arven 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Emir, I am not denying or refuting that there was a massacre, that some 8,000 people were killed, that it was carried out by the Bosnian Serb army or anyting else which the ICTY describes. I do, however, think that the article should use a neutral tone (ie skip the emotional language), present the facts as found by the ICTY and the Dutch NIOD report (which are, to my knowledge, appear to be the two most well-researched sources available on the topic), and where there are dissenting opinions/theories present these in a neutral sense. Osli73 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli , you delete sections of the intro that are based solely on ICTY rulings and then say that you believe the article should "present the facts as found by the ICTY" and then you complain when people call you essentially a hypocrite. How is that logical Osli? How can you say you believe that the article should be based on ICTY rulings and at the same time delete ICTY statements? And how is that you are surprised when people describe you as aggressive? Deleting the following section is being aggressive. Would you like to explain now why you have repeatedly and aggressively deleted the following section? Fairview360 01:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II and it is the first legally established case of genocide in Europe. [6] In the unanimous landmark ruling "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide stating in its judgement:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity." [7]''

Regarding the POV-tag, the reason for the tag is precisely to signal that there is dissent among the editors of the article as to if it conforms to NPOV.

Is it possible to agree on these principles first?

Finally, labelling anyone who does not agree with you a "Serb nationalist" is not a productive way forward if you want to build this article.

Regards Osli73 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So why did you delete the fact about genocide in intro? That fact is from ICTY source. The article is based on ICTY judgements. I didnt lable just anyone "who does not agree with me", I said what I saw, and I saw removing sourced part of the article. So please don't twist theses.--Emir Arven 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the ICTY did not call this an Act of Genocide, however, the article should state precisely that (that the ICTY judged it to be an Act of Genocide). However, generally (ie outside the world of the Srebrenica Genocide blogspot) the massacre is not referred to as the "Srebrenica Genocide." Regards Osli73 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You said that the article should present the facts as found by the ICTY. And they were presented that way. I don't see what is the problem (Actually I know what the problem is, for you and your friends). On the other hand, there is a planty of sources including UN resolutions, US resolution, academic and human rights institutions as HRW and UCR, even in Serbia for instance Natasa Kandic and Fond za humanitarno pravo, which call it the Srebrenica Genocide. So, no need to lie, nor deny. Regards.--Emir Arven 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to explain that to CNN[9], TIME[10], the Washington Post[11], Forbes[12], the Jerusalem Post[13], CBS[14], the Hindu[15], and a slew of other large and reputable international medie outlets. Live Forever 21:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, I stand corrected. You are correct, in this case we should definately keep it. Again, I'm not denying that the ICTY judged this to be an Act of Genocide or anything else the ICTY has found. Emir Arven, pls refrain from you aggressive language and accusations. Don't try to lump me together with "your friends". Take it easy. Regards Osli73 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

LiveForever, to be picky, as far as I can see it is only the Time article which refers to the massacre as the Srebrenica Genocide, the other articles (the ones I could open) refer to the Srebrenica Genocide trial (not the massacre as such).Regards Osli73 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli, what kind of tortured logic are you trying to foist on people??! Is that your goal? Obfuscation by taking up people's time arguing the absurd? If a newspaper article refers to the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the article is asserting that murder occurred. It is just a question of who committed it. When the above mentioned articles refer to the Srebrenica Genocide trial, again, they are asserting that genocide occurred. It is just a question of whether these particular individuals participated. Fairview360 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli, pls refrain from aggressive actions as removing sourced parts as in Naser Orić article or articles related to Srebrenica genocide. I showed what you did, so it is not about my language, it is about explaining your actions which are in my opinion not correct, because first you removed sourced part, then you said that you didn't do it, when I proved it to you, you accussed me of "aggressive language". Regards.--Emir Arven 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli73: The Srebrenica massacre was a genocide! That is a fact that UN have admitted!!! And thats the end of disscusion! I hate serbian nationalist, for you this genocid was a myth from us muslim. Hahahihihoho 00:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for (1) Intro (2) article structure and (3) editing principles

Dear all, I think the best way forward is to agree upon an intro, a structure for the rest of the article and some kind of basic principles for writing the article. Here is my suggestion, please consider. In the intro. I have strived to summarize what the main points of the article are/could be.

Introduction:

The Srebrenica massacre was the killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak males (though some women and children were also killed) following the takeover of the town of Srebrenica in July 1995 by Bosnian Serb forces during the Bosnian War. An estimated xx were executed after being captured in the town itself, while an estimated xx were captured or killed while trying to flee to Bosnian government controlled town of Tuzla.

To date, xx bodies have been excavated of which xx have been identified. Another xx persons are still registered as missing. The process has been made more difficult by the attempts by the Bosnian Serb army to hide the traces of the massacre, including reburials of some of the victims.

Ratko Mladić and other Serb officers in the Army of Republika Srpska have been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for the massacre. In 2004 the Bosnian Serb general Radislav Krstić became the third person ever to be convicted under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide for aiding and abetting genocide. In its ruling the ICTY found that the Srebrenica massacre was an Act of genocide.

The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but did not prevent the massacre. Following an investigation into the massacre and the role of the Dutch peacekeepers the Dutch government resigned in April 2002.

Osli, 1) the introduction that you are suggesting here communicates essentially the same thing as this version that you have objected to. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=73689151 Why? 2) It will never be known exactly how each person was killed so I do not believe the intro can support the exact numbers that it is looking for. Fairview360 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360, I feel that there are some important differences, both in content and in tone, compared to the version you referred to:

1. It proposes to give the numbers for where the people were killed (Potocari or en route to Tuzla)
2. It sets out how many bodies have been exhumed, how many have been identified and how many are missing. It also mentions the reburials
3. It mentions the resignation of the Dutch government
4. It avoids lenghty quotes, which, in my opinon, don't reall belong in an introduction (which should be a summary)
5. It gives a, in my opinion, better description of the number of persons killed by saying "an estimated 8,000" instead of siting a specific figure or giving the "at least"

Fairview, should I take your statement above about this version being similar to the previous one as an endorsement/support for this version? Is there anything you would like to change, add or adjust (apart from the Federal Commission figure, dealt with below)? Regards Osli73 07:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

1. Introduction

2. Background

a. The war in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina

b. The Bosnian Serb war aims

c. Events in and around Srebrenica 1992-1995

3. The attack on Srebrenica

4. The massacre

a. Potocari

b. The column of Bosniak men fleeing to Tuzla

c. The mass executions

5. After the massacre

a. Arrival in Tuzla

b. The reburials

6. Legal proceedings

a. ICTY

b. National court cases

c. International Court of Justice

7. Political consequences

a. Reaction of the Bosnian Serb and Yugoslav governments

b. Resignation of the Dutch government

c. Srebrenica genocide memorial

d. Charges and countercharges of politicization of the massacre and of genocide denial and revisionism

Principles for writing and editing:

• Use the ICTY and the NIOD report as sources in as far as possible
• Rewrite “The Massacre” section to avoid paraphrasing/plagiarizing the ICTY’s Krstic conviction
• Summarizing instead of using long quotes
• Agreeing on all text and edits (save spelling/grammar) on the Talk page prior to chage/publication

Let me know what you think. Regards Osli73 10:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I would like to propose this introduction:

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 killing of at least 8,000 Bosniak civilians, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska under the command of general Ratko Mladić. In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the genocide. The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but they did not prevent the massacre. The genocide included several instances where preteen children and women were also killed.While the exact number killed will never be known, the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names.

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II and it is the first legally established case of genocide in Europe. In the unanimous landmark ruling "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide stating in its judgement:

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity."

War ciminals responsible for genocide, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are still protected by Serbian government according to NATO, ICTY and some Serbian officials as Vladan Batic, former Serbian minister of justice.

Explanation: This is purely based on ICTY judgement and NATO sources. I also suggest to change the name of the article in Srebrenica Genocide instead of Srebrenica Massacre, as it is ICTY based, as the above user suggested. Kruško Mortale 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also support this, at least until the ICJ rules in favor of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Bosnian genocide case. Live Forever 16:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Krusko, well, I don't support your proposed introduction (which is quite similar to an older one). Here are my reasons: 1. "also known as Srebrenica genocide" - this is not really the case. More correct would be to say that "it is referred to by some" as the Srebrenica genocide. However, this is not how the massacre is generally referred to. Yes, the ICTY judged it to be an Act of Genocide, but it is not generally know as this.

"Referred to by some" is not POV because the word "some" implies that those who refer to it as the "Srebrenica genocide" form some sort of united front with an agenda. Of course, this is not the case. A more accurate and NPOV description would be "Also referred to as the Srebrenica genocide". Live Forever 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

2. "of at least 8,000" - this is getting into some judgmenet calls. The ICTY judgement says 7-8000. The approximate figure of 7,000 or 8,000 is often cited. Saying "an estimated 8,000" is NPOV. The different estimates of the numbers killed can be expanded on in a separate section.

Well, no, because nobody is actually saying that exactly 8,000 people were killed. Although using the words "at least" may come off as POV, the generally accepted view is in fact that there were more than 8,000 victims - and it is the generally accepted view. The ICTY judgement you bring up is now five years old, and it's findings are (as you yourself admitted earlier) outdated. You go on to say that this figure "is often cited" (although you conveniently never bother to provide concrete examples), but the only reason that this figure "is often cited" is precisely because the sources that do so are based on the ICTY judgement. Live Forever 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

3. "Bosniak civilians, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly" - most were military age men (most of which were also soldiers), though some women and children were also killed.

4. "special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated" - this is correct, but how important is it? Does it really belong in the introduction?

5. "participated in the genocide" - again, let's refer to it as the massacre while being clear that the ICTY judged it to be an Act of Genocide. Otherwise you are clearly politicizing the entire issue.

And here we come to the central disagreement through which negotiating with you is, perhaps, impossible. The Srebrenica massacre was an act of Genocide - period. This is not a political viewpoint, it is not an "issue" to be debated or "politicized"; it is a historical fact, independent of (although certainly reinforced by) the ICTY judgement. It has been repeatedly proven in international court, reiterated by various foreign governments, widely accepted as echoed by numerous international media, and recognized by a wide variety of academic and human rights organizations ranging from Human Rights Watch to The International Association of Genocide Scholars (the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe). On the other hand, for the view that you repeatedly insist holds equal validity, we have the majority of Serbs and a handful of sympathizing (and often criticized) Western intellectuals. In short, we have on our hands a situation that (in these respects) is identical to the Armenian genocide - a better known instance of genocide on whose article any attempts to do what you're trying to do here is treated (and rightly so) as simple vandalism. Live Forever 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

6. "the list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names." - again expand on this in a separate section

7. The rest of the text (paras 2-4) seems more concerned with the whole Genocide issue than with talking about the massacre. This will give the article a politicized / POV tilt while missing to provide other important information. Better, and enough, to simply state what the ICTY has judged. Also, I don't see how long quotes belong in an introduction.

8. Your proposed text says nothing about the flight to Tuzla, nothing about the number of bodies found, identified and persons still missing. It says nothing about the Dutch govt. resignation, etc.

Regards Osli73 18:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues

Dear all,

There seem to be at least three major open issues which need to be somehow agreed upon before moving on with the article.

1. Numbers killed There are a number of different estimates, most of them ranging from 7,000 to somewhere slightly above 8,000:

• ICTY: In its judgement in the Krstic case the ICTY refers to “7,000 – 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men were systematically murdered” (paragraph 2 [16])
• European Journal of Population: in this 2003 academic article by researchers from the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (used by the ICTY Prosecutor in the case against Krstic) the authors write that “We conclude that at least7,475 persons were killed after the fall of Srebrenica” ([17] )
• International Red Cross: refers to “murder of up to 8,000 Bosnian Moslems” “including 5,500 missing persons” (“Srebrenica – remembering the missing, 5 July 2005, [18] )
• Federal Commission of Missing Persons: appears to list some 8,373 names as killed or missing ([19] ?)
• ICMP (International Commission on Missing Persons): states "Of the 7,789 Srebrenica victims in the ICMP database, for whom family members have come forward and given a blood sample for DNA identification, 2,636 have been identified to date."

I therefore support using the “an estimated 8,000” figure. This seems to be in line with what most media/intl. organizations are using as well:

• UNHCR: talks of “Nearly 8,000 civilians were slaughtered“ in a 2006 article commemorating the massacre ([20] )
• TIME Magazine: “murder of some 8,000 Bosnian Muslim inhabitants of the town of Srebrenica in 1995” (“10 Questions For Carla del Ponte “, 13 August 2006, [21])
• BBC: in it’s “Timeline – Siege of Srebrenica” the BBC writes “more than 7,000 Muslim men are thought to have been killed” ([22] )
• Washington Post: writes “As many as 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slain” in a recent report on bodies exhumed from a mass grave (“Massacre Victims Exhumed In Bosnia”, 18 August 2006, [23] )
• CBC News: writes that “massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims by Bosnian Serbs” ([24] )

In light of this I think the term "an estimated 8,000" is reasonable. Presentations of the various estimates of the numbers killed or missing should be expanded on in a specific section in the text.

Dear All, I agree with "an estimated 8,000" as long as the intro includes the Federal Commission of Missing Persons data. Fairview360 01:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360, my idea was to simply state "an estimated 8,000" and then present the various figures in detail in a separate section. If we first say "an estimated 8,000" and then, further down in the text, state a different figure from another source it will be inconsistent/contradictory. It is this type of thing where everyone gets "their" preferred figure/fact/quote in which leads to the text becoming overloaded, contradictory and generally poor.

However, if we agreed to expand on the various estimates available in a separate section (or possibly footnote), I would have no problem in setting the Federal Commissions figures at the top of the list. Cheers Osli73 07:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli , if where you are trying to take us is back to introducing highly inflated numbers (Oric) or deflated numbers(Srebrenica) that have no basis in objective research, then please save us the time and quit right now. It is clear that well over 8,000 people went missing after the BSA takeover of Srebrenica. The opening sentence of the intro refers specifically to people killed by the BSA troops under Mladic's command. Some of the missing made it to Zepa and were killed during the takeover of Zepa. Some committed suicide. Some made it to other places and died of starvation, exhaustion, or were killed by people or soldiers not under the command of Mladic. Agreeing to "an estimated 8,000" in that particular sentence does not mean that I, for one, am going to entertain numbers below 8000. Saying an estimated 8,000 when well over 8,000 are confirmed missing simply allows for those who died of starvation, exhaustion, or were killed by people other than those troops under the command of Mladic during the Srebrenica Massacre. Well over 8,000 people died as a result of the BSA seige and takeover of Srebrenica. Do not think that this article is going to include the clearly inflated revisionist numbers that you have tried to introduce in the past. Fairview360 19:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360, I'm sorry to disagree quite forcefully with you. There is no question of the figure of 8000 being "estimated". The figure of 8000 has been sufficiently well established. Any uncertainty relates to the number above 8000. --Opbeith 09:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairview360, I take your point about the figures for the dead and missing including those who died of starvation, exhaustion or killed by other people than the BSA. Nevertheless these people died in the massacre as a result of the genocidal conditions imposed by the enterprise in which Mladic was responsible for the military component.

The introduction does not refer to RSA troops, it reads "the July 1995 killing *in the region of* Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina *by the Army of Republika Srpska under the command of general Ratko Mladić*. We have heard in various trials including the Krstic case of the involvement of the command structure of of the Army of Republika Srpska. We have also heard how other parties were coopted, coordinated or their actions otherwise sanctioned by the command structure. We will be hearing more evidence on the subject during the Beara et al. trial. At least / over 8,000 people were killed in the Srebrenica Genocide carried out by the Army of Republika Srpska. --Opbeith 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Srebrenica massacre or Srebrenica genocide The ICTY clearly judged it to be an Act of Genocide in its April 2004 judgement in the Prosecutor vs Krstic case ([25] ). However, it should be noted than nowhere in the judgement does the ICTY refer to the massacre as the “Srebrenica genocide”

Otherwise it is difficult to argue with how common the term “Srebrenica genocide” is. Yes, it is used by some (including by ICTY Prosecutor Carla del Ponte on some occasions [26] and also by some magazines, as pointed out previously on this Talk page, see above).

A Google of the net (minus blogs) of the words “Srebrenica massacre” and “Srebrenica genocide” give 131,000 and 13,200 hits, respectively. Googling “BBC” and “Srebrenica massacre” and “Srebrenica genocide” provide 46,100 hits in the first case and only 701 in the second, implying that the BBC uses the term “Srebrenica massacre” 66 times more often than it uses the term “Srebrenica genocide”. By this simply (and of course far from perfect) measure “massacre” seems to be far the preferred / most common wording.

Based on this I would suggest that saying that it is referred to as the “Srebrenica genocide

Regards Osli73 11:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Osli, I think that you are not correct. Because you presented here wrong information. I just googled the terms Srebrenica genocide and Srebrenica massacre, which give 511,000 [27] and 455,000 [28] hits, respectively. But even this results are not as relevant as the judgement. As we agreed to use official international judgements, then it is clear that Srebrenica genocide is the right term. Cheers. Kruško Mortale 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Krusko, I excluded the word "blog" from the Search to at least try to capture mainly 'official' media rather than personal blogs. Yes, the ICTY judged that the massacre was an Act of Genocide, however, it does then not go on to use the word "genocide" instead of "massacre" throughout the judgement. I am not against saying that "some persons" or "in some cases" it is referred to as the Srebrenica genocide. However, I believe it would be incorrect to say that it is "known as the Srebrenica genocide" or to in the article replace massacre for genocide. Regards Osli73 22:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli73, Krusko, in ordinary use I hear both "the genocide at Srebrenica" and "the massacre at Srebrenica" used, but the former rather more than the latter. As far as the title of the article is concerned my preference would be for "The Srebrenica Genocide" but it's not unreasonable for the sake of continuity to stay with "The Srebrenica Massacre". Either way the initial character of the noun should be in upper case since the reference is to a particular rather than a generic event. --Opbeith 08:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli, where is number 3? You said there were three issues, but only gave two. Fairview360 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, you're right. Sorry about that. The third issue I was thinking of was the extent to which the intro should cover other topics such as the numbers exhumed, identified, etc, the resignation of the Dutch govt., the political repercussions (response from Bosnian Serbs, Yugoslavia/Serbia) etc. The earlier versions focused almost exclusively on the numbers killed and, to a very lare extent, on the legal proceedings. I feel that is not a very good balance. But maybe it doesn't have to be such a big issue (which is why I think I forgot it by the time I ended issue no. 2). Regards Osli73 11:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli , please note that you are here suggesting adding more to the intro when in the past you deleted ICTY based text from the intro giving as the only reason that the intro was too long. This does not bode well for your credibility. Fairview360 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

---

[I'm putting my comments on structuring discussions into a new section "Organised Discussion"] --Opbeith 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

left-apologists? NPOV.

"Although the International Crimes Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of Genocide, the number of casualties is still disputed by left-apologist revisionists and Serbian and Serbian nationalists. The government of the Republika Srpska has officially condemned the atrocity."

It is NOT neutral point of view to neglect stating the specific context of the politics in a case of GENOCIDE DENIAL and quitely dump it on the shoulders of an entire branch of politics in this world, or even to imply just in that region. Leftist is not slur, and if someone wants that region or the whole world to throw left-leaning politics or "left-apologism" completely in the trash can over something it is not intrinsically related to, that persons opinion is NOT SUITABLE for a Wikipedia article. Consider right-wing politics that took over the region in the past that was also guilty of genocide. (i.e. the Nazis)

I am removing "left-apologist" and will remove anything that does not express proper context. There is more than one left-leaning movement in this world, and there is more than one left-leaning movement in that region. LEFT-WING DOES NOT EQUAL GENOCIDE. If you want to make nonchalant hints that things are otherwise, go take a shit somewhere else. 209.226.121.140 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, you cannot edit this page. Can someone please make an appropriate edit, or discussion on this? I know nothing of history, but this is a NPOV problem even I can see. Appropriate distinction has to be made. 209.226.121.140 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

209.226.121.140, you can't edit at the moment as the article is protected because of an edit-war.

I absolutely agree with you that left wing views have nothing to do with support for genocide. In this particular instance, though, the term "left-apologist" isn't tarring left-wingers generally with the genocide denial brush, it's referring to a particular group of people with left-wing views generally who've consistently sought to deny and minimise the genocide, support Milosevic et al., and make out that the victim community were the guilty party - people like Diane Johnstone, Ed Herman, ZNet, LM, and so on. I don't see the term here as identifying me or you with genocide, I see it as designating that specific group, who as far as I know don't have an alternative collective name. --Opbeith 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there seems to be a group of left-wing academics and journalists (intellectuals if you will) who have challenged the mainstream/generally accepted version of the Srebrenica massacre. However, there are also other, such as presumably Gen. MacKenzie, who are not know to be left-wing. While some Marxists appear to support Milosevic out of some knee-jerk anti-Americanism/Imperialism their views are not necessarily shared by 'mild' left-wingers like Johnstone. So, labelling all of these people, or all who share their views, "left-wing" is not correct.

Labelling them "apologists" is a judgement and not appropriate for Wikipedia (think slander / libel, etc.). I'm not sure what the "left-wing apologists" have to do with "The Nazis" as referred to by the anonymous user above. Regards Osli73 22:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No connection between the two were implied in that sense at all. Since I was worried of a connection implied between left politics in an essential sense and genocide justification and cover-up, I used an well-known extreme EXAMPLE of right-wing politics that was undisputedly involved in genocide justification and cover-up that once came and took over the same region. Atrocities have been carried under the banner of all types of politics, left, right, imperialist, sepratist, communist, fascist, capitalist, yet as anyone should agree none of these groups of political ideals plainly equal genocide.

I still don't like "left-apologist" used even in the context of this. Is it entirely assured that the genocidal group represented the only brand of leftism that population could produce, or that by virtue of the genocidal group's purpoted political leanings, that left-wing politics should be abandoned in that region? Maybe I would understand not wanting to attract the crazies back under the same banner they meant to abuse, but I mean to say that (and I think you guys agree?) maybe that there is more appropriate and clearly neutral wording that would not at the very least be easily interpreted or misinterpreted as sweepingly partisan? 209.226.121.136 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

209.226.121.136, it's easier to follow who's saying what if you can get yourself a Wiki identity. I assume you and 209.226.121.140 are the same person. The "left" in "left-apologists" - or "left revisionists" - refers to the general political alignment of the persons concerned rather than to the subject of their concern. The Balkan war was a territorial war driven by nationalism and opportunism rather than a fight between "left" and "right".

The left has traditionally championed the cause of the oppressed. That's why many people who have always seen themselves as being on the left of the political spectrum and who experienced or observed the war and its atrocities have been appalled by the stance taken by a group of left-wing intellectuals who, on the basis of an anti-imperialist analysis, have supported or defended Milosevic and his allies and denied or minimised the war crimes for which they were responsible.

These people see the wars of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia as the subject of deliberately biased reporting by the Western media and offer a a different, notionally "leftist" narrative interpretation instead. They challenge the accepted historical account and that's why their stance has been described as "revisionism", by critics such as Marko Attila Hoare.

Hoare's article on "The Left Revisionists" (at http://www.glypx.com/BalkanWitness/hoare.htm) notes that "Although the revisionist camp stretches right across the political spectrum to encompass liberals, conservatives, socialists, and members of the far right, the ideological motivation of each of these groups is very different. The current I wish to analyse here consists of people who are to the left of mainstream Social Democracy and who oppose what they see as the anti-Serbian or anti-Yugoslav policies of the Western alliance. It includes members of many different far-left traditions .... For the sake of convenience I shall refer to them as ‘left revisionists’, meaning those who, on the basis of a radical left-wing philosophy, seek 1) to revise the negative evaluation of the Milosevic regime made by politically mainstream commentators; 2) to deny that genocide took place and downplay the violence and suffering involved in the wars in the former Yugoslavia; and 3) to shift the blame for this violence and suffering, as well as for the break-up of Yugoslavia, on to the Western alliance." He also notes that other adherents of a radical left-wing philosophy opposed Western military intervention in the Balkans but also opposed the Milosevic regime.

I have to confess that when I said I didn't know of an alternative collective name for the group, "left revisionists" had slipped my mind. In my defence I don't think of them in that sense - it's not an adequate description. Revisionism is a legitimate stance when it involves a reappraisal of accepted fact. What I find reprehensible about the "left revisionism" Hoare talks about, like its right-wing cousin "Holocaust revisionism", is its ideologically-driven selectivity with respect to established fact going as far as denial of known atrocities - effectively an expression of contempt for the victims. That's why I'm happy to accept the description "left-apologists". These people are in practice apologists for atrocity and genocide, like their right-wing nationalist partners in denial. Strictly speaking, yes, there is an element of ambiguity about the term but used in context its significance is clear. --Opbeith 09:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Having said all that, personally I'd be prepared to accept inverted commas around any reference to "left-apologist" or "left-apologists" if that answers your objection. But there should be no use of inverted commas around the word "apologist" when it refers to someone who seeks to excuse or deny the established reality of genocide and the massacre of over 8000 individuals. --Opbeith 09:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection imminent

Seeing as there is some serious discussion and ideas for the development of the article, it will be protected in a day or so. Also please note that WP:3RR does not guarantee 3 reverts per day - so in order to avoid disruption and as a condition of trying to improve constructive editing, I am giving a notice that I will block people who do more than two reverts per day and three reverts per two days. This is to allow editing as well as to prevent disruptive revert-warring. Inquiries and propsed amendments are welcome. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen,

I don't agree. Although I realize that protecting pages is not a long-term solution I would suggest maintaining the protection for some time longer. Here are my reasons:

• There has yet to be any kind of compromise or agreement on a common view with regards to how the article should be written
• The protection is the only reason there are some attempts at fruitful discussion. Without it the Bosniak editors would simply refuse ANY edits not to their liking (and I believe their liking is POV).

I would suggest keeping the protection until there has been some progress towards a common view.

Regards Osli73 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, I'm a little surprised to find myself agreeing with Osli73, though my view of what's likely to happen identifies the problems as coming from a different point of the compass. You may have misinterpreted the tone of the discussions - I think the genuine discussions that are taking place are going on in our own separate corner/s. I think maybe we still need some downtime. --Opbeith 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Opbeith, I'm glad to hear that we can at least agree on this. Have you had a chance to look through my proposals above regarding the intro., the article structure and the principles for editing/referencing the article? Regards Osli73 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli73, on the whole the basic framework you suggest doesn't seem unreasonable, though I haven't thought about the implications in detail yet. I am rather more uncertain about your "Principles for writing and editing". The ICTY (you don't say whether you're including Defence and Prosecution submissions as well as judgments) and the NIOD report can both be useful sources but the way those sources are used can be problematic. The Krstic conviction is crucial to the issue of genocide and it's nonsense to rule out its use in the way the phraseology you use appears to do (and of course attributed quotation is not plagiarism). The appropriate length of a quote depends on how easy it is to summarise without distorting its content. And finally it's a little confusing to see you propose "* Agreeing on all text and edits (save spelling/grammar) on the Talk page prior to chage/publication" when I understood that it was your unannounced edits that inspired a lot of the dissent here. Certainly "Agreement" is a sound principle, and perhaps the first thing that needs to be agreed is what constitutes "Agreement". I'm sure we would all be anxious to avoid a situation in which individuals with a particular axe to grind were able to use "Disagreement" as a tactic to prevent any progress towards an improved article. --Opbeith 10:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment about the NIOD report. Although it can be a useful source it is also flawed in a number of ways. My comment that the way it is used can be problematic stands. --Opbeith 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli , at face value, your objection to ICTY quotes have never made sense. What does make sense is that you object because ICTY quotes are so effective at clearly describing what happened in Srebrenica. I am of the mind that your true objective here is to plant seeds of doubt and revise numbers down and get MacKenzie-esque revisionism back in the article. But we'll take it step by step and see where you want to take things. From time to time, you do make reasonable suggestions. Until you do something outrageous again, I will support your reasonable suggestions. But if you go back to assaulting the article with bogus reasons -- like deleting the intro saying it is too long while suggesting intros that are as long or longer -- then the best course of action will be, once again, to ignore you. Fairview360 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that article should be unprotected, because it is obvious that Mr. Osli, doesn't want accept a principle that he proposed, to use ICTY documents, which are clear to everyone who read them. So I don't understand those "arguments", and it seems to me that Mr. Osli doesn't want to make progress here, but to keep POV tag. The article, earlier versions, were perfectly OK, so I don't see what is the problem?? Cheers. Kruško Mortale 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairview, Krusko and Opbeith,

1. Regarding your comments on "The principles" I agree that it is difficult to specify what exactly is meant by "agreement", but that is why I called it a principle. It will, involve some give and take and willingness to compromise when it concerns details. If we are unable to agree on major issues then some kind of POV conflict tag or other means is going to have to be used to enable us to move on.
2. Regarding my comment on using ICTY and NIOD documents as sources my general idea was to agree on this to then avoid conflicts about sources. That doesn’t mean that either of them can/should be quoted/used indiscriminately (see below). To allow us some freedom I suggest using all/any material issued by the ICTY (including judgments, indictments, comments by the prosecutor, press releases, etc), as long as it is specified what type it is in the reference
3. I have never objected to using ICTY documents as sources. I have, however, objected to how these documents have been quoted at times. These objects regard both the length of quotes (in some cases including whole chapters) or how they have been used. This also applies to the NIOD report.
4. I am not trying to deflate the numbers killed in Srebrenica, I propose to say “an estimated 8,000” and then expanding on the various estimates in a separate section.
5. As for “inflating” the number of Serbs killed prior to 1995, I proposed entering the estimates made by the ICTY in its press release on this topic in relation to the Naser Oric case. It must be possible to mention estimates of 2-3,000 people (without saying that they are correct) together with other estimates or mentioning the comments by people like MacKenzie (without labelling him a “concentration camp rapist” and such things) without being called a “revisionist” or “genocide denier”.
6. My objection earlier, which to a certain extent still remains (following recent entries on this talk page), is that many editors seems more concerned with issues like paying homage to/remembering the victims or combating evil or stopping genocide. Wikipedia is not the place for such work. It is an encyclopedia.

So, even if we continue to mistrust each others motives/methods, I hope that we will be able to step-by step move forward with an article that we both can accept. However, if this is to be the case I will have to ask that editors stop throwing insults like "revisionist", "genocide denier", "nazi", "left wing apologist" etc around whenever their views are challenged. I will also abide by this Regards Osli73 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Kamenica needs disambiguation

Kamenica needs disambiguation, most likely into Kamenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The disambigation itself also could be improved, there are several settlements of the same name in Bosnia. Pavel Vozenilek 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Osli

Osli said: "Without it the Bosniak editors would simply refuse ANY edits not to their liking (and I believe their liking is POV)."

What Bosniak editors? There is only 2 of them. And before vandalism, Srebrenica Massacre article was heavily referenced to International Crimes Tribunal and United Nations' sources. Then extremist Serbs came and vandalized article, destroyed important sections, and then BLnguyen protected article, by keeping vandalized section. Bosniak POV is International Crimes Tribunal's point of view. If you think that International Crimes Tribunal is not neutral, that's your problem. Facts speak for themselves. Your opinion is your opinion, we don't care about that; we care about facts. There is lots of opinions denying Holocaust, we don't care about that either. Facts speak for themselves, and opinions are irrelevant.

BLnguyen, keep article protected indefinitely

it must be protected from vandals who destroy UN/ICTY facts. However, I wish this was a protected version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=73689151 . But again, I don't think BLnguyen is neutral, but at least his decision doesn't help the Serb cause.

However, if he was fair, he would have locked the topic that was in place before vandalism; but he didnt. His censorship and administrative privileges should be under review.

You can go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and lodge a complaint. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who requested that Blnguyen lock in the pre-revert war version, I experienced Blnguyen disagreeing with what I thought fair. With that said, I am sick and tired of hard-core Bosniaks and/or nationalist Serbs threatening administrators with impeachment whenever the administrator disagrees with their views. Being an administrator trying to mediate Balkan conflicts will inevitably involve decisions that do not please everyone. Blnguyen has acted judiciuously and in good faith. While not all will agree with each and every decision, all seem to agree that administrative intervention or oversight is needed. And now we have it. Rather than threats, there is reason for appreciation here. Fairview360 01:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I second Fairview's statement above. I also take heart in his statement that "mediating Balkan conflicts will inevitably involve decisions that do not please everyone". For us to make progress on this article that statement will also go for articles about Balkan conflicts. Regards Osli73 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fairview360 that it's important to respect the role of the administrator. Nevertheless I think administrators must be careful not to see themselves as being bound to observe a sort of passive neutrality. They must not see every argument as having equal validity. That sort of neutrality is effectively a taking of sides. Fairview, I'm afraid that at a different level - that of the international community's intervention in the Balkans - the attitude that "mediating Balkan conflicts will inevitably involve decisions that do not please everyone" gave us the level playing field on which genocide took place.

I'm not demanding that the administrator should agree with my or anyone else's take on specific issues. But the administrator must be prepared to inform him/herself sufficiently to be able to understand the substance of disagreements. I agree that Blnguyen appears to have acted in good faith and in an unpartisan manner, but I hope that he/she also appreciates that good faith is not always enough. --Opbeith 09:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To remain passive in the face of an unmitigated evil is not neutral; it is immoral and taking the side of the aggressor. The only way people are able to perpetrate genocide is by good people remaining passive. When an innocent human being is murdered or raped, saying it takes two to tango is a perversion of any fair minded assessment. Allowing neo-nazi's to add revisionist edits to the Holocaust wiki-article would not be considered a fair minded approach to administering wiki. So yes, Opbeith, I believe we are in agreement and I hope that any administrator would be well informed and not let revisionist propaganda get a foothold in this article. Fairview360 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And whatever they may have to say anonymous comments that aren't associated with an identity of some sort deserve to be ignored. --Opbeith 09:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And in the opposite direction I hope no-one, including Bosniak, will mind me editing his Wiki reference in several comments by Osli73 so that only his name appears (as I'm sure was intended) rather than multiple copies of his mission statement complete with requests for translation of the Universal Declaration. It was impossible to read the comments otherwise. --Opbeith 10:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Title: Srebrenica Massacre or massacre

I'm not sure why the initial "M" has gone from upper case to lower case. In English capitalisation is used to indicate a unique event - for example see the Wikipedia article on the Peterloo Massacre. I see no reason for a lower case "m" (is it the typographically challenged editor of the Guardian at work here?). Would anyone disagree to reverting to the upper case "M"? --Opbeith 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be Massacre with a capital M. Osli73 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Dmcdevit has stated that this is due to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo under Wikipedia:Article probation as this article intersects with Kosovo in the sense of the people editing it. Also Bormalagurski needs to explain "rv blocked user" because unless the Ip is a sock evading a block he is not entitled to a free revert. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the IP appeared right after Bosniak was blocked, and the IP started making the edits Bosniak couldn't do because he was blocked.

Let me just provide my evidence:

• User:Bosniak blocked at 03:37, 4 September 2006 [29]. Last edit before he made a legal threat: Srebrenica massacre
• User:128.253.56.185 started making edits at 21:12, 4 September 2006 [30]. First edit: Srebrenica massacre

Not to mention the same tone he took with me, as if we already know each other... Isn't it obvious? --Serb ^talk 03:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not sufficient evidence. Bosniak's block has expired anyway.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Organised Discussion

Osli73, for the sake of clarity I suggest that three separate discussion sections are created, one for each of your "issues" and that the comments under "Issues" concerning each separate issue are copied into the relevant section. That might help make the issues easier to access.

For these three issues I suggest creating sections as follows (1)"Title - Srebrenica Massacre or Srebrenica Genocide"; (2)for your untitled third issue, topics covered in the Introduction, something along the lines of "Introduction - Main Issues"; and (3)"Issue - Number killed".

If any other specific points in the article become subjects for discussion I suggest that the person raising the issue creates a new section with a title along the lines of "Issue - XXXX", e.g. "Issue - ICTY", "Issue - Krstic Judgment", "Issue - NIOD Report", "Issue - Naser Oric", "Issue - Lewis MacKenzie", "Issue - Plans for Genocide", "Issue - "Left-Apologists" (just examples - and perhaps once the Introduction Issues have been agreed, any further discussion of these could be raised in a Discussion section under a title such as "Main Issue - XXXXX").

I'd also suggest, though who knows whether or not this suggestion is likely to be practical in the heat of the moment, that if anyone has a complaint about the way in which a contributor is engaging in the discussion as opposed to argument over the details that they create a discussion under the title "Complaint - XXXX", e.g. "Complaint - Opbeith" (just an example).

I'm not sure how best to handle issues like "Protection", parhaps under something like "General Procedure -XXXXX", but I'm sure someone can suggest some better approach.

Above all, I suggest we avoid uncommunicative Discussion section titles like "Adjustments", "The entry", "Response to Osli", "I am suggesting ....".

These are just suggestions and may not be easy to follow in practice but they might provide us with a bit more structure to the discussions and help some of us follow developments. --Opbeith 08:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Opbeith, I this is a very good suggestion. It was something along these lines which I was trying to introduce with my suggestion for agreeing on:

1. intro text
2. structure of the article and
3. general principles for editing it (sources to be used, how they are to be used and when edits should be made).

Otherwise, this topic risks descending into chaos and mudslinging. My suggestions for these three are set out above. However, I will now reenter them into separate sections below with some of your suggestions added in. Hope this is OK. I also think it would be more constructive if we tried to deal with a limited number of "issues" at a time instead of trying to tackle too many of them at the same time. Regards Osli73 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Here is my proposal for an introduction to the article (same as above). Please comment.

The Srebrenica massacre was the killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak males (though some women and children were also killed) following the takeover of the town of Srebrenica in July 1995 by Bosnian Serb forces during the Bosnian War. An estimated xx were executed after being captured in the town itself, while an estimated xx were captured or killed while trying to flee to Bosnian government controlled town of Tuzla.

To date, xx bodies have been excavated of which xx have been identified. Another xx persons are still registered as missing. The process has been made more difficult by the attempts by the Bosnian Serb army to hide the traces of the massacre, including reburials of some of the victims.

Ratko Mladić and other Serb officers in the Army of Republika Srpska have been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for the massacre. In 2004 the Bosnian Serb general Radislav Krstić became the third person ever to be convicted under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide for aiding and abetting genocide. In its ruling the ICTY found that the Srebrenica massacre was an Act of genocide.

The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but did not prevent the massacre. Following an investigation into the massacre and the role of the Dutch peacekeepers the Dutch government resigned in April 2002.

Sincere regards Osli73 11:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Here is my suggestion for a structure of the article (same as above except for adding a section for no:s killed in section 5c). Please comment.

1. Introduction

2. Background

a. The war in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina

b. The Bosnian Serb war aims

c. Events in and around Srebrenica 1992-1995

3. The attack on Srebrenica

4. The massacre

a. Potocari

b. The column of Bosniak men fleeing to Tuzla

c. The mass executions

5. After the massacre

a. Arrival in Tuzla

b. The reburials

c. Numbers killed

6. Legal proceedings

a. ICTY

b. National court cases

c. International Court of Justice

7. Political consequences

a. Reaction of the Bosnian Serb and Yugoslav governments

b. Resignation of the Dutch government

c. Srebrenica genocide memorial

d. Charges and countercharges of politicization of the massacre and of genocide denial and revisionism

Sincere regards Osli73 11:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre - My Proposition

Blnguyen and others:

Here is my proposal for Srebrenica Massacre article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre . Please don't use reverts, use this template for changes. We want to avoid another revert war. I also propose this version of the article be shortened. It contains facts of the case (ICTY, UN, etc). New material can be added as appropriate. However, it should be shortened (paraphrasing ok). Bosniak 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak, I think you've mixed the Article itself up with the template, so that the picture of the young woman whose copyright was at issue has ended up back at the top of the Article. We need to be clear how this business of amending templates work. In principle, as I understand it, it's a good idea but I don't fully understand how all the complications of Wikipedia work and I'm sure I'm not the only one, so it would be a good idea to explain the technicalities. I'm going to be away for a few days but I'll try and pick up when I get back. --Opbeith 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

FOOTER FORMATTING

Can someone please fix footer formatting, so there is one line for multiple references instead of multiple line referencing to same reference, you know what I mean?142.179.66.89 20:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)