![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
We should also find time to incorporate some of the following into the article:
...The Serbs began to "march girls and young women away from the group of refugees. They were raped." ....A Dutch soldier stood by and watched as the women were raped, even listening to music on his Walkman.... A Serb, says Subasic, "told the mother to make the child stop crying. But when the baby continued to cry, he took it from the mother and slit its throat. Then he laughed. A Dutch soldier also witnessed the murder of the baby, she says, and yet he "didn't react at all"... The Muslim men, some as young as 12, were almost all murdered. The scenes that transpired in the camp are indescribable. The Serbs would pick out girls from groups. "I saw the Bosnian women begging the Dutchbat soldiers to bring the girls back," Kadira Gabeljic, one of the plaintiffs, recalls. But they only responded: "no, no, no." Ramiza Gurdic, another plaintiff, witnessed an incident that she is unlikely to ever forget. She describes a scene in which a 10-year-old boy was placed in his mother's lap and literally slaughtered. "His little head was chopped off, and the body remained in the mother's lap." Source: Republished from Der Spiegel. Bosniak 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Bosniak, I was thinking more along the lines of an "External links" section but only with links to Survivors testimonies. Of course there would have to be a selection. This to keep the material added to the article to a minimum, considering that it is already exceeding Wikipedia recommendations. Osli73 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The times of day within the article aren't consistent. For example, under the heading "The Column of Bosnian Men" it says "At around 2200 hours on the evening..." However, under the heading "The breakthrough at Baljkovica" it says "At approximately 05.00 hours on 16 July..." I'm not sure whether to use the first style or the second. I would change it, but I'm not particularly well versed in military style time. Insertclevernamehere 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Recently I created a article-redirect called Battle of Srebrenica, which points to this article, because I thought it was a reasonably logical thing to do. What do you think about this?-- MaGioZal 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Further Reading section, in the main article, the link of the NIOD Report leads nowhere..
In his latest revert of my legitimate edit, Osli asked: "how do we know that the results have been checked by an 'international team of experts'". This is a far question, here is a source, quote: "The Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center, IDC, conducted the research from 2004-2006, and the study - which claims there were 92,207 casualties - is currently the largest database on Bosnian war victims in existence. An international team of experts evaluated the findings before they were released." IWPR, Bosnia's "Book of the Dead" http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=336566&apc_state=henh Bosniak 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Bosniak, you're right the Bosnia's Book of Dead report was checked by "international experts". However, there is no mention of them checking the Bratunac figures which you mention. The source for that figure is a separate report, where there is no mention of it being checked. Cheers
Osli73
10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
hi all,
first of all, hope no one objects to my recent spate of edits. Most were minor grammatical edits, but a few were a bit meatier (although if I had thought they would be controversial, I would have raised them here first).
Anyway, I have found that "Srebrenica Genocide Memorial" appears *not* to be the official name for this; 'Srebrenica Memorial' is the title used by all mainstream/ 'reliable sources' from a quick Google check, although I couldn't find any official website for the memorial.
I would have just gone ahead and changed this, but it is now linked to a further page with this title. Can anyone offer advice here -- is it easy to change the title of the other article? (I didn't want to screw up the link). Or anyone know any different vis-a-vis the official name? Cheers Jonathanmills 16:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just an update -- I'm sure you can see by the history page I've been making a few edits! :-) It's just an attempt to make the article more manageable. Would be happy for people to follow along in my footsteps as the article is way too long, filled with much irrelevant detail and often repeats itself, not to mention a lot of basic spelling and grammar errors. Otherwise I will just keep chipping away at it myself :-(
Would be good to maybe just do this for a while and *then* argue about controversial issues (if necessary), as from where I sit, the article at the moment needs some serious editing attention. Genuinely hope I haven't offended anyone -- I fell into the trap myself of discussing the controversial stuff and ignoring the article itself, so I'm just offering my perspective. Cheers Jonathanmills 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm not sure why Bosniak reverted all of Jonathan's edits if there was nothing wrong with them, which he didn't mention. Given that it was mainly spelling, grammar and summaries I can't see why he would have anything against it. I'll revert them back. Cheers
Osli73
13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan, thanks for your response at my Talk Page. I am glad we have so many interests in common. I just read your response here. Canada is a beautiful place indeed (tip: come for the Celebration of Fire in Vancouver, as the international firework competition on the open sea is "must sea" event). On another note, I'have noticed 360 degrees improvement in your edits, because you are not playing revisionist tricks. In fact, you have gone a long way with Srebrenica topic, and I am proud of you for finally accepting two separate rulings of the international courts. I am proud of your for being intelligent enought to understand that Srebrenica genocide denial is is not only morally wrong, but it's also factually wrong. I've been studying the case of Srebrenica for 3 years now. Things are more complex than they seem. Revisionists and genocide deniers simplify case of genocide by simply saying that this was 'Western/NATO conspiracy against Serbs and Serbia' etc. Or, in some cases they use discredited sources and present somebody elses opinions as facts (for eg Gen Lewis MacKenzie has never been in Srebrenica, yet he portrays himself as expert who can deny genocide as 'he' sees fit). Or, some revisionists claim that Srebrenica victims were soldiers, and since some of them were soldiers - all of them were soldiers. And this argument does not even count as an opinion; it's a worthless example of denial. In other words and with respect to Srebrenica genocide; a POW, a surrendered soldiers were clearly non-combatants at the time of the deaths (they were transported to execution sites and mass executed with hands tied). Anywyas, if you have any questions about Srebrenica - do not hesitate to ask me. People are sometimes confused, and if I can help them understand things a little bit more - hey, I'll be happy! With respect to the Liberal Party - you might study their policies more closely, they are very progressive on many fronts (so you might drop Conservatives from the ballot on your next voting election, just a thought). Again, I am glad we can have you as an editor which will stand up against vandalism of Srebrenica massacre article, especially when people come and claim that only 2,000 died... Cheers. Bosniak 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I inserted one more source from Research and Documentation Center of Norway which has a well written analysis of the Bosnian Book of Dead. You can read the article (and I highly recommend it) here http://www.norveska.ba/press/rdc-bbd.htm . RDC's research has collapsed many myths, including myth that 200,000 people died in Bosnia, as well as myth about 3,000 Serb victims around Srebrenica. Bosniak 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Google Popularity Results:
1. Srebrenica Massacre - 380,000 results!
2. Srebrenica Genocide - 423,000 results!
Bosniak 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
hi guys,
As I'm working my way through the article, I see there's a huge amount of material related to the movements and activities of the Tuzla column. Is it really necessary to detail everything about this? (I'm just asking because I'd be inclined to try and sum up the whole thing in a fraction of the space, but I don't want to do anything major without raising it, and I can't really be bothered going through it with a fine-tooth comb if what it really needs is a good shearing :-) Cheers; will await people's responses. Jonathanmills 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think: post the link to the version before your edits, so if anyone makes a more specific article about some aspect, he can simply use the old version for this. Also: just don't leave it in the middle (either finish this or revert). -- HanzoHattori 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I guess the others can do it too. (There's quite a couple of people on this article :).) Anyway, the looooooooooong version is HERE [1] Thanks -- HanzoHattori 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
(btw, thanks for your comments & posting of link, Hanzo).
I was just wondering if anyone could clear up an area of confusion (for me, at least) in the article.
If you scroll down to 'Ambush at Kamenica Hill', the paragraph directly above the heading also refers to an ambush -- is this the same one? (There are some place names referred to, but my Bosnian geography is nowhere near good enough to help me there :-) Because it talks about the column being split into two and the crossing of an asphalt road as well.
Speaking of asphalt roads, is the one mentioned in the second sentence of 'The Long Trek to Safety' the same road? I'm a bit confused here.
And re the section 'Sandici massacre' -- and the article generally, really -- would it be possible for someone who knows about Bosnian geography to add some clarification to the place names? (ie, what they are -- towns, regions, etc -- and where they are in relation to Srebrenica and/or Tuzla.) Because most people who aren't from Bosnia (or nearby) won't know what 'Close to Sandici, on the main road from Bratunac to Konjevic Polje' really indicates. (I say that because my geography is better than most -- not boasting, just a statement of fact -- and I don't have a clue :-)
Finally, just a question re referring to the Serb general Milan Gvero as an 'indicted war criminal' -- I was just wondering if the Bosniak general Naser Oric was also an indicted war criminal (I had a feeling he was, but don't know for sure), and if so, do people think this is a bit of a double standard and hence potentially POV? Jonathanmills 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I've just realised that the second map (somehow I overlooked that one -- duh) appears to answer my question re whether the column was ambushed twice near Kamenica -- doesn't look like it was, so this was probably just an accidental restatement of the same event. (Correct me if I'm wrong here). Jonathanmills 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the first main ambush which cut the main column in pieces. The second was on the next day and failed. See the map for what-where.
Oric was (practically) aquited, I don't know about Gvero. -- HanzoHattori 09:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I raised above the point that 'Srebrenica Genocide Memorial' appears *not* to be the correct name for this; as far as I can tell it is the 'Potocari Memorial Centre' -- although I haven't found an actual website for the memorial site, it seems the most common phraseology and is used in several UN dispatches.
Unless there are objections/ corrections to this, I will change this; the only thing is that there is a Wikipedia page called 'Srebrenica Genocide Memorial'. How does one go about changing the names of actual pages?
Sorry about all these questions! Cheers everyone :-) Jonathanmills 17:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The official name is Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial Centre aka Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial Cemetery. -- HanzoHattori 09:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
hi all, just re-posting a message I wrote to 'Dragon of Bosnia':
Your input on the specifics of the genocide charges is much appreciated (by me, at least). However, I was just wondering if the paragraph you added to the 'background' section is really necessary? No offence at all; it's well written and everything, just that I think the article really needs some serious paring down and I'd suggest the information is pretty much already stated in the next paragraph (and with the hyperlink to both the Bosnian War and ethnic cleansing, it's easy enough for people to find out more on both topics).
Anyway, didn't want to just delete it without consulting you -- any thoughts? (I'll repost this over on the talk page, too, to see what anyone else thinks). Cheers Jonathanmills 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if it might be time to archive what's on the discussion page? (I don't know how to do it myself). Most of the threads here appear to have gone cold anyway. Jonathanmills 13:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
hi all, just to fill you all in on the above, I'm reposting the discussion I've had with Dragon on his user page:
(Jonathan)
hi there,
I don't want to get in an edit war with you over there, but using official names rather than common ones is just good encyclopedia policy (you could put 'also known as the...' if you think that's appropriate). I don't mind so much if you want to refer to the 'victims of the genocide' rather than 'victims of the massacre', but as I mentioned in my edit summary, we already use the term massacre as our first choice, so I think it's tidier to follow this all the way through the article. Cheers Jonathanmills 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
(Dragon)
The official name is: "Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery to Genocide Victims", not "Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery". So when you excluded some words, then it is not official any more, so it would be clever to use simple name: Srebrenica Genocide Memorial. If you want to use official names, the first thing should be to change Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica genocide, because it is official now. But I think, that was not your real intention, it looked like an unnecessary camouflage to hide genocide term. I concluded this reading your talk page. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
(Jonathan)
Well, even if that was my intention, which I don't think it was (I'm honestly a stickler for accuracy), that shouldn't really be the issue, which is, is it the correct name? I could as easily say that from reading your talk page, it seems to me your intention is to *mention* the word genocide -- it's no different. Also, I didn't realise that was the full name '...to Genocide Victims' -- but if it is, then that is absolutely the name that should be used, in my opinion. As for whether the whole article should be renamed, that's another thing entirely. (It's been hashed out ad nauseum before on the talk pages). But by your logic, because you don't like the name of the article, there's no reason for other things in the article to be accurately named. Jonathanmills 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Jonathanmills 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the destruction in the villages of Kravica, Siljkovići, Bjelovac, Fakovići and Sikiric, the judgment states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Bosnian forces were responsible for them, because the Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in those villages. In the case of the village of Bjelovac, Serbs even used the warplanes. [2] The Dragon of Bosnia 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
DoB, further answer to your comments above:
Of course, Wikipedia is quite clear about using good sources. If good sources conflict, then we should simply state that. It's not so difficult. Osli73 10:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Osli73 09:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
DoB, you claim that the ICTY judgement in the Oric case doesn't support the statement that there was destruction of the village of Kravica. However, if you look at the actual
ICTY judgement you will see that it does. This is what it find in relation to the charge of Wanton Destruction:
669. As to the extent of destruction caused to Ježestica, Kravica and Šiljkovići, the Trial Chamber finds the following. In Ježestica, on 7 January 1993, more than 60 houses1904 were burned.1905 In Kajici, a hamlet of Kravica, six houses out of 15 were burned on 7 January 1993.1906 By 8 January 1993, an indeterminate number of houses in Kravica were burned.1907 According to one witness, on 12 January 1993, the extent of destruction in Kravica was “roughly about 50 per cent.”1908 Witnesses arriving in the Kravica area by mid-March 1993 found most of the houses and out-buildings burned down.1909 There was no evidence presented with respect to the extent of destruction caused to Šiljkovići.
(b) Legal Findings: 670. Based on the evidence presented, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that property was destroyed on a large scale in Kravica and Ježestica on 7 and 8 January 1993. However, in regard to Šiljkovići there is no sufficient evidence to establish that destruction on a large scale occurred there.1910 671. Regarding Kravica, while there is evidence that large scale destruction occurred on 7 and 8 January 1993, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that it can be attributed solely to Bosnian Muslims. The evidence is unclear as to the number of houses destroyed by Bosnian Muslims as opposed to those destroyed by Bosnian Serbs.1911 In light of this uncertainty, the Trial Chamber concludes that the destruction of property in Kravica between 7 and 8 December 1992 does not fulfil the elements of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages not justified by military necessity.
So, it's quite clear that the village was destroyed. However, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that all of the destruction was caused by the Bosnian govt. side (ie it's not saying that it's not sure if the the destruction was caused by the arbih forces, it's saying that it doesn't know exactly if all of it was caused by them). Regards Osli73 09:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not support refering to the perpetrators of genocide as "the Serbs". When describing in exacting detail such a horrific crime, one ought to use equally accurate and precise language when describing those who committed the crime. In fact, thousands of Serbs either lost or risked their lives fighting against the ultra-nationalist Serbs who instigated and perpetrated this genocidal aggression. Furthermore, it is hypocritical to describe the forces from Srebrenica as BiH Army while identifying the VRS forces by ethnicity only. (If one insists on calling VRS forces and the militias from Serbia as "Serbs", then out of consistency one would refer to those from Srebrenica as "Bosniaks".) I do not believe it is accurate to call this an ethnic war. The greater conflict was a conflict between those who supported a multi-ethnic democracy and ultra-nationalists who wanted to engage in ethnic cleansing.
Ah yes, the nostalgia of listening to Osli's twisted "logic". He writes on a discussion page that this is not a discussion forum. (?!)
In any case, refering to the war in eastern Bosnia as simply Bosniaks fighting Serbs implies that it was simply an ethnic war and ignores the fact that there were Serbs in Armija BiH fighting for a multi-ethnic Bosnia and against the ultra-naitonalism of people like Mladic and Karadzic.
In regards to Dragon's comments below and above, the term VRS is used by the ICTY. See this link for an example: http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm
As far as the suggestion that Osli and Mills are one in the same, yes, Osli does have a record of sockpuppetry, however the style and disposition of Mills' writing is quite different from Osli's. Furthermore, Mills has not even come close to the revisionist tendencies of Osli. Hence, I seriously doubt Osli and Mills are the same user and, as Mills has suggested, if Dragon wants that checked, then it is his perogative to ask for such. Fairview360 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Fview360, a reply to your comments above:
Osli73 08:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
DoB,
Osli73 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Osli73 said: "I can't see that you are sincerely "sorry" about an insult of sockpuppetry if you then go on to repeat it."
Well, suspicion is not an insalt. I still think you two are the same user. I hope administrator will check digital traces of your two accounts and compare it. Regarding sorry thing, I said I was sorry if you felt that I "demonised Serbs" whatever that means. The Dragon of Bosnia 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Johnatan, you removed the paragraph about ethnic cleansing in Eastern Bosnia, and you say this is irrelevant?! Are you serious. This is very good information, first because Srebrenica was the last site of ethnic cleansing which started in 1992 in Eastern Bosnia in 20 towns. Second, this is information confirm in Kunarac case one of the most important cases in general in ICTY. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that this article would be better if it were more concise. By "concise" I mean the use of percise language (getting a point across in one sentence as oppose to 4 sentences); and focusing on the most important events and details. With that being said, the ethnic cleansing section is a very important aspect of the article. For one, many of the victims in 1995 were not from Srebrenica but from the surrounding muncipalities, Zvornik, Vlasencia, Visegrad and Bratunac and they found themselves in Srebrenica after those muncipalities were overtaken by VRS, nationalist Serb paramilitary, JNA forces in 1992.
Gardenfli 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone read Italian Wikipedia on this subject? It states that possible causes of Srebrenica genocide is attack of Bosniak forces on Serb village of Kravice in 1993. [b]Nobody is mentioning that long before Bosniaks attacked militarized Serb villages, thousands of Bosniaks have been ethnically cleansed and killed in the area of Podrinje (region around Srebrenica).[/b] In other words, long before Bosniaks started revolting against Serbs, those same Serbs committed horrendous crimes against Bosniaks - and now, Serbs and their propagandists use "Kravica" as an excuse for Srebrenica massacre? [b]Therefore, attack on Kravica in 1993 (Serb Orthodox Christmas) CANNOT be used as a possible cause or an excuse for Srebrenica Genocide, because long before that attack happened, Serbs already committed horrendous massacres against Bosniak civilians in region around Srebrenica (e.g. Glogova massacre).[/b] For example, On 3 September 1991, on the brink of the war, [b]the Eastern Bosnia's first victims of ethnic violence were Bosniak Muslims - killed when a group of Serb Kravica policemen and paramilitary nationalists ambushed their vehicle, killing two out of three people inside.[/b] None of the Serb perpetrators and accomplices in the attack were ever brought to trial. After the Kravica killings, Bosniaks started to organize armed patrols in their villages and settlements with the few arms they had. Danielus2010 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
hey, what now with deleting wholesale the links to the 'critical views'? And not mentioning it on the discussion page, or even in the edit summary?! If there's a discussion to be had about whether or not to include these, it should be had out in the open, at the very least. Cheers Jonathanmills 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Before I took a break to get married, I was collaborating with a few editors (specifically Fairview360 and Gardenfli) on sub-articling to improve readability. We went so far as to create the sub-article Mass executions in the Srebrenica massacre, if I remember correctly. Did this just die out? Could someone fill me in on what happened in the interim? Djma12 ( talk) 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Jonathanmills wrote, that: "However, the ICTY appears not to deny that 'the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians'"
Which is false.
The sentece from the judgment goes like this:
"As the Defence was reminded many times during the trial, the fact that the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians, an argument brought up mutatis mutandis by almost every Serb accused and Defence counsel before the Tribunal, is irrelevant in the context of this case."
So this is clear example of revisionism by Serbs accused and convicted in ICTY, and is irrelevant according to the court. The Dragon of Bosnia 10:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
At least 8,000 people died in Srebrenica genocide, and this is as far as we can estimate based on DNA evidence ( see here). But my suspicion is that there was likely more than 8,000 victims, because there is no way of recovering bodies who were thrown into Drina river by truckloads. There is also no way of getting information about missing persons whose entire families got wiped off in the war. Just recently, a couple of days ago, we uncovered a new mass grave which included Srebrenica children, 7-11 years of age, beeing shot in the head. Bosniak 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Bosniak, again, according to
WP:OR it is not your interpretation, but the consensus understanding among well informed external sources that counts. The majority of major sources, such as e.g. the BBC, still talk "about" 8,000.
Osli73
00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Osli, I realize that and I stick to 8,000 figure. But being in constant contact with survivors of Srebrenica, I have became compelled to believe that 8,000 figure is only a minimum estimate, because some families were completely wiped out and there was no way to report these people as either missing or killed. The things are looking worse then they looked in the past, especially with the revelation of Radovan Karadzic's genocidal statements, take a look at Radovan Karadzic and Srebrenica Genocide... He rather strikes me as a calculated cold-blooded killer. Just listen to his words on that page and it will make you sick... at least it made me sick to my stomach and it also made me sad about the state of humanity. If I had an opportunity to committ genocide, I still would NOT do it. What makes people capable of killing? Is it hatred? Who knows. I just don't get it. Bosniak 05:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I recommend we include link to the Advocacy Project's Srebrenica Memorial Quilt in one of external link sections. I have recently made a symbolic donation to commemorate little 8 year old girl who died in Srebrenica genocide. Over 400 children died during the massacre. The other day, they dug out bodies of children from the grave. They were 7-11 years of age and shot in head. If anyone has objections for this link, please list them here. If not, then thank you all. It's hard to deal with Srebrenica on a daily basis; this is a very sad tragedy. And let me tell you, but mothers of victims are still in pain, 12 years after the massacre. They are still grieving. It's just horrible. We need to make sure that there is never, ever, any wars in the Balkans. There must not be any military conflicts any longer. Never, ever again.
PS: If you go to external link section, the link is to Advocacy Project - How to Commission a Panel. Bosniak 05:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should make a small section about Srebrenica Genocide deniers and apologists.(
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
01:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)).
Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In the article about the alternative views(which is something like a Holokaust denying) it says that some Serbs view the Srebrenica Genocide as a retaliation to Operation Storm that ended the wars led by Croatian Forces.Can someone explain to me how can it be a retaliation when Srebrenica Genocide happened in May of 1995,while Opeation Storm (supported by UN,NATO and USA) happened in August of 1995,thus 3 months later?????? And how come the Serb government still hasn't arrest Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic in order to proove their "innocence"???It amazes me,how serbian propagandists get so much space on the internet to spread thier invented misinformation to bring confusion to the uninformed and unpartial reader....-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hundreds of elderly were killed during Srebrenica genocide. At least 500 children ( see compilation from Federal Commissions list of names). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Bosniak ( talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
hi guys,
I haven't been on WP for ages, but it appears that a while back Dragon deleted the long-standing links to 'alternative views' with the following edit summary:
"rm also other blogs and similar sites per WP:RS (mostly revisionist views, among them slobodan-milosevic promo site?!"
Of the six links...
One is to the report of the 'Srebrenica Research Group', which was quite a major thing and they presented their findings to the United Nations;
One is to a report of the ISSA, a pretty major organisation by the looks (see http://www.strategicstudies.org);
One is to a story from the Globe & Mail, Canada's biggest daily;
One is to a copy of the Republika Srpska's first report on Srebrenica (this is *hosted* by the 'slobodan-milosevic promo site', but is simply a scanned document);
One is to an article by Diana Johnstone, who is actually mentioned by name in the 'alternative views' section;
One is to a ZNet article (pretty major liberal/left site) by Ed Herman, professor emeritus at the Wharton School of Economics and author of many books.
I'd say the last one, maybe the last two, are *possibly* arguable in terms of deletion, but otherwise I'd have to say the edit summary doesn't match the facts.
As for the term 'revisionist' views versus 'alternative' views, I recall there has been some pretty focussed discussion on this in the past and this ('alternative') appeared to be the conclusion. (I also think, whatever term is used, it should be consistent between the section in the article and the heading over the external links).
So please don't revert my re-inclusion of these links unless you can provide some good reasons to here on the talk page.
Cheers everyone Jonathanmills ( talk) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.tenc.net/analysis/racak.htm Here she tries to whitewash the Racak Massacre in Kosovo.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Alternative views are also referred by some as "revisionist views" or "genocide denial views," so it's only fair to include this statement. Bosniak ( talk) 03:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
==I think this revisionist and genocide denial bull...== is a shame,a discrase. There "revisionists" are using the same methods as holocaust deniers. There is no UN report about this propagandic bullshit.
These people are payed by serb ultranationalist interess groups to have "their" say in some TV show,and then the same serbian propagandists are using them as refferences and sources.
Can't you people leave these victims rest in peace???Some people just have no shame at all.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 11:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There are hundreds of articles about serbian denial of Srebrenica Genocide trough these past years. These are just cheap attempts to confuse the reader. -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Serbian news agency B92
10 March 2007 NOVI SAD -- Human Rights Center chairman Vojin Dimitrijević says Serbia should legally sanction any denial of the 1995 Srebrenica genocide.
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=03&dd=10&nav_id=40059
NUNS reacts to Srebrenica denial 20 March 2007 BELGRADE -- Independent Journalists Association (NUNS) reacted an announced reprint of a Srebrenica massacre denying newspaper supplement.
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=03&dd=20&nav_id=40240
SREBRENICA GENOCIDE DENIAL AND REVISIONISM: SHORT DEFINITION
Srebrenica Genocide denial, also called Srebrenica Genocide revisionism, is the belief that the Srebrenica genocide did not occur, or, more specifically: that far fewer than around 8,100 Srebrenica Bosniaks were killed by the Bosnian Serb Army (numbers below 5,000, most often around 2,000 are typically cited); that there never was a centrally-planned Bosnian Serb Army's attempt to exterminate the Bosniaks of Srebrenica; and/or that there were no mass killings at the extermination sites.
Those who hold this position often further claim that Bosniaks and/or Western media know that the Srebrenica genocide never occurred, yet that they are engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain the illusion of a Srebrenica Genocide to further their political agenda. These views are not accepted as credible by objective historians.
Srebrenica genocide deniers almost always prefer to be called Srebrenica Genocide revisionists. Most scholars contend that the latter term is misleading. Historical revisionism is a well-accepted part of the study of history; it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating histories with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information. The implication is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate. The term historical revisionism has a second meaning, the illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes. For example, Srebrenica Genocide deniers (or Srebrenica Genocide revisionists as they like to be called) typically willfully misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions.
While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, Srebrenica Genocide deniers/revisionists have been using it to seek evidence in support of their own preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.
Most Srebrenica Genocide deniers reject the term Genocide and insist that they do not deny the Srebrenica Massacre, prefering to be called "revisionists". They are nevertheless commonly labeled as Srebrenica Genocide deniers to differentiate them from historical revisionists and because their goal is to deny the existance of the Srebrenica Genocide, by omitting substantial facts, rather than honestly using historical evidence and methodology to examine the event.
--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Helsinki committee for human rights in Serbia
about Ratko Mladic and serbian efforts to avoid justice
http://www.helsinki.org.yu/infocus_t04.html -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the reference from this blog because the blog is known for spreading propaganda and lies. First of all it"s a blog,a opinion of some misguided "intelectual" should not be expressed in a encyclopedia. Second this blog produces information such as this.
This George Gets it Right: Clooney to Organize Protest Against Unilateral Declaration of Kosovo Independence
http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2008/01/this-george-gets-it.html
Hollywood Support for Serbia Grows
http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2008/01/hollywood-support-grows.html
Haven't seen any protests from Hollywood stars yet and Kosovo is independent. anyone seen the protests?
btw. George Clooney denied it on his website.
and this http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/03/srebrenica.html
the blog along with a serbian fascist propaganda website srpska mrza photoshops a picture to "proove" that the burried in Potocari are just some mujahedeens.presenting it like it's written in arabic,while it's not. I'd like if someone who speaks arabian could translate the arabic writings for me,because i doubt they even cared to write a sensible text to make it look more original.
while the actual memorial looks like this. http://realtravel.com/srebrenica-photos-p1829274-2349221.html
should that be included in an encyclopedia?
-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 16:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So,if i was to write a blog about the Holocaust in which i would deny it, i would be able to spread false info on wikipedia??? I'm sure i would get support for it by you guys to make an alternative section on the Holocaust article!!!....?!?!?! Encyclopedia is not a place for crap and widespread rumours.In this case the rumours are being spread by Serb ultrannationalists themselfs.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just imagine if some of those victims were your friends,brother,sister,father...i think that this Genocide denial would upset you if that was the case.Those people aren't just numbers.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "with the specific intent ( dolus specialis)" is unnecessary and confusing in the lead. All legal genocides mush have intent because it is part of the treaty CPPCG on which the legal term is defined, so there is no need to mention in in the lead. Further "specific intent ( dolus specialis)" has a different meaning in different legal systems and under Common Law -- the type of law that most English readers are going to be familiar --it does not have the meaning that the ICJ ascribes to it:
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
not to be a prick or anything, and i do feel sorry for the people who died. its just that, there could be 319 dead people TOPS in that picture. since the average person is lets say 6 foot, the first coffin is 60mm in the picture, the second is 15 mm, etc. this gives us an equation of 59.59*X^-1.89. and the last set of coffins is at 1 mm. So there could be 315 dead people tops in that picture. this is even if we count 11 people per row. in some cases its only 10.
sorry if i offended anyone, but i usually speak my mind. sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible that the photographer was standing somwhere in the middle and that the coffins were set in two parts to make a way through them???Do you have the picture of what was behind the camera???
Write a blog about it.lol-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 10:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Mike Babic ( talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Memorial Centre - Potocari (September 2007)
Buried persons: total 2907
Children:
age 13,5-14: 3 14 - 15: 9 15 - 16: 29 16 - 17: 50 17 - 18: 71
Memorial Centre - Potocari (September 2008)
Buried persons: total 3215
Children:
age 13,5-14: 3 14 - 15: 9 15 - 16: 31 16 - 17: 56 17 - 18: 76 total: 175
Kutil 77.240.177.27 ( talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys (probably talking mainly to Griffin and Fairview here):
I guess the main point I wanted to put was that the reference cited by Fairview, in the first instance, did not mention Srebrenica at all, so it doesn't really fit the bill as a source for the statement.
Secondly, it is essentially only a description of testimony given by the prosecution at trial, not (for example) the findings of the tribunal, so I'm not sure it should be used as essentially 'proving' the thesis.
And moreover, it seems fairly obviously slanted -- media occasionally fabricating stories (intentionally or otherwise), war propaganda (use of perjorative terms like 'fascists', 'jihadists' etc), government controlling media licences, especially in a time of war -- those are characteristics of ANY country's media. Saying "Serbian Radio Television created a strange universe in which...the devastated Croatian town of Vukovar had been 'liberated'" -- well, it is standard practice in war to refer to one's own conquests as 'liberation' -- viz the Americans and Brits 'liberating' Iraq. Indeed, to say this is a 'strange universe' merely proves to me that the source is non-objective.
Lastly, the report itself apparently says "The media offensive launched by Belgrade contributed to the appearance of equally detestable propaganda in other Yugoslav republics" -- food for thought for the Bosniak nationalists here, perhaps?
Finally, I'm not intent on reverting anything and everything along the lines of what's been added -- just get some better sources, and put it in less POV language (eg, 'Some have argued [or whatever] that Serbia's state media [not 'Slobodan Milosevic's media'; this is an encyclopaedia] sowed misinformation about the massacre among Serbs'). Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Jared Israel is one of the main Serb apologists and a moron who denies every single crime Serbs ever did.He is so bold to deny the existance of Bosnian-Serb deathcamps and even denying the Srebrenica Execution Video in which Serbian Scorpions unit(under command of Serbian MUP) killed executed 6 unarmed civilians. The denial of the Srebrenica Genide is his daily routine.So Jared Israel must never be allowed to be refferenced in any encyclopedia.
There are tons of refferences abot Slobodan Milosevic's control of media and that was also part of his inditment in ICTY.The fact that he died just before the end of the trial can't be used as "nothing was proven crap" by Serb apopogists.--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So because Adolf Hitler never went to trial we should consider him innocent too? Slobodan Milosevic's Gazimestan Speech was very inflamable and other nations in Yugoslavia saw it as threatening. The fact that Slobodan Milosevic was the president means he was responible for the conntacts and PR outside Serbia. That's why he had people under him to spread hatred,violence and fear.Like Seselj,Arkan,Karadzic,Mladic,Krajisnik,Drljaca,Martic,Hadzic,Plavsic etc. Milosevic's involvment in crimes was proven during other trials by ICTY one of them includig Joint Criminal Enterprise with Milan Martic & co in Croatia.
About Srebrenica
Gen. Wesley Clark testified in Milosevic's case against him and said that Milosevic had pre-knowledge about the events in Srebrencia.He asked Milosevic how was it possible that the genocide could happen.Milosevic said "I told him(Mladic) not to do it,but he did it anyway". Srebrenica was covered up Milosevic's contoled media until 2001.Before that there was no mentioning of Srebrenica Genocide in Serb media. Mladic and Karadzic tried to deny it after it happened but they were proven wrong by the satelite images of mass graves arond Srebrenica. So this whole denial of Srebrenica Genocide derives from Slobodan Milosevic's defence team and Serbian propaganda machinery. All that has contributed to denial of Srebrenica Genocide in Serbia.The uninformed citizens of Serbia just started to find things out after 2001.
I don't need to discredit those "theories",those theories are discreditting themselfs because they are not based on the proof but on some stupid "facts" that have a goal to create confusion.The Srebrencia genocide deniers are using the same methods as Holocaust deniers. -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For Gazimestan Speech look at ICTY documents. You should also read the SANU memorandum which called Serbs to create their own territories in Croatia and Bosnia before the tensions and the war. Milosevic was judged by other ICTY court cases which included people under him.so a lot was proven. I said the fact that Milosevic died ,doesn't give Serb apologists an excuse to say that nothing was proven as much as they would like to.
That's two small paragraphs too many because it insaults the victims of Genocide and their family members who surrvived.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Again you are reverting everything what we discussed.
Like the Byzantine Sacred Crap Propaganda Blog which is known for spreading false information.
and you removed refferences about Milosevic's propaganda on many events incl. Srebrenica Genocide.
You are a true Serb apologist with no sence of shame at all.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you do that again i will report you and you will be blocked for abusing wiki rules.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11221/gary-j-bass/milosevic-in-the-hague.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/opinion/11Brkic.html
SREBRENICA: FROM DENIAL TO CONFESSION
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
few articles about the denial of Srebrenica written by Serb democrats themselfs
http://www.helsinki.org.yu/projects_sre.html
http://www.helsinki.org.yu/projects_sre_t01.html
http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/BiancaJagger1.html
And about Milosevic's inditment..
His guilt was proven in other cases along with his nationalist allies,so his guilt is confirmed. Milan Martic case for example,Plavsic case,and the Serbs still have to deliver Mladic and Kradzic.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Today I have tried to arrange the External Links and Further reading into some sort of coherent order. But I think the next step is a vary large culling of the list. See Wikipedia:EXTERNAL#Important points to remember "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This is the reason that I moved the "Alternative views" up to a footnote "use them or lose them". -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
See WP:PROVEIT Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
I am going to revert this edit because, unless sources are provided, it is a breach of WP:PROVEIT and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons . -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha, I see it was reversed, by IP address 66.152.113.44. Please do not reinstate it without sources. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently in the article until I move it to here was:
The sources is not a reliable one for such accusations. Living Marxism went under because it "claim that [ITN] misrepresented an image of an emaciated Muslim, Fikret Alic, at the Serb-run Trnopolje camp in August 1992." and could not pay the libel damages when the could not prove it was true (Staff ITN wins Bosnian war libel case BBC 15 March 2000). They might well have said something about the Srebrenica genocide, but if they did then it should have a better source.
Diana Johnstone is another case were we need a better source because if your read this article by her The Bosnian war was brutal, but it wasn't a Holocaust in The Guardian, 23 November 2005, she does not say that the massacre at Srebrenica did not happen or that it was not a genocide and she points out that
In apologising to Noam Chomsky ( Corrections and clarifications, November 17), the Guardian's readers' editor also had the decency to correct some errors concerning me in Emma Brockes's interview with Chomsky (G2, October 31). Despite this welcome retraction, the impression might linger from Ms Brockes's confused account that my work on the Balkans consists in denying atrocities.
So we need a source to support the statement from after 2005. The Guardian article links to the PDF article [5] (page 5) which has lots of details but without knowing what she wrote about for example "Johnstone’s analysis of the disgraceful behaviour of the International Criminal Tribunal for the ‘former Ygoslavia’ is so incisive for a non-lawyer as to make a lawyer blush. ..." Also see page 16 for what Leif Ericsson says about Johnstone's position but unfortunately not what she says her position is. So we need a reliable source from after November 2005 that explains what Diana Johnstone's position is on Srebrenica --It may well be in the PDF document but I do not have time right now to read it all at the moment. - Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Who decides if it confuses us? Zaremba: "I think that is something which every well-read citizen can do. If there is a finding of genocide by the Hague Tribunal which can be read on the Internet, and it says in Ordfront that no one has been found guilty of or even investigated for genocide, then it is a lie that is so blatant and easy to check that one can say that it is intended to confuse— or at least has the effect of confusing. Maybe there was no intent. Maybe it was just ignorance or stupidity, I don’t know." [Note: Here, again, Zaremba distorts Johnstone’s position. What she actually wrote about the Hague Tribunal and the question of genocide can be read in her book, Fools’ Crusade.
- Another document sent to me contains a number of charges:
- 1) “According to her [Johnstone] it cannot be a matter of genocide when women and children are spared. But to me it is obvious that genocide and crimes against humanity have been committed in Srebrenica. . . .”
- Reference is apparently to Johnstone’s statement (p. 117) refuting the claim that the charge of “genocide” is demonstrated by the fact that the Serbs who conquered Srebrenica offered safe passage to women and children. In response to this absurd claim, she writes: “However, one thing should be obvious: one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children.”
- I do not see how her entirely appropriate comment justifies the charge in (1).
Hi guys,
I'm now happy with the final paragraph now, even with the 'alternative views' links in footnote form, so hopefully we can put this recent argument to bed. (Of course, I'm not trying to pre-empt anyone else NOT being happy with it, I'm just clarifying my own position).
Oh, and thanks to Fairview for finding a relevant reference at last. Jonathanmills ( talk) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,2763,184815,00.html
"At one point during the trial, LM produced video footage shot by what it called Bosnian-Serb Television, which did indeed have a crew there that day. But these particular images, it emerges, came from a third camera, a camcorder held by a man in military fatigues I remember well; LM was serviced in that instance by Serbian military intelligence. "
--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Also... a paragraph about Serbia's non-cooperation with the Tribunal shoud stand here. -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It relates toSrebrenica Genocide because of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic and two more Serb criminals responsible for most of the massacres in Croatia.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 15:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No,I just said that Serbia needs to deliver 4 more guys who are at the top of the list.Mladic and Karadzic and two others who were repponsible for massacres in Croatia.Serbia is not cooperating with The Hague and that paragraph should be written.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is because certain things are going on in the internal politics in Serbia that relate to this matter.
Bosnia can't put pressure on Serbia because of their non-cooperation with the Hague because the Serbian member of the Bosnian government is blocking this by a veto,while the Croat and the Bosniak member of the presidency are united on this issue.
Serbia and Serbs in Bosnia a playing dirty politics and are still involved in this genocide denial and that has to be mentioned here.--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
He's just being very careful because the elections are to be held in May.There is a great possibility that Serbian Radical Party(fascists) will win these elections and nobody wants that.That's why he said thet his final rapport wil be in mid-May.Serbia is threatening with political suicide if the EU doesn't ease the pressure.But it sholudn't. Serbia is just waiting that Karadzic and Mladic die.If those two ever come to trial(which i doubt) lot's of dirt will come to the surfacea and Serbian nationalist politicians don't want that. What Brammertz was saying is that the Kosovo independance is not the reason of Serbia not cooperating.There are other reasons...Kosovo is just an excuse to reck time.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic was killed because of his cooperation with The Hague.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 23:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
On April 22, 2008, user Jonathanmills deleted from this article text from the findings of facts of an ICTY judgement. The section he deleted is as follows:
As the Bosnian war erupted, Serb forces attacked the Muslim civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, Serb forces—i.e. the military, the police, the paramilitaries and sometimes even Serb villagers—applied the same pattern: Bosniak houses and apartments were systematically ransacked or burnt down while Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured and, sometimes, beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in local camps.
User Jonathanmills made the deletion with the following statement: "I think the reader 'deserves' a concise summary of events, not a propaganda screed which repeats footnoted references."
User Jonathanmills would be well advised to clarify his statement. It seems that he is saying that ICTY findings of facts are a propaganda screed or that this article if it cites the ICTY findings of facts is a propaganda screed. Fairview360 ( talk) 04:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A player is responsible for what he does with the ball just as a referee is responsible for what he does with his whistle. Fairview360 ( talk) 23:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Now it seems that User Jonathanmills is saying that ICTY findings of facts are not written in a neutral tone, that they are sensational, and that relying on the findings of facts section of ICTY judgements is childish. "Summarising the facts in a neutral tone" is exactly what the findings of facts section of a court judgement is supposed to be. Is User Jonathanmills claiming that the ICTY failed to do so? Perhaps, User Jonathanmills would like to clarify if this is indeed what he is saying.
Earlier in the creation of this article, there were long, drawn out, intense edit wars which were finally resolved by all sides agreeing to accept the ICTY findings of facts as a source of text which was not sensational, was not POV, but was written in a neutral tone. If the ICTY findings of facts are not accepted as part of the foundation of this article, it is not clear what common ground could exist among editors of opposing points of view. Fairview360 ( talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if User Jonathanmills would be willing to give a yes or no answer to the following question. In User Janathanmills opinion, does the following text from the ICTY judgement constitute "summarising the facts in a neutral tone"? Yes or no?
As the Bosnian war erupted, Serb forces attacked the Muslim civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, Serb forces—i.e. the military, the police, the paramilitaries and sometimes even Serb villagers—applied the same pattern: Bosniak houses and apartments were systematically ransacked or burnt down while Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured and, sometimes, beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in local camps.
Fairview360 ( talk) 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Point? Calling the choices of other editors "childish" does not constitute a substantive statement worthy of a response. Let's see if user Jonathanmills can give a more substantive response that would explain his deleting ICTY text from the article. User Jonathanmills disagrees with one or more of the following:
a) the ICTY text is factual,
b) the ICTY text is written in a neutral tone,
c) the ICTY text is a summary of how the ethnic cleansing campaign was implemented,
d) the ICTY text is relevant to the article.
If all four statements above are true, then the ICTY text belongs in the article. Which of the above does user Jonathanmills want to specifically contest? Or does he plan to continually delete sections of this article with vague arguments calling alternatives to his choices "childish", "silly", or a "propaganda screed"? Fairview360 ( talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
I just removed the following sentence added by editor Mani1 from the introduction:
It's referenced to ICTY v Krstic, paras 18 and 26 (although this was simply the existing reference at the end of the previous sentence, and no further reference had been added by Mani1).
I've removed it, because for a start, there is nothing in paras 18 or 26 indicating the validity of the statement. Furthermore, I went through the entire Krstic judgement with the 'Find' function for the word 'Dutch', and the only things mentioned which are on this topic are:
and...
Neither of these paragraphs come close to proving the statement added by Mani1. Indeed, paragraph 50 reads:
Hi all,
I know this will not make me popular on here, given the apparent sympathies of many editors, but I would like to draw attention to the following:
The article (as it currently stands) states the following regarding the Srebrenica 'safe area':
Now, I've just been reading the ICTY vs Krstic judgement this material was evidently taken from (much of it is in fact verbatim quoting, although I'm not quibbling about that here), and the relevant paragraphs read (emphasis is all mine):
Now, I would argue that the selective quoting used in the current article amounts to a violation of NPOV, because while it includes virtually everything 'unfavourable' (for want of a better word) to the Bosnian Serbs, it *omits* virtually all of the statements unfavourable to the Bosniak side -- the two exceptions being, a) "[W]hile to the Serbs it appeared that Bosnian government forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch counter-offensives against the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it", and this is preceded by 'to the Serbs it appeared...', hence potentially not actually true; and b) "Both parties to the conflict violated the “safe area” agreement [...] General Halilović admitted that ARBiH helicopters had flown in violation of the no-fly zone and that he had personally dispatched eight helicopters with ammunition for the 28th Division" -- and here I would argue that although (IMHO) the ICTY judgement makes it fairly clear that Bosniak violations were in fact *more* serious than Serbian ones, our article would lead the neutral reader to believe the opposite.
That being the case, I think it needs to be fixed up; I would make some changes myself but I am aware that this is an extremely controversial topic and that most editors on here probably won't like what I'm arguing, so thought I'd throw it out for some discussion first. Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm just doing a bit of tidying up of the article (I'm not doing anything about the paragraphs I mentioned above re the 'safe area' yet, as I haven't had any input from others; also I'll put my suggested change to that up for discussion before posting it) -- anyway, I notice that many mentions are made of other towns and place names without any context (eg, 'The Serbs also attacked Foca, Zvornik, etc' (sorry if I got the names wrong there).
My concern is that to non-Bosnians (and this article should be written with them in mind, the vast majority of English-language Wikipedia readers not being Bosnians!) this means very little, especially without a map where all these are marked (and that map doesn't exist at the moment on the page).
I was wondering if any Bosnians (or those who know the geography) could help in this regard, just by explaining something about the place names mentioned (nothing big, just adding 'the town/village of Foca' (whichever is correct), also their relation to Srebrenica (eg, 'the nearby town of Foca', or 'Foca, to the west of Srebrenica' -- NB, those are simply sample texts, as I don't know where or what Foca is exactly.) Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2008/03/23/nb-04
It means that Serbia will not brake it's ties to the ICTY because of the Kosovo independence.
It doesn't mean that Serbia is fully cooperating with the ICTY.
Here are some articles in english about Serbia's current "cooperation". http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=48723 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/9629/
The Brammertz raport of Serbia's "cooperation" will be published any day now now.)After Serbian elections)
Serbia's Hague raport in May
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=22&nav_id=48697
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=18&nav_id=49519
-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Shrinking space for denial,Serbia and the ICTY
http://www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2/fs/?file_id=19814 -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Dealing with the past in former Yugoslavia
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6542/dealing_with_the_past_in_the_former_yugoslavia.html -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
HRW: Serbia won’t face past seriously
http://www.b92.net/eng/download.phtml?39065,0,0
-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Video tape forces Serbs to confess warcrimes http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/11/news/serbia.php -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to make a section about this phenomenon.On this article's talkpages there were quiet a few serbian editors that have denied the Srebrenica genocide and a great deal of Serbs continue to deny this crime as well as other crimes comitted by Serbian forces.There are some universatory studies dealing with Serbian war crimes denial.Many Serbian ultranationalist websites continue to deny the Srebrenica Genocide,Vukovar massacre,shelling of Dubrovnik,death camps in Bosnia and many other events.So i think there should be a section about it here as well on some other articles.--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Death Poses Challenges as Serbia Faces Past and Future
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/international/europe/13belgrade.html
-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 08:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Denial of warcrimes in Serbia
http://www.crees.bham.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/obradovic.htm
Serbs still divided over Srebrenica Genocide
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4737583 -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Can Serbia face the Past?
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1644313,00.html Deutsche Welle --
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
[PLEASE NOTE -- I DELETED THE FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY UPON POSTING IT, BUT SOMEONE LATER BROUGHT IT BACK UP VIA A REVERT - JM]
I have no interest in pushing shit uphill against a bunch of dickheads with no interest in the facts (indeed, clearly an apparent interest in cleverly obscuring them).
Some day, hopefully (although I'm not holding my breath), Wikipedia will sort out this mess of a situation and take a much harsher line against editors who make shitty, clearly biased edits, as it is making the articles on controversial topics complete shite (note that despite my clear violation of 'Wiki-quette' this evening and one other occasion in the past, I would stand by pretty much all of my *edits*).
However, if any dickhead re-inserts the word 'panicking' about that Bosniak soldier, expect it to be deleted at some point. (Again, I've already discussed this issue above, if anyone's confused as to why). Jonathanmills ( talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
[DELETED POST ENDS - JM]
Hi all,
Genuine apologies for losing my temper. I would say just quickly that I think most editors here would have to agree it is not my usual M.O., and also I'd like to RESTATE that the 'my stance' comment above was one I DELETED IMMEDIATELY UPON WRITING as I realised it was a bit over-the-top and unhelpful. Cheers (JonathanMills) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.153.172 ( talk) 15:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
We should also find time to incorporate some of the following into the article:
...The Serbs began to "march girls and young women away from the group of refugees. They were raped." ....A Dutch soldier stood by and watched as the women were raped, even listening to music on his Walkman.... A Serb, says Subasic, "told the mother to make the child stop crying. But when the baby continued to cry, he took it from the mother and slit its throat. Then he laughed. A Dutch soldier also witnessed the murder of the baby, she says, and yet he "didn't react at all"... The Muslim men, some as young as 12, were almost all murdered. The scenes that transpired in the camp are indescribable. The Serbs would pick out girls from groups. "I saw the Bosnian women begging the Dutchbat soldiers to bring the girls back," Kadira Gabeljic, one of the plaintiffs, recalls. But they only responded: "no, no, no." Ramiza Gurdic, another plaintiff, witnessed an incident that she is unlikely to ever forget. She describes a scene in which a 10-year-old boy was placed in his mother's lap and literally slaughtered. "His little head was chopped off, and the body remained in the mother's lap." Source: Republished from Der Spiegel. Bosniak 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Bosniak, I was thinking more along the lines of an "External links" section but only with links to Survivors testimonies. Of course there would have to be a selection. This to keep the material added to the article to a minimum, considering that it is already exceeding Wikipedia recommendations. Osli73 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The times of day within the article aren't consistent. For example, under the heading "The Column of Bosnian Men" it says "At around 2200 hours on the evening..." However, under the heading "The breakthrough at Baljkovica" it says "At approximately 05.00 hours on 16 July..." I'm not sure whether to use the first style or the second. I would change it, but I'm not particularly well versed in military style time. Insertclevernamehere 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Recently I created a article-redirect called Battle of Srebrenica, which points to this article, because I thought it was a reasonably logical thing to do. What do you think about this?-- MaGioZal 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Further Reading section, in the main article, the link of the NIOD Report leads nowhere..
In his latest revert of my legitimate edit, Osli asked: "how do we know that the results have been checked by an 'international team of experts'". This is a far question, here is a source, quote: "The Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center, IDC, conducted the research from 2004-2006, and the study - which claims there were 92,207 casualties - is currently the largest database on Bosnian war victims in existence. An international team of experts evaluated the findings before they were released." IWPR, Bosnia's "Book of the Dead" http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=336566&apc_state=henh Bosniak 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Bosniak, you're right the Bosnia's Book of Dead report was checked by "international experts". However, there is no mention of them checking the Bratunac figures which you mention. The source for that figure is a separate report, where there is no mention of it being checked. Cheers
Osli73
10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
hi all,
first of all, hope no one objects to my recent spate of edits. Most were minor grammatical edits, but a few were a bit meatier (although if I had thought they would be controversial, I would have raised them here first).
Anyway, I have found that "Srebrenica Genocide Memorial" appears *not* to be the official name for this; 'Srebrenica Memorial' is the title used by all mainstream/ 'reliable sources' from a quick Google check, although I couldn't find any official website for the memorial.
I would have just gone ahead and changed this, but it is now linked to a further page with this title. Can anyone offer advice here -- is it easy to change the title of the other article? (I didn't want to screw up the link). Or anyone know any different vis-a-vis the official name? Cheers Jonathanmills 16:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just an update -- I'm sure you can see by the history page I've been making a few edits! :-) It's just an attempt to make the article more manageable. Would be happy for people to follow along in my footsteps as the article is way too long, filled with much irrelevant detail and often repeats itself, not to mention a lot of basic spelling and grammar errors. Otherwise I will just keep chipping away at it myself :-(
Would be good to maybe just do this for a while and *then* argue about controversial issues (if necessary), as from where I sit, the article at the moment needs some serious editing attention. Genuinely hope I haven't offended anyone -- I fell into the trap myself of discussing the controversial stuff and ignoring the article itself, so I'm just offering my perspective. Cheers Jonathanmills 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm not sure why Bosniak reverted all of Jonathan's edits if there was nothing wrong with them, which he didn't mention. Given that it was mainly spelling, grammar and summaries I can't see why he would have anything against it. I'll revert them back. Cheers
Osli73
13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan, thanks for your response at my Talk Page. I am glad we have so many interests in common. I just read your response here. Canada is a beautiful place indeed (tip: come for the Celebration of Fire in Vancouver, as the international firework competition on the open sea is "must sea" event). On another note, I'have noticed 360 degrees improvement in your edits, because you are not playing revisionist tricks. In fact, you have gone a long way with Srebrenica topic, and I am proud of you for finally accepting two separate rulings of the international courts. I am proud of your for being intelligent enought to understand that Srebrenica genocide denial is is not only morally wrong, but it's also factually wrong. I've been studying the case of Srebrenica for 3 years now. Things are more complex than they seem. Revisionists and genocide deniers simplify case of genocide by simply saying that this was 'Western/NATO conspiracy against Serbs and Serbia' etc. Or, in some cases they use discredited sources and present somebody elses opinions as facts (for eg Gen Lewis MacKenzie has never been in Srebrenica, yet he portrays himself as expert who can deny genocide as 'he' sees fit). Or, some revisionists claim that Srebrenica victims were soldiers, and since some of them were soldiers - all of them were soldiers. And this argument does not even count as an opinion; it's a worthless example of denial. In other words and with respect to Srebrenica genocide; a POW, a surrendered soldiers were clearly non-combatants at the time of the deaths (they were transported to execution sites and mass executed with hands tied). Anywyas, if you have any questions about Srebrenica - do not hesitate to ask me. People are sometimes confused, and if I can help them understand things a little bit more - hey, I'll be happy! With respect to the Liberal Party - you might study their policies more closely, they are very progressive on many fronts (so you might drop Conservatives from the ballot on your next voting election, just a thought). Again, I am glad we can have you as an editor which will stand up against vandalism of Srebrenica massacre article, especially when people come and claim that only 2,000 died... Cheers. Bosniak 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I inserted one more source from Research and Documentation Center of Norway which has a well written analysis of the Bosnian Book of Dead. You can read the article (and I highly recommend it) here http://www.norveska.ba/press/rdc-bbd.htm . RDC's research has collapsed many myths, including myth that 200,000 people died in Bosnia, as well as myth about 3,000 Serb victims around Srebrenica. Bosniak 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Google Popularity Results:
1. Srebrenica Massacre - 380,000 results!
2. Srebrenica Genocide - 423,000 results!
Bosniak 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
hi guys,
As I'm working my way through the article, I see there's a huge amount of material related to the movements and activities of the Tuzla column. Is it really necessary to detail everything about this? (I'm just asking because I'd be inclined to try and sum up the whole thing in a fraction of the space, but I don't want to do anything major without raising it, and I can't really be bothered going through it with a fine-tooth comb if what it really needs is a good shearing :-) Cheers; will await people's responses. Jonathanmills 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think: post the link to the version before your edits, so if anyone makes a more specific article about some aspect, he can simply use the old version for this. Also: just don't leave it in the middle (either finish this or revert). -- HanzoHattori 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I guess the others can do it too. (There's quite a couple of people on this article :).) Anyway, the looooooooooong version is HERE [1] Thanks -- HanzoHattori 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
(btw, thanks for your comments & posting of link, Hanzo).
I was just wondering if anyone could clear up an area of confusion (for me, at least) in the article.
If you scroll down to 'Ambush at Kamenica Hill', the paragraph directly above the heading also refers to an ambush -- is this the same one? (There are some place names referred to, but my Bosnian geography is nowhere near good enough to help me there :-) Because it talks about the column being split into two and the crossing of an asphalt road as well.
Speaking of asphalt roads, is the one mentioned in the second sentence of 'The Long Trek to Safety' the same road? I'm a bit confused here.
And re the section 'Sandici massacre' -- and the article generally, really -- would it be possible for someone who knows about Bosnian geography to add some clarification to the place names? (ie, what they are -- towns, regions, etc -- and where they are in relation to Srebrenica and/or Tuzla.) Because most people who aren't from Bosnia (or nearby) won't know what 'Close to Sandici, on the main road from Bratunac to Konjevic Polje' really indicates. (I say that because my geography is better than most -- not boasting, just a statement of fact -- and I don't have a clue :-)
Finally, just a question re referring to the Serb general Milan Gvero as an 'indicted war criminal' -- I was just wondering if the Bosniak general Naser Oric was also an indicted war criminal (I had a feeling he was, but don't know for sure), and if so, do people think this is a bit of a double standard and hence potentially POV? Jonathanmills 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I've just realised that the second map (somehow I overlooked that one -- duh) appears to answer my question re whether the column was ambushed twice near Kamenica -- doesn't look like it was, so this was probably just an accidental restatement of the same event. (Correct me if I'm wrong here). Jonathanmills 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the first main ambush which cut the main column in pieces. The second was on the next day and failed. See the map for what-where.
Oric was (practically) aquited, I don't know about Gvero. -- HanzoHattori 09:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I raised above the point that 'Srebrenica Genocide Memorial' appears *not* to be the correct name for this; as far as I can tell it is the 'Potocari Memorial Centre' -- although I haven't found an actual website for the memorial site, it seems the most common phraseology and is used in several UN dispatches.
Unless there are objections/ corrections to this, I will change this; the only thing is that there is a Wikipedia page called 'Srebrenica Genocide Memorial'. How does one go about changing the names of actual pages?
Sorry about all these questions! Cheers everyone :-) Jonathanmills 17:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The official name is Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial Centre aka Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial Cemetery. -- HanzoHattori 09:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
hi all, just re-posting a message I wrote to 'Dragon of Bosnia':
Your input on the specifics of the genocide charges is much appreciated (by me, at least). However, I was just wondering if the paragraph you added to the 'background' section is really necessary? No offence at all; it's well written and everything, just that I think the article really needs some serious paring down and I'd suggest the information is pretty much already stated in the next paragraph (and with the hyperlink to both the Bosnian War and ethnic cleansing, it's easy enough for people to find out more on both topics).
Anyway, didn't want to just delete it without consulting you -- any thoughts? (I'll repost this over on the talk page, too, to see what anyone else thinks). Cheers Jonathanmills 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if it might be time to archive what's on the discussion page? (I don't know how to do it myself). Most of the threads here appear to have gone cold anyway. Jonathanmills 13:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
hi all, just to fill you all in on the above, I'm reposting the discussion I've had with Dragon on his user page:
(Jonathan)
hi there,
I don't want to get in an edit war with you over there, but using official names rather than common ones is just good encyclopedia policy (you could put 'also known as the...' if you think that's appropriate). I don't mind so much if you want to refer to the 'victims of the genocide' rather than 'victims of the massacre', but as I mentioned in my edit summary, we already use the term massacre as our first choice, so I think it's tidier to follow this all the way through the article. Cheers Jonathanmills 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
(Dragon)
The official name is: "Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery to Genocide Victims", not "Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery". So when you excluded some words, then it is not official any more, so it would be clever to use simple name: Srebrenica Genocide Memorial. If you want to use official names, the first thing should be to change Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica genocide, because it is official now. But I think, that was not your real intention, it looked like an unnecessary camouflage to hide genocide term. I concluded this reading your talk page. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
(Jonathan)
Well, even if that was my intention, which I don't think it was (I'm honestly a stickler for accuracy), that shouldn't really be the issue, which is, is it the correct name? I could as easily say that from reading your talk page, it seems to me your intention is to *mention* the word genocide -- it's no different. Also, I didn't realise that was the full name '...to Genocide Victims' -- but if it is, then that is absolutely the name that should be used, in my opinion. As for whether the whole article should be renamed, that's another thing entirely. (It's been hashed out ad nauseum before on the talk pages). But by your logic, because you don't like the name of the article, there's no reason for other things in the article to be accurately named. Jonathanmills 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Jonathanmills 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the destruction in the villages of Kravica, Siljkovići, Bjelovac, Fakovići and Sikiric, the judgment states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Bosnian forces were responsible for them, because the Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in those villages. In the case of the village of Bjelovac, Serbs even used the warplanes. [2] The Dragon of Bosnia 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
DoB, further answer to your comments above:
Of course, Wikipedia is quite clear about using good sources. If good sources conflict, then we should simply state that. It's not so difficult. Osli73 10:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Osli73 09:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
DoB, you claim that the ICTY judgement in the Oric case doesn't support the statement that there was destruction of the village of Kravica. However, if you look at the actual
ICTY judgement you will see that it does. This is what it find in relation to the charge of Wanton Destruction:
669. As to the extent of destruction caused to Ježestica, Kravica and Šiljkovići, the Trial Chamber finds the following. In Ježestica, on 7 January 1993, more than 60 houses1904 were burned.1905 In Kajici, a hamlet of Kravica, six houses out of 15 were burned on 7 January 1993.1906 By 8 January 1993, an indeterminate number of houses in Kravica were burned.1907 According to one witness, on 12 January 1993, the extent of destruction in Kravica was “roughly about 50 per cent.”1908 Witnesses arriving in the Kravica area by mid-March 1993 found most of the houses and out-buildings burned down.1909 There was no evidence presented with respect to the extent of destruction caused to Šiljkovići.
(b) Legal Findings: 670. Based on the evidence presented, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that property was destroyed on a large scale in Kravica and Ježestica on 7 and 8 January 1993. However, in regard to Šiljkovići there is no sufficient evidence to establish that destruction on a large scale occurred there.1910 671. Regarding Kravica, while there is evidence that large scale destruction occurred on 7 and 8 January 1993, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that it can be attributed solely to Bosnian Muslims. The evidence is unclear as to the number of houses destroyed by Bosnian Muslims as opposed to those destroyed by Bosnian Serbs.1911 In light of this uncertainty, the Trial Chamber concludes that the destruction of property in Kravica between 7 and 8 December 1992 does not fulfil the elements of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages not justified by military necessity.
So, it's quite clear that the village was destroyed. However, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that all of the destruction was caused by the Bosnian govt. side (ie it's not saying that it's not sure if the the destruction was caused by the arbih forces, it's saying that it doesn't know exactly if all of it was caused by them). Regards Osli73 09:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not support refering to the perpetrators of genocide as "the Serbs". When describing in exacting detail such a horrific crime, one ought to use equally accurate and precise language when describing those who committed the crime. In fact, thousands of Serbs either lost or risked their lives fighting against the ultra-nationalist Serbs who instigated and perpetrated this genocidal aggression. Furthermore, it is hypocritical to describe the forces from Srebrenica as BiH Army while identifying the VRS forces by ethnicity only. (If one insists on calling VRS forces and the militias from Serbia as "Serbs", then out of consistency one would refer to those from Srebrenica as "Bosniaks".) I do not believe it is accurate to call this an ethnic war. The greater conflict was a conflict between those who supported a multi-ethnic democracy and ultra-nationalists who wanted to engage in ethnic cleansing.
Ah yes, the nostalgia of listening to Osli's twisted "logic". He writes on a discussion page that this is not a discussion forum. (?!)
In any case, refering to the war in eastern Bosnia as simply Bosniaks fighting Serbs implies that it was simply an ethnic war and ignores the fact that there were Serbs in Armija BiH fighting for a multi-ethnic Bosnia and against the ultra-naitonalism of people like Mladic and Karadzic.
In regards to Dragon's comments below and above, the term VRS is used by the ICTY. See this link for an example: http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm
As far as the suggestion that Osli and Mills are one in the same, yes, Osli does have a record of sockpuppetry, however the style and disposition of Mills' writing is quite different from Osli's. Furthermore, Mills has not even come close to the revisionist tendencies of Osli. Hence, I seriously doubt Osli and Mills are the same user and, as Mills has suggested, if Dragon wants that checked, then it is his perogative to ask for such. Fairview360 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Fview360, a reply to your comments above:
Osli73 08:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
DoB,
Osli73 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Osli73 said: "I can't see that you are sincerely "sorry" about an insult of sockpuppetry if you then go on to repeat it."
Well, suspicion is not an insalt. I still think you two are the same user. I hope administrator will check digital traces of your two accounts and compare it. Regarding sorry thing, I said I was sorry if you felt that I "demonised Serbs" whatever that means. The Dragon of Bosnia 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Johnatan, you removed the paragraph about ethnic cleansing in Eastern Bosnia, and you say this is irrelevant?! Are you serious. This is very good information, first because Srebrenica was the last site of ethnic cleansing which started in 1992 in Eastern Bosnia in 20 towns. Second, this is information confirm in Kunarac case one of the most important cases in general in ICTY. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that this article would be better if it were more concise. By "concise" I mean the use of percise language (getting a point across in one sentence as oppose to 4 sentences); and focusing on the most important events and details. With that being said, the ethnic cleansing section is a very important aspect of the article. For one, many of the victims in 1995 were not from Srebrenica but from the surrounding muncipalities, Zvornik, Vlasencia, Visegrad and Bratunac and they found themselves in Srebrenica after those muncipalities were overtaken by VRS, nationalist Serb paramilitary, JNA forces in 1992.
Gardenfli 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone read Italian Wikipedia on this subject? It states that possible causes of Srebrenica genocide is attack of Bosniak forces on Serb village of Kravice in 1993. [b]Nobody is mentioning that long before Bosniaks attacked militarized Serb villages, thousands of Bosniaks have been ethnically cleansed and killed in the area of Podrinje (region around Srebrenica).[/b] In other words, long before Bosniaks started revolting against Serbs, those same Serbs committed horrendous crimes against Bosniaks - and now, Serbs and their propagandists use "Kravica" as an excuse for Srebrenica massacre? [b]Therefore, attack on Kravica in 1993 (Serb Orthodox Christmas) CANNOT be used as a possible cause or an excuse for Srebrenica Genocide, because long before that attack happened, Serbs already committed horrendous massacres against Bosniak civilians in region around Srebrenica (e.g. Glogova massacre).[/b] For example, On 3 September 1991, on the brink of the war, [b]the Eastern Bosnia's first victims of ethnic violence were Bosniak Muslims - killed when a group of Serb Kravica policemen and paramilitary nationalists ambushed their vehicle, killing two out of three people inside.[/b] None of the Serb perpetrators and accomplices in the attack were ever brought to trial. After the Kravica killings, Bosniaks started to organize armed patrols in their villages and settlements with the few arms they had. Danielus2010 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
hey, what now with deleting wholesale the links to the 'critical views'? And not mentioning it on the discussion page, or even in the edit summary?! If there's a discussion to be had about whether or not to include these, it should be had out in the open, at the very least. Cheers Jonathanmills 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Before I took a break to get married, I was collaborating with a few editors (specifically Fairview360 and Gardenfli) on sub-articling to improve readability. We went so far as to create the sub-article Mass executions in the Srebrenica massacre, if I remember correctly. Did this just die out? Could someone fill me in on what happened in the interim? Djma12 ( talk) 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Jonathanmills wrote, that: "However, the ICTY appears not to deny that 'the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians'"
Which is false.
The sentece from the judgment goes like this:
"As the Defence was reminded many times during the trial, the fact that the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians, an argument brought up mutatis mutandis by almost every Serb accused and Defence counsel before the Tribunal, is irrelevant in the context of this case."
So this is clear example of revisionism by Serbs accused and convicted in ICTY, and is irrelevant according to the court. The Dragon of Bosnia 10:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
At least 8,000 people died in Srebrenica genocide, and this is as far as we can estimate based on DNA evidence ( see here). But my suspicion is that there was likely more than 8,000 victims, because there is no way of recovering bodies who were thrown into Drina river by truckloads. There is also no way of getting information about missing persons whose entire families got wiped off in the war. Just recently, a couple of days ago, we uncovered a new mass grave which included Srebrenica children, 7-11 years of age, beeing shot in the head. Bosniak 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Bosniak, again, according to
WP:OR it is not your interpretation, but the consensus understanding among well informed external sources that counts. The majority of major sources, such as e.g. the BBC, still talk "about" 8,000.
Osli73
00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Osli, I realize that and I stick to 8,000 figure. But being in constant contact with survivors of Srebrenica, I have became compelled to believe that 8,000 figure is only a minimum estimate, because some families were completely wiped out and there was no way to report these people as either missing or killed. The things are looking worse then they looked in the past, especially with the revelation of Radovan Karadzic's genocidal statements, take a look at Radovan Karadzic and Srebrenica Genocide... He rather strikes me as a calculated cold-blooded killer. Just listen to his words on that page and it will make you sick... at least it made me sick to my stomach and it also made me sad about the state of humanity. If I had an opportunity to committ genocide, I still would NOT do it. What makes people capable of killing? Is it hatred? Who knows. I just don't get it. Bosniak 05:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I recommend we include link to the Advocacy Project's Srebrenica Memorial Quilt in one of external link sections. I have recently made a symbolic donation to commemorate little 8 year old girl who died in Srebrenica genocide. Over 400 children died during the massacre. The other day, they dug out bodies of children from the grave. They were 7-11 years of age and shot in head. If anyone has objections for this link, please list them here. If not, then thank you all. It's hard to deal with Srebrenica on a daily basis; this is a very sad tragedy. And let me tell you, but mothers of victims are still in pain, 12 years after the massacre. They are still grieving. It's just horrible. We need to make sure that there is never, ever, any wars in the Balkans. There must not be any military conflicts any longer. Never, ever again.
PS: If you go to external link section, the link is to Advocacy Project - How to Commission a Panel. Bosniak 05:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should make a small section about Srebrenica Genocide deniers and apologists.(
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
01:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)).
Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In the article about the alternative views(which is something like a Holokaust denying) it says that some Serbs view the Srebrenica Genocide as a retaliation to Operation Storm that ended the wars led by Croatian Forces.Can someone explain to me how can it be a retaliation when Srebrenica Genocide happened in May of 1995,while Opeation Storm (supported by UN,NATO and USA) happened in August of 1995,thus 3 months later?????? And how come the Serb government still hasn't arrest Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic in order to proove their "innocence"???It amazes me,how serbian propagandists get so much space on the internet to spread thier invented misinformation to bring confusion to the uninformed and unpartial reader....-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hundreds of elderly were killed during Srebrenica genocide. At least 500 children ( see compilation from Federal Commissions list of names). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Bosniak ( talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
hi guys,
I haven't been on WP for ages, but it appears that a while back Dragon deleted the long-standing links to 'alternative views' with the following edit summary:
"rm also other blogs and similar sites per WP:RS (mostly revisionist views, among them slobodan-milosevic promo site?!"
Of the six links...
One is to the report of the 'Srebrenica Research Group', which was quite a major thing and they presented their findings to the United Nations;
One is to a report of the ISSA, a pretty major organisation by the looks (see http://www.strategicstudies.org);
One is to a story from the Globe & Mail, Canada's biggest daily;
One is to a copy of the Republika Srpska's first report on Srebrenica (this is *hosted* by the 'slobodan-milosevic promo site', but is simply a scanned document);
One is to an article by Diana Johnstone, who is actually mentioned by name in the 'alternative views' section;
One is to a ZNet article (pretty major liberal/left site) by Ed Herman, professor emeritus at the Wharton School of Economics and author of many books.
I'd say the last one, maybe the last two, are *possibly* arguable in terms of deletion, but otherwise I'd have to say the edit summary doesn't match the facts.
As for the term 'revisionist' views versus 'alternative' views, I recall there has been some pretty focussed discussion on this in the past and this ('alternative') appeared to be the conclusion. (I also think, whatever term is used, it should be consistent between the section in the article and the heading over the external links).
So please don't revert my re-inclusion of these links unless you can provide some good reasons to here on the talk page.
Cheers everyone Jonathanmills ( talk) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.tenc.net/analysis/racak.htm Here she tries to whitewash the Racak Massacre in Kosovo.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Alternative views are also referred by some as "revisionist views" or "genocide denial views," so it's only fair to include this statement. Bosniak ( talk) 03:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
==I think this revisionist and genocide denial bull...== is a shame,a discrase. There "revisionists" are using the same methods as holocaust deniers. There is no UN report about this propagandic bullshit.
These people are payed by serb ultranationalist interess groups to have "their" say in some TV show,and then the same serbian propagandists are using them as refferences and sources.
Can't you people leave these victims rest in peace???Some people just have no shame at all.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 11:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There are hundreds of articles about serbian denial of Srebrenica Genocide trough these past years. These are just cheap attempts to confuse the reader. -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Serbian news agency B92
10 March 2007 NOVI SAD -- Human Rights Center chairman Vojin Dimitrijević says Serbia should legally sanction any denial of the 1995 Srebrenica genocide.
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=03&dd=10&nav_id=40059
NUNS reacts to Srebrenica denial 20 March 2007 BELGRADE -- Independent Journalists Association (NUNS) reacted an announced reprint of a Srebrenica massacre denying newspaper supplement.
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=03&dd=20&nav_id=40240
SREBRENICA GENOCIDE DENIAL AND REVISIONISM: SHORT DEFINITION
Srebrenica Genocide denial, also called Srebrenica Genocide revisionism, is the belief that the Srebrenica genocide did not occur, or, more specifically: that far fewer than around 8,100 Srebrenica Bosniaks were killed by the Bosnian Serb Army (numbers below 5,000, most often around 2,000 are typically cited); that there never was a centrally-planned Bosnian Serb Army's attempt to exterminate the Bosniaks of Srebrenica; and/or that there were no mass killings at the extermination sites.
Those who hold this position often further claim that Bosniaks and/or Western media know that the Srebrenica genocide never occurred, yet that they are engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain the illusion of a Srebrenica Genocide to further their political agenda. These views are not accepted as credible by objective historians.
Srebrenica genocide deniers almost always prefer to be called Srebrenica Genocide revisionists. Most scholars contend that the latter term is misleading. Historical revisionism is a well-accepted part of the study of history; it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating histories with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information. The implication is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate. The term historical revisionism has a second meaning, the illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes. For example, Srebrenica Genocide deniers (or Srebrenica Genocide revisionists as they like to be called) typically willfully misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions.
While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, Srebrenica Genocide deniers/revisionists have been using it to seek evidence in support of their own preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.
Most Srebrenica Genocide deniers reject the term Genocide and insist that they do not deny the Srebrenica Massacre, prefering to be called "revisionists". They are nevertheless commonly labeled as Srebrenica Genocide deniers to differentiate them from historical revisionists and because their goal is to deny the existance of the Srebrenica Genocide, by omitting substantial facts, rather than honestly using historical evidence and methodology to examine the event.
--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Helsinki committee for human rights in Serbia
about Ratko Mladic and serbian efforts to avoid justice
http://www.helsinki.org.yu/infocus_t04.html -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the reference from this blog because the blog is known for spreading propaganda and lies. First of all it"s a blog,a opinion of some misguided "intelectual" should not be expressed in a encyclopedia. Second this blog produces information such as this.
This George Gets it Right: Clooney to Organize Protest Against Unilateral Declaration of Kosovo Independence
http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2008/01/this-george-gets-it.html
Hollywood Support for Serbia Grows
http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2008/01/hollywood-support-grows.html
Haven't seen any protests from Hollywood stars yet and Kosovo is independent. anyone seen the protests?
btw. George Clooney denied it on his website.
and this http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/03/srebrenica.html
the blog along with a serbian fascist propaganda website srpska mrza photoshops a picture to "proove" that the burried in Potocari are just some mujahedeens.presenting it like it's written in arabic,while it's not. I'd like if someone who speaks arabian could translate the arabic writings for me,because i doubt they even cared to write a sensible text to make it look more original.
while the actual memorial looks like this. http://realtravel.com/srebrenica-photos-p1829274-2349221.html
should that be included in an encyclopedia?
-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 16:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So,if i was to write a blog about the Holocaust in which i would deny it, i would be able to spread false info on wikipedia??? I'm sure i would get support for it by you guys to make an alternative section on the Holocaust article!!!....?!?!?! Encyclopedia is not a place for crap and widespread rumours.In this case the rumours are being spread by Serb ultrannationalists themselfs.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just imagine if some of those victims were your friends,brother,sister,father...i think that this Genocide denial would upset you if that was the case.Those people aren't just numbers.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "with the specific intent ( dolus specialis)" is unnecessary and confusing in the lead. All legal genocides mush have intent because it is part of the treaty CPPCG on which the legal term is defined, so there is no need to mention in in the lead. Further "specific intent ( dolus specialis)" has a different meaning in different legal systems and under Common Law -- the type of law that most English readers are going to be familiar --it does not have the meaning that the ICJ ascribes to it:
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
not to be a prick or anything, and i do feel sorry for the people who died. its just that, there could be 319 dead people TOPS in that picture. since the average person is lets say 6 foot, the first coffin is 60mm in the picture, the second is 15 mm, etc. this gives us an equation of 59.59*X^-1.89. and the last set of coffins is at 1 mm. So there could be 315 dead people tops in that picture. this is even if we count 11 people per row. in some cases its only 10.
sorry if i offended anyone, but i usually speak my mind. sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible that the photographer was standing somwhere in the middle and that the coffins were set in two parts to make a way through them???Do you have the picture of what was behind the camera???
Write a blog about it.lol-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 10:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Mike Babic ( talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Memorial Centre - Potocari (September 2007)
Buried persons: total 2907
Children:
age 13,5-14: 3 14 - 15: 9 15 - 16: 29 16 - 17: 50 17 - 18: 71
Memorial Centre - Potocari (September 2008)
Buried persons: total 3215
Children:
age 13,5-14: 3 14 - 15: 9 15 - 16: 31 16 - 17: 56 17 - 18: 76 total: 175
Kutil 77.240.177.27 ( talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys (probably talking mainly to Griffin and Fairview here):
I guess the main point I wanted to put was that the reference cited by Fairview, in the first instance, did not mention Srebrenica at all, so it doesn't really fit the bill as a source for the statement.
Secondly, it is essentially only a description of testimony given by the prosecution at trial, not (for example) the findings of the tribunal, so I'm not sure it should be used as essentially 'proving' the thesis.
And moreover, it seems fairly obviously slanted -- media occasionally fabricating stories (intentionally or otherwise), war propaganda (use of perjorative terms like 'fascists', 'jihadists' etc), government controlling media licences, especially in a time of war -- those are characteristics of ANY country's media. Saying "Serbian Radio Television created a strange universe in which...the devastated Croatian town of Vukovar had been 'liberated'" -- well, it is standard practice in war to refer to one's own conquests as 'liberation' -- viz the Americans and Brits 'liberating' Iraq. Indeed, to say this is a 'strange universe' merely proves to me that the source is non-objective.
Lastly, the report itself apparently says "The media offensive launched by Belgrade contributed to the appearance of equally detestable propaganda in other Yugoslav republics" -- food for thought for the Bosniak nationalists here, perhaps?
Finally, I'm not intent on reverting anything and everything along the lines of what's been added -- just get some better sources, and put it in less POV language (eg, 'Some have argued [or whatever] that Serbia's state media [not 'Slobodan Milosevic's media'; this is an encyclopaedia] sowed misinformation about the massacre among Serbs'). Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Jared Israel is one of the main Serb apologists and a moron who denies every single crime Serbs ever did.He is so bold to deny the existance of Bosnian-Serb deathcamps and even denying the Srebrenica Execution Video in which Serbian Scorpions unit(under command of Serbian MUP) killed executed 6 unarmed civilians. The denial of the Srebrenica Genide is his daily routine.So Jared Israel must never be allowed to be refferenced in any encyclopedia.
There are tons of refferences abot Slobodan Milosevic's control of media and that was also part of his inditment in ICTY.The fact that he died just before the end of the trial can't be used as "nothing was proven crap" by Serb apopogists.--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So because Adolf Hitler never went to trial we should consider him innocent too? Slobodan Milosevic's Gazimestan Speech was very inflamable and other nations in Yugoslavia saw it as threatening. The fact that Slobodan Milosevic was the president means he was responible for the conntacts and PR outside Serbia. That's why he had people under him to spread hatred,violence and fear.Like Seselj,Arkan,Karadzic,Mladic,Krajisnik,Drljaca,Martic,Hadzic,Plavsic etc. Milosevic's involvment in crimes was proven during other trials by ICTY one of them includig Joint Criminal Enterprise with Milan Martic & co in Croatia.
About Srebrenica
Gen. Wesley Clark testified in Milosevic's case against him and said that Milosevic had pre-knowledge about the events in Srebrencia.He asked Milosevic how was it possible that the genocide could happen.Milosevic said "I told him(Mladic) not to do it,but he did it anyway". Srebrenica was covered up Milosevic's contoled media until 2001.Before that there was no mentioning of Srebrenica Genocide in Serb media. Mladic and Karadzic tried to deny it after it happened but they were proven wrong by the satelite images of mass graves arond Srebrenica. So this whole denial of Srebrenica Genocide derives from Slobodan Milosevic's defence team and Serbian propaganda machinery. All that has contributed to denial of Srebrenica Genocide in Serbia.The uninformed citizens of Serbia just started to find things out after 2001.
I don't need to discredit those "theories",those theories are discreditting themselfs because they are not based on the proof but on some stupid "facts" that have a goal to create confusion.The Srebrencia genocide deniers are using the same methods as Holocaust deniers. -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For Gazimestan Speech look at ICTY documents. You should also read the SANU memorandum which called Serbs to create their own territories in Croatia and Bosnia before the tensions and the war. Milosevic was judged by other ICTY court cases which included people under him.so a lot was proven. I said the fact that Milosevic died ,doesn't give Serb apologists an excuse to say that nothing was proven as much as they would like to.
That's two small paragraphs too many because it insaults the victims of Genocide and their family members who surrvived.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Again you are reverting everything what we discussed.
Like the Byzantine Sacred Crap Propaganda Blog which is known for spreading false information.
and you removed refferences about Milosevic's propaganda on many events incl. Srebrenica Genocide.
You are a true Serb apologist with no sence of shame at all.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you do that again i will report you and you will be blocked for abusing wiki rules.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11221/gary-j-bass/milosevic-in-the-hague.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/opinion/11Brkic.html
SREBRENICA: FROM DENIAL TO CONFESSION
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
few articles about the denial of Srebrenica written by Serb democrats themselfs
http://www.helsinki.org.yu/projects_sre.html
http://www.helsinki.org.yu/projects_sre_t01.html
http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/BiancaJagger1.html
And about Milosevic's inditment..
His guilt was proven in other cases along with his nationalist allies,so his guilt is confirmed. Milan Martic case for example,Plavsic case,and the Serbs still have to deliver Mladic and Kradzic.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Today I have tried to arrange the External Links and Further reading into some sort of coherent order. But I think the next step is a vary large culling of the list. See Wikipedia:EXTERNAL#Important points to remember "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This is the reason that I moved the "Alternative views" up to a footnote "use them or lose them". -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
See WP:PROVEIT Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
I am going to revert this edit because, unless sources are provided, it is a breach of WP:PROVEIT and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons . -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha, I see it was reversed, by IP address 66.152.113.44. Please do not reinstate it without sources. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently in the article until I move it to here was:
The sources is not a reliable one for such accusations. Living Marxism went under because it "claim that [ITN] misrepresented an image of an emaciated Muslim, Fikret Alic, at the Serb-run Trnopolje camp in August 1992." and could not pay the libel damages when the could not prove it was true (Staff ITN wins Bosnian war libel case BBC 15 March 2000). They might well have said something about the Srebrenica genocide, but if they did then it should have a better source.
Diana Johnstone is another case were we need a better source because if your read this article by her The Bosnian war was brutal, but it wasn't a Holocaust in The Guardian, 23 November 2005, she does not say that the massacre at Srebrenica did not happen or that it was not a genocide and she points out that
In apologising to Noam Chomsky ( Corrections and clarifications, November 17), the Guardian's readers' editor also had the decency to correct some errors concerning me in Emma Brockes's interview with Chomsky (G2, October 31). Despite this welcome retraction, the impression might linger from Ms Brockes's confused account that my work on the Balkans consists in denying atrocities.
So we need a source to support the statement from after 2005. The Guardian article links to the PDF article [5] (page 5) which has lots of details but without knowing what she wrote about for example "Johnstone’s analysis of the disgraceful behaviour of the International Criminal Tribunal for the ‘former Ygoslavia’ is so incisive for a non-lawyer as to make a lawyer blush. ..." Also see page 16 for what Leif Ericsson says about Johnstone's position but unfortunately not what she says her position is. So we need a reliable source from after November 2005 that explains what Diana Johnstone's position is on Srebrenica --It may well be in the PDF document but I do not have time right now to read it all at the moment. - Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Who decides if it confuses us? Zaremba: "I think that is something which every well-read citizen can do. If there is a finding of genocide by the Hague Tribunal which can be read on the Internet, and it says in Ordfront that no one has been found guilty of or even investigated for genocide, then it is a lie that is so blatant and easy to check that one can say that it is intended to confuse— or at least has the effect of confusing. Maybe there was no intent. Maybe it was just ignorance or stupidity, I don’t know." [Note: Here, again, Zaremba distorts Johnstone’s position. What she actually wrote about the Hague Tribunal and the question of genocide can be read in her book, Fools’ Crusade.
- Another document sent to me contains a number of charges:
- 1) “According to her [Johnstone] it cannot be a matter of genocide when women and children are spared. But to me it is obvious that genocide and crimes against humanity have been committed in Srebrenica. . . .”
- Reference is apparently to Johnstone’s statement (p. 117) refuting the claim that the charge of “genocide” is demonstrated by the fact that the Serbs who conquered Srebrenica offered safe passage to women and children. In response to this absurd claim, she writes: “However, one thing should be obvious: one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children.”
- I do not see how her entirely appropriate comment justifies the charge in (1).
Hi guys,
I'm now happy with the final paragraph now, even with the 'alternative views' links in footnote form, so hopefully we can put this recent argument to bed. (Of course, I'm not trying to pre-empt anyone else NOT being happy with it, I'm just clarifying my own position).
Oh, and thanks to Fairview for finding a relevant reference at last. Jonathanmills ( talk) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,2763,184815,00.html
"At one point during the trial, LM produced video footage shot by what it called Bosnian-Serb Television, which did indeed have a crew there that day. But these particular images, it emerges, came from a third camera, a camcorder held by a man in military fatigues I remember well; LM was serviced in that instance by Serbian military intelligence. "
--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Also... a paragraph about Serbia's non-cooperation with the Tribunal shoud stand here. -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It relates toSrebrenica Genocide because of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic and two more Serb criminals responsible for most of the massacres in Croatia.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 15:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No,I just said that Serbia needs to deliver 4 more guys who are at the top of the list.Mladic and Karadzic and two others who were repponsible for massacres in Croatia.Serbia is not cooperating with The Hague and that paragraph should be written.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is because certain things are going on in the internal politics in Serbia that relate to this matter.
Bosnia can't put pressure on Serbia because of their non-cooperation with the Hague because the Serbian member of the Bosnian government is blocking this by a veto,while the Croat and the Bosniak member of the presidency are united on this issue.
Serbia and Serbs in Bosnia a playing dirty politics and are still involved in this genocide denial and that has to be mentioned here.--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
He's just being very careful because the elections are to be held in May.There is a great possibility that Serbian Radical Party(fascists) will win these elections and nobody wants that.That's why he said thet his final rapport wil be in mid-May.Serbia is threatening with political suicide if the EU doesn't ease the pressure.But it sholudn't. Serbia is just waiting that Karadzic and Mladic die.If those two ever come to trial(which i doubt) lot's of dirt will come to the surfacea and Serbian nationalist politicians don't want that. What Brammertz was saying is that the Kosovo independance is not the reason of Serbia not cooperating.There are other reasons...Kosovo is just an excuse to reck time.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic was killed because of his cooperation with The Hague.-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 23:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
On April 22, 2008, user Jonathanmills deleted from this article text from the findings of facts of an ICTY judgement. The section he deleted is as follows:
As the Bosnian war erupted, Serb forces attacked the Muslim civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, Serb forces—i.e. the military, the police, the paramilitaries and sometimes even Serb villagers—applied the same pattern: Bosniak houses and apartments were systematically ransacked or burnt down while Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured and, sometimes, beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in local camps.
User Jonathanmills made the deletion with the following statement: "I think the reader 'deserves' a concise summary of events, not a propaganda screed which repeats footnoted references."
User Jonathanmills would be well advised to clarify his statement. It seems that he is saying that ICTY findings of facts are a propaganda screed or that this article if it cites the ICTY findings of facts is a propaganda screed. Fairview360 ( talk) 04:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A player is responsible for what he does with the ball just as a referee is responsible for what he does with his whistle. Fairview360 ( talk) 23:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Now it seems that User Jonathanmills is saying that ICTY findings of facts are not written in a neutral tone, that they are sensational, and that relying on the findings of facts section of ICTY judgements is childish. "Summarising the facts in a neutral tone" is exactly what the findings of facts section of a court judgement is supposed to be. Is User Jonathanmills claiming that the ICTY failed to do so? Perhaps, User Jonathanmills would like to clarify if this is indeed what he is saying.
Earlier in the creation of this article, there were long, drawn out, intense edit wars which were finally resolved by all sides agreeing to accept the ICTY findings of facts as a source of text which was not sensational, was not POV, but was written in a neutral tone. If the ICTY findings of facts are not accepted as part of the foundation of this article, it is not clear what common ground could exist among editors of opposing points of view. Fairview360 ( talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if User Jonathanmills would be willing to give a yes or no answer to the following question. In User Janathanmills opinion, does the following text from the ICTY judgement constitute "summarising the facts in a neutral tone"? Yes or no?
As the Bosnian war erupted, Serb forces attacked the Muslim civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, Serb forces—i.e. the military, the police, the paramilitaries and sometimes even Serb villagers—applied the same pattern: Bosniak houses and apartments were systematically ransacked or burnt down while Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured and, sometimes, beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in local camps.
Fairview360 ( talk) 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Point? Calling the choices of other editors "childish" does not constitute a substantive statement worthy of a response. Let's see if user Jonathanmills can give a more substantive response that would explain his deleting ICTY text from the article. User Jonathanmills disagrees with one or more of the following:
a) the ICTY text is factual,
b) the ICTY text is written in a neutral tone,
c) the ICTY text is a summary of how the ethnic cleansing campaign was implemented,
d) the ICTY text is relevant to the article.
If all four statements above are true, then the ICTY text belongs in the article. Which of the above does user Jonathanmills want to specifically contest? Or does he plan to continually delete sections of this article with vague arguments calling alternatives to his choices "childish", "silly", or a "propaganda screed"? Fairview360 ( talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
I just removed the following sentence added by editor Mani1 from the introduction:
It's referenced to ICTY v Krstic, paras 18 and 26 (although this was simply the existing reference at the end of the previous sentence, and no further reference had been added by Mani1).
I've removed it, because for a start, there is nothing in paras 18 or 26 indicating the validity of the statement. Furthermore, I went through the entire Krstic judgement with the 'Find' function for the word 'Dutch', and the only things mentioned which are on this topic are:
and...
Neither of these paragraphs come close to proving the statement added by Mani1. Indeed, paragraph 50 reads:
Hi all,
I know this will not make me popular on here, given the apparent sympathies of many editors, but I would like to draw attention to the following:
The article (as it currently stands) states the following regarding the Srebrenica 'safe area':
Now, I've just been reading the ICTY vs Krstic judgement this material was evidently taken from (much of it is in fact verbatim quoting, although I'm not quibbling about that here), and the relevant paragraphs read (emphasis is all mine):
Now, I would argue that the selective quoting used in the current article amounts to a violation of NPOV, because while it includes virtually everything 'unfavourable' (for want of a better word) to the Bosnian Serbs, it *omits* virtually all of the statements unfavourable to the Bosniak side -- the two exceptions being, a) "[W]hile to the Serbs it appeared that Bosnian government forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch counter-offensives against the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it", and this is preceded by 'to the Serbs it appeared...', hence potentially not actually true; and b) "Both parties to the conflict violated the “safe area” agreement [...] General Halilović admitted that ARBiH helicopters had flown in violation of the no-fly zone and that he had personally dispatched eight helicopters with ammunition for the 28th Division" -- and here I would argue that although (IMHO) the ICTY judgement makes it fairly clear that Bosniak violations were in fact *more* serious than Serbian ones, our article would lead the neutral reader to believe the opposite.
That being the case, I think it needs to be fixed up; I would make some changes myself but I am aware that this is an extremely controversial topic and that most editors on here probably won't like what I'm arguing, so thought I'd throw it out for some discussion first. Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm just doing a bit of tidying up of the article (I'm not doing anything about the paragraphs I mentioned above re the 'safe area' yet, as I haven't had any input from others; also I'll put my suggested change to that up for discussion before posting it) -- anyway, I notice that many mentions are made of other towns and place names without any context (eg, 'The Serbs also attacked Foca, Zvornik, etc' (sorry if I got the names wrong there).
My concern is that to non-Bosnians (and this article should be written with them in mind, the vast majority of English-language Wikipedia readers not being Bosnians!) this means very little, especially without a map where all these are marked (and that map doesn't exist at the moment on the page).
I was wondering if any Bosnians (or those who know the geography) could help in this regard, just by explaining something about the place names mentioned (nothing big, just adding 'the town/village of Foca' (whichever is correct), also their relation to Srebrenica (eg, 'the nearby town of Foca', or 'Foca, to the west of Srebrenica' -- NB, those are simply sample texts, as I don't know where or what Foca is exactly.) Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2008/03/23/nb-04
It means that Serbia will not brake it's ties to the ICTY because of the Kosovo independence.
It doesn't mean that Serbia is fully cooperating with the ICTY.
Here are some articles in english about Serbia's current "cooperation". http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=48723 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/9629/
The Brammertz raport of Serbia's "cooperation" will be published any day now now.)After Serbian elections)
Serbia's Hague raport in May
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=22&nav_id=48697
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=18&nav_id=49519
-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Shrinking space for denial,Serbia and the ICTY
http://www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2/fs/?file_id=19814 -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Dealing with the past in former Yugoslavia
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6542/dealing_with_the_past_in_the_former_yugoslavia.html -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
HRW: Serbia won’t face past seriously
http://www.b92.net/eng/download.phtml?39065,0,0
-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Video tape forces Serbs to confess warcrimes http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/11/news/serbia.php -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to make a section about this phenomenon.On this article's talkpages there were quiet a few serbian editors that have denied the Srebrenica genocide and a great deal of Serbs continue to deny this crime as well as other crimes comitted by Serbian forces.There are some universatory studies dealing with Serbian war crimes denial.Many Serbian ultranationalist websites continue to deny the Srebrenica Genocide,Vukovar massacre,shelling of Dubrovnik,death camps in Bosnia and many other events.So i think there should be a section about it here as well on some other articles.--
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Death Poses Challenges as Serbia Faces Past and Future
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/international/europe/13belgrade.html
-- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 08:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Denial of warcrimes in Serbia
http://www.crees.bham.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/obradovic.htm
Serbs still divided over Srebrenica Genocide
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4737583 -- (GriffinSB) ( talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Can Serbia face the Past?
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1644313,00.html Deutsche Welle --
(GriffinSB) (
talk)
12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
[PLEASE NOTE -- I DELETED THE FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY UPON POSTING IT, BUT SOMEONE LATER BROUGHT IT BACK UP VIA A REVERT - JM]
I have no interest in pushing shit uphill against a bunch of dickheads with no interest in the facts (indeed, clearly an apparent interest in cleverly obscuring them).
Some day, hopefully (although I'm not holding my breath), Wikipedia will sort out this mess of a situation and take a much harsher line against editors who make shitty, clearly biased edits, as it is making the articles on controversial topics complete shite (note that despite my clear violation of 'Wiki-quette' this evening and one other occasion in the past, I would stand by pretty much all of my *edits*).
However, if any dickhead re-inserts the word 'panicking' about that Bosniak soldier, expect it to be deleted at some point. (Again, I've already discussed this issue above, if anyone's confused as to why). Jonathanmills ( talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
[DELETED POST ENDS - JM]
Hi all,
Genuine apologies for losing my temper. I would say just quickly that I think most editors here would have to agree it is not my usual M.O., and also I'd like to RESTATE that the 'my stance' comment above was one I DELETED IMMEDIATELY UPON WRITING as I realised it was a bit over-the-top and unhelpful. Cheers (JonathanMills) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.153.172 ( talk) 15:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)