![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Why there is no information in the article about the Serbs who were killed around Srebrenica in 1992-1993? For example: Kravica attack (1993). Соколрус ( talk) 21:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I have asked for the page to be temporarily protected in light of the (not so unexpected) recent disturbances on the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK) 10:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
On July 8, 2015 a UN Security Council resolution for the recognition of genocide in Srebrenica was vetoed by Russia. This means that the UN officially does not acknowledge the predicate genocide for the events in Srebrenica. I believe it would be appropriate to mention this resolution and its outcome in the article, especially because the article does employ the predicate genocide. Also this outcome may affect previous and future convictions of war criminals for genocide in Srebrenica.
I couldn't locate the original resolution, but here are two news articles that cover it: - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33445772 - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/russia-vetoes-srebrenica-genocide-resolution-un — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.157.7 ( talk) 08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Not only are you completely wrong, but the page name should also be changed to "genocide". As someone above mentioned, the fact that politicians in russia and serbia veto a decision to call it genocide, does not change the fact that historians, interllectuals and scholars have almost all agreed without any doubt that this was a genocide. Why does the page name still say "massacre"? Undermining a genocide in a page name is a very biased way to begin an article and not very neutral. Mozad655 ( talk) 16:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is an interesting fact how the western world sees the sufferings of the Polish nation:
I would really like you to look at the article about Khatyn or the Volhynian genocide (known to the world as a Volhynian massacre, not a genocide) and tell me, how do you see it. Is it justice? 192.162.150.105 ( talk) 09:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
192.162.150.105, you ARE using the page as a forum and it WON'T help your cause. Pincrete ( talk) 12:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This page now runs at about 262,945 bytes, my approx word count was 25,000 … … by comparison Adolf Hitler is 158,228 bytes, 40% smaller! Anything that can be done by way of 'see main article' would help keep this article a readable size. Pincrete ( talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
During the course of massacre text, its contstantly mentioned that Serb forces commited rape, mass killings. It is missleading as the force was official army of [Serbia] while these are Bosnian Serbs, one of participating sides in civil war (what war in Bosnia factualy was) - Army of Republika Srpska. They were are and factually are citizens of Bosnia of Serbian nationality. Also the use of [Cetnik] in description is more imaginary, then realistic as real Cetnik movement ceased to exist in World War II. Factual would be a Bosnian Serbian paramilitary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.58.133 ( talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I have copied a significant portion of " Hagrup Haukland", into this article. I don't know if there is a procedure for giving credit, to its authors. Is there? -- Gazprompt ( talk) 21:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article reads, among other things: " I saw how a pregnant woman was slaughtered. There were Serbs who stabbed her in the stomach, cut her open and took two small children out of her stomach and then beat them to death on the ground. I saw this with my own eyes.[64]"
So, basically, two Serbian soldiers somehow were able to perform a C-Section on very likely premature twins, the twins came out alive, and so the Serbian soldiers beat them to death... Am I the only one to realize how fake and ridiculous this sounds?? This and other parts need to be taken out of the article. -- Mondschein English ( talk) 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Personally Mondschein, I am not one to believe everything he reads and watches either. But whereas the information being contested has been sourced, I don't think it can be removed based on the assessment by editors that such an occurrence is unlikely. I'd hate to go into graphic detail, but we know that in war there are no morals (and every warring faction in the universe is EQUALLY guilty of it, no compassion anywhere) and if a knife is sharp enough to pierce the skin then the rest of the alleged atrocity is plausible. I don't dictate human nature, unfortunately! -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 07:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
See my comment above, Oranges Juicy: it is what it is. Yet, any Midwife, any Obstetrician (my aunt is one and I did ask her) will tell you that the story in question is beyond ridiculous, given how unlikely it is. I agree with everything else you wrote, though. Kind regards, -- Mondschein English ( talk) 09:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the article too light regarding the following organizations in italics:
" Rose had ordered each sector commander to make a special effort to achieve a close collaboration with UNHCR, the International Red Cross, UNMO and ECMM, either by maintaining close contacts or sharing the same housing. In the sector command post, therefore, places were reserved for a UNHCR representative"? (On another note: the article needs to prune, add, improve!) -- Gazprompt ( talk) 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we remove the last bit about "holocaust expert" denying its genocide. I can understand including serbian officials response but not the israeli academics. Zekenyan ( talk) 19:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Gazprompt, the text: 'You know the story of a photo taken near Tuzla by a Croatian photographer... of a woman from Srebrenica who had hung herself. She had lost her husband. She hung herself on a tree. It made the front page of the Washington Post. Al Gore, who was then vice president, went to Bill Clinton and said: My daughter is talking about this. When are we going to act? The story goes that Bill Clinton said: It's time to finish this. Then NATO intervened and soon after it was finished.' is effectively saying, that the journalist has heard a story that this is how NATO intervention happened. I'm fairly sure the journalist's underlying point, that the Sreb events changed public opinion, which gave the 'green light' to a more active role is true. However the story itself is hearsay, at best, he doesn't even claim it happened, rather that 'we've all heard this story'. A better source for what public impact was should be found, otherwise I see this being (rightly) removed pretty soon. Pincrete ( talk) 22:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
There is not an international consensus that it was a genocide (i.e. claim by Russia and Efraim Zuroff and others).
On this topic the lede says that the Srebrenica Genocide is an alternate name. Fine.
The lede continues here
[4] to say that it was "a genocidal killing of more than 8000". Not fine. Because it is not a universal truth. The genocidality of the killings are something that many people, and many organizations (including the UN) agree about. However, the lede does not have room to explain about Russia's- and Zuroff's (and others') claims of a non-genocide. Therefore my rewording. --
Gazprompt (
talk) 18:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This version [6] says that "i.e. it was the Netherlands and not the UN that had effective control of Dutchbat". I think that at least that phrase can be removed, for not being something that the source (indirectly) says. Does anyone support such a removal? -- Gazprompt ( talk) 23:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Praxis Icosahedron, regarding this edit, I think the underlying problem is that text and refs have been tweaked recently in such a way that three matters have become confused, I'll call them WHAT (happened)? WHY? and WHO (is accountable, legally).
WHAT? Dutchbat failed to (ie did not) prevent the fall or massacre. Historical fact, I believe the text until recently said 'could not', which I think is the wording in some of the refs. but the WHAT is indisputable, they did not stop anything, even their own capture.
WHY? an enormous amount of buck-passing has gone on since (withheld air-strikes, hostages, muddled chain of command, the wish for 'tidier maps', (gay soldiers ??) etc.), but most sources agree that Dutchbat had no clear instructions and no support to implement a 'forced peace' ('could not'?).
WHO is accountable legally? I think including refs related to this is what is problematic. Some of the refs used relate to the possibility of UN rather than the Dutch being legally accountable. The 'legally responsible' verdicts relate to only around 300 people who were in the Dutchbat compound, not the whole incident.
While all/most of the refs may be TECHNICALLY valid, I don't think it is good to muddle the three issues. PERSONALLY, I think the 'accountable' refs should go later, in the 'legal' part of the lead, with only WHAT/WHY refs and text in the early 'story' part. Thoughts? Pincrete ( talk) 11:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I can not see any figure in the article, for the number of women killed in the massacre. Or a figure for females or girls ... Google does not seem to be of any help. What can be done? -- Gazprompt ( talk) 18:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,372 names, of whom some 500 were under 18 ( 33 under 15), and includes several dozen (76) women and girls. As of July 2012, 6838 victims have been identified through DNA analysis and more than 6000 victims have been buried at the Memorial Centre of Potocari.
Srebrenica victims are subsequently buried in Srebrenica - Potocari Memorial and Cemetery.
Memorial Center of Potocari ( July 2015): 6377 victims already buried, of them 406 boys under 18 and 15 women and girls.
The summary of victims of Srebrenic massacre buried at memorial place in Potocari according to their birthdate:
1995: 1 note 1 1984: 1 note 2 1982: 1 note 3 1981: 14
1980: 47 1979: 99 1978: 168 1977: 221 1976 - 1955: 3202 1954 - 1935: 2098 1934 - 1925: 447 1924 - 1915: 72 1914 - 1899: 6 Total : 6377
note 1: new-born girl
note 2: Together with his 15 yo. brother killed with grenate explosion during shelling of Srebrenica
note 3: Died in woods after 19.7.1995
77.240.177.27 ( talk) 06:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Kutil
Source:
http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/War_Demographics/en/popovic_srebrenica_050916.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20140418221608/http://www.potocarimc.ba/_ba/liste/nestali_a.php
http://bh-vjesnik.net/spisak-zrtava-genocida-za-ukop-11-07-2015-u-potocarima/
2014, 2013 , 2012 .....
77.240.177.27 ( talk) 07:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Kutil
24.85.77.121 I have reverted your additions Per WP:UNDUE, as did Scr★pIron, the biggest problem with this article is that it is overlong (longer than World War II), we don't therefore have room for material that is not strictly concerned with the event (and there is much already which doesn't belong). The reasons WHY women were not killed MIGHT belong on another article about one of the trials or inquiries, rebuttals to 'deniers' might belong on individual pages, but there simply isn't room here. Pincrete ( talk) 08:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is this article not named "Srebrenica Genocide"? -- Tuvixer ( talk) 11:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to note that the editor Gazprompt, has been indeffed { /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive As a sock]. Quite a bit of his editing earlier in the year is pretty random/off-topic. Pincrete ( talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 118 external links on
Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain me why is the article still named as a massacre instead of genocide. The verdict of a Genocide is rare in human history, massacres on the other hand are common and usualy dont have the "weight" of a fully documented genocide such as this one. I dont need to remind you that the Srebrenica Genocide perpetrated by the Serb forces is the most documented and investigated crime against humanity. For the sake of the victims and international recognision honouring all the resolutions made by the Western civilised world, this article should bare the term genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely that the page name should be changed and protected as genocide. I don't know what the user above me is trying to point out with "idividual massacres of the holocaust". A mistake that there may or may not be in other articles does not justefie another mistake in this article. Almost all interllectuals and EU lawmakers agree on this and have confirmed the label of "genocide". There is no reason for a wikipedia article to stick to the biased russian and serb labels the undermine the nature of this event. EU law makers have spoken. Why is there no "genocide" in the page name? Mozad655 ( talk) 16:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I strongly encourage for a renaming of the whole article in to Srebrenica Genocide. I again point out that the Srebrenica Genocide is the most investigated and documented crime against humanity and thus deserves a more specific and precise recognition as a Genocide, rather then the vain term of a massacre. Other genocides such as the Armenian Genocide have properly labeled names of their Wikipedia article ( Armenian Genocide ), even if we dont have a valid court qualification of the mentioned crime. I have reasons to believe that there are more sinister reasons of why this article is not properly named as a Srebrenica Genocide according to the ICT qualification of the mentioend crime. I also point out that every genocide is a massacre, but not every massacre can be qualified as a Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with the term genocide. The people who are calling it a massacre are predominately coming from Serbia and are predominately denying that the genocide had happened. Detoner ( talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Detoner, in my experience, most 'denialists' deny either term, preferring 'battle' or trying to assert that casualties were equal on both sides. It would no more be right for WP to consciously avoid pleasing 'denialists' than it would be to deliberately please them. However, the discussion is here and everyone putting their pov clearly (as you have) will help clarify the matter. TO ME it is more important that the article be as clear, accurate and solidly sourced as possible, and that the name be the one most commonly used by Eng. readers. Pincrete ( talk) 19:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It was a genocide, most reliable sources call it a genocide. It gives WP:UNDUE to deniers to call it anything other than what it is: a genocide. Ms. Andrea Carter here ( at your service) 07:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe there are more sinister reasons in why this article is continusly underepresented with the title clasification of massacre. One question to the massarce propagists. If we have the Armnenian genocide wiki article, wich isnt even clasified as such in an courtly maner and international verdict why is it named Armenian genocide and not Armenian massacre? Why is the Srebrenica genocide the only internationaly recognized genocide represented as a massacre?
Double standards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"The evidence is that 'massacre' is still the more common name for the event, and that is the only logic to the choice. " Except this isn't true. Genocide is the more common name for the event, which puts the entire article name in a more precarious position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.105.187 ( talk) 23:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I do NOT agree, "massacre", is the most common term for this in the Blagojevic and Jokic, Popovic et al. and Tolimir cases that, there were two separate but conncected Joint Criminal Enterprises, the forced removal, and murder operation. BOTH have been determined to have qualified as genocide, due to the populations vulnerability, and its wartime populace being so small compared to it's prior 1991 population. The killings in 1992, and events leading to the siege, the fighting and the deaths as a result, were known by Serb forces...event as countless media sources refer to the event as, The Srebrenica Genocide", as a matter of fact, the courts have ruled that this term and intent refers also to the Bosnian-Muslims of Zepa and Gorazde, as made clear by Directive 7, and Mladic's statements that, "the fate of your people is in your hands, not just in this region, but all..' Soldiers who carried out the massacres themselves stated they believed they were committing genocide. It has been determined the intent was to kill all Bosniaks within reach to eliminate the possibility of reconstitution. This determination was made solely on the massacre. The prior referred to judgements (appeals), clearly state, two separate operations with the same intent, 1) a JCE to exterminate the men and boys 12-78 of Srebrenica and 2) the Causing of Serious bodily and mental harm to the women, children and elderly through torture, rape, opportunistic killings and separation of family members...resulting in the fact 42,000 were subjected to the mens rea and actus reus of genocide. Thus the, "massacre" portion is another separate article on that portion, while the term "Srebrenica Genocide", or even "1995 Genocide in Eastern Bosnia", or "Eastern Bosnian Genocide", are ALL appropriate given tribunal, Academic (Daniel Goldhagen, Christiane Amanpour etc.) agreement, along with the three appeals agreement. It is almost a gift to Wikipedia, providing specific determinations, from hundreds of witnesses, thousands of exhibits, physical and circumstantial evidence etc. The "Srebrenica Massacre". term was more common prior to the Popovic judgement, and prior to the Jokic judgement. However most media sources use the term, "Srebrenica Genocide", today, vs. 'massacre". Massacre implies or dismisses a crucial element of the eventsd and their organized , systematic nature, and very important case law. So, I concur (as a genocide prevention advocate and international law student) that at this point, "Srebrenica Genocide", or "Eastern Bosnian Genocide of 1995". Some article should encompass the entire event and not solely the massacre. Dissent if academically sourced can be provided toward the bottom of this page. -Jokic/Blagojevic "The trial chamber finds that through the manner and means in which the forcible transfer is carried our, may lead to the destruction of the group", "In this case the transfers were directed at the protected group, "The Bosnian Mulsims of Srebrenica, the transfer when combined with the killings, are on their own, caused serious bodily and mental harm, as to be an act of genocide..." judgement, http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tolimir/acjug/en/150408_summary.pdf " http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tolimir/acjug/en/150408_summary.pdf [1]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
As amusing as it that searching wikipedia for "remove kebab" (in reference to the popular internet meme) redirects here, I don't think it's appropriate. At least not without some sort of further mention, perhaps explaining the meme?
Just hoping to bring attention of this to someone better suited to rectify the situation.
78.149.209.252 ( talk) 16:30, 1 April 2017 (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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Why there is no information in the article about the Serbs who were killed around Srebrenica in 1992-1993? For example: Kravica attack (1993). Соколрус ( talk) 21:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I have asked for the page to be temporarily protected in light of the (not so unexpected) recent disturbances on the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK) 10:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
On July 8, 2015 a UN Security Council resolution for the recognition of genocide in Srebrenica was vetoed by Russia. This means that the UN officially does not acknowledge the predicate genocide for the events in Srebrenica. I believe it would be appropriate to mention this resolution and its outcome in the article, especially because the article does employ the predicate genocide. Also this outcome may affect previous and future convictions of war criminals for genocide in Srebrenica.
I couldn't locate the original resolution, but here are two news articles that cover it: - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33445772 - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/russia-vetoes-srebrenica-genocide-resolution-un — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.157.7 ( talk) 08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Not only are you completely wrong, but the page name should also be changed to "genocide". As someone above mentioned, the fact that politicians in russia and serbia veto a decision to call it genocide, does not change the fact that historians, interllectuals and scholars have almost all agreed without any doubt that this was a genocide. Why does the page name still say "massacre"? Undermining a genocide in a page name is a very biased way to begin an article and not very neutral. Mozad655 ( talk) 16:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is an interesting fact how the western world sees the sufferings of the Polish nation:
I would really like you to look at the article about Khatyn or the Volhynian genocide (known to the world as a Volhynian massacre, not a genocide) and tell me, how do you see it. Is it justice? 192.162.150.105 ( talk) 09:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
192.162.150.105, you ARE using the page as a forum and it WON'T help your cause. Pincrete ( talk) 12:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This page now runs at about 262,945 bytes, my approx word count was 25,000 … … by comparison Adolf Hitler is 158,228 bytes, 40% smaller! Anything that can be done by way of 'see main article' would help keep this article a readable size. Pincrete ( talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
During the course of massacre text, its contstantly mentioned that Serb forces commited rape, mass killings. It is missleading as the force was official army of [Serbia] while these are Bosnian Serbs, one of participating sides in civil war (what war in Bosnia factualy was) - Army of Republika Srpska. They were are and factually are citizens of Bosnia of Serbian nationality. Also the use of [Cetnik] in description is more imaginary, then realistic as real Cetnik movement ceased to exist in World War II. Factual would be a Bosnian Serbian paramilitary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.58.133 ( talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I have copied a significant portion of " Hagrup Haukland", into this article. I don't know if there is a procedure for giving credit, to its authors. Is there? -- Gazprompt ( talk) 21:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article reads, among other things: " I saw how a pregnant woman was slaughtered. There were Serbs who stabbed her in the stomach, cut her open and took two small children out of her stomach and then beat them to death on the ground. I saw this with my own eyes.[64]"
So, basically, two Serbian soldiers somehow were able to perform a C-Section on very likely premature twins, the twins came out alive, and so the Serbian soldiers beat them to death... Am I the only one to realize how fake and ridiculous this sounds?? This and other parts need to be taken out of the article. -- Mondschein English ( talk) 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Personally Mondschein, I am not one to believe everything he reads and watches either. But whereas the information being contested has been sourced, I don't think it can be removed based on the assessment by editors that such an occurrence is unlikely. I'd hate to go into graphic detail, but we know that in war there are no morals (and every warring faction in the universe is EQUALLY guilty of it, no compassion anywhere) and if a knife is sharp enough to pierce the skin then the rest of the alleged atrocity is plausible. I don't dictate human nature, unfortunately! -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 07:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
See my comment above, Oranges Juicy: it is what it is. Yet, any Midwife, any Obstetrician (my aunt is one and I did ask her) will tell you that the story in question is beyond ridiculous, given how unlikely it is. I agree with everything else you wrote, though. Kind regards, -- Mondschein English ( talk) 09:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the article too light regarding the following organizations in italics:
" Rose had ordered each sector commander to make a special effort to achieve a close collaboration with UNHCR, the International Red Cross, UNMO and ECMM, either by maintaining close contacts or sharing the same housing. In the sector command post, therefore, places were reserved for a UNHCR representative"? (On another note: the article needs to prune, add, improve!) -- Gazprompt ( talk) 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we remove the last bit about "holocaust expert" denying its genocide. I can understand including serbian officials response but not the israeli academics. Zekenyan ( talk) 19:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Gazprompt, the text: 'You know the story of a photo taken near Tuzla by a Croatian photographer... of a woman from Srebrenica who had hung herself. She had lost her husband. She hung herself on a tree. It made the front page of the Washington Post. Al Gore, who was then vice president, went to Bill Clinton and said: My daughter is talking about this. When are we going to act? The story goes that Bill Clinton said: It's time to finish this. Then NATO intervened and soon after it was finished.' is effectively saying, that the journalist has heard a story that this is how NATO intervention happened. I'm fairly sure the journalist's underlying point, that the Sreb events changed public opinion, which gave the 'green light' to a more active role is true. However the story itself is hearsay, at best, he doesn't even claim it happened, rather that 'we've all heard this story'. A better source for what public impact was should be found, otherwise I see this being (rightly) removed pretty soon. Pincrete ( talk) 22:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
There is not an international consensus that it was a genocide (i.e. claim by Russia and Efraim Zuroff and others).
On this topic the lede says that the Srebrenica Genocide is an alternate name. Fine.
The lede continues here
[4] to say that it was "a genocidal killing of more than 8000". Not fine. Because it is not a universal truth. The genocidality of the killings are something that many people, and many organizations (including the UN) agree about. However, the lede does not have room to explain about Russia's- and Zuroff's (and others') claims of a non-genocide. Therefore my rewording. --
Gazprompt (
talk) 18:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This version [6] says that "i.e. it was the Netherlands and not the UN that had effective control of Dutchbat". I think that at least that phrase can be removed, for not being something that the source (indirectly) says. Does anyone support such a removal? -- Gazprompt ( talk) 23:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Praxis Icosahedron, regarding this edit, I think the underlying problem is that text and refs have been tweaked recently in such a way that three matters have become confused, I'll call them WHAT (happened)? WHY? and WHO (is accountable, legally).
WHAT? Dutchbat failed to (ie did not) prevent the fall or massacre. Historical fact, I believe the text until recently said 'could not', which I think is the wording in some of the refs. but the WHAT is indisputable, they did not stop anything, even their own capture.
WHY? an enormous amount of buck-passing has gone on since (withheld air-strikes, hostages, muddled chain of command, the wish for 'tidier maps', (gay soldiers ??) etc.), but most sources agree that Dutchbat had no clear instructions and no support to implement a 'forced peace' ('could not'?).
WHO is accountable legally? I think including refs related to this is what is problematic. Some of the refs used relate to the possibility of UN rather than the Dutch being legally accountable. The 'legally responsible' verdicts relate to only around 300 people who were in the Dutchbat compound, not the whole incident.
While all/most of the refs may be TECHNICALLY valid, I don't think it is good to muddle the three issues. PERSONALLY, I think the 'accountable' refs should go later, in the 'legal' part of the lead, with only WHAT/WHY refs and text in the early 'story' part. Thoughts? Pincrete ( talk) 11:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I can not see any figure in the article, for the number of women killed in the massacre. Or a figure for females or girls ... Google does not seem to be of any help. What can be done? -- Gazprompt ( talk) 18:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,372 names, of whom some 500 were under 18 ( 33 under 15), and includes several dozen (76) women and girls. As of July 2012, 6838 victims have been identified through DNA analysis and more than 6000 victims have been buried at the Memorial Centre of Potocari.
Srebrenica victims are subsequently buried in Srebrenica - Potocari Memorial and Cemetery.
Memorial Center of Potocari ( July 2015): 6377 victims already buried, of them 406 boys under 18 and 15 women and girls.
The summary of victims of Srebrenic massacre buried at memorial place in Potocari according to their birthdate:
1995: 1 note 1 1984: 1 note 2 1982: 1 note 3 1981: 14
1980: 47 1979: 99 1978: 168 1977: 221 1976 - 1955: 3202 1954 - 1935: 2098 1934 - 1925: 447 1924 - 1915: 72 1914 - 1899: 6 Total : 6377
note 1: new-born girl
note 2: Together with his 15 yo. brother killed with grenate explosion during shelling of Srebrenica
note 3: Died in woods after 19.7.1995
77.240.177.27 ( talk) 06:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Kutil
Source:
http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/War_Demographics/en/popovic_srebrenica_050916.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20140418221608/http://www.potocarimc.ba/_ba/liste/nestali_a.php
http://bh-vjesnik.net/spisak-zrtava-genocida-za-ukop-11-07-2015-u-potocarima/
2014, 2013 , 2012 .....
77.240.177.27 ( talk) 07:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Kutil
24.85.77.121 I have reverted your additions Per WP:UNDUE, as did Scr★pIron, the biggest problem with this article is that it is overlong (longer than World War II), we don't therefore have room for material that is not strictly concerned with the event (and there is much already which doesn't belong). The reasons WHY women were not killed MIGHT belong on another article about one of the trials or inquiries, rebuttals to 'deniers' might belong on individual pages, but there simply isn't room here. Pincrete ( talk) 08:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is this article not named "Srebrenica Genocide"? -- Tuvixer ( talk) 11:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to note that the editor Gazprompt, has been indeffed { /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive As a sock]. Quite a bit of his editing earlier in the year is pretty random/off-topic. Pincrete ( talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 118 external links on
Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain me why is the article still named as a massacre instead of genocide. The verdict of a Genocide is rare in human history, massacres on the other hand are common and usualy dont have the "weight" of a fully documented genocide such as this one. I dont need to remind you that the Srebrenica Genocide perpetrated by the Serb forces is the most documented and investigated crime against humanity. For the sake of the victims and international recognision honouring all the resolutions made by the Western civilised world, this article should bare the term genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely that the page name should be changed and protected as genocide. I don't know what the user above me is trying to point out with "idividual massacres of the holocaust". A mistake that there may or may not be in other articles does not justefie another mistake in this article. Almost all interllectuals and EU lawmakers agree on this and have confirmed the label of "genocide". There is no reason for a wikipedia article to stick to the biased russian and serb labels the undermine the nature of this event. EU law makers have spoken. Why is there no "genocide" in the page name? Mozad655 ( talk) 16:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I strongly encourage for a renaming of the whole article in to Srebrenica Genocide. I again point out that the Srebrenica Genocide is the most investigated and documented crime against humanity and thus deserves a more specific and precise recognition as a Genocide, rather then the vain term of a massacre. Other genocides such as the Armenian Genocide have properly labeled names of their Wikipedia article ( Armenian Genocide ), even if we dont have a valid court qualification of the mentioned crime. I have reasons to believe that there are more sinister reasons of why this article is not properly named as a Srebrenica Genocide according to the ICT qualification of the mentioend crime. I also point out that every genocide is a massacre, but not every massacre can be qualified as a Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with the term genocide. The people who are calling it a massacre are predominately coming from Serbia and are predominately denying that the genocide had happened. Detoner ( talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Detoner, in my experience, most 'denialists' deny either term, preferring 'battle' or trying to assert that casualties were equal on both sides. It would no more be right for WP to consciously avoid pleasing 'denialists' than it would be to deliberately please them. However, the discussion is here and everyone putting their pov clearly (as you have) will help clarify the matter. TO ME it is more important that the article be as clear, accurate and solidly sourced as possible, and that the name be the one most commonly used by Eng. readers. Pincrete ( talk) 19:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It was a genocide, most reliable sources call it a genocide. It gives WP:UNDUE to deniers to call it anything other than what it is: a genocide. Ms. Andrea Carter here ( at your service) 07:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe there are more sinister reasons in why this article is continusly underepresented with the title clasification of massacre. One question to the massarce propagists. If we have the Armnenian genocide wiki article, wich isnt even clasified as such in an courtly maner and international verdict why is it named Armenian genocide and not Armenian massacre? Why is the Srebrenica genocide the only internationaly recognized genocide represented as a massacre?
Double standards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorčin ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"The evidence is that 'massacre' is still the more common name for the event, and that is the only logic to the choice. " Except this isn't true. Genocide is the more common name for the event, which puts the entire article name in a more precarious position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.105.187 ( talk) 23:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I do NOT agree, "massacre", is the most common term for this in the Blagojevic and Jokic, Popovic et al. and Tolimir cases that, there were two separate but conncected Joint Criminal Enterprises, the forced removal, and murder operation. BOTH have been determined to have qualified as genocide, due to the populations vulnerability, and its wartime populace being so small compared to it's prior 1991 population. The killings in 1992, and events leading to the siege, the fighting and the deaths as a result, were known by Serb forces...event as countless media sources refer to the event as, The Srebrenica Genocide", as a matter of fact, the courts have ruled that this term and intent refers also to the Bosnian-Muslims of Zepa and Gorazde, as made clear by Directive 7, and Mladic's statements that, "the fate of your people is in your hands, not just in this region, but all..' Soldiers who carried out the massacres themselves stated they believed they were committing genocide. It has been determined the intent was to kill all Bosniaks within reach to eliminate the possibility of reconstitution. This determination was made solely on the massacre. The prior referred to judgements (appeals), clearly state, two separate operations with the same intent, 1) a JCE to exterminate the men and boys 12-78 of Srebrenica and 2) the Causing of Serious bodily and mental harm to the women, children and elderly through torture, rape, opportunistic killings and separation of family members...resulting in the fact 42,000 were subjected to the mens rea and actus reus of genocide. Thus the, "massacre" portion is another separate article on that portion, while the term "Srebrenica Genocide", or even "1995 Genocide in Eastern Bosnia", or "Eastern Bosnian Genocide", are ALL appropriate given tribunal, Academic (Daniel Goldhagen, Christiane Amanpour etc.) agreement, along with the three appeals agreement. It is almost a gift to Wikipedia, providing specific determinations, from hundreds of witnesses, thousands of exhibits, physical and circumstantial evidence etc. The "Srebrenica Massacre". term was more common prior to the Popovic judgement, and prior to the Jokic judgement. However most media sources use the term, "Srebrenica Genocide", today, vs. 'massacre". Massacre implies or dismisses a crucial element of the eventsd and their organized , systematic nature, and very important case law. So, I concur (as a genocide prevention advocate and international law student) that at this point, "Srebrenica Genocide", or "Eastern Bosnian Genocide of 1995". Some article should encompass the entire event and not solely the massacre. Dissent if academically sourced can be provided toward the bottom of this page. -Jokic/Blagojevic "The trial chamber finds that through the manner and means in which the forcible transfer is carried our, may lead to the destruction of the group", "In this case the transfers were directed at the protected group, "The Bosnian Mulsims of Srebrenica, the transfer when combined with the killings, are on their own, caused serious bodily and mental harm, as to be an act of genocide..." judgement, http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tolimir/acjug/en/150408_summary.pdf " http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tolimir/acjug/en/150408_summary.pdf [1]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
As amusing as it that searching wikipedia for "remove kebab" (in reference to the popular internet meme) redirects here, I don't think it's appropriate. At least not without some sort of further mention, perhaps explaining the meme?
Just hoping to bring attention of this to someone better suited to rectify the situation.
78.149.209.252 ( talk) 16:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)