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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
This part seems problematic:
The mass murder in Kravica seemed unplanned and seems to have started spontaneously when one of the warehouse doors suddenly swung open, according to trial testimony.
The reference given was a reuse of the name "un.org" which have had multiple declarations in the past. Now "un.org" has a single declaration and lots of incorrect re-uses. I could with a reasonably degree of certainty figure out what reference was actually supposed to have been used, however it ended up looking like original research. The Krstic Judgement notes that "The paucity of evidence implicating the Drina Corps in the commission of the mass executions on 13 July stands in contrast to the substantial evidence implicating the Drina Corps in the commission of the mass executions from 14 July onwards as discussed infra", and a survivor states "all of a sudden there was a lot of shooting in the warehouse". A better source is needed, if it exists. Uglemat ( talk) 15:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be much confusion surrounding the "Second RS Report". There seems to be two related groups here, first the "Commission for the research of events in and around Srebrenica in 10 – 19 July 1995" ("Srebrenica Commission", or "Commission for Srebrenica") which issued two reports, one on 11 June, another one on 15 October 2004. Confusingly, both have been referred to as the "final report" in sources I've seen. There is also a second group, the "Working group for the enforcement of conclusions arising from Final Report of the Srebrenica Commission" [1].
Then there is the issue of the 892 names. The Amnesty Source cited [2] says
At the end of March 2005 the RS authorities subsequently forwarded a list of some 892 persons suspected of involvement in Srebrenica to the State Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina; the list included many still employed by the RS government.
Most sources seem to agree however, like Čekić wrote in the first source I've given, that:
[The Working Group] established the number of persons who were, in March 2005, on leading positions within the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, entities, and municipalities (SIPA, OSA, DGS, Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Defense, the Republika Srpska Ministry of Defense, the Republika Srpska Ministry of Interior, Judicial police, Misdemeanor courts, municipalities, etc.), who took part in the events in and around Srebrenica in 10 – 19 July 1995. The number is 892 persons.
It seems the Amnesty source is wrong, and therefore the wikipedia article as of now.
Uglemat ( talk) 16:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This book, chapter 7, seems to clear things up. The October report apparently is an addendum to the "final report" of June 2004, after a sudden batch of new documents. I haven't read it all yet. Uglemat ( talk) 22:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Looks like Bosnian genocide is duplicate article on the same subject. Soarwakes ( talk) 08:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 19:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 09:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The article suggests that the Dutch peacekeepers had a duty to protect the Bosniaks, but in fact they were just to monitor the exuction of the treaty of 1993 which was broken by the Bosniaks because of the actions of nasser oric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence ' Dutchbat soldiers in Srebrenica failed to prevent the town's capture by the VRS—and the subsequent massacre"because Dutchbatt soldiers didn't have the task to prevent a capture, it was not in the task. the task was to monitor the disarmament of the Bosniaks, not to prevent capture of the town, that was the task of NATO plains an they failed to bomb the Serbs, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
First my apologies, hdn't seen this message. I can show original resolution we had to work with in Dutchbatt II, but it's the same as the Un has, it's this one; https://undocs.org/S/RES/819(1993) Point 10 is the piece in which both parties had to ensure the safety of the UN troops, it doesn't say protection of the civillians. As a UN soldier you learn ( we had 3 months UN training) the priciples of peacekeeping. The most important is that you don't take sides. Protecting is taking sides. here's the UN charter for peacekeeping. I also can show the UN handbook we used, but it's in Dutch, you wont understand. This is the official UN webpage and these are the mandates of UN soldiers ( wear a blue helmet) https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mandates-and-legal-basis-peacekeeping UN soldiers may only use force when they have to protect themselves, they are not allowed to engage in combat by themselves, only to protect the mandate. The reason for Srebrenica was Disarmament of the muslim population. The serbs were the victems in that area. The interview between Karremans and Mladic is about the weapons, Karremans shows the list how many weapons they had taken from the muslims. That was the job in Srebrenica. Disarmament of the muslim population to protect themselves as general Morillion has also stated in the Hague in 2004.
This is the original mandate for ROA, but only when fired at; https://undocs.org/S/RES/836(1993) Doesn't talk about protection. I think people don't understand the mandate of UN soldiers, they can;t work as regular soldiers and they don't interfere in matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no source that talks about protection of the eneclave Srebrenica by UNPROFOR troops, the mandate doesn't talk about protection, the resolution doesn't talk about protection, so why is the Wikipedia article talking about protection? The neutrality of the article is questioned from know, Why is only the english wikipedia talking about protection when the mandate doesn't imply protection?
This is resolution 819 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930416a.htm
10. Further demands that all parties guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and of all other United Nations personnel as well as members of humanitarian organizations;
This is resolution 824 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930506a.htm This is not about protection;
Further declares that in these safe areas the following should be observed:The immediate cessation of armed attacks or any hostile act against these safe areas, and the withdrawal of all Bosnian Serb military or paramilitary units from these towns to a distance wherefrom they cease to constitute a menace to their security and that of their inhabitants to be monitored by United Nations military observers; Full respect by all parties of the rights of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the international humanitarian agencies to free and unimpeded access to all safe-areas in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and full respect for the safety of the personnel engaged in these operations
This is resolution 836 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930604a.htm point 5 is not about protection;
Decides to extend to that end the mandate of UNPROFOR in order to enable it, in the safe areas referred to in resolution 824 (1993), to deter attacks against the safe areas, to monitor the cease-fire, to promote the withdrawal of military or paramilitary units other than those of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to occupy some key points on the ground, in addition to participating in the delivery of humanitarian relief to the population as provided for in resolution 776 (1992) of 14 September 1992,
According to Dutch Minister of Defence at the time, Relus ter Beek, and hissuccessor Joris Voorhoeve, Dutchbat's mission was mainly humanitarian, which explains why the soldiers were not heavily armed. https://www.bradford.ac.uk/social-sciences/peace-conflict-and-development/issue-21/Srebrenica---a-dutch-national-trauma.pdf
In their work Lessons from Srebrenica, Honig and Both attempt to reconstructthe drama in order to conclude what should have been done differently. The authorsmainly criticize the international community for the escalation of events in Srebrenica, speaking sceptically about the 'United' Nations. According to them, the United Nations failed because moral incentives led to the formation of unrealistic goals, and because of the lack of collective will of the international community to use any degree of force.16 They claim that neither the instalment of safe areas nor the prevention of ethnic cleansing were feasible objectives, because the U.N. members lacked the political will to enforce security, and to risk more victims or hostages among their own soldiers than they had already sacrificed. https://www.bradford.ac.uk/social-sciences/peace-conflict-and-development/issue-21/Srebrenica---a-dutch-national-trauma.pdf
This wikipedia article suggest a protection of UN troops without providing an official source. So if they had to task or mandate to protect ( only protect freedom) how can it be a failure
All the tasks are clear in the mandate, Monitoring, provide humanitarian ade, but not providing protection for the civil population, the Resolution was the protection.-- Orange2000 ( talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It was ordered not to protect the people, clear orders of Genral Couzy and the high commad of the UN. Any partition would lead to more shootings at UN soldiers, which was happening around bomb alley. I served mostley with th Staff in Busovaca and in Zepa as a monitor. Your implying that we don't understand a mandate, that's also insulting. If there was mandate to protect the civilians it should have been mentioned in the resolution. Without any form of resolution or mandate you have no authrity to react. Your suggestion about my role is just Argumentum ad hominem. The rticle implies a protection without showing any source that supports that allegation of protection. At the time of Dutchbatt III i was in the Netherlands but the mandate was the same for all troops in Bosnia. I have shown the documents so the article is not neutral. It's out of date, because the Ducth court has changed it's ruling already. Wikipedia should be a nutral source supported by real sources, not just assumptions from people. UN personell is not allowed to interven, everyone who served with Un knows. The quistion should be what you conflict of interst is? Can you show me one source in which it is written and from the UN were it is said that UN troops had the task to protect the Bosniaks in Srebrenica, just show me to convince, i have shown the documents which supports that UN troops had no task to protect. Your are implying that the UN took part in attacks against the Serbs, that would mean the UN was not disarming the Bosniaks ( maintask). Never seen such a stubborn person. It's clear you don't understand UN peacekeeping and the resolutions if you still keep repeating. And no your not aware there were 4 Dutch batallions. Not everyone in Bosnia served in Srebrenica, it was a big enclave. At last i will give you agin the most important detail of the resolution, if your going to deny this phrase it's pretty sure there is ina conflict of interest.
10. Further demands that all parties guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and of all other United Nations personnel as well as members of humanitarian organizations;
https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930416a.htm
-- Orange2000 ( talk) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Your suggestion about my role is just Argumentum ad hominem.If you mean the conflict of interest, it's not ad hominem. It's a valid issue that must be brought up.
The rticle implies a protection without showing any source that supports that allegation of protection.The article states that Dutchbat didn't protect the civilians in Srebrenica, since that's what the reliable sources state. Could you point the section that is not covered by a RS?
Wikipedia should be a nutral source supported by real sources, not just assumptions from people.Sources that Wikipedia uses are written by people, I think we can agree that it's the way the things work right now. However, WP:SYNTH refers to taking multiple sources, doing your own investigation and coming up with a conclusion. If WP:SYNTH is happening, please point us to the part of the article where an editor has used primary sources to deduct a conclusion that is not supported by WP:RS.
UN personell is not allowed to interven, everyone who served with Un knows.That fails WP:V. Ask anyone that knows about this is not a reliable source. If it's such a common knowledge, there must be a secondary source somewhere.
Can you show me one source in which it is written and from the UNThat's a primary source. It should be avoided if secondary sources are available.
Statement Dutch Commander in Chief Lietenant general Hans Couzy on Dutch (televison) NOS news 24-01-1994
"Als de bevolking wordt aangevallen dan is het zelf maximaal dekking zoeken en buiten die strijd blijven"
Aerticle Harvard International Review
"If the population is attacked then it is maximum coverage and remain outside that struggle"
Defenders of the Dutch peacekeeping battalion (Dutchbat) at Srebrenica rightly point out that the soldiers had no chance of defending the town against the larger, better-armed force of Bosnian Serbs.
Resolution 836 designated Srebrenica a "safe area" and empowered UNPROFOR troops only to deter, rather than actually repel, attacks on safe areas. NATO air power could be called in only to "support" the peacekeepers. Protection of Bosnian civilians was no one's responsibility.
...the abandonment of Srebrenica cannot be attributed solely to the actions of member states. By consciously employing a narrow interpretation of their mandate,...
Janvier and Akashi argued that the use of air power would not be the best interpretation of the mandate; afterwards, the all-important mandate was subordinated to the safety of the Dutch troops. In either case, the goal was to avoid the use of force at all costs, no matter how high.
http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=854
-- Orange2000 ( talk) 18:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the document in which Kofi Annan also stated that the UN soldiers take cover in case of an attack and not participate, to make it more clear is impossibkle, the evidence the article is not correct; https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB519-Srebrenica-conference-documents-detail-path-to-genocide-from-1993-to-1995/Documents/DOCUMENT%2004%20-%2019930423.pdf
-- Orange2000 ( talk) 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The description of the Srebrenica Massacre as a genocide in the very first line is rather non-neutral and inconsistent with the remainder of the article. While the ICTY and ICJ decisions were that the events at Srebrenica did constitute genocide, as noted later in the article such a labeling has been contested by a number of genocide scholars and other public figures.
Given that the ICTY/ICJ rulings and description of the events as genocide by most authorities are noted later within the introductory paragraph, I believe it more prudent for purposes of neutrality and consistency to substitute the word "genocide" for "killings" or "massacre" in the first sentence.
I in no way wish to minimize the events that took place at Srebrenica, as they do, by most reasonable standards, constitute an act of genocide. However, for the sake of encyclopedic integrity, I believe another wording is appropriate for the introductory line as the current one implies a level of consensus akin to, say, the characterization of the Holocaust as genocide - that is not the case.
Scrumptiousmuffin555 ( talk) 23:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Scrumptiousmuffin555
An IP contributor made an informationectomy, with the edit summary "these are not reliable sources, and this is about a living persopn WP:BLP".
I reverted this with the edit summary "As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries..."
Years ago another contributor questioned whether globalresearch.ca was a reliable source. They claimed it was associated with Andy Jones infowars. I determined it wasn't.
If the IP contributor thinks there is a genuine BLP issue with this paragraph, I encourage them to explain this here.
A couple of hours after I reverted a second IP contributor excised, again, this time with zero explanation.
So I am restoring the status quo wording... Geo Swan ( talk) 21:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Those who commit genocide will always have their apologists and deniers. Fairview360 ( talk) 12:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, the entirety of this page and section is nothing but propaganda. I served for UNPROFOR in that region and trust me, the number of Serb victims in the area was not "falsified" or exaggerated. According to the RDC, 3,500 Serbs were killed of which 1,000 were civilian victims. The entire article presents massively one side of the story (and I understand why, of course) but nonetheless this is supposed to be educational for people, not a pity parade or a propagandistic attempt to deny ALL ELSE that happened before and after the events in July 1995. This page honestly has almost no academic value to, really, anybody but Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Muslim nationalists. Indeed, the entire page seems to have been written with the blind nationalism of the 1990's revisited, of which the Muslims certainly fell prey to back then. In any event, the entirety of this article is comically one sided. It is as if the Bosnian Ministry of Information wrote the article themselves. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
167.187.101.222 (
talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you unsigned above. I have moved the Renaming heading and put in another - I hope that's OK. Plenty of evidence that shows the "Srebrenica massacre" was a fraud, but it's quite hard to find discussion by just Googling (wonder why). Here's one article: www.globalresearch.ca/the-srebrenica-massacre-was-a-gigantic-political-fraud/5321388. Bougatsa42 ( talk) 19:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, you are a FRAUD. To begin with, you never served in UNPROFOR. The number of Serv victims is bogus and falsified because if know Serves, they would have shrines to these so called victims. Point us to these so-called victims. There plethora of evidence supporting the truthiness of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.40.48 ( talk) 15:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I can confirm - whole article is propaganda and one sided view. Sources are very questionable and unreliable. Article represents Bosniak side of story, exclusively, not objective facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XerJoff ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC) — XerJoff ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Bougatsa42, Edward S. Herman is not reliable, at least not on the topic of Srebrenica and Rwanda (he also openly denied the Rwandan genocide). Herman and co. allow themselves extraordinary latitude in dismissing vast quantity of information, cherry picking certain things (which often are true—uncontroversial even, among knowledgeable scholars), thus supposedly exposing Americas conspiracy to dominate the entire world. Uglemat ( talk) 21:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Uglemat, You have not explained why Edward S. Herman is not reliable. It's curious that you dismiss out of hand the idea that the powerful want more power, though not relevant to this discussion. Bougatsa42 ( talk) 05:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Massacre more than downplays what happened. The most respected institutions have long recognized this as a genocide including the ICC. Yes there is Serbian/Russian opposition to this label, but much of the world are also opposed to labeling the Armenian genocide as a "genocide". Title should be changed to genocide ASAP. What a disgrace. Mozad655 ( talk) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Christians massacred Muslims. Yet, the word "Christian" is hardly mentioned. Instead, the word "orthodox" is used throughout. This is confusing, since both Muslims, Jews, Christians and others can be "orthodox". Is the word "Christian" being avoided because some Christians find this event embarrassing? Joreberg ( talk) 21:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The use of genocide in the first sentence is unwarranted from an academic perspective and it represents a level of consensus that is simply not the case. The citations provided for use of the label are court decisions that reflect a plethora of political concerns. The question of 'genocide' in Srebrenica in the comparative context of historical global genocide is an unresolved issue in international relations studies. The article later goes on to note several objections by major genocide historians to the classification of the massacre in Srebrenica as genocide.
I urge the depoliticiziation of the first line of this article, given the adequate description of the genocide debate throughout it. My own academic specialty is in comparative literature, with a focus on Jewish literary depictions of the Holocaust. That genocide and the events at Srebrenica are so fundamentally incomparable that to apply the label of genocide to the latter is, essentially, trite. Nevertheless, my reason for changing this element is to realign with the academic consensus (or lack thereof). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkatz9844 ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems that a blocked, troll-ish editor ( User:TryDeletingMe) has chosen to be an apologist for the genocidal murderers by inserting questionable details which excuse them, e.g. victims were mostly "military aged" men/boys, & the UN is to blame because it should have disarmed the defenders and tackled the army of killers. The edit was made on 26 Sep 2018 by User:TryDeletingMe and remains. In addition, the subsequent sentence that claims that the Dutchbat force "failed" to act and stop the massacre would appear to be profoundly misleading because (if I remember correctly) their 'rules of engagement' specifically & legally forbade them to do anything more than observe (apart from self-defence). Tragically, they complied with military discipline & obeyed their orders. Anyone interested in this? 59.102.49.226 ( talk) 03:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following sentence in the summary is giving undue blame to Dutchbat: "UNPROFOR's 370[13] Dutchbat soldiers in Srebrenica did not prevent the town's capture by the VRS—nor the subsequent massacre." It was not possible for Dutchbat to prevent the capture or massacre because they were forced to surrender to an overwhelmingly superior VRS army that had surrounded Srebrenica. While the capture and massacre took place, Dutchbat was no longer an entity capable of any action. The wording of the sentence, however, implies that they were. "Did not" implies there was a conscious decision not to do it. "Could not" would be a more accurate description of events. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Evertw (
talk •
contribs) 11:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Amanuensis Balkanicus I do not want to enter an edit war with you, and invite you to justify your mass scrubbing, of 20 my edits at one go [1]. The entire reason why I would make only small changes in each edit, is that there is specific reason for that edit, and if you disagree with that edit, you can undo that edit, without disrupting other changes.
This article, overall, is written badly, compared to the other genocide articles such as Rwanda genocide and the Holocaust. Many of its information is not supported by reliable sources, some of them do not have citations at all. The article also uses block quotes liberally without context. Some of these block quotes are used inaccurately, as they originated from ICTY judgments that had nothing to do with Srebrenica, or central Podrinje, at all. Further, the article does not provide a coherent narrative on the events surrounding the genocide, and misrepresent the events by omitting to include key details.
These are just some of the reasons that I tried to fix with my various edits. I can appreciate that you might disagree with some of these edits which you would want to undo. You may even be justified in doing so. But to undo 20 of these edits in one breath, on the basis that "the original prose flowed better", makes little sense to me. First of all, many of these edits are not even about the prose. Second, I highly question if the original prose really flowed better. The original prose used imprecise language, that frequently misleads.
I invite you to tackle each of these edits on its merits, instead of scrubbing all of these edits at one go, and throw the baby with the bathwater. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 04:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Mozad655, Shenme, and Peacemaker67: Why is this word "massacre" part of the article? I did not find information on whether such a title was decided in some RfC?
Reference note 73 leads to a subscription paywall. The article it refers to is available in full at: https://www.scribd.com/document/34162005/Sexual-Violence-Against-Women-in-Srebrenica-Genocide 2.31.162.27 ( talk) 03:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
sources for the people who are on trial are supposedly on trial right now are up to 10 years old. a quick google search found that one of the guys had already been sentenced over 8 years ago. Durraz0 ( talk) 19:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Early close per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 08:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica genocide – The event is internationally recognized as genocide and yet here it's called a massacre. This is disgraceful to the victims that died and a shameful rewriting of history and genocide denial on behalf of Wikipedia. Below I've provided only a couple of legal rulings, statements, and resolutions. There are plenty more on the internet, especially when it comes to national rulings but they obviously aren't in English.
The International Court of Justice ruling alone should be enough for this article to be called "Srebrenica genocide" but I guess the opinions of Wikipedia masterminds matter more than facts, truth and reality. The most common counter-argument I've seen is the "COMMON NAME" nonsense, citing news, media and opinion articles. I don't see how that's a valid argument at all, why should that take precedence over legal, diplomatic, and official rulings, statements, motions, etc.? I could write an article right now saying the sky is red, doesn't make it right. That's nothing more than genocide denial. Julius503 ( talk) 08:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Srebrenica massacre
vs. Srebrenica genocide
dropped sharply in 2003, but the former is still the dominant term by a factor of about 2.5. Per
WP:POVNAME, we may usually use a non-neutral name as the article title if it is the most common name for that topic. Not all genocides are named "X genocide". –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)The page is protected due to concerns of vandalism so I was unable to correct this myself. Whoever moderates this page might consider removing the first “July of 1995” and just leaving the one at the end of the sentence. Noetic-waldini ( talk) 07:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Heartssong ( talk) 13:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Shame on you Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of Serbian fascist propaganda based on fake Serbian stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB10:5E:6600:18FA:D6A:F0AD:DE57 ( talk) 12:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This is just sad, why is a Genocide labeled as a Massacre and not able to be moved? This site is a fucking joke.
I do agree that this article should be renamed as Srebrenica Genocide. The ICTY Trial and Appeals chamber has uniformly found the events are Srebrenica to constitute genocide. More importantly, the ICJ has made the same finding of genocide at Srebrenica in Bosnia vs Serbia. I can think of no higher and better authority on this issue than the ICJ judgment itself. Perhaps we should do a RFC on this issue? Any takers? HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 05:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ridiculous discussion going on here. Pet Court order and UN analysis it was a Genocide. You guys are falling for the same propaganda as Turkish Nationalists concerning the Armenian Genocide or Holocaust deniers. One can find more than enough "sources" that will deny the fact that they are a Genocide. And btw. this is mere semantics, some arbitrary term, that still holds certain implications. By denying the international body the privilege to set the naming convention, you are removing all possibility to sensibly make sense of the political fallout and the international consensus. Wikipedia is lost. TechMilk ( talk) 17:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement made by the former president of Serbia holds little importance. He is retired and already irrelevant, and he was not relevant to begin with. Please remove it from the lead. Thanks.
This
edit request to
Srebrenica massacre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this entry to your list of books on the Srebrenica massacre:
If you have questions re authenticity, contact Sudetic at (Redacted). 159.146.13.57 ( talk) 07:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Srebrenica massacre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the name of Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica Genocide, it was a genocide, you said it yourself, everyone calls it a genocide, international organizations call it a genocide, only genocide denialists call it a massacre just like they call the Armenian genocide a massacre, atrocity or tragedy, instead of genocide. 188.24.213.210 ( talk) 15:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. See discussions above.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 15:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Srebrenica massacre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rapes committed by the Perpetrators Reference:( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bosnian_War) Kchang441919 ( talk) 08:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
. Kchang441919 ( talk) 08:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Srebrenica massacre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Legal proceedings/International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia/Count 3/Municipalities, there are Bosanski Novi and Novi Grad stated. This is misleading as both towns are actually one identical town which changed its name - today's Novi Grad was previously Bosanski Novi. Thus I suggest to add a following commnets in the list: ... Bosanski Novi (today Novi Grad),... ... Novi Grad (formerly Bosanski Novi),... Zawadaz ( talk) 12:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
"Serbo-Croatian: Masakr u Srebrenici / Масакр у Сребреници" - This makes no sense. Croatian doesn't have cyrillic. The serbian cyrillic should be separate like this "Serbian cyrillic: Масакр у Сребреници" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.199.174 ( talk) 19:28, 31 December 2021 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
This part seems problematic:
The mass murder in Kravica seemed unplanned and seems to have started spontaneously when one of the warehouse doors suddenly swung open, according to trial testimony.
The reference given was a reuse of the name "un.org" which have had multiple declarations in the past. Now "un.org" has a single declaration and lots of incorrect re-uses. I could with a reasonably degree of certainty figure out what reference was actually supposed to have been used, however it ended up looking like original research. The Krstic Judgement notes that "The paucity of evidence implicating the Drina Corps in the commission of the mass executions on 13 July stands in contrast to the substantial evidence implicating the Drina Corps in the commission of the mass executions from 14 July onwards as discussed infra", and a survivor states "all of a sudden there was a lot of shooting in the warehouse". A better source is needed, if it exists. Uglemat ( talk) 15:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be much confusion surrounding the "Second RS Report". There seems to be two related groups here, first the "Commission for the research of events in and around Srebrenica in 10 – 19 July 1995" ("Srebrenica Commission", or "Commission for Srebrenica") which issued two reports, one on 11 June, another one on 15 October 2004. Confusingly, both have been referred to as the "final report" in sources I've seen. There is also a second group, the "Working group for the enforcement of conclusions arising from Final Report of the Srebrenica Commission" [1].
Then there is the issue of the 892 names. The Amnesty Source cited [2] says
At the end of March 2005 the RS authorities subsequently forwarded a list of some 892 persons suspected of involvement in Srebrenica to the State Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina; the list included many still employed by the RS government.
Most sources seem to agree however, like Čekić wrote in the first source I've given, that:
[The Working Group] established the number of persons who were, in March 2005, on leading positions within the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, entities, and municipalities (SIPA, OSA, DGS, Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Defense, the Republika Srpska Ministry of Defense, the Republika Srpska Ministry of Interior, Judicial police, Misdemeanor courts, municipalities, etc.), who took part in the events in and around Srebrenica in 10 – 19 July 1995. The number is 892 persons.
It seems the Amnesty source is wrong, and therefore the wikipedia article as of now.
Uglemat ( talk) 16:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This book, chapter 7, seems to clear things up. The October report apparently is an addendum to the "final report" of June 2004, after a sudden batch of new documents. I haven't read it all yet. Uglemat ( talk) 22:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Looks like Bosnian genocide is duplicate article on the same subject. Soarwakes ( talk) 08:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 19:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 09:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The article suggests that the Dutch peacekeepers had a duty to protect the Bosniaks, but in fact they were just to monitor the exuction of the treaty of 1993 which was broken by the Bosniaks because of the actions of nasser oric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence ' Dutchbat soldiers in Srebrenica failed to prevent the town's capture by the VRS—and the subsequent massacre"because Dutchbatt soldiers didn't have the task to prevent a capture, it was not in the task. the task was to monitor the disarmament of the Bosniaks, not to prevent capture of the town, that was the task of NATO plains an they failed to bomb the Serbs, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
First my apologies, hdn't seen this message. I can show original resolution we had to work with in Dutchbatt II, but it's the same as the Un has, it's this one; https://undocs.org/S/RES/819(1993) Point 10 is the piece in which both parties had to ensure the safety of the UN troops, it doesn't say protection of the civillians. As a UN soldier you learn ( we had 3 months UN training) the priciples of peacekeeping. The most important is that you don't take sides. Protecting is taking sides. here's the UN charter for peacekeeping. I also can show the UN handbook we used, but it's in Dutch, you wont understand. This is the official UN webpage and these are the mandates of UN soldiers ( wear a blue helmet) https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mandates-and-legal-basis-peacekeeping UN soldiers may only use force when they have to protect themselves, they are not allowed to engage in combat by themselves, only to protect the mandate. The reason for Srebrenica was Disarmament of the muslim population. The serbs were the victems in that area. The interview between Karremans and Mladic is about the weapons, Karremans shows the list how many weapons they had taken from the muslims. That was the job in Srebrenica. Disarmament of the muslim population to protect themselves as general Morillion has also stated in the Hague in 2004.
This is the original mandate for ROA, but only when fired at; https://undocs.org/S/RES/836(1993) Doesn't talk about protection. I think people don't understand the mandate of UN soldiers, they can;t work as regular soldiers and they don't interfere in matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no source that talks about protection of the eneclave Srebrenica by UNPROFOR troops, the mandate doesn't talk about protection, the resolution doesn't talk about protection, so why is the Wikipedia article talking about protection? The neutrality of the article is questioned from know, Why is only the english wikipedia talking about protection when the mandate doesn't imply protection?
This is resolution 819 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930416a.htm
10. Further demands that all parties guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and of all other United Nations personnel as well as members of humanitarian organizations;
This is resolution 824 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930506a.htm This is not about protection;
Further declares that in these safe areas the following should be observed:The immediate cessation of armed attacks or any hostile act against these safe areas, and the withdrawal of all Bosnian Serb military or paramilitary units from these towns to a distance wherefrom they cease to constitute a menace to their security and that of their inhabitants to be monitored by United Nations military observers; Full respect by all parties of the rights of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the international humanitarian agencies to free and unimpeded access to all safe-areas in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and full respect for the safety of the personnel engaged in these operations
This is resolution 836 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930604a.htm point 5 is not about protection;
Decides to extend to that end the mandate of UNPROFOR in order to enable it, in the safe areas referred to in resolution 824 (1993), to deter attacks against the safe areas, to monitor the cease-fire, to promote the withdrawal of military or paramilitary units other than those of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to occupy some key points on the ground, in addition to participating in the delivery of humanitarian relief to the population as provided for in resolution 776 (1992) of 14 September 1992,
According to Dutch Minister of Defence at the time, Relus ter Beek, and hissuccessor Joris Voorhoeve, Dutchbat's mission was mainly humanitarian, which explains why the soldiers were not heavily armed. https://www.bradford.ac.uk/social-sciences/peace-conflict-and-development/issue-21/Srebrenica---a-dutch-national-trauma.pdf
In their work Lessons from Srebrenica, Honig and Both attempt to reconstructthe drama in order to conclude what should have been done differently. The authorsmainly criticize the international community for the escalation of events in Srebrenica, speaking sceptically about the 'United' Nations. According to them, the United Nations failed because moral incentives led to the formation of unrealistic goals, and because of the lack of collective will of the international community to use any degree of force.16 They claim that neither the instalment of safe areas nor the prevention of ethnic cleansing were feasible objectives, because the U.N. members lacked the political will to enforce security, and to risk more victims or hostages among their own soldiers than they had already sacrificed. https://www.bradford.ac.uk/social-sciences/peace-conflict-and-development/issue-21/Srebrenica---a-dutch-national-trauma.pdf
This wikipedia article suggest a protection of UN troops without providing an official source. So if they had to task or mandate to protect ( only protect freedom) how can it be a failure
All the tasks are clear in the mandate, Monitoring, provide humanitarian ade, but not providing protection for the civil population, the Resolution was the protection.-- Orange2000 ( talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It was ordered not to protect the people, clear orders of Genral Couzy and the high commad of the UN. Any partition would lead to more shootings at UN soldiers, which was happening around bomb alley. I served mostley with th Staff in Busovaca and in Zepa as a monitor. Your implying that we don't understand a mandate, that's also insulting. If there was mandate to protect the civilians it should have been mentioned in the resolution. Without any form of resolution or mandate you have no authrity to react. Your suggestion about my role is just Argumentum ad hominem. The rticle implies a protection without showing any source that supports that allegation of protection. At the time of Dutchbatt III i was in the Netherlands but the mandate was the same for all troops in Bosnia. I have shown the documents so the article is not neutral. It's out of date, because the Ducth court has changed it's ruling already. Wikipedia should be a nutral source supported by real sources, not just assumptions from people. UN personell is not allowed to interven, everyone who served with Un knows. The quistion should be what you conflict of interst is? Can you show me one source in which it is written and from the UN were it is said that UN troops had the task to protect the Bosniaks in Srebrenica, just show me to convince, i have shown the documents which supports that UN troops had no task to protect. Your are implying that the UN took part in attacks against the Serbs, that would mean the UN was not disarming the Bosniaks ( maintask). Never seen such a stubborn person. It's clear you don't understand UN peacekeeping and the resolutions if you still keep repeating. And no your not aware there were 4 Dutch batallions. Not everyone in Bosnia served in Srebrenica, it was a big enclave. At last i will give you agin the most important detail of the resolution, if your going to deny this phrase it's pretty sure there is ina conflict of interest.
10. Further demands that all parties guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and of all other United Nations personnel as well as members of humanitarian organizations;
https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930416a.htm
-- Orange2000 ( talk) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Your suggestion about my role is just Argumentum ad hominem.If you mean the conflict of interest, it's not ad hominem. It's a valid issue that must be brought up.
The rticle implies a protection without showing any source that supports that allegation of protection.The article states that Dutchbat didn't protect the civilians in Srebrenica, since that's what the reliable sources state. Could you point the section that is not covered by a RS?
Wikipedia should be a nutral source supported by real sources, not just assumptions from people.Sources that Wikipedia uses are written by people, I think we can agree that it's the way the things work right now. However, WP:SYNTH refers to taking multiple sources, doing your own investigation and coming up with a conclusion. If WP:SYNTH is happening, please point us to the part of the article where an editor has used primary sources to deduct a conclusion that is not supported by WP:RS.
UN personell is not allowed to interven, everyone who served with Un knows.That fails WP:V. Ask anyone that knows about this is not a reliable source. If it's such a common knowledge, there must be a secondary source somewhere.
Can you show me one source in which it is written and from the UNThat's a primary source. It should be avoided if secondary sources are available.
Statement Dutch Commander in Chief Lietenant general Hans Couzy on Dutch (televison) NOS news 24-01-1994
"Als de bevolking wordt aangevallen dan is het zelf maximaal dekking zoeken en buiten die strijd blijven"
Aerticle Harvard International Review
"If the population is attacked then it is maximum coverage and remain outside that struggle"
Defenders of the Dutch peacekeeping battalion (Dutchbat) at Srebrenica rightly point out that the soldiers had no chance of defending the town against the larger, better-armed force of Bosnian Serbs.
Resolution 836 designated Srebrenica a "safe area" and empowered UNPROFOR troops only to deter, rather than actually repel, attacks on safe areas. NATO air power could be called in only to "support" the peacekeepers. Protection of Bosnian civilians was no one's responsibility.
...the abandonment of Srebrenica cannot be attributed solely to the actions of member states. By consciously employing a narrow interpretation of their mandate,...
Janvier and Akashi argued that the use of air power would not be the best interpretation of the mandate; afterwards, the all-important mandate was subordinated to the safety of the Dutch troops. In either case, the goal was to avoid the use of force at all costs, no matter how high.
http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=854
-- Orange2000 ( talk) 18:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the document in which Kofi Annan also stated that the UN soldiers take cover in case of an attack and not participate, to make it more clear is impossibkle, the evidence the article is not correct; https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB519-Srebrenica-conference-documents-detail-path-to-genocide-from-1993-to-1995/Documents/DOCUMENT%2004%20-%2019930423.pdf
-- Orange2000 ( talk) 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The description of the Srebrenica Massacre as a genocide in the very first line is rather non-neutral and inconsistent with the remainder of the article. While the ICTY and ICJ decisions were that the events at Srebrenica did constitute genocide, as noted later in the article such a labeling has been contested by a number of genocide scholars and other public figures.
Given that the ICTY/ICJ rulings and description of the events as genocide by most authorities are noted later within the introductory paragraph, I believe it more prudent for purposes of neutrality and consistency to substitute the word "genocide" for "killings" or "massacre" in the first sentence.
I in no way wish to minimize the events that took place at Srebrenica, as they do, by most reasonable standards, constitute an act of genocide. However, for the sake of encyclopedic integrity, I believe another wording is appropriate for the introductory line as the current one implies a level of consensus akin to, say, the characterization of the Holocaust as genocide - that is not the case.
Scrumptiousmuffin555 ( talk) 23:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Scrumptiousmuffin555
An IP contributor made an informationectomy, with the edit summary "these are not reliable sources, and this is about a living persopn WP:BLP".
I reverted this with the edit summary "As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries..."
Years ago another contributor questioned whether globalresearch.ca was a reliable source. They claimed it was associated with Andy Jones infowars. I determined it wasn't.
If the IP contributor thinks there is a genuine BLP issue with this paragraph, I encourage them to explain this here.
A couple of hours after I reverted a second IP contributor excised, again, this time with zero explanation.
So I am restoring the status quo wording... Geo Swan ( talk) 21:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Those who commit genocide will always have their apologists and deniers. Fairview360 ( talk) 12:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, the entirety of this page and section is nothing but propaganda. I served for UNPROFOR in that region and trust me, the number of Serb victims in the area was not "falsified" or exaggerated. According to the RDC, 3,500 Serbs were killed of which 1,000 were civilian victims. The entire article presents massively one side of the story (and I understand why, of course) but nonetheless this is supposed to be educational for people, not a pity parade or a propagandistic attempt to deny ALL ELSE that happened before and after the events in July 1995. This page honestly has almost no academic value to, really, anybody but Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Muslim nationalists. Indeed, the entire page seems to have been written with the blind nationalism of the 1990's revisited, of which the Muslims certainly fell prey to back then. In any event, the entirety of this article is comically one sided. It is as if the Bosnian Ministry of Information wrote the article themselves. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
167.187.101.222 (
talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you unsigned above. I have moved the Renaming heading and put in another - I hope that's OK. Plenty of evidence that shows the "Srebrenica massacre" was a fraud, but it's quite hard to find discussion by just Googling (wonder why). Here's one article: www.globalresearch.ca/the-srebrenica-massacre-was-a-gigantic-political-fraud/5321388. Bougatsa42 ( talk) 19:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, you are a FRAUD. To begin with, you never served in UNPROFOR. The number of Serv victims is bogus and falsified because if know Serves, they would have shrines to these so called victims. Point us to these so-called victims. There plethora of evidence supporting the truthiness of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.40.48 ( talk) 15:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I can confirm - whole article is propaganda and one sided view. Sources are very questionable and unreliable. Article represents Bosniak side of story, exclusively, not objective facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XerJoff ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC) — XerJoff ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Bougatsa42, Edward S. Herman is not reliable, at least not on the topic of Srebrenica and Rwanda (he also openly denied the Rwandan genocide). Herman and co. allow themselves extraordinary latitude in dismissing vast quantity of information, cherry picking certain things (which often are true—uncontroversial even, among knowledgeable scholars), thus supposedly exposing Americas conspiracy to dominate the entire world. Uglemat ( talk) 21:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Uglemat, You have not explained why Edward S. Herman is not reliable. It's curious that you dismiss out of hand the idea that the powerful want more power, though not relevant to this discussion. Bougatsa42 ( talk) 05:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Massacre more than downplays what happened. The most respected institutions have long recognized this as a genocide including the ICC. Yes there is Serbian/Russian opposition to this label, but much of the world are also opposed to labeling the Armenian genocide as a "genocide". Title should be changed to genocide ASAP. What a disgrace. Mozad655 ( talk) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Christians massacred Muslims. Yet, the word "Christian" is hardly mentioned. Instead, the word "orthodox" is used throughout. This is confusing, since both Muslims, Jews, Christians and others can be "orthodox". Is the word "Christian" being avoided because some Christians find this event embarrassing? Joreberg ( talk) 21:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The use of genocide in the first sentence is unwarranted from an academic perspective and it represents a level of consensus that is simply not the case. The citations provided for use of the label are court decisions that reflect a plethora of political concerns. The question of 'genocide' in Srebrenica in the comparative context of historical global genocide is an unresolved issue in international relations studies. The article later goes on to note several objections by major genocide historians to the classification of the massacre in Srebrenica as genocide.
I urge the depoliticiziation of the first line of this article, given the adequate description of the genocide debate throughout it. My own academic specialty is in comparative literature, with a focus on Jewish literary depictions of the Holocaust. That genocide and the events at Srebrenica are so fundamentally incomparable that to apply the label of genocide to the latter is, essentially, trite. Nevertheless, my reason for changing this element is to realign with the academic consensus (or lack thereof). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkatz9844 ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems that a blocked, troll-ish editor ( User:TryDeletingMe) has chosen to be an apologist for the genocidal murderers by inserting questionable details which excuse them, e.g. victims were mostly "military aged" men/boys, & the UN is to blame because it should have disarmed the defenders and tackled the army of killers. The edit was made on 26 Sep 2018 by User:TryDeletingMe and remains. In addition, the subsequent sentence that claims that the Dutchbat force "failed" to act and stop the massacre would appear to be profoundly misleading because (if I remember correctly) their 'rules of engagement' specifically & legally forbade them to do anything more than observe (apart from self-defence). Tragically, they complied with military discipline & obeyed their orders. Anyone interested in this? 59.102.49.226 ( talk) 03:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following sentence in the summary is giving undue blame to Dutchbat: "UNPROFOR's 370[13] Dutchbat soldiers in Srebrenica did not prevent the town's capture by the VRS—nor the subsequent massacre." It was not possible for Dutchbat to prevent the capture or massacre because they were forced to surrender to an overwhelmingly superior VRS army that had surrounded Srebrenica. While the capture and massacre took place, Dutchbat was no longer an entity capable of any action. The wording of the sentence, however, implies that they were. "Did not" implies there was a conscious decision not to do it. "Could not" would be a more accurate description of events. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Evertw (
talk •
contribs) 11:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Amanuensis Balkanicus I do not want to enter an edit war with you, and invite you to justify your mass scrubbing, of 20 my edits at one go [1]. The entire reason why I would make only small changes in each edit, is that there is specific reason for that edit, and if you disagree with that edit, you can undo that edit, without disrupting other changes.
This article, overall, is written badly, compared to the other genocide articles such as Rwanda genocide and the Holocaust. Many of its information is not supported by reliable sources, some of them do not have citations at all. The article also uses block quotes liberally without context. Some of these block quotes are used inaccurately, as they originated from ICTY judgments that had nothing to do with Srebrenica, or central Podrinje, at all. Further, the article does not provide a coherent narrative on the events surrounding the genocide, and misrepresent the events by omitting to include key details.
These are just some of the reasons that I tried to fix with my various edits. I can appreciate that you might disagree with some of these edits which you would want to undo. You may even be justified in doing so. But to undo 20 of these edits in one breath, on the basis that "the original prose flowed better", makes little sense to me. First of all, many of these edits are not even about the prose. Second, I highly question if the original prose really flowed better. The original prose used imprecise language, that frequently misleads.
I invite you to tackle each of these edits on its merits, instead of scrubbing all of these edits at one go, and throw the baby with the bathwater. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 04:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Mozad655, Shenme, and Peacemaker67: Why is this word "massacre" part of the article? I did not find information on whether such a title was decided in some RfC?
Reference note 73 leads to a subscription paywall. The article it refers to is available in full at: https://www.scribd.com/document/34162005/Sexual-Violence-Against-Women-in-Srebrenica-Genocide 2.31.162.27 ( talk) 03:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
sources for the people who are on trial are supposedly on trial right now are up to 10 years old. a quick google search found that one of the guys had already been sentenced over 8 years ago. Durraz0 ( talk) 19:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Early close per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 08:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica genocide – The event is internationally recognized as genocide and yet here it's called a massacre. This is disgraceful to the victims that died and a shameful rewriting of history and genocide denial on behalf of Wikipedia. Below I've provided only a couple of legal rulings, statements, and resolutions. There are plenty more on the internet, especially when it comes to national rulings but they obviously aren't in English.
The International Court of Justice ruling alone should be enough for this article to be called "Srebrenica genocide" but I guess the opinions of Wikipedia masterminds matter more than facts, truth and reality. The most common counter-argument I've seen is the "COMMON NAME" nonsense, citing news, media and opinion articles. I don't see how that's a valid argument at all, why should that take precedence over legal, diplomatic, and official rulings, statements, motions, etc.? I could write an article right now saying the sky is red, doesn't make it right. That's nothing more than genocide denial. Julius503 ( talk) 08:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Srebrenica massacre
vs. Srebrenica genocide
dropped sharply in 2003, but the former is still the dominant term by a factor of about 2.5. Per
WP:POVNAME, we may usually use a non-neutral name as the article title if it is the most common name for that topic. Not all genocides are named "X genocide". –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)The page is protected due to concerns of vandalism so I was unable to correct this myself. Whoever moderates this page might consider removing the first “July of 1995” and just leaving the one at the end of the sentence. Noetic-waldini ( talk) 07:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Heartssong ( talk) 13:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Shame on you Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of Serbian fascist propaganda based on fake Serbian stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB10:5E:6600:18FA:D6A:F0AD:DE57 ( talk) 12:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This is just sad, why is a Genocide labeled as a Massacre and not able to be moved? This site is a fucking joke.
I do agree that this article should be renamed as Srebrenica Genocide. The ICTY Trial and Appeals chamber has uniformly found the events are Srebrenica to constitute genocide. More importantly, the ICJ has made the same finding of genocide at Srebrenica in Bosnia vs Serbia. I can think of no higher and better authority on this issue than the ICJ judgment itself. Perhaps we should do a RFC on this issue? Any takers? HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 05:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ridiculous discussion going on here. Pet Court order and UN analysis it was a Genocide. You guys are falling for the same propaganda as Turkish Nationalists concerning the Armenian Genocide or Holocaust deniers. One can find more than enough "sources" that will deny the fact that they are a Genocide. And btw. this is mere semantics, some arbitrary term, that still holds certain implications. By denying the international body the privilege to set the naming convention, you are removing all possibility to sensibly make sense of the political fallout and the international consensus. Wikipedia is lost. TechMilk ( talk) 17:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement made by the former president of Serbia holds little importance. He is retired and already irrelevant, and he was not relevant to begin with. Please remove it from the lead. Thanks.
This
edit request to
Srebrenica massacre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this entry to your list of books on the Srebrenica massacre:
If you have questions re authenticity, contact Sudetic at (Redacted). 159.146.13.57 ( talk) 07:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Srebrenica massacre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the name of Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica Genocide, it was a genocide, you said it yourself, everyone calls it a genocide, international organizations call it a genocide, only genocide denialists call it a massacre just like they call the Armenian genocide a massacre, atrocity or tragedy, instead of genocide. 188.24.213.210 ( talk) 15:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. See discussions above.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 15:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Srebrenica massacre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rapes committed by the Perpetrators Reference:( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bosnian_War) Kchang441919 ( talk) 08:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
. Kchang441919 ( talk) 08:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Srebrenica massacre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Legal proceedings/International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia/Count 3/Municipalities, there are Bosanski Novi and Novi Grad stated. This is misleading as both towns are actually one identical town which changed its name - today's Novi Grad was previously Bosanski Novi. Thus I suggest to add a following commnets in the list: ... Bosanski Novi (today Novi Grad),... ... Novi Grad (formerly Bosanski Novi),... Zawadaz ( talk) 12:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
"Serbo-Croatian: Masakr u Srebrenici / Масакр у Сребреници" - This makes no sense. Croatian doesn't have cyrillic. The serbian cyrillic should be separate like this "Serbian cyrillic: Масакр у Сребреници" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.199.174 ( talk) 19:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)