Jump to content

Talk:Bosnian genocide/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Change title

Hi, I would propose changing the title of the article from capital Genocide to genocide with a small g since I don't think it's a proper noun (or whatever a noun that's a proper name is called in English).Osli73 (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a title for an event and correct grammatically. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The title is clearly misleading and also heavily biased in its framing/interpretation of events. According to the ICTY there was only one instance of genocide in Bosnia – the Srebrenica massacre. Ethnic cleansing alone does not constitute genocide. The title should be changed to “ethnic cleansing in Bosnia” (covering ethnic cleansing of/by all groups, not just by serb militia) or it should be merged with wider articles on the war in Bosnia. The article is in fact redundant and it's existance (with it's current title) constitute POV. 80.202.103.192 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

By looking at the main article on the Bosnian war I realize that "War Crimes" would be a more neutral title for the current article. This could probably solve most of the POV issues evoked by the controversial label "genocide". Regards, 158.37.104.16 (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The ICTY has only found individuals guilty of the crime of genocide in relation to the massacre at Srebrenica. That is not the same as saying that "According to the ICTY there was only one instance of genocide in Bosnia". The Trial Chamber's judgment in the Krajisnik case found that the "actus reus" - the fact of genocide - had been proven. Momcilo Krajisnik himself was not convicted of genocide because the court found that the "mens rea" - intention to commit the crime - had not been adequately demonstrated. In other words there has been no finding of responsibility for genocide in Bosnia, but the fact of genocide in Bosnia has been established. -- Opbeith (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't quite understand your argument. Do you mean that ICTY has ruled that there was a general genocide in Bosnia? Please clarify. I agree that although ICTY has found individuals guilty of genocide only in relation to Srebrenica, that does not rule out other incidents of genocide or even a general genocide in Bosnia. In any case, this article is still about allegations of genocide in Bosnia (beyond Srebrenica), not about such a general genocide as an established fact. Mondeo (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the lead, March 2008

I have reverted changes to the lead, as I think that the current compromise is better than the editions that user:The Dragon of Bosnia (TDoB) had made in the last 24 hours. The reason for this is that the lead now consists of three paragraphs. The first is a description of what the term may refer to. The second and third give a brief balanced overview of the two views on the concept of a general Bosnian Genocide.

I think the balance and the English used is better that the English used in the TDoB version. I have asked in the history of the article that the changes by TDoB be discussed here and agreed before major changes are made to the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

2 things? 1. Why protection for God's sake? 2. This is all but balanced version! Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Commited by individuals

I reverted the edit "202.175.90.250 (concept of individual/s responsibility from the Statute of ICTY)" For two reasons:

Reason 1: (f) The Appeals Chamber's preliminary conclusion regarding the Trial Chamber's finding of Radislav Krstic's genocidal intent

134: As has been demonstrated, all that the evidence can establish is that Krstic was aware of the intent to commit genocide on the part of some members of the VRS Main Staff, and with that knowledge, he did nothing to prevent the use of Drina Corps personnel and resources to facilitate those killings. This knowledge on his part alone cannot support an inference of genocidal intent. Genocide is one of the worst crimes known to humankind, and its gravity is reflected in the stringent requirement of specific intent. Convictions for genocide can be entered only where that intent has been unequivocally established. There was a demonstrable failure by the Trial Chamber to supply adequate proof that Radislav Krstic possessed the genocidal intent. Krstic, therefore, is not guilty of genocide as a principal perpetrator.

...

137: As has been found above, it was reasonable for the Trial Chamber to conclude that, at least from 15 July 1995, Radislav Krstic had knowledge of the genocidal intent of some of the Members of the VRS Main Staff. Radislav Krstic was aware that the Main Staff had insufficient resources of its own to carry out the executions and that, without the use of Drina Corps resources, the Main Staff would not have been able to implement its genocidal plan. Krstic knew that by allowing Drina Corps resources to be used he was making a substantial contribution to the execution of the Bosnian Muslim prisoners. Although the evidence suggests that Radislav Krstic was not a supporter of that plan, as Commander of the Drina Corps he permitted the Main Staff to call upon Drina Corps resources and to employ those resources. The criminal liability of Krstic is therefore more properly expressed as that of an aider and abettor to genocide, and not as that of a perpetrator. This charge is fairly encompassed by the indictment, which alleged that Radislav Krstic aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of genocide against the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. [My emphasise and footnotes removed]

One can not be an aider and abettor to genocide unless a genocide was committed by others.

Reason 2 The sentence changed in the article was "To date only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be an act of genocide by the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ." to "To date only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be an act of genocide commited by individuals accoriding to the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ". Implies that the ICJ also found genocide only be individuals but the ICJ did not find that what it found was:

quoting the findings in the Krstić case, in which the Appeals Chamber endorsed the findings of the Trial Chamber in the following terms:

"In this case, having identified the protected group as the national group of Bosnian Muslims, the Trial Chamber concluded that the part the VRS Main Staff and Radislav Krstić targeted was the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, or the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia. This conclusion comports with the guidelines outlined above. The size of the Bosnian Muslim population in Srebrenica prior to its capture by the VRS forces in 1995 amounted to approximately forty thousand people. This represented not only the Muslim inhabitants of the Srebrenica municipality but also many Muslim refugees from the surrounding region. Although this population constituted only a small percentage of the overall Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time, the importance of the Muslim community of Srebrenica is not captured solely by its size." [My Emphasise]

The [ICJ] sees no reason to disagree with the concordant findings of the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber.

"the VRS Main Staff" is not an individual.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, I think you've missed a central point - the VRS Main Staff cannot be charged with genocide, it is only the individuals comprising it who can. The ICTY is able to find individuals guilty of genocide. The ICJ is able to rule that collectivities - countries - are guilty of genocide. (nb my analysis as a non-lawyer) --Opbeith (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the ICC or the ICJ?? I am a non-lawyer too, but as far as I can understand the ICJ can only rule in disputes between member states, including that of the role of Serbia/Montenegro (as a state) in the Srebrenica massacre. Mondeo (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
See the wording above although only a person can do jail time, it is quite possible for a person to be a member of a criminal conspiracy that commits a crime (a very common concept in common law that is used in international law a well). The wording of the quoted sections above make it clear that there was an "intent to commit genocide on the part of some members of the VRS Main Staff" this is not a random collection of individuals but individuals in an organisation. This is a well trod path from the Trial of German Major War Criminals and the findings against the German General Staff.[1] See Krstic - Judgement - Part III. Do a search on "joint criminal enterprise" for an explanation of the word:
  • "601 'Joint criminal enterprise' liability is a form of criminal responsibility which the Appeals Chamber found to be implicitly included in Article 7(1) of the Statute . It entails individual responsibility for participation in a joint criminal enterprise to commit a crime;"
  • 602 examines the argument put forward by Opbeith above and reject it. (see also 605)
  • 619 nails it "The Trial Chamber has made findings that, as of 13 July, the plan to ethnically cleanse the area of Srebrenica escalated to a far more insidious level that included killing all of the military-aged Bosnian Muslim men of Srebrenica. A transfer of the men after screening for war criminals - the purported reason for their separation from the women, children and elderly at Potocari - to Bosnian Muslim held territory or to prisons to await a prisoner exchange was at some point considered an inadequate mode for assuring the ethnic cleansing of Srebrenica. Killing the men, in addition to forcibly transferring the women, children and elderly, became the object of the newly elevated joint criminal enterprise of General Mladic and VRS Main Staff personnel . The Trial Chamber concluded that this campaign to kill all the military aged men was conducted to guarantee that the Bosnian Muslim population would be permanently eradicated from Srebrenica and therefore constituted genocide."
  • The section "(i) Participation in the genocidal joint criminal enterprise to kill the military-aged men" lists the organisations that were part of the joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide.
This is why I reverted the edit that changed the wording from "To date only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be an act of genocide by the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ." to "To date only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be an act of genocide commited by individuals accoriding to the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbian democratic media about the genocide supported by Serbia

Is Serbia Guilty Of Genocide? James Lyon (9 April, 2007 - 18:03) Serbian MUP About To Kill Srebrenica CiviliansSince the ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague many in Serbia have rejoiced that the Serbian state was not found guilty of genocide. The failed, however, to note that the ICJ found Serbia guilty of violating the Convention on Genocide. Many have also failed to actually ask the question as to whether -- the ICJ verdict aside -- Serbia did in fact commit genocide.

An interesting article appeared in the International Herald Tribune and New York Times on 9 April discussing this issue. The link and text are below. Read them. Then ask the question question why official Belgrade still refuses to turn over the archives. Is Belgrade in fact guilty? If not, then what does it have to hide?

link

Genocide Court Ruled for Serbia Without Seeing Full War Archive By MARLISE SIMONS

Published: April 9, 2007

THE HAGUE — In the spring of 2003, during the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, hundreds of documents arrived at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague marked “Defense. State Secret. Strictly Confidential.”

The cache contained minutes of wartime meetings of Yugoslavia’s political and military leaders, and promised the best inside view of Serbia’s role in the Bosnian war of 1992-1995.

But there was a catch. Serbia, the heir to Yugoslavia, obtained the tribunal’s permission to keep parts of the archives out of the public eye. Citing national security, its lawyers blacked out many sensitive — those who have seen them say incriminating — pages. Judges and lawyers at the war crimes tribunal could see the censored material, but it was barred from the tribunal’s public records.

Now, lawyers and others who were involved in Serbia’s bid for secrecy say that, at the time, Belgrade made its true objective clear: to keep the full military archives from the International Court of Justice, where Bosnia was suing Serbia for genocide. And they say Belgrade’s goal was achieved in February, when the international court, which is also in The Hague, declared Serbia not guilty of genocide, and absolved it from paying potentially enormous damages.

Lawyers interviewed in The Hague and Belgrade said that the outcome might well have been different had the International Court of Justice pressed for access to the full archives, and legal scholars and human rights groups said it was deeply troubling that the judges did not subpoena the documents directly from Serbia. At one point, the court rebuffed a Bosnian request that it demand the full documents, saying that ample evidence was available in tribunal records.

“It’s a question that nags loudly,” Diane Orentlicher, a law professor at American University in Washington, said recently in The Hague. “Why didn’t the court request the full documents? The fact that they were blacked out clearly implies these passages would have made a difference.”

The ruling — which was binding and final — was in many ways meticulous, and acknowledged that the 15 judges had not seen the censored archives. But it did not say why the court did not order Serbia to provide the full documents.

Two of the judges themselves criticized that failure in strongly worded dissents. One, the court’s vice president, Awn Shawkat al-Khasawneh of Jordan, wrote that “regrettably the court failed to act,” adding, “It is a reasonable expectation that those documents would have shed light on the central questions.”

As part of its ruling, the court said that the 1995 massacre of nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica, a designated United Nations safe haven in eastern Bosnia, was an act of genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces, but that it lacked proof in this case that the forces were acting under Serbia’s “direction” or “effective control.”

The ruling raised some eyebrows because details of Serbian military involvement were already known from records of earlier tribunal cases. For instance, evidence showed that in late 1993, more than 1,800 officers and noncommissioned men from the Yugoslav Army were serving in the Bosnian Serb army, and were deployed, paid, promoted or retired by Belgrade.

These and many other men, including top generals, were given dual identities, and to help handle that development, Belgrade created the so-called 30th personnel center of the general staff, a secret office for dealing with officers listed in both armies. The court took note of that, but said that Belgrade’s “substantial support” did not automatically make the Bosnian Serb army a Serbian agent.

However, lawyers who have seen the archives and further secret personnel files say they address Serbia’s control and direction even more directly, revealing in new and vivid detail how Belgrade financed and supplied the war in Bosnia, and how the Bosnian Serb army, though officially separate after 1992, remained virtually an extension of the Yugoslav Army. They said the archives showed in verbatim records and summaries of meetings that Serbian forces, including secret police, played a role in the takeover of Srebrenica and in the preparation of the massacre there.

The lawyers spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they could be held in contempt of court.

The story of the blacked-out documents, pieced together from more than 20 interviews with lawyers and court officials and from public records, offers rare insight into proceedings in The Hague, where hearings can turn into closed sessions and deals often happen behind closed doors.

It took the tribunal prosecutors of Mr. Milosevic two years of talks, court orders and diplomatic pressure for Belgrade to hand over the documents — the much coveted minutes of the Supreme Defense Council. The council was created in 1992 when Serb-dominated Yugoslavia was fighting for more land for Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia.

When the documents were handed over, the lawyers said, a team from Belgrade made it clear in letters to the tribunal and in meetings with prosecutors and judges that it wanted the documents expurgated to keep them from harming Serbia’s case at the International Court of Justice. The Serbs made no secret of that even as they argued their case for “national security,” said one of the lawyers, adding, “The senior people here knew about this.”

Confidentiality rules to protect “national security interests” have often been invoked at the tribunal, including by the United States, which has privately provided intelligence like intercepts and satellite images to assist prosecutors.

When Belgrade’s lawyers met with tribunal judges to request secrecy for their archives, they produced a letter of support from Carla Del Ponte, the tribunal’s chief prosecutor.

In a recent interview, Mrs. Del Ponte confirmed that she had sent a letter in May 2003 to the former Serbian foreign minister, Goran Svilanovic, saying she would accept the sealing of “reasonable” portions of the records. “It was a long fight to get the documents, and in the end because of time constraints we agreed,” she said. “They were extremely valuable for the conviction of Slobodan Milosevic.” Mr. Milosevic died before his trial was over.

After the tribunal judges approved Belgrade’s request to keep sections of the military archives secret, Vladimir Djeric, a member of the Serbian team, told lawyers there that “we could not believe our luck.” Mr. Djeric, now a private lawyer in Belgrade, said by telephone that he could not discuss his former duties.

Tantalizing glimpses of the secrets of the Supreme Defense Council — whose agenda included the military budget, promotions and retirement of generals — can be gleaned elsewhere. Uncensored parts of the archives obtained by The New York Times include minutes of sessions between 1993 and 1995, when the war in Bosnia was in full swing.

Those meetings in Belgrade were attended by the presidents of then Yugoslavia, its constituent states of Serbia and Montenegro, and the top military command, including Gen. Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb military leader twice indicted by the tribunal on charges that include genocide. He remains a fugitive.

A recent book, “Unspoken Defense,” by Momir Bulatovic, a former president of Montenegro who attended many sessions of the Defense Council, said that in 1994, when more than 4,000 men on Serbia’s payroll were fighting in Bosnia, the council discussed abolishing the 30th personnel center because its discovery might cause political problems.

Lawyers and human rights groups have searched with special interest for council records from the summer of 1995, when Srebrenica was overrun by soldiers and police officers, many of them, tribunal records show, in the pay of Serbia. After the massacre there, the council met three times, with General Mladic attending at least one session. Verbatim transcripts of those days are missing even from the secret archives, lawyers said.

Bosnia’s team at the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, was convinced that the archives and the military personnel files were central to their case. Before hearings opened in 2006, Bosnia asked the court to request that Serbia provide an uncensored version of the documents. The court refused, saying that “extensive evidence” was available at the war crimes tribunal. When Bosnia pressed during hearings, the court ignored the request.

In an interview, Rosalyn Higgins, the president of the World Court, declined to say why the uncensored archives were not subpoenaed. She said it was the court’s practice not to discuss its findings. “The ruling speaks for itself,” she said.

But the dissents from Judge Khasawneh and another judge criticized the court on that count. The second dissent, by Ahmed Mahiou of Algeria, said that judges had several reasons — “none of them sufficiently convincing” — including a fear of creating the impression that the court was taking sides, that it might intrude on the sovereignty of a state, or that it might be embarrassed if Serbia refused.

Phon van den Biesen, a lawyer on the Bosnian team, said the full documents would probably have demonstrated that the Bosnian Serb forces were agents of Serbia, controlled by Belgrade.

“This would have made Serbia liable for the Srebrenica genocide,” Mr. van den Biesen said. “We believe all this can be found in the documents. The cuts are made whenever the agenda turns to financing and to personnel matters. That’s why Serbia went to such lengths to hide them from us.”

William Schabas, a professor of international law at the University of Ireland in Galway, said the court might have wanted to avoid a diplomatic showdown with Serbia and that, as a civil rather than a criminal court, it was more used to relying on materials put before it than aggressively pursuing evidence.

Natasha Kandic, director of the Humanitarian Law Center in Belgrade, said she was shocked at the court’s inaction, in part because it blocked the Serbian public from understanding the reality of the war.

After the verdict, she said, she met with a leading member of the Serbian team. “He was very pleased,” she said, “but I confronted him. I said, ‘You did not tell the truth.’ ” The man, a scholar she said she could not name, replied: “It’s normal, every country will do everything possible to protect the state. Bosnia wanted a lot of money for damages.”

Ms. Kandic added: “I said that one day the truth will come out. And my friend said: ‘But that’s the future. Now it’s important to protect the state.’ ”

http://blog.b92.net/arhiva/node/5132

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that I followed the link to the original NYT article and have used it to create what I think is a better paragraph than the one it replaced. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.If you're really interested in this subject you should read the full Human Rights Watch raport on Serbia.

HRW:Serbia won't face past seriously.

http://www.b92.net/eng/download.phtml?39065,0,0 --(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

POV

The issue of framing or interpreting several events of the Bosnian war under the heading "genocide" has been discussed several times on the "talk" pages. It is in no way neutral to use such a heading. The way the term "genocide" is used in this article is highly controversial and, in my opinion, bordering on the ridicolous. This article in no way represents neutral POV as required by Wikipedia standards. I therefore request that the article remains tagged. 158.37.104.16 (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archives on this talk page and then lets start to discuss the issue in detail. This article does not claim that a general genocide took place instead it discusses the various allegations that have been made by various organisations and those who were tried for genocide. Which section or paragraph do you consider to be the least neutral and the most biased in this article? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Running whois on 80.202.103.192 and 158.37.104.16 indicates that both IP addresses are provided by "Norway Bergen Xdsl Access And Service Provider In Norway" and "Norway Bergen Uninett" so I presume that both edits were made by the same person. It is confusing to address an editor who is using multiple IP addresses, it would be much less confusing if you would create an account. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are not going to discuss the POV issues that you are concerned about, then I will remove the template. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article deals with the various allegations, it does not claim that a genocide happened. However, as one comment under "merge proposal" argues, this is not clearly stated in the introduction, it is somewhat "between the lines". The title suggests that the article will describe in detail events of the Bosnian genocide under the assumption that there was in fact a general genocide in Bosnia. Instead the article describes various allegations of such a genocide. The distinction between these is important and should in my opinion be more explicit. I suppose that is the reason for the POV comment above.Mondeo (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A comparable article is the one on Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. That article is also about allegations and a clearly controversial topic - in terms of facts, in terms of interpretation of facts and in terms of definitions. That article also clearly states both in title and in introduction that these are controversial allegations. Mondeo (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The ICTY Trial Chamber's judgment in the Krajisnik case found that the "actus reus" - the fact of genocide - had been proven. Krajisnik himself was not convicted because the court found that the "mens rea" - intention to commit the crime - had not been adequately demonstrated. -- Opbeith (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above: Are you saying that ICTY ruled that there was a general genocide in Bosnia? Mondeo (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it did not rule that genocide had been proven. To prove the crime you have to have prove intent to commit the crime on the part of the person being tried (nb I'm not a lawyer, so this is only my interpretation). The ICTY did not find that Krajisnik's intent had been proven. It did find that the facts constituting genocide, the "actus reus", had been proven, ie that "genocidal" acts had taken place, but it did not find "mens rea" proven - the necessary intent to commit genocide. That was why Krajisnik was acquitted on the genocide charges.
The decision was controversial because it has been argued that the court should have been able to infer intent from the pattern of acts (in the case of Mladic and Karadzic intent appears to be clearly documented). It has also been argued that since the acts constituting genocide had been found proven, Krajisnik's position of authority as a member of the three-member RS Presidency meant that the Tribunal's failure to find him guilty of genocide suggested that it was possible for genocide to be committed without intent - "accidental genocide".
As far as "general genocide" is concerned the charges did not refer to Bosnia as a whole, they referred to what were termed the indictment municipalities (Banja Luka, Bijeljina, Bileća, Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Novi, Bosanski Petrovac, Bratunac, Brčko, Čajniče, Čelinac, Doboj, Donji Vakuf, Foča, Gacko, Hadžići, Ilidža, Ilijaš, Ključ, Kalinovik, Kotor Varoš, Nevesinje, Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Pale, Prijedor, Prnjavor, Rogatica, Rudo, Sanski Most, Šipovo, Sokolac, Teslić, Trnovo, Višegrad, Vlasenica, Vogošća, Zvornik). The question as far whether there was a "Bosnian genocide" rather than just a "Srebrenica genocide" is concerned is: was genocide committed anywhere else in Bosnia other than at Srebrenica? -- Opbeith (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can understand there are at least two related issues. (1) Was genocide committed other places than Srebrenica? That is, can other war crimes, massacres, ethnic cleansing etc during the Bosnian war be classified as (part of) genocide? (2) Were these individual cases (incidents) part of a pattern or plan (intent) for a large scale (general) genocide in Bosnia? In addition, there is the issue of distinguishing mere ethnic cleansing from preparation to genocide. At present, the purpose of the article is not to describe a general genocide as an established fact (as if these questions are already answered), but to present the various positions in relations to these questions. Mondeo (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus for merge --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that this article should be merged with the article on the Bosnian war or alternatively that this articles title should be changed to "War Crimes in the Bosnian War" to align it with the heading used in the main article . Regards, 158.37.104.16 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


If the article is about these controversial allegations, then the article introduction should state that clearly in my opinion. A quick reading of the article is confusing because it appears that the article presents the genocide as a fact rather than as a contested claim. I am sorry about making trouble, but I don't think it's clear how the article should be understood. There is another article on the "genocide case" and when I compare these articles I am confused about the rules for framing articles. Can skilled editors please help to improve this article to avoid confusions regarding how to understand the article. 84.38.158.248 (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bosnian War and Bosnian Genocide are totally different terms. I think this denial attempt isn't just possible in reality, because Bosnian Genocide is the term used in literature at least in the Balkans. Kruško Mortale (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that a merge is not needed, because this is an in-depth article discussing a contested interpretation of some aspects of the Bosnian War. But I am not sure what "denial attempt" Krusko Mortale is referring to. My point (see my comment in the POV-section) is that there is an important difference between accounting for a genocide as such (assuming that a number of events during the Bosnian War can in fact be summarized under the common heading "genocide") and accounting for allegations or controversy, and that this difference is at present not explicitly reflected in the title and introduction of the article. The present version of the article "undercommunicates" that the article is not about a bosnian genocide as a well-established fact. Mondeo (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    I am not sure how you can draw the conclusion that the introduction does not make it clear that opinion is divided on this issue with the weight on the legal side that there was not general genocide in Bosnia. Perhaps you would like to start a new section about the lead and suggest how it could be improved. However please note that the current wording is a hard fought compromise and you need to read the archived talk pages to see how the current wording was reached, and it is a reasonable summary of the rest of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ICTY Found Genocide Occured

In September 2006, in its judgment in the case of former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik judges found that there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide, but they did not establish that the accused possessed genocidal intent – which is necessary to prove the charge. However, it was established that the crimes constituted act of genocide. http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=346893&apc_state=henh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.176.183 (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This ICTY press release and links contained within it, will help explain the difference between actus reus and mens rea. Because the Genocide Convention specifically includes intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect intended (or was part of a criminal conspiracy that intended) to destroy the group. This is different from crimes against humanity where there does not have to be intent to destroy a group, just an action that kill many people. This is why Krajisnik was found guilty of multiple instances of crimes against humanity but not of genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting. Are these points fully reflected in the current version of the article? Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BIAS

Just as the Armenian Genocide article has it's own page, Bosnian Genocide too should have one. If you merge this page, then merge the Armenian Genocide with the Armenian War article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.73.106 (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what this editor wants. The Armenian genocide is widely accepted as a fact (still controversial in Turkey), while Bosnian genocide remains a controversial allegation, but otherwise they are comparable articles. Mondeo (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Omarska2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

FairView reverted the deletion. According to the page describing the picture Image:Omarska2.jpg, it violates copyright because it is not specifically related to content on Omarska camp. In the article the image was linked to "US resolutions..." in relation to Srebrenica massacre. Mondeo (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

map

[2] --Čeha (razgovor) 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, but this map focuses on war crimes against non-serb population only. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

'Serb' vs 'Bosnian Serb' forces

Using only "Serb forces" (article intro) can be confusing as the word "Serb" may refer both to the Serbia (a republic) and persons of a certain ethnic origin. The forces were "Bosnian Serb" (belonging to the Bosnian Serb party in the civil war), although personnel from Serbia also participated. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the 12 December edit because I agree with the point above and the new paragraph that started "The allegations about the ICTY Prosecution agreement ..." was not in good English, read like a conspiracy theory and did not add any meaningful information that was not mentioned in the paragraph immediately before the new insert. --PBS (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing useful

there is no useful info on project man like i want info on sobodan milosevic and the genocide he was apart of and theres nothing useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.115.55 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a genocide?

Document submitted in compliance with a special decision of the Committee* : Bosnia and Herzegovina. 27/04/93. CCPR/C/89. (Additional Info from State Party)

  • By a decision of 7 October 1992 the Committee requested Bosnia and Herzegovina to submit a report on the situation in the country:

[ refactored long quote into this external link: Document submitted in compliance with a special decision of the Committee* : Bosnia and Herzegovina. 27/04/93. CCPR/C/89. (Additional Info from State Party) (PBS)] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.49.112 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 February 2009

The UN view in 1992 is covered in the article under: Bosnian Genocide#United Nations --PBS (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits on the 19 March 2008

"in line with a minority of legal scholars," This is sourced in the article <ref name=ECHR-Jorgic-47>European Court of Human Rights - Jorgic v. Germany Judgment, July 12 2007. § 47</ref> 47 is also sub-sectioned "vi. Interpretation by legal writers". So it is the opinion of an international court, not "(you cannot say "in line with minority of scholars", this is not objective. This is your own opinion. Courts have spoken.)"

"don't use "only" to demean the genocide. Srebrenica massacre was Genocide. No need to lessen its impact with redundant words as "only")" "Only" is not demeaning without it the sentence does not make sense.

For these reasons I have reverted the changes. --PBS (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence including "in line with a minority of legal scholars" was vehemently discussed earlier and does appear to reflect the state of opinion among legal scholars. If Bosniak can provide evidence otherwise, it would be beneficial for him to do so on these discussion pages.
In regards to the sentence with "only", what Bosniak is probably trying to affirm is that ICTY verdicts do not postulate that only the Srebrenica massacre was genocide and that all other crimes against humanity during the war were not genocide. What Bosniak might want to do is construct an introductory clause something to the effect that currently there are one or more cases right now at the ICTY putting an individual or individuals on trial for genocide regarding the ethnic cleansing referred to in the opening sentence of the article. Bosniak appears to be well informed regarding the latest developments at the ICTY. The sentence could begin with something to the effect: "While there are currently ICTY trial(s) of individuals indicted for committing genocide throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, to date, only the... etc." The sentence could be more specific if only Karadzic is on trial for such. Or rather than referring to the individuals, it could refer to the ethnic cleansing campaign and how that has been deemed genocide in current ICTY indictments. Rather than deleting "only" while falsely accusing the previous editors of "demeaning" genocide, Bosniak could offer a constructive addition to the sentence. Fairview360 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

hatnote

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please convert the hatnote to the format used in {{dablink}} 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Request banner updated as page is only semiprotected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
What text 76.66.201.179 is it that you would like to see in the hatnote? --PBS (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, I think —Ms2ger (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

anyone writing on this page is ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.240.38 (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide

Does it refer to Serbs that were killed around Srebrenica? If so, then this needs to be mentioned. If not, then we need to mention the precise definition of the term. What do you guys think, does the term Bosnian Genocide include Serbs that were killed or not?Mike Babic (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See the wording of the article "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, ..." and the cited source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1907122.stm at the end of the clause. The wording and the source make it clear what is meant. --PBS (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the term anywhere in the link that you posted. Could you take a look at the link once again. Bosnian genocide is well documented yet my argument is that Bosnian is a term that currently describes Serbs, Croats and Muslims from Bosnia. Since killings of Serbs did occur around Srebrenica we need to differentiate, and more specifically defined the term, Bosnian genocide. We need to make sure that reader knows who the article is written about.Mike Babic (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
See the title. --PBS (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It says "Bosnian genocide suspect extradited". This is really not an issue. The term needs to be defined well, in anycase that may be.Mike Babic (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry I don't understand your last comment. --PBS (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mike Babic, only 151 Serb civilians died around Srebrenica from 1991-1995. At the same time, more than 9,000 Bosniaks died in and around Srebrenica from 1991 to 1995. In an attempt to justify genocide of more than 8,000 Bosniaks, Serb civilian victims around Srebrenica were grossly inflated to a number of 3,000 by Serbian radical nationalist Milivoje Ivanisevic. I hope this clarifies your question. If you wish to have a civilized debate with me personally, I would be more than glad to talk to you directly via my E-mail. I can answer you questions and help you understand what happened in and around Srebrenica. All the best. Bosniak (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
CORRECTION: :It's not 141 Serb civilians, but 151, my mistake, see here http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2007/12/srebrenica-numbers-quick-facts.html
Mr Bosniak - the first numbers of potential victims there were in the lists of missing persons of the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose number settled on the figure of seven to eight thousand persons, of whom only 36 were female. Of that number 3016 is the 1996th was found in the electoral roll for Srebrenica, which leads to the conclusion that many, if not all, on the list of voters 1996th year they were alive. The number of killed can be determined accurately based on the exhumed bodies from several mass graves. So far 1883 people have been exhumed, of which 1656 were male and only one female, while the remaining could not determine gender. Prosecution took these figures without a valid factual evidence and multiplied with 2.6 or 3.56 so that after this we have result between 4900 and 6700 Muslim victims, while the alleged witnesses among the Muslims claim even 9200 killed.

President of the Srebrenica municipality Radomir Pavlovic said that a number of Bosnians who was killed in 1992. to 1995. at the battlefields around Srebrenica and buried in Potocari are treated as victims of genocide. Two of my pre-war fellow doctors and Avdo Bakalović and Sručić Naser died at Ruzina Voda and are buried in Srebrenica as genocide victims. This can confirm Nevzeta Kumrić , who witnessed these events, said Pavlovic. He pointed out that this problem seriously needs to addressed by the Commission for Srebrenica.

152 Serbian victims are in Srebrenica region for the year 1992-1993 and till 1995 the number went to 3.267 burried at Bratunac memorial mosto of those civilians killed by muslim troops from Srebrenica while under UN protection. Only in Kravica Bosniaks killed 49 Serb civilians on Christmas day 1993. mostly women, children and old people. Jarovid (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Djuradj Kusljic - 4th Bosnian Genocide convict (factual update)

Fourth Bosnian Genocide convict, Djuradj Kusljic. He was found guilty for his involvement in the BOSNIAN GENOCIDE. On December 15 1999, German court sentenced Kusljic to life in prison for genocide in conjunction with six counts of murder and illegal possession of a firearm. http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/djuradj_kusljic_140.html Bosniak (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I altered the number to four, although I don't think the source is clear if the appeals court upheld the genocide conviction, and I could not find another English language source online that explained the findings in more detail. --PBS (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Influences?

What were the historical influences upon the genocide? I mean, they sure didn't model it upon the Nazis, but maybe they saw how the Poles and Truks have mostly gotten away with it? Has anyone spoken about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.20.168 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it was the logical solution to a simple strategic imperative. The Podrinje and the Bosnian Krajina had to become ethnically homogeneous Serb areas in order to secure the territorial continuity of Serb Bosnia in the context of the Greater Serbia project. Opbeith (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Djajic genocide conviction

PBS, I'm not sure on what grounds you consider a German court's verdict of genocide is "another issue" that you are entitleed to dismiss. The ICTY is not the only source of law. The European Court of Human Rights confirmed the German courts' finding in the case of Jorgic. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to decide what constitutes genocide and what doesn't. If you disagree with the reference to the German court's decision you are free to raise the matter on the Discussion Page so I don't understand why you have chosen to impose your point of view so arbitrarily by striking out Bosniak's edit? Opbeith (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The ICTY Trial Chamber in the Krstic judgment cited the Bavarian Appeal Court's reversal of Djajic's original acquittal on a genocide charge and the Court's finding that genocide had occurred only in the limited geographical area of Foca in the deliberations that led to its finding that the part of the group which was the target of genocide in the Krstic case was to be defined in terms of its relationship to a limited geographical area. There was no finding in the Krstic case by either the Trial Chamber or the Appeal Chamber that there had not been physical or biological destruction of the protected group at Foca and nor did the ICTY challenge the Bavarian Appeal Court's finding that there had been specific intent to commit such destruction. PBS, your deletion of Bosniak's edit appears to have no grounds. You should reverse it or provide a more substantial explanation. Above all please read the relevant text and references before imposing your personal interpretations. Opbeith (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The cited source Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY 8 (2 August 2001)
I am pushed for time and will give a longer reply later this week if you require one, but the ICTY draws a difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide", See the mention of Momcilo Krajisnik in this article. Also see this reference. This is a complicated issue and it needs a through discussion before any new sentences are added so that we get the wording correct.
Also we should consider the source which user:Bosniak mentions above in the section #Djuradj Kusljic - 4th Bosnian Genocide convict (factual update) --PBS (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
While not definitive a search of Google scholar and web sugests that there is little academic linkage between the "Foca massacre" and genocide.
  • A Google scholar search on ["Srebrenica massacre" genocide] returns about 528
  • A google scholar search on ["Foca massacre" genocide] returns no hits
  • Web search "about 130 from ac.uk for "Srebrenica massacre" genocide"
  • Web search "Foca massacre" genocide site:ac.uk - did not match any documents"
  • Web search "about 454 for "Srebrenica massacre" genocide site:edu"
  • Web search ""Foca massacre" genocide site:edu - did not match any documents"

Looking at some books returned for a search on [Djajic german court]

  • The Genocide Convention: an international law analysis, by John B. Quigley p. 46
  • Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts And the Prosecution of Serious ..., by Stephen Macedo p. 260 fn 40
  • War crimes and human rights: essays on the death penalty, justice and ..., by William Schabas pp.710,711

I don't think there is enough to say that it is usual for academic sources to agree that what happened at Foca was a genocide. It might be appropriate, if suitable sources can be found to include it in the body of the article with NPOV explanations, (although the individual cases already cover this), but from what I can see, there does not seem to be enough for it to be in the lead section. --PBS (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

____

PBS, the introduction to the article appears to be a complete mess as a result of haphazard editing, so I think we might need to consider a revised version of the introduction rather than simply argue about this one (significant) element.

The German judgment found that acts of genocide took place in relation to a group defined by its presence in the Foca area. The ICTY cited the judgment as a contribution to its deliberations in the Krstic case. Events in the Foca area did not have the same unique significance that events at Srebrenica did because of the number of deaths, the involvement of the international community, etc., so they are more likely to be referred to as part of a general pattern of events in the Drina Valley. Simply because their genocidal character was defined in relation to the Foca area, that didn't mean that the Foca acts of genocide couldn't also be considered part of a wider pattern of genocidal acts. I'll try to look at the references you've cited and perhaps suggest how the introduction might be more coherently formulated. But one way or another, acts that may contribute to establishing the fact of genocide in Bosnia can't simply be ignored in the introduction. Opbeith (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is not a complete mess it was worked out over along period and balances two competing definitions. The first paragraph introduces the concept of two meanings the second paragraph explains how some organisations and courts found there to be more then one specific instance of genocide in Bosnia while the third paragraph balances that with the point that under the international tribunals assessments only Srebrenica massacre has been found to be a genocide.
As to your point about the German counts is addressed in the second paragraph "These included a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly and four convictions for genocide in German courts, (the convictions were based upon a wider interpretation of genocide than that used by international courts)." See my last paragraph in my last posting. --PBS (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
One has to be very careful when reading the court cases, just because the ICTY looked at the thinking behind the German counts for their meaning on "in part", it does not mean that they agreed with the findings of the German courts, AFAICT they were using the German counts as part of several legal sources to help in the decision making process of what "in part" meant, see Genocide#In part for more on this). When you have read the sources I provided above we can discuss this further. --PBS (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The introduction is not a mess. It is concise and accurate. Fairview360 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fairview360, elsewhere you insist that reference to the Srebrenica genocide is meaningless.Opbeith (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this is what was argued. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=298315545 Meaningless? Rather, what was actually argued is that the term Srebrenica Genocide is incomplete since the Genocide in this author's opinion was not limited to Srebrenica. Fairview360 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The ICTY has ruled that ethnic cleansing is not in itself the same as genocide. That seems to mean, unless you are willing to find some alternative basis for concluding that the Bosnian genocide was a fact, there was no Bosnian genocide according to this article. Unless you are willing to acknowledge that the commission of "acts of genocide" as identified by Article 2 of the Genocide Convention provides a basis for asserting that genocide was in fact committed in Bosnia, you might as well propose that the article should be deleted.Opbeith (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
According to this article, the United Nations General Assembly, the US Congress, German courts, and at least some legal scholars are all of the opinion that the nationalist Serb policy of ethnic cleansing constituted genocide. The article does not dismiss the argument for acknowledging the nationalist Serb policy of ethnic cleansing as constituting genocide. The article states very clearly that formidable organizations have declared that the ethnic cleansing policy was indeed genocide. The article then goes on to inform the reader of the different interpretations of genocide to help the reader understand some of the reasoning behind different courts coming to different conclusions.Fairview360 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PBS, The findings of the German courts differ but nevertheless in the cases of both Jorgic and Djajic the courts found that acts of genocide were perpetrated, even though in Djajic's case he was not found guilty because his own intent was not proven. The ICTY has not challenged the fact of acts of genocide at Foca. There is concurrent jurisdiction. The findings of the German courts stand even if the ICTY has defined a narrower interpretation. (Even within the ICTY that interpretation has been called into question by Judge Shahbuddeen in the Krstic appeal and Judge Al-Khasawni likewise found grounds for dissent from the ICJ's reasoning.) Concurrent jurisdiction requires an acknowledgment of findings that have not been reversed.

So the article needs to acknowledge that reference to the Bosnian Genocide can be justified on grounds other than reference to Srebrenica or ethnic cleansing. PBS, Acts of genocide are acts identified as falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention - elements of genocide. They are not the underlying crimes of murder, extermination, etc., with which you and the article seem to confuse them. Acts of genocide have been found to have been perpetrated in Bosnia outside Srebrenica even if there has been no personal finding of genocidal intent in relation to ethnic cleansing. Opbeith (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
???? Fairview360 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"PBS, Acts of genocide are acts identified as falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention - elements of genocide." yet you give no sources to back that up, I would point you to the paragraphs that read

In September 2006, former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik was found guilty of multiple instances of crimes against humanity, but while the ICTY judges found that there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide (actus reus), they did not establish that the accused possessed genocidal intent, or was part of a criminal enterprise that had such an intent (mens rea).

and

ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that there is a lot of evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina such as widespread killings, the siege of towns, mass rapes, torture, deportation to camps and detention centers. The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over them, because this case deals "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term"

In reply to your comment to Fairview360, this article we do not have to prove it was or was not a genocide, all we have to do is report what reliable sources say. And some say that the ethnic cleansing that took place was genocide while others say there was not. You seem to be trying to prove something that is not provable one way or another (and it is not something we should try to prove as all we should do is report what conflicting reliable sources say). For example do you have any detailed reliable sources (not self publishing websites or one sentence in an otherwise reliable source) that state that the events surrounding the Foca massacres were a genocide in a similar way to the hundreds stating that the Srebrenica massacre was a genocide? As you can see after your initial posting to this thread I looked for some and could not find them. --PBS (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Trial Watch is a realiable sources. You have other sources, for example The German Federal Supreme Court and the Prosecution of International Crimes Committed in the Former Yugoslavia. Bosniak (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
With all respect, but Philip Baird Shearer is not an authority on genocide. He quotes Google Scholar returning 0 results, but it depends how you search. For example, Foca + Genocide returns 656 results [3]. But who cares about Google Scholar and who cares what I said? It's what the judges said that counts. Google Scholar returns only 4 results on Djuradj Kusljic [4]. Again, who cares? It's what the judges said that counts, not Google Scholar. Bosniak (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Deletion of statistics

Someone keeps on deleting the statistics of the ICTY and the RDC - this should be reason for protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.34.181 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jut because your alterations were reverted out is no reason why the article should be protected. See below why I think the numbers added by Bosniak should be deleted, the same applies for the figures you have been adding.

I have reverted to the last version by Kamiondžija.

This reverted out the edit by Bosniak which altered the lead because the UN are already mentioned in the proceeding paragraph, and the details of the resolution are in the body of the text.

The second thing it did was to revert to the statistics that were added by Bosniak. As far as I can tell this section is a breach of WP:SYN, because it implies that the casualties mentioned are those of a genocide, yet there is no reliable source given that states that the numbers given are anything to do with genocide. If this new section is to remain then there must be a WP:SOURCE that confirms the numbers specifically for genocide. -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The same applies to the 200,000 - that is also implied as the genocide. You are being inconsistent. Either we delete the 200,000, or we put in complete information about the casualties of the war. I'm reverting, and I ask that if you revert my revert, that you also remove the 200,000 number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.34.181 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you not see "See below[above] why I think the numbers added by Bosniak should be deleted, the same applies for the figures you have been adding."? -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You added that text since I added my last text - when I replied, there was only one paragraph. Bosniak's numbers are still there; I'm deleting them - if you are sincere, kindly help by also deleting them as they reappear. I'll try to set up a wikipedia account for myself within the week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.173.134 (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Actually, I've decided against deleting Bosniak's numbers, for two reasons: 1. Dr Haris Silajdzic specifically refers to the 'Bosnian genocide,' and this is a result of the conceptual history of the Bosnian genocide: Initially, it appeared that most of the dead were Bosnian civilians, and that 200,000 had been killed. Bosniak is actually being quite fair, in adding the estimates of the total war dead (by Professors Shoup and Berg), as they indicate that a substantial portion of the dead were soldiers, and many were not Bosniaks. 2. As such, the total casualties of the war are relevant, but should be marked as such within this article, with a preface to explain.
I can see the angle you are coming from, but I have a problem with including all these figures, as this is about the genocide not the war. So what I have done instead is to list the figures for the range of claimed genocide victims. From the minimum which would be about 8,000+ and contrasting that with Dr Haris Silajdzic's figures which I have quoted. -- PBS (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any source for the ICRC data? I would like it for completeness, and frankly, it would make for a better source that Silajdzic, as well as opening up for an entry on scholarship of the ICRC data. Moreover, I would like to see in some form the discussion of the relationship of the casualties (dead) of the (Bosnian) war and of the (Bosnian) genocide: There are the twin problems that Silajdzic's numbers are greater than the current estimates of the war dead, and that he's not speaking as a scholar, but as a politician, in that statement. Thus either a portion of the genocide is not counted as part of the war dead, or there is a conflict between his numbers and the RDC and ICTY's numbers. I respect that that may be considered 'original research,' and as such, I won't (in the current form of the article) add it, at least until I find a published scholar pointing it out. PS I couldn't find a reference to the ICRC data, so I've applied to the ICRC's library services (I think that's what they call it) to get the appropriate data and reference.
I have no source for the ICRC data, -- I have not looked -- because I have quoted the source in such a way that it is a Wikipedia reliable source (WP:ASF).
I would like it if we can find a reliable source that discusses the "relationship of the casualties (dead) of the (Bosnian) war and of the (Bosnian) genocide", but it has to be from a reliable source otherwise it is OR (specifically WP:SYN). -- PBS (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


I'm resetting the level of the discussion... Steven L. Burg and Paul S. Shoup say that acts of ethnic cleansing, murder of leading Bosnian Muslims of Prijedor, mass rapes and other atrocities[1] gave rise to charge of genocide - their text at least implies that the crimes constituting genocide according to the Bosnian authorities, occurred as part of the war. As google books is not being nice, I cannot see if they are stating it more strongly - I'll try and get the book from the local university library... The problem is that none of scholars that I've come across discuss the Bosnian genocide as distinct from the war. Boeremoer (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Also, the UN general assembly is a political forum, not a scientific forum; I disagree that Silajdzic is an appropriate secondary source for the ICRC, although as it stands, I accept the quote, as his claim was notable. Also, by your fine parsing between the Bosnian Genocide and Bosnian War, can we remove the Silajdzic quote from the Bosnian War page? Boeremoer (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That is something you need to discuss on the talk page of the Bosnian War. -- PBS (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, by this standard of separation, can you provide a source that includes the Srebrenica genocide as part of the Bosnian genocide? The first reference on the page (Staff. Bosnian genocide suspect extradited, BBC, 2 April 2002) only includes the words 'Bosnian Genocide' in the title, and a parsing, with the text makes it apparent that Bosnian may modify either genocide or suspect, and is as such specious. Boeremoer (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it that way, but how about this one as an addition: Sally Peck and agencies. UN: Serbia failed to prevent Bosnian genocide, Daily Telegraph, 26 February 2007. Here is another less reliable source Srebrenica - defending the truth 3 January 2006, that uses the term both ways. -- PBS (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The telegraph article is an improvement on this score vs the BBC article, so I've changed the reference to that one. Even then, the (telegraph) article avoids use of the (direct) article 'the' - it was (a) Bosnian genocide? Again, scholars would be better sources, but I'm not aware of any scholars who study the Bosnian genocide qua the Bosnian genocide. Boeremoer (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Radovan Karadzic

We cannot wait the verdict - I agree. But, what I am presenting is opinion of Serbian and Bosnian authors who correctly observe and correctly argue that Radovan Karadzic is currently THE ONLY PERSON charged with the Bosnian genocide in 10 municipalities, instead of 1. Do you get it? That was the whole point of my Edit @ Bosnian genocide article. Bosniak (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Then one line in the section "Individuals accused of genocide during the Bosnian war" stating that he is on trial and accused of genocide over 10 municipalities will do. It does not need a separate section and a quote presenting one side of the case. -- PBS (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

United States resolutions H.199 and S.134

user:Bosniak what in the statement: "The summaries of the resolutions are identical, with the exception of the name of the house passing the resolution:" is inaccurate? Clearly the resolutions differ because amendments were made to one but not the other resolution, but how do the summaries differ other than as stated. Please show the differences here. -- PBS (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


One can view both resolutions in their entirety through these two links:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr109-134
http://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hres199.pdf Fairview360 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
correction to earlier edit: the resolutions are not identically worded. There are three instances of similar but different wording, "murdered" vs. "executed", "region" vs. "southeastern Europe", and "as well as" vs. "and". Fairview360 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Fairview360 arn't those diffs that you have listed in the resolutions, not the summaries of the resolutions? Of the differences you mention I can only see one "murdered" vs. "executed" however as that exists I am going to modify the wording slightly.

Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that:

(1) the thousands of innocent people executed at Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina in July 1995, along with all individuals who were victimized during the conflict and genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995, should be remembered and honored;
(2) the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide;
(3) foreign nationals, including U.S. citizens, who have risked, and in some cases lost, their lives in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be remembered and honored;
(4) the United Nations (U.N.) and its member states should accept their share of responsibility for allowing the Srebrenica massacre and genocide to occur, and seek to ensure that this does not happen in future crises;
(5) it is in the U.S. national interest that the responsible individuals should be held accountable for their actions;
(6) persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) should be apprehended and transferred to The Hague without further delay, and countries should meet their obligations to cooperate with the ICTY; and
(7) the United States should support the independence and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and peace and stability in southeastern Europe.


Expresses the sense of the Senate that:

(1) the thousands of innocent people murdered at Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina in July 1995, along with all individuals who were victimized during the conflict and genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995, should be remembered and honored;
(2) the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide;
(3) foreign nationals, including U.S. citizens, who have risked, and in some cases lost, their lives in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be remembered and honored;
(4) the United Nations (UN) and its member states should accept their share of responsibility for allowing the Srebrenica massacre and genocide to occur;
(5) it is in the U.S. national interest that the responsible individuals should be held accountable for their actions;
(6) persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) should be apprehended and transferred to The Hague without further delay, and countries should meet their obligations to cooperate with the ICTY; and
(7) the United States should support the independence and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and peace and stability in southeastern Europe.

Taken from the cited sources -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Apologies for not having followed up on my critical comment of a while back, when I found my attention diverted to other matters, but I still find the introduction unhelpful. While respecting the long process of discussion that has gone into devising it I don't think it makes the significance of the difference between the two ways in which the expression is used adequately clear.

I'm not suggesting the following as a final version, but I think it makes the difference between the two uses of the expression clearer or at least more explicit.

"The Bosnian Genocide refers either to the crime of genocide legally established as having been committed by Bosnian Serb forces /at Srebrenica (/in and around Srebrenica) in July 1995 or, in a more general sense, to the genocidal acts committed throughout Bosnia in the ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs that took place during the 1992-1995 war.

What I would really like to say is something along the lines of "the genocidal acts as a whole" or "the totality of the genocidal acts" but I've not yet come up with a form of words that doesn't sound awkward.

I've used "genocidal acts" rather than "acts of genocide" to avoid the suggestion of referring solely to the crimes found to have constituted actus reus in the Krajisnik case. Opbeith (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the introduction is accurate: see for example the section above and the US congresses resolution "(2) the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide;" the UN resolution ", in pursuit of the abhorrent policy of “ethnic cleansing”, which is a form of genocide, ..." and the German count courts decisions, genocide did not have to include the biological destruction.
Further the legal distinction between "genocidal acts" rather than "acts of genocide" is something which needs explaining to anyone who is not already familiar with the distinction and such an explanation is too detailed for the lead, and will most likely cause confusion.
As the lead is a reflection of the usage and is a summary of the article I am against changes that you are suggesting -- PBS (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that the existing wording is inaccurate. However the transition from the first paragraph to the second and third, with their emphasis on the legal references before the issues are sketched out, is abrupt and confusing unless the reader is already familiar with the issue. Opbeith (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This article should be expanded

This article predominantly deals with the term genocide and its legal aspect. It should also include:

  • background and historical context (Break up of Yugoslavia, Greater Serbian aggression, fall of Zvornik, Višegrad, Prijedor and other cities)
  • implementation of the genocide (policy of ethnic cleansing, massacres and concentration camps)
  • international reactions, legal status and war crime trials (including info on Joint Criminal Enterprise)

See Armenian Genocide for example.--Mladifilozof (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes this article "predominantly deals with the term genocide, it is titled "Bosnian Genocide"! It does not just cover its legal aspects it also includes other opinions of other prominent organisations such as the UN. As there are two definitions of what is the Bosnian Genocide, it makes more sense to leave the background to to other articles. The international reactions, legal status and war crime trials are covered in this article, as is "criminal enterprise" as it relates to the charge of genocide against Momcilo Krajisnik. So what specifically do you think is missing? -- PBS (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This article should be expanded with more historical information so the ordinary user can figure out why, where, when, and who have commited Bosnian genocide. See Armenian Genocide for example. --Mladifilozof (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As for the article Joint Criminal Enterprise I have asked for some classification in January and I have asked you a specific question on the 6 January which you have not answered, so I suggest that we fix that article before starting on this one. -- PBS (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have answered. Sorry for waiting.--Mladifilozof (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Image of Territory under Serb control

Territories of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia controlled by Serb forces 1992-1995. The War Crimes Tribual accused Milošević and other Serb leaders of "attempting to create a Greater Serbia, a Serbian state encompassing the Serb-populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia, and achieved by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of crimes.[2]

PBS, how on earth can you say that an image illustrating the occupation of territory by Serb forces in their effort to achieve a Greater Serbia is not directly related to the Bosnian Genocide? That map demonstrates the strategic importance of places like Srebrenica, Zvornik, Bijeljina, Foca, Visegrad, Brcko, Prijedor etc. Securing those territories through aggression and ethnic cleansing was what the Bosnian Genocide was about and the image illustrates and explains that basic reality. Opbeith (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The ICJ did not find that there was a direct link between the Serbia State and a Genocide in Bosnia. The map implies that there was a direct link so it violates WP:SYN. What is proven is that there was a direct link between Bosnians of Serb ethnicity (Bosnian Serbs) and the genocide at Srebrenica in 1995. -- PBS (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The ICJ did not find the case to hold the nation state Serbia responsible for the genocide proven. That is not the same as the widespread recognition that the ethnic cleansing of the Drina Valley, Posavina and Prijedor area was politically and militarily part of the campaign to unite the Serb territories and the acts of genocide that the Krajisnik verdict found to have been committed across the Bosnian municipalities took place in that context. You seem to be back to the position of insisting that use of the term Bosnian genocide outside the strictly legal context is circumscribed by the single ICTY/ICJ-established instance at Srebrenica. Opbeith (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of English language sources follow the lead of the legal findings of the ICTY/ICJ. As we take the lead from reliable secondary sources, we should follow their lead and not branch off into original research. -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You are knowingly mis-stating the situation in saying that "The vast majority of English language sources follow the lead of the legal findings of the ICTY/ICJ." Official bodies that are bound to be guided by the ICTY/ICJ formal findings are plentiful of course, but the continued existence of this article separately from the Srebrenica genocide article is evidence in itself of widespread acceptance of the term to describe the atrocities perpetrated in the removal of the non-Serb population from large parts of Bosnia between 1992 and 1995.
Why do you make out otherwise? Your persistent efforts to narrow down the subject of this article suggest a wish to contain and control the subject matter that goes beyond the need for a clear indication of the boundaries of legal terminology. Even Ratko Mladic was prepared to admit more than you are, in the notorious comments cited by Edina Becirevic in her report for BIRN on the outcome of the Krajisnik trial (Bos-Hrv-Srp, Bosnia's "Accidental" Genocide).
The Krajisnik verdict found that acts of genocide were committed. It found that Krajisnik himself could not be directly linked to the perpetrators of the individual crimes whose intent had not been proven and so he was acquitted of the crime. These individual crimes and the other similar crimes not included on Krajisnik's personal charge-sheet are referred to collectively in a wide variety of reputable English language sources as the Bosnian genocide. Opbeith (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
We have lots of articles about historical events. This article records the usage of the term Bosnian genocide and explains the different POVs. Before the ICTY and ICJ rulings a number of International bodies, the German courts, the US congress and many scholars were of the opinion that the ethnic cleansing as carried out by the Bosnian Serbs was genocide. However as the ECHR makes clear this was never the opinion of the majority of legal scholars, and the International courts agreed with the majority of legal scholars. If they ICTY and ICJ had found differently then the majority of general English language sources, such as newspapers and broadcasters like the BBC, would usually describe the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia as genocide. They do not, they use the term ethnic cleansing, because that is the findings of the ICTY and the ICJ.
Think of it from the perspective of someone who comes across the term "Bosnian Genocide" with no explanation in the text they are reading as to what the term means. This article then comes into its own as it shows usage. So this article is a valuable one because it maps the usage of the term Bosnian Genocide over time. For example since the the ICJ ruling to the best of my knowledge there have been no official international forum which have contradicted the ICJ and claimed by using wording similar to that of the UN (1992) that the "abhorrent policy of “ethnic cleansing” [in Bosnia], ... is a form of genocide", will be interesting to see if any international body does do so in the future and if they do we should record that usage here.
Of course there are at least two more ICTY trials to complete where the accused is accused of genocide in places other than in Srebrenica. If either of these two accused are found guilty of genocide at locations other than Srebrenica then this could change usage in reliable sources and spark a deeper debate into the findings of the ICJ. But until that happens I think that this is a balanced article about the "Bosinian Genocide".
Unfortinatly since propegation of the Genocide Convention there have been many crimes against humanity, many of which if the perpetrator had the intent to destroy a group protected under the genocide convention would be classed as genocide. But without that intent, the acts are not acts of genocide, but they usually another form of war crime and or a crime against humanity. This is not an article on all the nasty crimintal things that happened in Bosnia, it is a specific artile about genocide. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If a map is to be included then this one would be better File:Bosnia areas of control Sep 94.jpg -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't, because it shows only the situation in Bosnia and does not show the strategic connections with the Krajina and other areas of Croatia that are crucial to understanding the political and military context of the Bosnian genocide. Opbeith (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
When you say Bosnian genocide do you man the Srebrenica Genocide? -- PBS (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't be clever. Opbeith (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not being clever. The point is that the term is not clear and I placed the question here before you posted your comments above which makes it clear that you disagree with the findings of the ICJ. If this was an article on ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or an article on war crimes committed in Bosnia, then there may well be a case for it (given the comments by ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins), but as I said above if one accepts the ICJ's findings which is what the vast majority of English language sources do, then it is a form of synthesis to to place a map of the ambitions of the Serbian government into this article when the ICJ did not find that the government of Serbia was complicit in the genocide in Bosnia. BTW if we cherry pick court findings and only pick the ones we agree with, that way lies real problems for this article. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Whether I disagree with the ICJ finding is not the issue. The US resolution clearly refers to the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing which inform the view that what happened in Bosnia should be described as genocide even though there has not so far been a finding in law. You are imposing a unique jurisdiction and you are also restricting the information necessary to understand why the ICJ's finding should not be considered the last and only word. You seem to be setting this article up as a court of law in which you as judge determine what elements of case law are relevant and acceptable on the basis of your interpretation of the case under consideration. By offering your view of what constitutes an appropriate map you are marking out a point of view, whether or not you are aware of the fact. Opbeith (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, PBS is going to argue that this entire article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_capone should have all references to criminal activity deleted and instead should simply read that Al Capone engaged in tax evasion -- nothing more -- since that is all that was ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The map depicts quite well the well documented and obvious intent of those who orchestrated mass murder throughout the territories controlled by nationalist Serbs. Fairview360 (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fairview 360, why did you revert this edit? -- PBS (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If the ICJ had found the other way then the map's inclusion would be justified, but without that, there is no direct link between genocide and the ambitions for a greater Serbia. The connection is indirect and as such is a synthesise that advances a position. -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about describing the war aim of nationalist Serb forces being creating contiguous territory to be ethnically cleansed of non-Serbs. The nationalist Serbs themselves clearly stated that as their war aim. To this day, there is a law in RS, (currently ignored from the war years) that states Muslims can not constitute more than 2% of RS municipalities. Another description of "contiguous territory to be ethnically cleansed of non-Serbs" is a greater Serbia. Therefore, the map as proposed by Opbeith is appropriate as a depiction of the war aims. In fact it would be better to have two maps showing where there were Serb majority areas before the war and what it looked like when nationalist Serb forces were at the height of their power. Fairview360 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Slight correction, fairview360, it was Mladifilozof's map that PBS decided to remove. Opbeith (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

PBS, you have chosen personally to define this article as an article whose subject should be the non-existence of its title as a legal fact. But firstly that is a point of view and secondly the article is not competent even within that term of reference. For example the introduction talks about Srebrenica being the only "act of genocide" finding, which is nonsense, Srebrenica is the only ICJ/ICTY-proven instance of the crime of genocide. The article has an oddly narrow scope at important points. The ICJ section omits any reference to the forceful dissenting opinion of the Court's Vice-President, Judge Al-Khasawneh, which makes a powerful argument for the case that genocide did occur and the court should have been able to reach that conclusion. That dissenting opinion does not change the court's decision but it is an extremely important part of the discussion about the subject, particularly as it commands considerable respect and support in and beyond legal circles. This very important aspect of any discussion of the legal situation is relegated to a rather haphazard "Controversies" round-up, making it much harder to gain a clear understanding of the issue.

Your article is about whether or not there has been a legal finding of genocide in Bosnia outside the case of Srebrenica. That is not the same as an article about the Bosnian Genocide as the term is generally understood and used. As I've commented before, the article does not enlighten the casual reader about its subject, it confuses them. You have argued the case very forcefully that "the Bosnian genocide" does not exist because it does not exist in law. You acknowledge the existence of different perceptions, for example those of the United States Senate and House of Representatives resolutions but the article's essentially jurisprudential introduction establishes those other uses as legally aberrant.

"The Bosnian genocide" is a concept in common use. People do not refer to "the Bosnian ethnic cleansing". That is not something that most people will come looking for information about. They come to find out about what they know as "the Bosnian genocide" and what they find is effectively an incomplete discussion of why use of the term is legally incorrect. Of course it's important to make the legal situation clear, but the article is dominated by the point of view that the concept of the Bosnian genocide does not exist and should not until there is a legal finding at the level of the ICTY/ICJ and it does almost nothing to explain why the term has wide currency. You might be justified in arguing that until there's an unequivocal legal finding at the highest level the article's title should be "the Bosnian 'genocide'" but please stop making out that discussion of that subject is the expression of a point of view. By all means discuss the legal implications and explain but don't take the point of view that because there is no legal finding there is no such thing as "the Bosnian genocide". And do not impose the point of view that simply because Serbia was not proven before the ICJ to have committed genocide, that it flows from that the political and military concept of a Greater Serbia is not essential to understanding the reasons why the ethnic cleansing (and more) took place. You don't seem to understand how your construct is essentially the statement of a point of view - not taking sides between the parties, but a point of view all the same. Opbeith (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Two Hours from London

Michael Foot died yesterday aged 96. He spoke out against Hitler before World War II and he spoke out against Milosevic and his fascist regime in the early 1990s. He presented this film, written and directed by his wife Jill Craigie, about the substance of the Greater Serbia campaign and the craven response of British politicians to Milosevic, in 1994, before Srebrenica. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvqkMABbjo&feature=related (in five parts at YouTube) Opbeith (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Genocide in Bosnia - Edina Becirevic

The following review provides a vivid example of the way the term "Bosnian genocide" is used to assert that genocide in Bosnia extended beyond Srebrenica and was more than ethnic cleansing. http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/genocide-at-srebrenica-began-in-1992/

The reviewer describes how Edina Becirevic examines the Bosnian Serb modus operandi in committing the Bosnian Genocide before proceeding to explain in detail how genocide was committed in 10 towns in Eastern Bosnia in 1992/93. The towns concerned included Zvornik, Bratunac, Vlasenica, Visegrad, Rogatica and Foca as well as Srebrenica.

Becirevic gives soundly argued reasons why the term should be used beyond the narrowly established legal finding for Srebrenica and also rejects the use of the description "ethnic cleansing" to describe events outside Srebrenica as inadequate.

Becirevic provides academic confirmation of the way the term is commonly used in discussing events in Bosnia 1992-1995. In fact others apply the term beyond the limited geographical area of the Drina Valley covered in Becirevic's book, to include events in the Prijedor area and the Posavina. Opbeith (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.171.104 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Casualties section

The way the casualties section is written makes this article look stupid. It states that the legal definition affects the number killed in Srebrenica. How can how you look at it change the number killed??? The number of people killed equals the number of people killed no matter how it is intrepreted! What is so difficult about that??? It does not matter what the legal definition is. What foolishness. And the number from Haris Silajdzic is outdated. The actual number killed is not 200,000. That was an estimate from during the war when an actual investigation was not possible. Who are the fools that edit this article??? How can anyone take this article seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.171.104 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous, I think you've misunderstood what's being said in the section, though I'm not defending the article with which I have issues too.

The contrast is between the casualties of: (1) Bosnian genocide, legally established (= only Srebrenica) 8-9000 killed, 25-30,000 forcibly transferred, and (2) Bosnian genocide, informal usage (= ethnic cleansing throughout Bosnia - according to existing wording of the article) 200,000 killed including 12,000 children, up to 50,000 rapes, 2.2 million refugees and internally displaced.

Of course the Silajdzic figure needs to be amended, per the Tokaca figure of either (a) direct deaths or (b) indirect deaths or (c) demographic casualties or authoritative alternatives. There is nothing to stop you updating the figure, which would be helpful.

I see this section as maybe in need of slightly clearer wording and updating, but it's really not not as ludicrous as you interpret it to be.

However, as I have said elsewhere, I do find the narrow legal focus of the article as a whole misleading and confusing. Opbeith (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Joint Criminal Enterprise and Genocide

Without a certain degree of cooperation and coordination of actions, it is virtually impossible to perpetrate atrocities such as genocide or crimes against humanity.

— Gunel Guliyeva, The concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise and ICC jurisdiction

As you can see, genocide is inseparable from the joint criminal enterprise. Milosevic was charged with genocide in connection with the Bosnian war. He was accused as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise, "the purpose of which was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs from large areas of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina". This information is closely related to the subject and should stay in the article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Following on from Mladifilozof's observations, I'd say that 109.121.91.23's recent changes seem motivated by an intent to deny Serbian involvement in the perpetration of genocide in Bosnia. But until there's been an adequate reappraisal of the shape of the article as a whole, I'm leaving it to Fairview360 and Philip Baird Shearer to deal with the issues the anonymous contributor raises rather than muddy the waters. Opbeith (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of points: "Gunel Guliyeva" says virtually impossible, but it is not impossible for exaple there has been at least one case of genocide in Brazil where conspiracy was not necessary, because the target group is was small.
The second point is that the wording in the article "The indictment stated that Milosevic "participated in a joint criminal enterprise, the purpose of which was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs from large areas of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina"" is misleading because according to the Appeals court that is a shortened sentence and the important part is missing "through the commission of the crime charged in the indictments" so one can rewrite the sentence "participated in a joint criminal enterprise, through the commission of the crime charged in the indictments". All in all it would be better to either include all or none of the sentence. Also as it is stated that it was on the indictment and as there were three indictments enough information should be provided so that the primary source the the BBC is referring to is identifiable. I think it is the this is the final indictment that the BBC refers to, because it is dated 22nd day of November 2001. In which case the full paragraph is "Slobodan MILOSEVIC participated in the joint criminal enterprise as set out below. The purpose of this joint criminal enterprise was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs, principally Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, from large areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter referred to as "Bosnia and Herzegovina"), through the commission of crimes which are in violation of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal." It does not say that the "was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs" was in itself a crime (although even if not done with the use of other crimes it was almost certainly a breach of GCIV).
Although it was alleged the joint criminal enterprise included participation in genocide, it could not have included participation in genocide in Bosnia by members of the Serb government, because if it had then the ICJ would have found that members of the Serbian government such as Milosevic were complicit in genocide in Bosnia which they did not.
I think we need to discuss further if that sentence about joint criminal enterprise should remain in the article (and the one about later developments), but what ever we decide on those I think the sentence with Noam Chomsky should be removed as he is not an expert on international law and only reinserted if an expert on international law can be found making a similar point. PBS (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Chomsky is not only not an expert on international law, he knowingly repeats falsehoods about events in Bosnia that have long ago been refuted by the courts - eg concerning the nature of the Trnopolje camp. He is not a trustworthy referee on events in Bosnia (and elsewhere) and anyone who cites him as an authority here destroys their own credibility. Opbeith (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not clear what all this discussion is about. What has the BBC got to do with it? It's an old reference and the ICTY indictment is available in its own right at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/ind/en/mil-ai040421-e.htm
Genocide or complicity in genocide acting alone or in concert with other members of the joint criminal enterprise, clear as could be. And while Milosevic wasn't a member of the Serb government he was a member of the Serbian government as far as I remember, though it's a long time ago. Charges are evidence of a sufficiently high level of evidence of a crime to allow prosecution to proceed. They aren't evidence of conviction of an individual or a member of a government. I'm not clear at all what is being argued here.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Opbeith (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2010
The primary source is not included in the article, it is the BBC report which is used. The BBC only quotes part of two sentences.
As Milosevic was the senior member of the Serbian government at the time of the genocide and other massacres in Bosnia, and the Serbian Government was not found guilty in participating in the genocide or complicity for genocide, in a case bought after Milosevic was dead and his case closed, that he was accused of a crime by the senior prosecutor at the ICTY is notable, but the additions to the paragraph since the start of the month are in my opinion giving undue weight to the issue in this article on the Bosnian genocide given the ICJ findings. -- PBS (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I simply don't understand how one moment you seem to be insisting on crossing the last t and dotting the last i and then the next you seem to be turning you back on accuracy and significant information. Are you really saying that the existence of a more recent primary reference is irrelevant and that an outdated secondary reference should be preferred and discussed as if it was paramount?

And have you bothered to check when Bosnia brought the ICJ case - 1993? When I believe the late somewhat less than lamented Mr Milosevic was a member of the Serbian government. You seem to sit in judgment here, but sometimes you appear to be less than fully informed about some very important issues.

You also seem to assume that the ICJ findings are the last word on the subject of the Bosnian genocide. Setting aside the controversies over over the ICJ's findings on the conclusiveness or otherwise of the evidence before it and the dissenting opinions, which undermine the credibility of the finding on Serbia's responsibility for genocide but not its legal validity, there are other important reasons why the issue of Serbian culpability should be considered unresolved in spite of the ICJ ruling - the still undisclosed content of the Supreme Defence Council minutes, the ongoing proceedings at The Hague against Serbian state officials such as Jovica Stanisic and Frenki Simatovic, etc. Please do not try to close down every argument that leads the article into areas beyond the legal findings. There is a widespread belief that genocide occurred in 1992, Srebrenica was the culmination of a wider strategy rather than a unique event, and the the key decisions were taken in Belgrade. That's not yet conclusively proven, but it's not yet disproven either and that open question should be at the centre of this article, not pushed to the margins by a rigorous focus on legal formalities. Opbeith (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Are you really saying that the existence of a more recent primary reference is irrelevant and that an outdated secondary reference should be preferred and discussed as if it was paramount?" No! What is it that I wrote that made you think that? I would have thought my last reply "The primary source is not included in the article, it is the BBC report which is used. The BBC only quotes part of two sentences." made that clear. Particularly as you must know that I did not introduced the sentence or the BBC source to support the quote!
"You also seem to assume that the ICJ findings are the last word on the subject of the Bosnian genocide" they are in regards to Serbian government involvement in genocide in Bosnia, unless the ICTY finds in its later cases that they were mistaken, or the UN lodges a resolution condemning the findings of the ICJ. We report the criticisms of the ICJ here on this page, but overemphasising alternative minority views is a bad from a NPOV point of view as over emphasising minority views such as those of Noam Chomsky. "That's not yet conclusively proven, but it's not yet disproven either and that open question should be at the centre of this article, not pushed to the margins by a rigorous focus on legal formalities." sounds to me like a person pushing a minority POV, because there is an ICJ ruling on the matter which most disinterested authorities accept, and in my opinion such POV pushing is the mirror image of that minority group who ignore the ICTY judgement and argue that "the Srebrenica genocide is not proven because ... ". -- PBS (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
No, PBS, there is no parallel. In the case of Srebrenica the evidence has been heard. There is no prospect of new evidence overturning the verdicts, and although it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that a different judicial perspective could conceivably reshape interpretation of the Genocide Convention there's no real likelihood of that.
In the case of the ICJ the ruling has been widely questioned by organisations and individuals of substance, not confined to the substantial dissenting opinion of the Court's Vice-President. Given the authority with which you pronounce, you're surely aware of the significance of the redacted Supreme Defence Council minutes - or are you?
To suggest that pointing to the importance of that unexamined evidence sounds to you like pushing a minority POV suggests to me like a wish to impose your own point of view that the meaning of "the Bosnian genocide" is corralled by the wording of the legal findings to date.
Why do you discuss an outdated secondary reference so assiduously rather than adapt the article to incorporate the more recent primary reference? I don't understand what your interest is? If you haven't the time to modify the article, that's legitimate, but why spend so much effort arguing case based on incomplete and inadequate information? Opbeith (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit clash) Because someone else introduced the secondary source into the article, (BTW it was not out of date as it is a report on the primary source and therefore was published after the primary source). and I am discussing modifying the text here on the talk page before doing so (as per WP:CONSENSUS). You have now changed the wording and the source, presumably because of the discussion we have been having here. Well done. -- PBS (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You didn't seem to think the updated indictment important. I'm afraid I see no justification for keeping a secondary reference that has now been superseded. Like many references cited it was legitimately useful in the absence of more up-to-date material but is now potentially misleading. Opbeith (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ICJ and excluded information

In the previous section you, Opbeith, used the word "redected" is what you meant, or did you mean "excluded"? As I added the paragraph "Although the ICTY prosecutors had access to them during the trials..." I know about that issue, and included that paragraph to balance this article, much more than that paragraph and I think it moves the article into WP:UNDUE. You write above "In the case of Srebrenica the evidence has been heard. There is no prospect of new evidence overturning the verdicts ..." under what possible conditions can you see the ICJ's legal verdict of the Bosnian Genocide Case being overturned? -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of decisions taken in the Milosevic trial Bosnia was unable to use the "blacked-out" sections of the SDC minutes in the evidence that it submitted to the ICJ. As I remember from discussion back in 2007, if previously unavailable evidence, such as the "confidential" elements of the SDC minutes, becomes admissible Bosnia has ten years from the date of the ICJ judgment in which to ask for it to be considered. I'll try and find a reference. Opbeith (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article 60 of the ICJ's charter says no appeal, article 61 will be the one you heard about: "1. An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, ... 5. No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment" In my opinion politically that is probably a non starter, but it probably should be added to the Bosnian Genocide Case (as should the paragraphs in this article that criticise the decision). In my opinion the best hope the the Bosnian government has is a political victory via a ICTY judgement that contradicts the ICJ, because the ICTY Appeals chamber has specifically ruled that it is not bound by ICJ's decisions, but I don't think we should include such speculation (as Wikipdia is not a crystal ball) although if such a verdict is returned and there is commentary stating that it is a contradiction then of course we should include it in this article. -- PBS (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
PBS, thanks very much for looking up the reference, that's helpful. Of course the significance of the SDC minutes isn't speculation, it's a key issue in the public discourse concerning the subject of the article, which is about the Bosnian genocide, not the Bosnian Genocide Case. Opbeith (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

usage of image

File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg
Wanted poster for Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadic and Ratko Mladic.

Some anonymous user constantly removing genocide wanted poster from the article. There is only one way to legitimately remove the picture - through dispute and discussion with the community on the talk page.

This image represents:

--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No significant disagreement

The change from:

There is a significant disagreement between the Bosnian and Serbian side about the possibility or scope of genocide in Bosnia during the Bosnian War that has made this a controversial and contentious issue.

to

There is significant disagreement about the substance or the scope of genocide in Bosnia during the Bosnian War.

is in my opinion replacing an unsubstantiated claim (which is in my opinion not controversial -- as the Genocide Case shows that there was and probably still is significant disagreement between ...) with controversial speculation because there is no significant debate outside Bosnia and Serbia because the vast majority accept the ruling of the international courts. I am not against changing the wording, but not to wording that implies that there is general "significant disagreement", because there is disagreement but outside Bosnia and Serbia, but it is not significant and is only a small insignificant number of people.

Now Opbeith you may say that it is only your opinion that it is "an insignificant number of people" and I would agree with you, but I am not the one who is placing the phrase "There is insignificant disagreement ..." onto the page it is you who is placing "There is significant disagreement" onto the page without a source to back up the claim. So either come up with a source that shows that claims that there is significant disagreement about the substance or the scope of genocide OUTSIDE of Bosnia and Serbia, or leave the wording as is. -- PBS (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

PBS, you've closed this article down to your narrow point of view concerning the way the subject should be understood. The fact that the ICTY brings charges of genocide elsewhere in Bosnia than at Srebrenica is incontrovertible evidence. The devious hypothesis that you've advanced in the past that this should be discounted because of the possibility that genocide charges are used tactically to secure conviction on lesser charges shows your argument for what it is. But Fairview360 has been through all this with you in the past. You are relentless. Have your way. But that's what it is, your own selective way of understanding the subject. Opbeith (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This sentence seems to summarize what is actually stated in the section:
Within the international community and within Bosnia itself, there are a range of interpretations as to what constituted genocide in Bosnia and what role Serbia had during the conflict. Among those that acknowledge that genocide occurred in Bosnia, the opinions range from acknowledging only Srebrenica as a case of genocide to asserting that the entire ethnic cleansing campaign carried out within RS territory was genocide. Regarding the role of Serbia, the opinions range from stating that Serbia supported the Army of Republika Srpska but was not directly responsible for their actions to asserting that Serbia had direct command and control of all RS forces and therefore Serbia is directly responsible for genocide occurring in Bosnia whether it was limited to Srebrenica or throughout RS territory.
Also, it is not only the Bosnian community that asserts that the Srebrenica massacre was just one instance of what was a broader genocide committed by Serbia. So, why does the article attribute this assertion only to the "Bosnian community"? Fairview360 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I broadly agree with what you are saying (there is the apparent contradiction of the ICTY finding in the Tadic case and those of the ICJ findings, which takes a fair amount of mental gymnastics and contortions to follow). What I object to the wording that implies that there is "significant disagreement about the substance" because compared to the previous wording it implies that the significance lies in the size of the parties to the disagreement, whereas the previous wording implied that the significance was on the scope and substance because the size of the parties was given. The problem with the wording you have put forward above Fairview360, is that unless there are other ICTY rulings, the vast majority of international opinion accepts the findings of the international courts and do not trouble themselves with the minutia, just as they do with the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. -- PBS (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
There ought to be a sentence with appropriate qualifiers that incorporates all that is being said in this section. Rather than arguing about one or the other sentence, it would help the article if a sentence is created that synthesizes all that is being said here, that accurately summarizes what the section in question describes. It seems quite possible to do so. Fairview360 (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The latest edit by PBS seems to do a good job bringing the sentence to the point of synthesizing all views appearing in this discussion section, the sentence being: "While the majority of international opinion accepts the findings of the international courts, there remains some disagreement about the extent of the genocide and to what degree the Serbian State was involved." The one edit that might be an improvement would be to change "Serbian State" to either "Serbia" or "the government of Serbia".Fairview360 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I considered using just "Serbia", and "Serbian government", I rejected using "Serbia" because of the confusion that it could create with the Bosnian Serbs and Greater Serbia, clearly Bosnian Serbs were found guilty of genocide and I did not want the sentence read in such a way that this might be being seriously questioned. The reason I rejected "Serbian government" is because we are talking about all organs of the Serbian state and limiting it to Serbian government could be taken to imply that it does not cover for example the Serbian army. -- PBS (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
...or Serbian media. This is one of the perennial challenges of describing who is who in the Balkans. For example, the novice reader is going to have a hard time digesting the accurate statement:"Serb soldiers in the Bosnian Army fought against soldiers in the Bosnian Serb Army". While there is potential for confusion whatever the editing choice, the word "Serbia" -- on its own in international English-language mainstream publications such as wikipedia -- is generally understood to refer to the current country of Serbia within its current borders. Of course, that invites the response, what about Kosovo? Welcome to the Balkans. Fairview360 (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to change it to Serbia (or Serbian government) then do so, all I wanted to do here was explain that I had considered using both of them and why I had not, but I am not particularly fussed one way or the other. -- PBS (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Understood. None of the choices are perfect. The current version states "Serbia". Fairview360 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=-4eKmp_qu_QC&lpg=PA169&ots=kAhP98a1DN&dq=200%2C000%20died%20in%20bosnia%20figure&pg=PA181#v=onepage&q=200,000%20died%20in%20bosnia%20figure&f=false
  2. ^ Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002; Reasons for the Decision on Prosecution Interlocutory Appeal from Refusal to Order Joinder; Paragraph 8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_genocide/Archive_4&oldid=1089768018"