Talk:Bosnian genocide/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

June 2010

From the history:

• 13:06, 28 June 2010 Chrono1084 (The Bosniaks were killed as an ethnic group and not because of their religion)
• 13:20, 28 June 2010 Chrono1084 (As it is an ethnic cleansing, this is a more appropriate link)
• 23:43, 28 June 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (rv to last version by PBS. Do you have a source for "Bosniaks were killed as an ethnic group" because the charges say "Bosnian Muslims". Ethnic cleansing already linked in the article so not See Also)

Do you (Chrono1084) have a source for "Bosniaks were killed as an ethnic group" because the ICTY charges relate in English to "Bosnian Muslims", now if in another language used by the court some other description is used then we can review it, but English language sources use "Bosnian Muslims" which is not exactly the same thing as "Bosniaks" as according to the CIA not all Bosniaks are Muslim.

I have removed the addition of ethnic cleansing from the See Also section as ethnic cleansing is linked in the article and usually links in articles should not also appear in the see also section. -- PBS (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Bosnian Muslims, Muslims and Bosniaks which are different names given to the same ethnic group (please check those articles) are not all religiously Muslim but they were given the two first names because of their traditionnal religion. Maybe the ICTY should have made it clearer in this ruling (altough maybe they did explain that but I don't feel like reading to whole ruling to find out) for persons unaware of the ethnic populations in Yougoslavia. But if you check for exemple in this ICTY press release it is explained that "Muslim" is the name given to an ethnic group--Chrono1084 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As regards legal rulings, the Krajisnik trial chamber judgment includes the following:

Para 855. "As with “destruction”, the group as either national, ethnic, racial, or religious is a notion that occurs both in the mens rea of genocide and in the actus reus. In the context of the present case it is the least problematic notion. There is no dispute that the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were national or ethnic groups in the sense of the Genocide Convention."

Opbeith (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, you seem determined to resist any admission of familiarity with your subject. "Bosnian Muslim" was a nationality created by Tito in 1968, to accommodate those Yugoslavs with an identity as Bosnians who did not have an ethnic identity as Serbs or Croats. The "Bosnian Muslim" nationality did not imply any religious affiliation. The nationality was used in national censues. This is why the UN and UN organs like the ICTY used the term "Bosnian Muslims" to refer to the ethnic group. For various reasons including the pseudo-religious crusading of the Serbian Orthodox Church a religious slant was added to what was essentially a conflict of nationalistic aggression. The emphasis on the faith component of the group's identity was consolidated by Dayton. Given that many "Bosnian Muslims" were in fact secular in outlook, this development led to increasing popularity of the (existing) designation Bosnia or Bosniak to indicate nationality. But the Bosnian Muslims who were the victims of the Bosnian genocide that your legalistic nitpicking has sought to banish from existence even as a subject of controversy were an ethnic group. The Bosnian Genocide aimed permanently to eliminate the Bosnian Muslims from a large and continuous area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was more than ethnic cleansing. Opbeith (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The ICTY sources are not very clear on the issue, and they don't have to be. Both religious and national groups are protected under the Genocide Convention, so whether Bosnian Muslim are defined as a nation, ethnic, religious group, does not matter as an attack with the intent biologically destroying such a group is genocide. The trial transcripts use "Bosnian Muslim" and to superimpose on the courts definition any definition that they themselves do not use is a violation of WP:V/WP:OR. If there is a definition by the ICTY in their ruling that the "Bosnian Muslims" is a national group and not a religious group then that is fine by me, but we should not super impose a definition not supported by the sources. Rightly or wrongly the understanding of what the group represents is bound to reflect to a greater or lesser extent the perception of the perpetrator because it is they who are on trial not the victims. This is particularly true in a genocide trial because their motives for committing mass murder is pertinent to a finding of genocide. In my opinion "legalistic nitpicking" is exactly what is need in these articles if they are to remain scholarly not not represent the propaganda of one side or the other. -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, you're the one superimposing the need for a definition that expressly specifies that the Bosnian Muslims were regarded as an ethnic group. It is a reasonable hypothesis given the evidence of the group's status under the Yugoslavian constitution and its use as a group identifier equivalent to the ethnic describers "Serb" and "Croat" in the census formulation. definition what an ICTY definition. By all means enter a caveat if you must, but you are not entitled simply to reject the statement that the group under its self-selected name or its former name was killed as an ethnic group. One of the main reasons why Bosniaks have chosen to use that name to identify themselves by is precisely the misunderstanding that the now historical non-religious term "Bosnian Muslims" gave rise to, the notion that the Bosnian Muslims were targeted as a religious group rather than an ethnic group.

I don't have the text of your CIA statement - any comments must be subject to more context. However as you report the statement it is ambiguous and yet you appear to have chosen to interpret it in a specific way - as saying that "Bosniaks" and the group known as "the Bosnian Muslims" are not the same group. In fact it is open to an equally legitimate interpretation, that not all Bosniaks are followers of Islam - I would suggest that that's the more likely interpretation since the Bosniak identity is defined in terms of the ethnicity/nationality of those who were formally defined by their Bosnian Muslim nationality (I'll leave aside the complication of the difference between ethnicity and nationality in the Yugoslavian/Bosnian context, since that's a point of secondary importance here). Whatever the correctness of either interpretation, you have made the choice of one interpretation in preference to another.

Similarly by insisting - not for the first time - that any reference to the Bosnian genocide outside legal findings represents propaganda, you have imposed a personal framework of reference. You have defined the subject of this article as "Genocide in Bosnia as defined by majority findings in international legal fora". You choose to treat any legitimate reference outside that framework as controversy, and meriting subsidiary status and cursory treatment.

Dismissing any other reasoned explanation as simply propaganda is a crass misrepresentation. As I have pointed out Judge Al-Khasawneh's Opinion makes a very forceful case for a different opinion by the ICJ and respected scholars have supported his opinion. That is not the same thing as genocide denial without reference to fact and findings. Al-Khasawneh's opinion doesn't reverse the ICJ's decision but it is a legitimate position and particularly so insofar as the issue of the suppression of evidence (the unredacted Supreme Defence Committee minutes) is widely regarded as calling into question the reliability of the legal findings.

You dismiss the views of witnesses and victims glibly as de facto "propaganda" because they are expressed by "one side", as if the substance of the experiences reported by this "side" had not already been amply verified. Although obviously the legal findings are an essential part of the exposition of the subject, the failure to date to confirm individual perpetrators' motivation does not invalidate witnesses' informed analysis.

You seem oblivious to the fact that your reiterated assessment of any alternative opinion to the legal findings as propaganda is clearly partial - not necessarily towards either side but certainly towards an incomplete representation of the subject matter of the article. It is also pretty offensive but that's another matter. Opbeith (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Witnesses know what the saw happen but they are not experts in interpreting whether the atrocities they witnessed were genocide under international law. "Al-Khasawneh's opinion ... is widely regarded as calling into question the reliability of the legal findings" To date you have not come up with English language sources to back up you assertion that it is "widely regarded" and this issue is dealt with in the criticism section Controversy. We discussed this in the archived section Talk:Bosnian Genocide/Archive 4#No significant disagreement. "Similarly by insisting - not for the first time - that any reference to the Bosnian genocide outside legal findings represents propaganda, you have imposed a personal framework of reference". The article lists other interpretations of what classified as a genocide -- For example the US congressional resolutions. However since the ICJ judgement, to the best of my knowledge no international forum under the auspices of the UN or the EU, or national legislator has passed a resolution that contradicts that finding. If you have such a source I would be interested to see it (You were asked for such sources in the now archived discussion).

Here is the CIA reference: ("Bosnia and Herzegovina: People", [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html The World Factbook], American Central Intelligence Agency, ISSN 1553-8133 {{citation}}: External link in |title= (help). It says that based on year 2000 data, Bosniaks make up 48% of the population and 40% of the population were Muslim. So if all Muslims in Bosnia are Bosniaks then 20% of Bosniaks are not Muslim. So unless the CIA is wrong with its statistics, when the ICTY uses "Bosnian Muslim", unless they specifically state that "Bosnian Muslim" does not mean a religious group, we can not assume they meant the Bosniak ethnic group. Therefore we should use "Bosnian Muslim" without qualification. --PBS (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, once again you wilfully miss the point. The problem with your definition of the subject of the article is that you focus it overwhelmingly on the legal findings and relegate any other opinion to subsidiary consideration. You don't seem to be able to understand the point of view that the legal findings provide an inadequate framework because the ICTY and ICJ have used too narrow an approach to determining the requirements for a finding of genocide. I cited Al-Khasawneh as evidence of an alternative perspective at the highest level but the opinion of the ICJ's vice-president wasn't substantial enough. If you want evidence that his opinion on the subject was widely regarded here are a few names for you to start with and I'll look for some more if you need them, they won't be too hard to find. This is not mere controversy it is a different understanding of the subject which deserves a broader treatment than you are prepared to allow it here.

The article does not concentrate on the legal findings. It also list the UN and US resolutions. -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You're quibbling. By now it should be clear that I've been talking about the article's focus on formal findings and the relegation of the substantive issues to a secondary consideration. Those resolutions are relevant as an indication of non-judicial appraisal. However reference to formal acts of that kind does not offset the lack of balance in the article regarding its treatment of the substantive issues.

The following are among the scholars who support Al-Khasawneh's criticism of the ICJ's findings:

José M. Alvarez, Hamilton Fish Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Columbia Law School, President of the American Society of International Law[1]

Martin Shaw, Professor of international relations and politics at the University of Sussex [2]

David Luban, Professor of law and philosophy at Georgetown University Law Center[3]

Diane Orentlicher, former Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Washington College of the Law, American University, Washington D.C.(original comment, extensively requoted, at [4] now has a dead link, she confirms the substance in a post at [5]

Susana SáCouto Director of the War Crimes Research Office at American University, Washington College of Law[6]

Andras Riedlmayer, Bibliographer in Islamic Art and Architecture at Harvard University [7]

Jens David Ohlin, Assistant Professor of Law, Cornell Law School [8]

David Turns, Senior Lecturer in the Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law, Cranfield University [9], more if you want.

Have you read the documents you have listed? Most of them if they are at all relevant probably belong in the article Bosnian Genocide Case not in this summary article of that case. -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You know very well why I mentioned them - because you tried to make out that there wasn't substantial agreement with Al-Khasawneh's position. As usual, you move off in a different direction when someone responds to your demands. Opbeith (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read what I have said I am mentioning them not as references to be cited in the article but as the evidence that you demand that Al-Khasawneh's arguments have substantial support in expert circles. I have not read through those references in full, but I have read the relevant sections in which the ICJ ruling is ruling is criticised in line with Al-Khasawneh or else their positions are well enough known, for example where I wasn't able to find the Orentlicher source, which is already mentioned in the article.

You demanded that I substantiate the wider acceptance of Al-Khasawneh's alternative view. Now that I've done that you challenge my scrupulosity / good faith. I simply want to make the point to which you seem to be very resistant that the article deals inadequately with its subject by consigning analysis of its restrictive assertions to a section on "Controversy", as if those very serious issues that have been raised by many people familiar with the findings are on a par with the efforts to deny that genocide happened at Srebrenica. Opbeith (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And I don't see why you should specify English-language sources. That's not a Wikipedia requirement.

This is an English language encyclopaedia, if there is a significant point of view on this subject the changes are that it is addressed in English. Even French opinions tend to be translated in to English. What notable neutral sources do you think we have not included because they are not in English? -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines on use of non English-language sources: [[10]] Opbeith (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again you turn the discussion in a different direction. We are not talking about material for inclusion in the article, we are talking about supporting evidence you require of me for a statement I make here on the Talk page. It shouldn't need the obvious to be stated, but anyone who is familiar with events occurring outside the Anglophone world knows that important source evidence is often not translated or referred to, particularly in languages and subject areas where there is not comprehensive bilingual coverage. If there is specific reason to challenge a source, of course a translation should be provided. But what happens then - are you going to require a notarised translation? In the last resort Wikipedia relies on common sense. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that thanks to the linguistic capabilities of participants it is capable of taking account - with due caution - of important source material that other people can verify even if you as an individual are unable to do so. How does that differ from a reference to a relatively inaccessible academic text? But in any case I diverge. What we're talking about is simply me providing substantiating evidence for a statement that anyone with a basic familiarity with the subject would have accepted without too much difficulty. Opbeith (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand what you are saying about the CIA reference, I'll have to come back to that and work out what case you're arguing. Opbeith (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I think you've used your reference somewhat economically in order to make your case. The CIA World Handbook "People" section for Bosnia and Herzegovina includes the brief subsections "Ethnic Groups" and "Religions". There's not very much relevant text so it would have taken very little effort to have examined it in full.

The "Ethnic Groups" subsection reads:

"Bosniak 48%, Serb 37.1%, Croat 14.3%, other 0.6% (2000)

note: Bosniak has replaced Muslim as an ethnic term in part to avoid confusion with the religious term Muslim - an adherent of Islam"

(n.b., my note, the "note" above is the CIA World Handbook's authors' own interpolated comment)

In other words the CIA reference does the opposite of what you claim. It indicates that the term "Muslim" *was* used previously to refer to the ethnic group. Your summary statement ""Bosnian Muslims" [...] is not the same thing as "Bosniaks" as according to the CIA not all Bosniaks are Muslim." without reference to the time frame distorts what your reference is saying.

As previously discussed, the ICTY process dates back to 1993, at which time the ethnic group was still being referred to generally by the title "Bosnian Muslims", the name by which the Tito regime gave the group constitutional recognition as a "nationality" alongside Serbs and Croats.

This article should be about explaining what is meant by the term "Bosnian genocide". It should reflect the fact that the term is commonly used to refer to what happened across Bosnia in 1992-1995 even in the absence of a specific legal finding. I use the term "legalistic nitpicking", because you focus on detail in a way that wilfully or otherwise obscures the wider picture.

The article does do that (it lists the UN and US, etc). But since the ICJ ruling the term ethnic cleansing tends to be used rather than genocide. If you have a source that shows that "the term is [still] commonly used to refer to what happened across Bosnia in 1992-1995" then please produce it. -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Go back and read the context in which you provided the reference. The section of wording that you left out was clearly relevant. Opbeith (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the article should explain the relevance of the legal definition and the concrete findings. It should also usefully refer to any specifically "propagandistic" use. But it should not a priori seek to devise guidelines for legitimate use of the term, which is what it does by insisting that the term can only be used to designate the Srebrenica genocide or the process of ethnic cleansing. What the article does is restrict the understanding and use of the term in its wider sense to a issue of "controversy".

The article does not insist on anything. It reports usage by international bodies and other significant authorities. what does "What the article does is restrict the understanding and use of the term in its wider sense to a issue of controversy" mean? -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In the course of this effort to define the meaning of the term "Bosnian genocide" you appear to be trying to ensure a rigorous distinction between the pre mid-1990s Bosnian Muslim national/ethnic identity and the contemporary Bosniak ethnic identity. The evidence of your selective quoting from the CIA World Handbook certainly suggests that this is unjustified. There is a substantial body of evidence confirming the way in which the term "Bosnian Muslim" in a non-religious sense in the former Yugoslavia, as previously referred to.

I think you've missed the point of the CIA data. One can reasonably draw the conclusion from the CIA data that 20% of Bosniaks are not Muslim, so unless the ICTY explicitly states that they are including non Muslims when they says "Bosnian Muslim", we can not assume that the statement "Bosnian Muslim" means ethic group and not religious group (it does not mean either that we can assume religious group not ethnic group). From the point of view of genocide both are protected groups so it does not really matter if the ICTY is opaque in its usage. -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue under discussion was the common identity of the group known as Bosnian Muslims in the Yugoslavian constitution, the 1991 census and popular parlance in 1992 and the group known as Bosniaks. It has been explained to you several times that "Bosnian Muslim" is a term that has been used in an ethnic, non-religious sense. The CIA World Reference Handbook's 2000 data is irrelevant without a comparison with the equivalent religious adherence data for the prewar situation, and particularly when you ignore the relevant qualifying notes. Opbeith (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The ICTY and ICJ have followed a legitimate convention in continuing to refer to the Bosnian Muslims as the protected group in accordance with the historical usage, in the interests of understanding and textual consistency. That should not mean forcing a contemporary text into the straitjacket of ignoring reality in a way that consolidates confusion and denies the basic substance of the text. I'm not demanding an abandonment of objectivity, what I am suggesting is that the way the article is constructed in fact militates against an objective understanding. Your partial citation of the evidence of the CIA World Handbook appears to confirm the impression of a personal determination not to acknowledge that.

What is your source that the ICTY and ICJ have been following "historical" usage because according to the OED Bosniac has been used in English for over 150 years. I do not understand what you mean by "Your partial citation of the evidence of the CIA World Handbook appears to confirm the impression of a personal determination not to acknowledge that". -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that when the group was identified in 1992/1993 as the Bosnian Muslims this was an expression used as an ethnic and national signifier as well as, but not identically with, its use as a religious signifier. You have cite evidence selectively to argue that the way the term Bosnian Muslim was used was dissimilar to the way the term Bosniak has been applied without taking account of contradictory information. I'm afraid that these days I find it more and more difficult not to express my exasperation when you demand absolute rigour from your interlocutors while being less than forthcoming yourself.Opbeith (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the article must include an exposition of the legal significance of the term "genocide" and the relevant legal findings, and it might also examine any "propagandistic" exploitation of the term by either side, but in the end its focus should be on helping us understand what people mean when they use the term without ulterior motive to refer to actions that were more than ethnic cleansing and happened in places other than Srebrenica, the culmination of the Bosnian genocide. Opbeith (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is clear what is meant by the term when most English Language sources use the term Bosnian Genocide and this article reflects that. For example check out the BBC's, CNN's, Fox's usage it is very similar to this article, as is the usage in mainstream serious English language newspapers. -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See new section below - Separation. Opbeith (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the issue of witnesses, I am not arguing that the comments of people who have experienced the events which are the articles' subject should be treated as having equivalent standing in law as the formal judgements of the ICTY and the ICJ. What I am saying is that their experience is a potentially valuable source of assistance in establishing the framework of reference needed to develop an article on this kind of subject. Your suggestion that to have merit their contributions must be judged according to their ability to determine whether they can determine whether an act or event constitutes genocide under international law is again a narrowly legalistic approach - I'm not just referring to witnesses of atrocities, I'm talking about people able to discuss, for example, the reality of ethnic affiliation and other general issues. To assume that what someone has to contribute from experience should be regarded in principle as propaganda and locked down with a demand for legal citations appears to have the effect of driving away potential contributors with useful insight. Opbeith (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the issue of international fora since the ICJ ruling in 2007 recognising the existence of a phenomenon that might be described as a "Bosnian genocide not confined to Srebrenica and not simply ethnic cleansing", I'd remind PBS that the ICJ finding concerning genocide outside Srebrenica referred only to Serbia's culpability. The ICTY Trial Chamber's decided to allow Radovan Karadzic's trial under the revised indictment for genocide in municipalities in Bosnia outside Srebrenica to proceed. This could only have happened if the Trial Chamber considered the fact of genocide in Bosnia outside Srebrenica to have been sufficiently substantiated (by the Krajisnik trial's confirmation of acts of genocide if nothing else) to allow a trial to go ahead. The ICTY is an international forum under the UN.

The sentence "To date, only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be a genocide by the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ" accurately reflects that point. As does the section Individuals prosecuted of genocide during the Bosnian war. It is a summary section which links to an article on individuals cases. Originally article was a section in this article, but it was decided that it was large enough to become an article in its own right. It is right and proper for the prosecution to bring whatever charges they think appropriate, the judgement at the end of the trials will decide which of those charges the Judges consider warranted. -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The ICTY's decision to try Karadzic for genocide outside Srebrenica in itself is enough to make the statement "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War." untenable. For the sake of argument I suggest a reading of the Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing that's linked to in that statement offers useful background reading. Opbeith (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You may consider it untenable, but the sentence is sourced with a reliable source. Do you have a source that contradicts the sentence? What in the sentence is not correct? -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Classic. You redefine the question to provide the answer you choose, just as you've made the role of the Tribunal in accepting charges filed by the Prosecution simply disappear as an intermediate judgment before the trial takes place. The statement defining the subject is untenable not because it is incorrect in itself, but because it is insufficiently correct. The oath sworn in court when giving evidence is not just "to tell the truth" but to "tell the whole truth". Opbeith (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that you had asked a question, AFAICT you asserted that "The ICTY's decision ...", and AFAICT "intermediate judgment before the trial takes place" implies that you think someone is guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty, which is not a position taken in most jurisdiction and certainly not under common law which is what is familiar to most native English language speakers. In response to your assertion that the sentence is untenable "Do you have a source that contradicts the sentence? What in the sentence is not correct?" -- PBS (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, now you're asserting that finding that the circumstances for the crime to have been committed and charges to be brought are the same as asserting that someone is guilty until proved innocent. You twist discussions round to something they're not about, you ignore what doesn't suit you to pay attention to.Opbeith (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Return to two distinct articles

I think that it is becoming obvious that you will never accept an article describing the substance of how genocide in Bosnia is understood that does not conform to the narrow definition "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War."

There are other issues that I would like to spend my "Wikipedia time" on rather than pursuing attempts to find a way out of this impasse. The inconsistent and quite often uninformed way in which you as an administrator deal with efforts to discuss the substance of the article is discouraging. The other substantial current contributor to this article is Fairview360 who despite his view that the Srebrenica genocide should not be referred to as such because it is part of a wider Bosnian genocide appears to support your basic premise. To summarise, you and Fairview360 appear to believe that the subject of the article is either "genocide in Bosnia as confirmed formally by an ICTY conviction or ICJ ruling" - in other words the genocide at Srebrenica alone - or by an informal definition that signifies the forcible transfer of a population, possibly involving violence such as rape and murder, but not its intentional destruction.

There is sufficient expert opinion to suggest that even in the absence of a specific judicial conviction or confirmatory ruling it can be argued that genocide was perpetrated in Bosnia outside Srebrenica. That is more than a subordinate issue of controversy. If the article on "Bosnian Genocide" cannot accommodate a meaning between judicially proven genocide and mere forcible population transfer the only solution is to separate off the previously combined article "Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina" again in order to a description of the wider understanding of genocide in Bosnia.Opbeith (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no edit history to the redirect Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina so what article are you talking abou? What you are suggesting is against policy, see Wikipedia:Content forking. On the other hand if you wanted to write an article on the ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian War, that would be another matter. -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a redirect from Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. My suggestion is that the redirect be removed so as to allow the two to be independent. I have tried my best to outline as clearly as I can why the article in the form you insist it should have does not allow discussion of the subject of genocide in Bosnia. It is only because you are unwilling adequately to accommodate this aspect of the subject that I have ended up suggesting that perhaps a reasonable way out of the impasse is to have a separate article to describe that differently defined subject. You pay no attention whatsoever to my explanation and tell me that I am proposing the creation of an article on the same subject. Then, instead, illogically and disregarding the fact that I very clearly said that the subject that needs to be described is *not* "ethnic cleansing", you advise me that I can proceed to create an article that you have already defined as the subject of this article. This is an Alice through the Looking Glass dialogue. You do not conduct yourself like a facilitating administrator, you operate like a very determined partisan of a particular point of view. Opbeith (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It still seems to me that what you are proposing is a content fork. What specifically is it that you want to put into your proposed new article that is not covered in this article. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just read what I've already said, I'm not planning on wasting any more breath. Opbeith (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already made clear my view that this article does not deal properly with the body of genocidal acts committed during the Bosnia war for which no individual has yet been found guilty, which are not adequately described by the term "ethnic cleansing". If your conclusion as admin is that the article cannot be split as I have suggested, then this article has to find a way of accommodating the two elements - the general subject "Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina" redirected here and the specific collocation "Bosnian Genocide" which is often, you appear to consider incorrectly, used as a synonym. My understanding of the general way in which the general and the more specific terms relate to one another is as follows, in a possible rough draft of the introduction to an article dealing with the two subjects in combination:

"Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina refers generally to the crimes considered to have been committed in breach of the United Nations Genocide Convention in many of the municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian war of 1992-1995. The specific term Bosnian Genocide, used informally to refer to a pattern of crimes aimed at eliminating the non-Serb population of the secessionist Republika Srpska in its near-entirety, has tended to be used by official bodies in a more restrictive sense since the ICJ's finding in 2007 to refer unequivocally, though not necessarily exclusively, to the sole instance of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina confirmed by ICTY conviction or ICJ ruling as having been committed at Srebrenica in July 1995." Opbeith (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this not what the lead says "In the 1990s, several authorities, in line with a minority of legal scholars, asserted that ethnic cleansing as carried out by elements of the Bosnian Serb army was genocide. These included a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly and three convictions for genocide in German courts ..."? I am not at all sure where you are getting "The specific term Bosnian Genocide, used informally to refer to a pattern of crimes aimed at eliminating the non-Serb population of the secessionist Republika Srpska in its near-entirety" the term that is usually used in reliable English language sources is "ethnic cleansing", not "genocide". This usage has been reinforced by the ICJ Judgement. Looking into this perhaps we can work in a couple of sources like this BBC story Bosnia genocide ruling splits regional media which is cited on page 302 of "International Law and Power: Perspectives on Legal Order and Justice, Essays ..." by Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad, Michael Bohland -- PBS (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, "In the 1990s, several authorities, in line with a minority of legal scholars, ..." are three forms of restrictive phrasing that define the view that genocide may have taken place across the municipalities of Bosnia as relatively insignificant and anachronistic. That phrasing underpins the article's current treatment of its subject in a way that looks at the issue of whether genocide took place in Bosnia outside Srebrenica and beyond ethnic cleansing as a question of tangential rather than central importance.

And I'm not clear why you think I would see the reference "The response of the regional media was split" (in the context of a political analysis) as more than a token acknowledgment of the local concerns that you have previously said should be assumed to lack objectivity. I have tried to draw your attention to discussion of the issue of principle at the highest levels but again you direct attention elsewhere.

The status in law of the allegation that genocide was perpetrated in Bosnian municipalities other than Bosnia has not been formally resolved. The ICJ found that the Bosnian Serbs had committed genocide at Srebrenica and it did not find that Serbia had committed genocide in Bosnia. The ICTY has confirmed that although no individual has been proven to have had intent to commit genocide - the mens rea element, nevertheless the existence of the underlying acts has been proven - the actus reus element. Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are still charged with genocide in Bosnia outside Srebrenica.

Ethnic cleansing is a term that does not consider the intended fate of the target group. The term was widely used at the time of the Bosnian war before the appropriateness of referring to genocide was clarified. The term continues to be used in a broadly descriptive sense but that doesn't mean that its use in a more specific sense, even by relatively reliable sources, should be assumed to be authoritative. The term "ethnic cleansing" simply refers to the outcome of what took place in Bosnia. Its conventional, broad-brushstroke use to refer to the process is common but does not justify an inadequate definition of the article's subject that leads to a distorted treatment of the subject.

The question of the intent behind the process of ethnic cleansing is a central issue in discussing "genocide in Bosnia". If the current, phraseological, definition of "Bosnian genocide" does not allow adequate consideration of the evidence and argument that the ethnic cleansing was an element of genocide then two separate articles are needed and justified. If, as you maintain, "genocide in Bosnia" and the "Bosnian genocide" are the same subject then the definition and content of the current article, that pays only tangential attention to the subject of genocide other than at Srebrenica, needs to be refined and expanded.

People should be able to use the article(s) to help them understand the subject, not to be puzzled about its treatment. Opbeith (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Danner, one of the most experienced journalists writing on Bosnia and genocide, along with other human rights issues and contexts, gave an interview to Bridget Conley-Johnson of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in January as part of their Voices against Genocide project: "...

BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: So a chain reaction of responding to Somalia instead of Bosnia, and then the crisis out of that making it impossible to respond to Rwanda.

MARK DANNER: Exactly. The other, of course, chain reaction was the fact that when Bill Clinton did win the presidency, in part because he was aggressive with the so-called foreign policy president, George H.W. Bush-- when Bill Clinton got into office, having demanded bombing and strong action, he was confronted with this complicated war, and confronted with an advisor who said to him, “Do you want to be like Lyndon B. Johnson, who sacrificed all his grand domestic ambitions for involvement in a distant war that Americans care little about?” And Bill Clinton’s answer, at least by his actions, was, “No.” And he proceeded essentially to do very little for several years, during which thousands of people died.

BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: And genocide at Srebrenica.

MARK DANNER: Exactly. The genocide at Srebrenica is of course the purest, more horrible example of it. But the genocide was already going on at the time he took office. In fact, in the book I cite a document from the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States in which-- and this is during the summer of ’91, late summer of ’91-- in which there is a list of camps, of concentration camps in Bosnia, and the categories are: number of prisoners-- top of this list-- and then number liquidated. This is an American intelligence document, during which-- at a time, by the way, when the United States was vehemently denying that genocide was taking place. Which of course, by the way, one should mention, the Genocide Convention, which had, during that decade of the ‘90s, and interesting consequence. During the Bosnian war, its consequence essentially was that the United States claimed repeatedly that there was no genocide, even though it knew that there was. But the Clinton administration and the Bush administration before it seemed to fear that if it was admitted that genocide was taking place, the Genocide Convention would compel the United States and other nations to do something to stop it. And of course later in Rwanda, there was-- I think it was Warren Christopher who said that, “This is tantamount to genocide,” and again, no action was taken. And finally we reached Darfur under George W. Bush when Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that there was genocide going on, but still very little was done to stop it. So the story of the Genocide Convention is another complicated strain running through the era, I think."

http://www.ushmm.org/genocide/analysis/details.php?content=2010-01-28

Danner's not talking about ethnic cleansing, he's talking about genocide in Bosnia. Opbeith (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This article explains that i part with the quote of the ECHR "The Court finds that the [German] courts' interpretation of 'intent to destroy a group' as not necessitating a physical destruction of the group, which has also been adopted by a number of scholars ..., is therefore covered by the wording, read in its context, of the crime of genocide in the [German] Criminal Code and does not appear unreasonable" but that was before the ICJ "eschewed any broader definition. ..." IMHO your position was not an unreasonable one to take before the ICJ ruling was made, but to push that line now is as inappropriate as pushing the line the the Srebrenica massacre was not genocide. We are meant to represent all view without overemphasising minority ones and post the ICJ ruling I think you are overemphasising a minority POV. -- PBS (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, PBS, you are the person pushing a point of view, in insisting on minimising the treatment of the significant alternative points of view about the article's subject and insisting on its misdefinition. You suggest that there is a parallel between the incoherent and generally partisan "alternative view" that what happened at Srebrenica wasn't genocide, and the substantive criticism of the ICJ's investigation and findings. That is a superficial comparison which you ought to know is misleading. The ICJ made no final ruling about genocide in Bosnia in general outside Srebrenica, it made a finding on Serbia's responsibility. The ICTY carefully explained why it found that genocide had been committed at Srebrenica in a way that dealt with the arguments advanced by the most prominent deniers; the limited number of critics argue about fundamental issues of principle, they do not substantially challenge the legitimacy of the way the ICTY reached its conclusions. The ICJ ruling has been criticised on various grounds by numerous respected practitioners and scholars. Most notably it failed to draw inferences and it failed to pursue evidence. Those criticisms have clearly not been answered by Rosalyn Higgins's simple assertion that the judgment should speak for itself. That is simply to point out that your legalistic arguments are not final, however much you insist they are. You ignore the points raised, you just carry on beating your drum.

But in any case your argument that the article should be configured in line with legal findings and formal is challenged even by the misleading and erroneous introductory definition you defend. The allegations of genocide in Bosnia refer to acts that go beyond ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is essentially a process of demographic transformation. Genocide is the partial or total destruction of a defined group. The methods by which ethnic cleansing is carried out determine whether it reaches the threshold at which it might be considered to be genocide, and in particular the scope and organisation of the violence employed in effecting the forcible removable of population. Ethnic cleansing took place and of course the term is used, particularly as I have noted because its use predated clarification of the issue of genocide. The acts that take the events in Bosnia beyond the scope of simple ethnic cleansing have been well reported and deserve adequate treatment in this article. Moreover, the ICTY has confirmed that the underlying criminal acts that allow for a finding of genocide were committed irrespective of any finding of intent. There has been no ruling that genocide did not take place, simply no finding that any individual or corporate entity was guilty of the crime.

This article should treat the issue of genocide across the municipalities of Bosnia seriously. I am certainly not arguing that genocide in Bosnia should be taken as a proven fact but it merits much more than trivialising as a point of "controversy". Whether or not it is a majority view is irrelevant, you insist on denying the subject adequate treatment here.

You argue away the the response of various visitors leaving comments at this talk page, but your view is not supported by any obvious consensus. I have to accept that Fairview360, the only other person who has made substantial contributions to this article in the recent past other than yourself, appears to resist the notion of change, even if that's in apparent contradiction to some of his views expressed elsewhere. There is very little activity on this Talk Page - perhaps because of the way the structure of the article has been imposed in the past. Although I can't claim to have a supporting consensus here for the change of perspective I suggest, nor do the two of you constitute a robust consensus either. Opbeith (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, this has gone on long enough, we're getting nowhere. You're adamant that this article is about the Bosnian genocide as legally confirmed. You refuse to allow that genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be treated differently from that. Fairview360 has gone to ground somewhere. Please find another admin who does not "have a dog in this fight" (to use the words of James Baker's immortal comment on events in Bosnia) who can provide an objective decision about the possibility of ending the redirect and having two separate articles. Opbeith (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the subject definition

I agree with PBS that it is essential to acknowledge the accepted fact that genocide was perpetrated at Srebrenica. As far as the remainder of Bosnia is concerned the issue is not simply that ethnic cleansing is treated tangentially, it's that the term "ethnic cleansing" is used when it's inadequate to the task of description. In the absence of a legal verdict of genocide against an individual, the only descriptions short of genocide that are adequate to describe the substance of what is meant when people use the expression "Bosnian genocide" are along the lines of "the campaign of mass murder and other violent crimes" or "the alleged genocide". What happened across the municipalities of Bosnia as well as at Srebrenica was certainly "ethnic cleansing" but it was certainly more than ethnic cleansing. The article is handicapped by being tied to this arbitrary definition in a single non-specialist source. Does Thackrah justify his definition? Opbeith (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand to be corrected by anyone with more in-depth knowledge, but I've found no evidence of John Richard Thackrah ever having written about Bosnia or been quoted as commenting about Bosnia. The entry in the Companion to Military Conflict is the only evidence of any mention of the subject by him. Opbeith (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The assignment then for those who wish to edit the introductory sentence is to create a concise description of what ethnic cleansing refers to in this clause "the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army" and then replace "ethnic cleansing" with that concise description. Fairview360 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The other possibility is to write a detailed article on the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place in Bosnia and then link to that from the sentence rather than linking to a general article as is done at the moment. There is no substantial disagreement that the ethnic cleansing campaign included war crimes, crimes against humanity (including mass murder, mas rape etc) and countless other crimes both large and small. But there was substantial disagreement if, outside of Srebrenica, the ethnic cleansing campaign was a genocide and that is reflected in the other two paragraphs in the lead of this article. Given that the majority of sources acknowledge the heinous nature of the ethnic cleansing campaign I am not sure what "certainly more than ethnic cleansing" is supposed to mean as the term ethnic cleansing in English encompass the crimes committed by the Serbs during the campaign and it used encompass more than just enforced legal deportation. -- PBS (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Opbeith is the one objecting to the use of "ethnic cleansing" in the introductory sentence, it is now up to Opbeith to offer an alternative.

Perhaps the objection to the term ethnic cleansing is that the term applies to any means of making an area ethnically homogenous and therefore the phrase alone does not necessarily include the generally accepted heinous nature of the nationalist Serb's ethnic cleansing which, as accepted by all editors currently engaged in this discussion, included mass murder, mass rape, etc. Fairview360 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fairview360, that was precisely the point I was trying to make to PBS when I referred him to the Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing. I'll try and come up with a form of words but I have to say that I think semantic accuracy is as important as conciseness. Opbeith (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Opbeith why don't you write an article on the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place in Bosnia? Then link to that from the lead sentence rather than linking to a general article as is done at the moment. That would solve the problem. -- PBS (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Basically the problem is that the article is focused on the meaning and use of the term "Bosnian Genocide" and it deals only marginally with the substance of the reasons why reputable scholars and jurists believe that genocide occurred in municipalities across Bosnia, not just Srebrenica, and that genocide has a meaning that goes further than simple ethnic cleansing. If you have decided that the subject of this article is essentially the term "Bosnian Genocide" and the constraints on its legitimate use, then another article on the general subject of genocide in Bosnia is needed. But it would be pointless to create more confusion than is already caused by the structure of the present article by approaching the subject indirectly through an article on ethnic cleansing. Opbeith (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

An article on the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia would duplicate a portion of the existing article. All editors currently editing this article agree that Bosnian Genocide refers to either Srebrenica or the entire ethnic cleansing campaign of which Srebrenica was a part. The goal now is to be more specific in the introductory paragraph as to what exactly "ethnic cleansing" refers to. Given the relative brevity of the introductory paragraph, two or three sentences describing both the Srebrenica massacre and the overall ethnic cleansing campaign would be reasonable. Fairview360 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fairview360 I think your statement "All editors currently editing this article agree that Bosnian Genocide refers to either Srebrenica or the entire ethnic cleansing campaign of which Srebrenica was a part." can be misunderstood. All editors currently editing this article agree that the term genocide has been used by different international bodies for both the Srebrenica genocide and the entire ethnic cleansing campaign of which Srebrenica was a part. We can not agree that "Bosnian Genocide refers..." because that involves OR and a level of expertise that we Wikipeida editors do not have. What we can do present the statements of experts and international bodies on what they have said about genocide in Bosnia, giving due weight to those different opinions. The article at the moment set out those statements in chronological order.

That seems to be a distinction without a difference. Whether editors agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4 or agree that experienced mathematicians agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4, the salient point is the editors are not going to dispute the statement. Fairview360 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of having an article on the ethnic cleansing as it occurred in Bosnia would be that when an organisation like the US congress write "the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide" and the ECHR writes "Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that ethnic cleansing, in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide." the reader of this article can read a detailed article on ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia and make up their own mind about what it was. This is not something that should be attempted in this article as it covers the different interpretations of whether the events constituted a genocide. This is no different from the way we report in this article on the Srebrenica massacre and the genocide findings.

With or without an extensive detailed article on the ethnic cleansing campaign, there remains the challenge of describing what the ethnic cleansing campaign included in this article and in a few words in the introductory paragraph. Fairview360 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree it would be a duplication. There are many crimes and actions that happened during the ethnic cleansing campaign that have be found to be such in national and international courts. For example, this article mentions the relatively few convictions for genocide, but there are dozens of convictions for crimes against humanity and lesser crimes that do not belong here or in the List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions. -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As stated earlier, an article on the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia would duplicate a portion of the existing article. Fairview360 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No more so than the Srebrenica massacre duplicates a portion of the existing article. For example there a dozen or so articles on men in the Category:Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of crimes against humanity and Category:Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of crimes against humanity who are not in Category:Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of genocide and there are articles such as Foca massacre. All of this information can be placed into an article on the ethnic cleansing of parts of Bosnia, because the killings rapes etc. were part of the ethnic cleansing campaign and there is no significant disagreement about it. It sidesteps issue of the complex legal arguments needed to understand how the ICTY could find that Serbian organisations were involved enough in the war to trigger the international clauses in the Geneva Conventions, but not involved enough for the ICJ to say that they were not responsible for genocide. -- PBS (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

With or without an extensive detailed article on the ethnic cleansing campaign, there remains the challenge of describing what the ethnic cleansing campaign included in this article and in a few words in the introductory paragraph. The article would also benefit from a description of what the Srebrenica massacre included. Again, since Opbeith is the editor who has put such effort into arguing for revisions to this article, it would seem appropriate for Opbeith to invest some of that energy he dedicates to arguing into writing suggested text. Fairview360 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, previously you seemed unwilling to countenance the fact that the subject of this article might be something more than its definition by international bodies. As it stands the article is something of a meta-article, an article about definition rather than substance. However now you appear to be moving towards the view that the article should cover the different interpretations of whether the events constituted a genocide. As long as that means that the range of interpretations is adequately covered, instead of those that seek to question or expand on the canon of organisational definitions being tucked away in a section on controversy, we seem to be moving closer towards one another.Opbeith (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There remains the challenge of a few words being added to the introductory paragraph that describe the content of the Srebrenica massacre and the ethnic cleansing campaign. Fairview360 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm a bit tied up with family matters, will hopefully manage to make my suggestion next week. Opbeith (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Serb vs Bosnian Serb forces

I changed leading sentence related to the forces responsible for genocide, because Scorpions from Serbia participated in genocide. Serb forces doesn't imply Serbia committed genocide as suggested by PBS, it implies forces consisted of Serbs committed genocide, not just Bosnian Serbs. I aksed PBS to provide the source Scorpions were under Bosnian Serb command, so I repeat this here again. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Provide a legal source that says that any Serbian forces that were not under the command of the Bosnian Serbs were involved in the genocide or conspiracy to commit genocide -- Not war crimes or crimes against humanity. -- PBS (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't I asked you first? Anyway, can you provide any legal source related to Armenian genocide at all? I think this is the case of double standards here. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is you who wish to say the genocide involved more than Bosnian Serbs. Please provide a legal source that states that is so. Those listed in this article as being found guilty of genocide or conspiracy to commit genocide were all under Bosnian Serb command. I am not at all sure what you are talking about with the Arminian Genocide. -- PBS (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to state that PBS is arguing with full sincerity here since his numerous posts would clearly show that he is fully aware that wikipedia does not require a conviction for something to be considered a reliable source. A reliable source does not need to be a legal document. Furthermore, PBS' line of argument is a bit specious as he is arguing whether the Scorpions were under the command of Mladic when the question is who they are, not who commanded them. Russian forces were under the command of American soldiers in SFOR. They did not then become American. They were Russian. Fairview360 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This is an example of double standards. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How is it an example of double standards. What is the other standard that you are comparing it with?

You have many articles about genocide without legal sources. Just on this one you are asking me to provide you a legal source, and you are the one who said: "They (Scorpions) were under Bosnian Serb command, not Serb command." I asked you, can you provide a legal source for this claim or not? Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

By "you" I presume you mean "we" (as you too are editing Wikipedia). I am not claiming that the Scorpions (or anyone else), was or was not involved in genocide or a conspiracy to commit genocide. I am stating that the organisations and persons convicted of genocide or aiding and abetting genocide were members of organisations belonging to the Republika Srpska, and that "Bosnian Serbs" is a better description for such people than Serbs. Which members of any organisation other than those of the Republika Srpska have been found guilty of genocide? -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fairview360 I don't think that your logic hold up, if one of the perpetrators carried an American passport then do we change the lead to "American and Serbian", likewise as most of those found guilty of genocide are also Bosnian citizens then the logic of what you are saying is that we should change the lead to read by "Bosnians and Serbs", it is technically correct but misleading. Having an unqualified Serbs is also misleading. The question comes down to command responsibility and which individuals and organisations have be found guilty of participating in the genocide. Have any Serbian nationals been found guilty have any other non Bosnian nationals or organisations been found guilty of genocide? -- PBS (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

First, apologies for not having returned to the discussion of the article overall. In current circumstances I'm not capable of a sustained engagement with PBS's stonewalling, but I'll return to the discussion when I am. With regard to this specific point I'm astonished that after all this time PBS does not seem to understand the difference between Serbs and Serbians. Opbeith (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If PBS wants to reassert his sincerity, he ought to acknowledge here and now that he was mistaken, that one does not need to provide a legal document or show proof of conviction in order to provide a reliable source. Fairview360 (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. In the first paragraph of the article one has to be careful not to mislead people and while I agree with you that in the body of the text that reliable sources in general (not only legal ones) ought to used, in the case of the first sentence of the article, because of the ICTY and particularly the ICJs ruling, it we need to make the distinction between Serb (which will inevitable be taken by some to mean the state) and Bosnian Serb. It might well be possible to find some reliable sources that ignore the ICTY and the ICJs judgements, but would that be justification for altering the wording or would it be giving undue weight to a minority POV? At least if it were a legal finding published since the ICJ judgement then it would certainly justify a footnote and possibly a qualification of the lead text as clearly a legal judgement should carry considerably more weight than the opinions in ordinary reliable sources.

Before the ICJs returned its judgement, I would have considered that reliable sources (other than legal ones) could/should have been used and that given the POV of the Bosnian government and the media usage in general the weight would probably have been for Serb rather than Bosnian Serb in that lead sentence. But I don't know for sure (water under the bridge) and as we are not considering the text to use prior to the ICJ's ruling there is little point discussing it. -- PBS (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Legally Validated" Judgements

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to three legally validated genocides that occurred during the Bosnian war - Srebrenica massacre (Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic), Doboj genocide (Prosecutor v Nikola Jorgic), Foca genocide (Prosecutor v Novislav Djajic) - committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.Yahalom Kashny (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Keep Introduction, Don't Undo

Please keep the introduction or discuss it here before revisions because it only states the facts: "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to three legally validated genocides that occurred during the Bosnian war -- Srebrenica massacre (Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic), Doboj genocide (Prosecutor v Nikola Jorgic), and Foca genocide (Prosecutor v Novislav Djajic), all committed by Bosnian Serb forces -- or to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War." Yahalom Kashny (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The introduction was as it was before! The newer version is wrong for several reasons.

1. The previous first paragraph of the introduction was sourced the current introductions is not.
2. The current wording is misleading because it implies that the same court "prosecutor" was the same in all the cases. The second paragraph (as was) covers the German courts findings.

To the best of my knowledge, the ECHR did not rule on whether the Doboj and Foca massacres were genocides, what the ruled on was whether it was reasonable that before the ICTY judgements the Jorgic (possibly with the advise of a lawyer) should have known that he could be tried genocide under the broader definition of genocide as used by the German courts before and at the time that they prosecuted him. If the ECHR found "and Doboj and Foca massacres, both found to be cases of genocide" can you provide a paragraph in the ECHR judgement that says so? -- PBS (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, my mistake. I have requested the copies of these judgements from Trial-Ch.org to obtain more info. How do you suggest we re-phrase the intro? These judgments remain undisturbed, because international law dictates that countries have jurisdiction over interpretation and punishment of the crime of genocide. We may be able to paraphrase the first paragraph and make it fit into 1 sentence? We need to explain in the introduction what the article is all about. Karadzic faces charges of genocide not just in Srebrenica, but also in Zvornik and 10 other municipalities. Yahalom Kashny (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that first we go back to the wording of the lead (as it was up to November) because it was crafted after very long discussions on the talk pages and then discuss changes. -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This part of the introductory sentence "or to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army" refers to the acts of genocide in Foca and Doboj. Fairview360 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360, this comment suggests that you share PBS's point of view that there is no distinction between the term ethnic cleansing - the removal of a population - and the term genocide - the destruction of a population. Opbeith (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army included mass killings. Fairview360 (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360, you sidestep the point. It's not the fact of mass killings that is the issue, it's the question, were the mass killings at Srebrenica leading up to the 1995 genocide and elsewhere in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 an incidental part of the ethnic cleansing or they a central element of it, and genocidal. The term "ethnic cleansing" is inadequate here because it conveys a truth but not enough of the truth, and it is misleading because it pre-empts the answer to the question. The term "genocide" used in relation to Bosnia signifies an assessment that the purpose of the killings was to destroy part of the non-Serb population in order to ensure the permanent removal of most or all of the rest of the population from the strategic areas. The killings were central to the creation of ethnically homogeneous strategic areas. That is what those who use the expression infer from the genocidal facts on the ground, and that is what they mean when they describe what the Bosnian Serbs and their Serbian allies did in Bosnia as "genocide" rather than "ethnic cleansing". Opbeith (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot login to my account. I hope I am not banned. It seems I can still post from my IP#. I will find all sources. What sources do we need? 24.82.163.223 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For Philip and Fairview: Dear Philip and Fairview, we should not bother whether or not genocide occurred in Doboj and Foca (I do not have a copy of full judgement). We should only state the facts that these cases resulted in genocide judgements. They are legally tested cases of genocides. I base my facts on the following sources, which both of you are welcome to examine: Source #1 for Nikola Jorgic New York Times, 27 September 1999, Source #2 for Nikola Jorgic The Deseret News 26 September 1997, Source #1 for Novislav Djajic The Deseret News, 23 May 1997, Source #2 for Novislav Djajic which speaks that the court found that genocide was confined to the administrative district of Foca, see Prosecutor v. Krstic paragraph 589, Source #1 for Maksim Sokolovic Daily Union, 29 November 1999, Source # 2 for Maksim Sokolovic New York Times, 30 November 1999. 24.82.163.223 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the second paragraph of the lead cover this point?

The details are in the sections "European Court of Human Rights" and "Individuals prosecuted of genocide during the Bosnian war". The ECHR judgement explains why the German courts and the ICTY (and the more recent Bosnian court) judgements have to date diverged on whether the events that constituted ethnic cleansing outside Srebrenica were also genocide. -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Philip and Fairview360. Now back to the article. All I am suggesting is to shorten three introductory paragraphs into one. I suggest the following re-phrasing (short, concise, factual):

"The term Bosnian Genocide (also known a Genocide in Bosnia) is used to refer either to three international judgements that upheld the occurrence of genocide in Bosnia, other than Srebrenica, according to the wider interpretation of gencide, or to the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, according to narrow interpretation of genocide."

PS: The entire article could be significantly shortened like this. Why do we need three or six paragraphs to say something that can be explained in one paragraphs or in one sentence? Philip, please drop your feedback abotu the above paragraph (and please include any changes you suggest). We can let this article sit dead on wikipedia or we can improve it.24.82.163.223 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The term Bosnian Genocide does not refer to international judgments. It refers to what actually happened. Fairview360 (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Who says so? The term Bosnian Genocide refers to all cases of genocide that were tried by local and international courts. YK2011 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Holocaust" does not refer to the convictions at the Nuremburg trials. "The Holocaust" describes what the Nazi's actually did. Meanwhile, the convictions confirmed what the Nazi's actually did. While the terms "The Holocaust" and the convictions are obviously related, they are not one and the same. Likewise, the term "Bosnian Genocide" refers not to judgments but rather to what the ultra-nationalist Serbs actually did. Hence, the proposed introductory sentence "The term Bosnian Genocide refers to... three international judgments" is conceptually garbled. In order to incorporate the three judgments into a sentence including the term Bosnian Genocide, the sentence would need to be constructed in a manner similar to this: "The term Bosnian Genocide refers to the mass killings and expulsions conducted by the ultra-nationalist Serbs which were confirmed in three court judgments." It would be unwieldy to include the judgments in the first sentence. In any case, the assertion that the term Bosnian Genocide refers to the actual judgments is imprecise. Fairview360 (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that the lead you are suggesting is an improvement on the current lead or is adequate for two reasons. The first it that the three paragraphs are a summary of what is in the article and the lead should reflect the content of the article which can be read independently of the rest of the article. Secondly it is not just the events that have been found to be a genocide in courts of law that have been described as gencode, but also statements such as the UN and US congress that described ethnic cleansing as genocide. -- PBS (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip, I supposse you never read judgement against Djajic, Sokolovic, Jorgic, Kusljic? I got copies of these judgement. In Doboj region, Serb forces killed 2,000 Bosniaks Muslims. Based on the massacre, Germany ruled it was genocide. Now, the trick is: Ethnic cleaning alone does not result in Genocide, so Germany ruled that Ethnic cleansing, general terrorising of population *COMBINED* with the massacre resulted in Genocide. If you don't agree with my version of intro paragraph, which paragraph do you suggest? Are you saying that current article is perfect and requires no improvement? I believe the entire article should be rewritten. This article, in my humble opinion, is garbage and needs to be improved to reflect facts more thoroughly.24.82.163.223 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph covers the point you are making. The reasons the German courts made their ruling at the time they did is explained in the article. It has to do with what constitutes genocide. The international courts have come to the conclusion that genocide involves signification biological destruction of the the victim group. This according to the ECHR is the majority view among legal scholars. The German courts took the view that cultural destruction of the group could also constitute genocide. This at the time they made their judgements was the view of a minority of legal scholars. The lead reflects the content of the article so let's put it to one side for the moment and discuss the body of the article. Which section do you think is the most incorrect and in need of editing? -- PBS (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In a similar way to my reply to Fairview360's comment above, what the German courts decided, and what was not contradicted by the ICTY or by references to ethnic cleansing by the UN and the US, is that use of the term "ethnic cleansing" although tangentially relevant is nevertheless inadequate and misleading here. It conveys a truth but not enough of the truth and it pre-empts the answer to the question, were the mass killings at Srebrenica leading up to the 1995 genocide and elsewhere in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 an incidental part of the ethnic cleansing or were they a central aspect of it - i.e. genocidal? The term "genocide" used in relation to Bosnia signifies an assessment that the killings were targeted, and that part of the non-Serb population was destroyed not merely incidentally but instrumentally in order to secure the permanent removal of most or all of the rest of the population from the strategic areas. This is the inferral made by numerous authoritative figures (cited by me previously) and not confined to the genocide at Srebrenica or invalidated or made redundant by references to "ethnic cleansing". Those who use the expression genocide in relation to Bosnia are mostly not referring to the genocide at Srebrenica or merely to the simple removal of the non-Serb population and it is misleading to suggest otherwise. In relation to Bosnia as a whole the term genocide is used to refer to the genocidal acts, both proven and conforming to a pattern, by which the Bosnian Serbs, aided by their Serbian allies, sought to adjust the population of strategic areas on a permanent basis. The use of the term in that respect is consistent with the legal finding that genocide was committed at Srebrenica. Opbeith ([st[User talk:Opbeith|talk]]) 13:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You write "non-Serb population was destroyed not merely incidentally but instrumentally in order to secure the permanent removal of most or all of the rest of the population from the strategic areas." For genocide to take place it is not the "non-serb population" but specific defined groups within the non-serb population (as laid out in the Genocide Convention). The ICTY has drawn a distinction between biological destruction of a victim group as opposed to cultural destruction. The ICTY has (to date, but it may change) accepted that mass killings and other crimes that constitute crimes against humanity have occurred over a wide area and are part of ethnic cleansing, but they have (so far) rejected the German's courts interpretation that genocide can constitute the cultural destruction of a group without the biological destruction of a significant proportion of the group. This formed the basis Jorgic appeal to the ECHR. That appeal was rejected not because the the ICTY has not used a different criteria for genocide (from the German courts), but because at before he was arrested Jorgic could have known that the German courts might use the cultural destruction as opposed to the biological destruction of a group. If today in another part of the world similar events were to occur, then the ICTY and the ICTR judgements will form the basis of what legally constitutes genocide. One of the curiosities -- to which I have seen no authoritative source -- is if another case is brought in Germany will they follow the precedents set by their own courts or those of the ICTY/ICTR? -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"You write "non-Serb population was destroyed not merely incidentally but instrumentally in order to secure the permanent removal of most or all of the rest of the population from the strategic areas." For genocide to take place it is not the "non-serb population" but specific defined groups within the non-serb population (as laid out in the Genocide Convention)." - as always you redefine the discussion to close down the issue in a way that blocks the application of the term genocide in relation to Bosnia in a way that is consistent with the legal definitions but extending beyond the status quo of legal findings.

I was not trying to identify the non-Serb population as the specific group legally confirmed as the subject of genocide, it is the global population encompassing the putative victims of the genocide that was strategically targeted by the putative perpetrators. Once again you impose your focus, emphasising a narrow truth that is less than the whole truth. The findings of the ICTY and the ICJ are a very important component of our understanding of genocide in Bosnia but they do not impose a rigid boundary on it. I don't question the appositeness of many of the points you make. But I am conscious of a skew in the way you consistently bring the discussion back to a particular perspective, as if to contain it. The way you engage with the subject appears less than straightforward. Opbeith (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On August 29, 2010, Opbeith was invited to make a constructive contribution to the editing of the introduction of this article:

With or without an extensive detailed article on the ethnic cleansing campaign, there remains the challenge of describing what the ethnic cleansing campaign included in this article and in a few words in the introductory paragraph. The article would also benefit from a description of what the Srebrenica massacre included. Again, since Opbeith is the editor who has put such effort into arguing for revisions to this article, it would seem appropriate for Opbeith to invest some of that energy he dedicates to arguing into writing suggested text. Fairview360 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On September 1, 2010, Opbeith claimed he was too busy with obligations outside of wikipedia to make such a contribution:

Apologies, I'm a bit tied up with family matters, will hopefully manage to make my suggestion next week. Opbeith (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Since that time, Opbeith has made over 750 entries into wiki articles and discussion pages. Perhaps, this means that he is now ready to make a constructive contribution as described in the August 29 entry. Fairview360 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that kind reminder, Fairview360. It's fair for you to criticise my reluctance to tackle the central issue here. I'm not going into details of circumstances but perhaps you will allow me my own judgment of what I'm competent to engage with at the moment. My time is a bit less circumscribed, what is more difficult is being able to give the task the concentrated attention it requires. I don't think the issue of suggesting an alternative wording is unimportant, it's the opposite. I know from experience here that any suggestion I make along the lines I have suggested here is going to be challenged in the same determined way that my previous general comments have been, with a legalistic intensity that is inevitably going to require a sustained response. Discussion of points I have tried to make previously haven't been resolved, simply spun out to the point of my leaving them - like the issue of whether this article should remain the focus of a technical treatment of the specific expression "Bosnian genocide" while a more comprehensive treatment is made in a second article on "genocide in Bosnia". I'm only going to tackle this issue when I'm confident I'm not going to have to abandon the effort as I have in the past.

Essentially PBS and I have opposing views on how to proceed, but I understand his position. Your interventions simply confuse me. You seem reluctant to comment on the points I have raised other than to suggest you consider the question of the wording and structure of the article resolved. That's fair enough but it would be helpful when I raise points that you appear to have raised in the past if you could comment on how these were resolved to your satisfaction. I'm puzzled to understand how your point of view on the one issue that attracts your interest, whether that the expressions ethnic cleansing and genocide are valid alternatives in the Bosnian context, is reconciled with your (legitimate) opposition elsewhere to the notion of discussing genocide at Srebrenica while the substance of genocide in Bosnia remains unacknowledged (what you referred to as something along the lines of defining cancer of a small portion of the lung without considering the disease of the organ as a whole). That might help me understand where you and I differ

Perhaps you'll be gracious enough to allow me a bit more time to come up with a wording I hope will not land me up in interminable dead-end arguments, as and when I'm ready and able to do so. In the meanwhile perhaps you might help give me a clearer idea of what you consider the weaknesses of the points I've made previously. Opbeith (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not write an article on Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia detailing what happened (there is plenty of court cases to support such an article) and then write section discussing who has stated that those the crimes against humanity and other crimes, that are collectivity described as ethnic cleansing by the majority of sources, also amount to genocide. That article can then be tied into this article, but without an article describing what has become commonly called "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia, I do not see how your point can be raised in this article without undue weight, as the majority of sources published since the judgement of the ICJ do not consider the wide area ethic cleansing that took place in Bosnia to be genocide (because rightly or wrongly most English language sources follow the lead of the international courts on this issue). -- PBS (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

24.82.163.223 as you are now doing more than just editing in passing please create an account. Which section do you think is the most incorrect and in need of editing? -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip, cultural destruction does not result in genocide and German courts specifically cited ethnic cleansing and cultural destruction *COMBINED IN PART* with the biological destruction. Unfortunately, you don't listen to my arguments. You always go back to your own conclusions. According to you, this article is perfect and requires no improvement. I give up.YK2011 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not my conclusion but that of the ECHR "The Court finds that the [German] courts' interpretation of 'intent to destroy a group' as not necessitating a physical destruction of the group, which has also been adopted by a number of scholars ..., is therefore covered by the wording, read in its context, of the crime of genocide in the [German] Criminal Code and does not appear unreasonable" (copied from the Wikiepdia article attached to this talk page). -- PBS (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina", not "Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina"

As urged upon me by Fairview360 and provoked by PBS's suggestion that I go off and create an article about Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina rather than pursue discussion of Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, here is a summary of my discontent with the article and my attempt at a replacement text.

The term genocide is used in relation to what happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995 because it was (and is) widely perceived that there was a deliberate attempt to eliminate certain population groups permanently from a substantial area of Bosnian territory by destroying large parts of those groups.

The wording of the current introductory paragraph:

"The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War."

offers a pair of definitions which reject one or other of the key elements of the article's subject. The former restricts the scope of the subject to its narrowest possible jurisprudential definition (depriving the term of any significant meaning by reducing it to a synonym for the 1995 Srebrenica genocide). The other defines it as a crime - forcible displacement and transfer - which is not in itself an act of genocide (denying the term's semantic substance).

The article as a whole gives what I (and others) regard as undue weight to jurisprudential and formulational considerations. Its structure and content appears to have been determined by Philip Baird Shearer's personal view of where the article's emphasis should lie, albeit Fairview360 now appears to share that view despite earlier objections. I would suggest that a more balanced article would give more consideration to an explanation of the reference to genocide and how the Bosnian genocide can be considered distinct from the 1995 Srebrenica genocide. This would involve more extensive coverage of the underlying facts and discussion of the evidence relating to intended destruction - these elements are at present marginalised by the article's treatment of the (undeniably important) legal findings.

However the content of the article is a secondary matter, it is the introduction that denies the article proper access to its subject. So it's the introduction that has to be the first concern. I suggest the following wording as the starting point for considering a replacement form of words that engages with the subject.

"The term Bosnian Genocide (/ Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina) refers to events in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995 that gave rise to the perception of a pattern of systematic criminal activity (including mass murder, rape, forcible population displacement and transfer and other war crimes and crimes against humanity) that was aimed at bringing about the destruction of the non-Serb groups present in the area of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) that in 1992 proclaimed its independence as the Republika Srpska."

To accommodate "forensic concerns", the following expansion might be added.

"More narrowly the term may be used to refer to the specific crimes of genocide committed following the fall of the enclave of Srebrenica that have been identified by the jurisprudence of the ICTY and ICJ; to other instances of genocide in (B&H), at Doboj, Foca etc. confirmed by national courts; to the crimes constituting underlying acts of genocide found by the ICTY to have been perpetrated in municipalities across (B&H) by Bosnian Serb forces and external supporters; and to alleged crimes of the Bosnian Serb and Serbian political and military leadership identified in indictments before national and international courts."

I am certainly willing to see this wording modified or simplified as long as the key issue is addressed, in other words as long as the allegations of genocide in Bosnia beyond the scope of the 1995 Srebrenica genocide are given their due balanced treatment.Opbeith (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Opheith you write "consideration to an explanation of the reference to genocide and how the Bosnian genocide can be considered distinct from the 1995 Srebrenica genocide."

I think you are giving too much weight to a minority view. If the ICTY had supported the German cases or if the Bosnian courts had followed the precedent set by the German courts rather than the ICTY you would have more support for you views. BUT given the current legal position as arrived at in 2007 with the Bosnian Genocide Case and the summary by the ECHR and the dearth of published research in main stream English language sources since then, I do not think your suggested changes represent the current main stream views.

See for example the Bosnian Genocide#European Parliament section in our article. The European Parliament could have included the German courts findings in their and made their resolution ask for a commemorative day for a wider genocide in Bosnia, but they did not do so they restricted it to the Srebrenica genocide. This is typical of the majority opinion since the ICJ ruling in 2007: that Srebrenica was a genocide and the others were crimes against humanity committed during an ethnic cleansing campaign. If the ICTY comes back with new judgements that state that other events were also genocides I am sure that the European Parliament will include those other ICTY found genocides in similar resolutions in the future.

Here is a an example of usage from the last few days Bill Clinton: 1990s ethnic cleansing in Bosnia captured world's attention. If the headline was "Bill Clinton: 1990s genocide in Bosnia captured world's attention", unless he was to clarify that he meant a broader genocide than Srebrenica, people would assume he meant Srebrenica.

Do you have any example of international resolutions by organisations like the UN or the EU post the ICJ ruling that support the you proposed addition to the article?

If you motives are to educate people then why not write an article on the ethnic cleansing that took place? Then we can then link that into this article, with a brief summary. But to change this article in such a way that it give undue weight to a minority view is I think a step in the wrong direction. But please prove me wrong what do you consider to be the best post ICJ (2007) publication that support you suggested view, as we already include the views of the UN and the US congress pre-2007, and the EP post 2007 if it is some sort of similar heavyweight institution we can the discuss how to integrate it. -- PBS (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Current intro sentence:

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.[1]

An alternative could be:

The term Bosnian Genocide refers either to (describe what actually happened) in Srebrenica in 1995, or (describe what actually happened) throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.[1]Fairview360 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The former can concisely describe the mass killing and mass expulsion, the latter can concisely describe what the ethnic cleansing campaign entailed.

If the intro sentence is amended such, on what grounds would either PBS or Opbeith object? Fairview360 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My objection would be two fold. First of all this a sentence in the lead, and it is cited, but as soon as we introduce such details we have to find citations that cover the change. The Genocide is easy but the ethnic cleansing is more difficult, chiefly because one will need to list in it all the types of crimes that have been committed under the label of ethnic cleansing and then sort out which of those crimes specifically relate to genocide, and that almost certainly will be next to impossible to do unless there are sources to do it for us as it will involve OR. It is likely at the end of such a process to have a bloated lead, which will not explain succinctly or clearly that the term can have two meanings.

The sources we have at the moment that conjoin genocide to ethnic cleansing--such as that used by the US congress--does not define what then mean by ethnic cleansing, so we can not even be sure that the UN and the US Congress were singing from the same music sheet. At the moment we side step this issue by not defining what we mean by ethic cleansing in this article.

It seems to me obvious that the way forward for those who want to highlight the heinous crimes committed under what is called ethnic cleansing is to write an article about it, not to try to expand this article which is about genocide in Bosnia to cover a related but distinct topic. Once such an article exists (even as a stub) we can then link to it from this article, rather than linking to the generic "ethnic cleansing (campaign)" as it does at the moment. -- PBS (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is PBS arguing the following? It is OK to say that Bosnian Genocide refers to Srebenica or the overall ethnic cleansing campaign and then refer the reader to another article that describes the overall ethnic cleansing campaign, but it is not OK to describe the overall ethnic cleansing campaign in this particular article. It is OK to describe ethnic cleansing in a separate article. It is OK to use the term ethnic cleansing in this article. But it is not OK to even briefly describe the ethnic cleansing campaign in this article. How does that make sense? It is OK to say that the word "America" refers either to the continent of North America or the United States and then in a separate article describe the 50 individual states, but it is not OK to include even a brief description of the 50 states in the article on America??? If it is OK to present the information describing what the ethnic cleansing campaign entails in a separate article, why wouldn't a brief description be appropriate within this article? The ICTY prosecutors have already done all the work to clearly describe what within the ethnic cleansing campaign has been considered to be of a genocidal nature. On one hand, PBS seems to be making an absurd argument. On the other, he seems to be claiming confusion where it does not exist. Fairview360 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

PBS, I haven't a clue what you're talking about, but please stop telling me to go away and write an article about ethnic cleansing. And please stop telling me that this article is about genocide in Bosnia. It's not, it's about what you believe the set expression "Bosnian genocide" has been defined as meaning. Fairview360, I'm afraid it's not simply about what happened, it's about why people describe what happened as genocide and not simply as ethnic cleansing and associated crimes. Just because the two terms get confused does not mean it's impossible to construct an article that deals specifically with the issue of genocide in Bosnia and then goes on to note that the term may sometimes be used loosely as well in a way that is not always distinct from ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is simply the removal / displacement of a population group, whether or not accompanied by other forms of incidental crime. Genocide on the other hand is the intentional destruction of the group, involving crimes targeted to that end. "Genocide in Bosnia" refers to what the people who use the expression believe was an effort to destroy groups making up the non-Serb population in certain parts of Bosnia in order to achieve the homogenisation of certain strategic areas. The belief that genocide took place is not limited by the outcome of certain criminal trials or the wording of certain institutional resolutions. It is perfectly possible to set out the basic arguments why people knowingly describe what happened as genocide and then give the arguments advanced by people who disagree.

PBS, I think you summed up exactly what is wrong with what you've been arguing in the example you gave earlier: "If the headline was "Bill Clinton: 1990s genocide in Bosnia captured world's attention", unless he was to clarify that he meant a broader genocide than Srebrenica, people would assume he meant Srebrenica." Frankly, that is utter nonsense. You've turned your syllogism into an article of belief. Opbeith (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If the average person heard someone refer to the "genocide in Bosnia", they would assume the reference was to the totality of mass murders committed throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is only among those deeply involved in Bosnia that there is this hyper-awareness about the limits of ICTY convictions and legal opinions. For most of the world, "Genocide in Bosnia" refers to what captured the world's attention and that was 3 and a half year's of mass murders, not one weekend in July 1995.

This article which PBS has contributed to significantly already does what Opbeith is arguing for: refers to what happened and how it is interpreted in terms of genocide, some arguing one way, some arguing the other. What the article could benefit from is one paragraph briefly describing what happened at Srebrenica with a reference to the article on the Srebrenica Massacre and one paragraph briefly describing what the ethnic cleansing campaign within RS entailed and then a reference to an article on such.

For someone to agree to the Srebenica Massacre and the ethnic cleansing campaign being part of the introductory sentence, but then argue that a brief description of the mass murder and expulsion at Srebrenica and a brief description of the ethnic cleansing campaign does not belong in the article is patently absurd. Again, there is ample literature describing exactly what within the ethnic cleansing campaign has been considered to be genocidal in nature.

Perhaps Opbeith would be willing to write one paragraph excerpted from ICTY indictments that describe the ethnic cleansing campaign which could then be included in this article. There already exists text from the Srebenica Massacre article that can easily be adapted for one summary paragraph to be included in this article. Fairview360 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This pdf file http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mladic/ind/en/kar-ii950724e.pdf of the Karadzic indictment describes succinctly what acts as part of the ethnic cleansing campaign are referred to as constituting genocide. No editor in this discussion is disputing that these acts took place. The article as it is written now clearly shows how these acts have been interpreted in courts and within governmental bodies to date. This article can benefit from a brief concise description of the ethnic cleansing campaign as appears in paragraph #19 of the indictment. It is a fact these actions occurred. It is a fact that this indictment exists. And this description would inform the reader as to what the term "ethnic cleansing" refers to in the introductory sentence of this article. Fairview360 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The sustained effort by both sides of this argument has been a benefit to this article. The tension and persistence by both sides has lead to the very precise language in this article backed by specific and appropriate references. Hence, the article would benefit from both sides of this argument being encouraged to continue their efforts to make their view known holding each side accountable for their claims. It would be a shame if this article were lost to polemics. Fairview360 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360 you and I will have to disagree about what most people think when bosnian genocide is mentioned, as we have no survey to back it up. I would however say what ever most peoples think, that messages such as that by Clinton is delivered by a person familiar with the distinction as will most reliable sources and he is not just addressing the common herd but other players in the international area when he makes such a statement.

Opbeith you have to face up to the statement by the ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that while there was substantial evidence of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Court had no jurisdiction to make findings in that regard, because the case dealt "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term." Note she does not say "often" or "also" she says "sometimes". Anything along the lines of describing Ethnic Cleansing as genocide has to work within that parameter.

And that Fairview360 brings me back to your point. Using the prosecutors definition could have been an elegant solution, but unfortunately I don't think it works (because the legal profession have circled the wagons). AFAICT Paragraph 19 is referring to crimes against humanity it is the paragraph before it (18 which include in the last sentence of that paragraph paragraphs 20-22) that refers to genocide. 18 is referring to the camps and that is only a small part of what is usually considered ethnic cleansing (Making a prediction if Karadzic is found guilt of genocide on that limited scope it will only be for those camps that held men taken from Srebrenica in 1995 -- I am surprised that they do not think they have enough to get him for complicity for Srebrenica!). The trouble is that unless one is familiar with legal jargon paragraphs 22-24 might seem to also be about genocide (and an extension of the Srebrenica ruling might be able to do that (it said that Bosnian Muslim men were significant subgroup for the survival of the group)), but the prosecution is using the term "persecutions" which is a specific type of crime against humanity (see Statute of Rome (7:h)). So I don't think we can use this indictment in the way you have suggested. -- PBS (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, there is no way anyone can communicate with you because you pay no attention to what anyone else is trying to say, you only engage with what is allowed through your own logic filter.

Fairview360, I completely agree with you that it would be a shame if this article was lost to polemics, but what do you do when after all the effort sacrificed here you get the response "Opbeith you have to face up to the statement by the ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that while there was substantial evidence of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Court had no jurisdiction to make findings in that regard, because the case dealt "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term." Note she does not say "often" or "also" she says "sometimes". Anything along the lines of describing Ethnic Cleansing as genocide has to work within that parameter."?

I really do prefer banging my head against a brick wall - at least there is some sort of meaningful relationship there. Opbeith (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Making a prediction if Karadzic is found guilt of genocide on that limited scope it will only be for those camps that held men taken from Srebrenica in 1995 -- I am surprised that they do not think they have enough to get him for complicity for Srebrenica!)." Philip Baird Shearer, what on earth are you talking about? Opbeith (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Penny's dropped. PBS - the reason Fairview360 has produced that early indictment is because it doesn't include the Srebrenica genocide of July 1995, it gives the details of accusations of genocide across Bosnia prior to July 1995. Srebrenica enters into the indictment only through the reference to the April 1993 slaughter of the kids playing football in front of the school that immediately preceded the declaration of the safe area (and please don't tell me that the figure of 15 given in the indictment means that we have to accept that there were only 15 victims). None of the detention facilities / camps mentioned had anything to do with Srebrenica. This indictment has been refined in the latest version into a number of what you might call specimen charges, because the constraints of time and funding with the ICTY required to strive to complete its task asap have meant a number of highly significant charges have had to be dropped from the indictment. You focus on the logic of the legal findings without having any real idea about the substance of the matter we're discussing. Sorry about the polemics, Fairview360, but how can someone with so little understanding of what happened (and to nod in the direction of verifiability, what was reported) have such an iron grip on the content of this article? Whatever you say about the content of the article, it's the overwhelming focus on the legal technicalities - directed by the introduction - that has driven other editors away from here in puzzlement and anger. Opbeith (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake I did not look at date at the bottom and assumed it was a recent indictment. The shelling of civilians is a detailed accusation linked to paragraph 19 not paragraph 18 -- that is he is accused of a crime against humanity by repeatedly allowing the shelling civilians (not part of the genocide accusation paragraph 18, 20-22). --PBS (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, I'm certainly not criticising you for a mistake in haste, I make more than enough of those myself. But I'm exasperated by your apparent lack of basic knowledge/understanding of what happened in Bosnia and at Srebrenica that reveals itself from time to time, as here when you talk about detention camps in relation to Srebrenica. The point about Srebrenica is that the victims were not held in detention camps. They were murdered as quickly as possible in order to ensure that the operation was complete before the international community was forced to intervene.

Reading any text, however formal, requires a basic orienting awareness of the context to which it refers, otherwise the reader is imposing an essentially uninformed understanding of what is being said, as you do with your exegesis of Rosalyn Higgins. You seem to be asserting that Higgins's reference to the Court's jurisdiction in the limited context of the issues raised in the Bosnia vs Serbia case defines the boundaries for the use of the term genocide simply because the ICJ is the most authoritative legal forum to have examined the issue of genocide. You rule out of consideration any elements that lie outside the scope of the formal text of the ICJ's judgment.

So you simply ignore, for example, the very major issue of the Court's failure to call for the Serbian Supreme Defence Council Minutes. The Court has been widely and authoritatively criticised for its failure to use the power it possessed to consider those Minutes as essential evidence in the case. Since in the past you have seized on examples I have offered to make your own different case rather than discuss the relevant point, let me make clear that all I am referring to here and now is the fact that comments on the ICJ ruling need to take account of the context established by its own terms of reference, the ruling is not the arbiter of all debate.

You try to limit the discussion to your selective understanding of forms of words that you isolate from their context. In the wording you cite, I understand Higgins to be clearing the decks and making clear what the judgment refers to, she is not passing judgment on the way the term genocide is used outside the context of the case. I can't impose my understanding of the word sometimes here, nor can you. The fact that her meaning remains ambiguous suggests that she is not choosing to establish any definition or criteria beyond her immediate concern in the case.

My comments and the exasperation I express here reflect a loss of patience with the way you corral the discussion here on the basis of limited/defective understanding of the subject. My anger, which it is, is provoked by the fact that you not only disregard the legitimate points raised against your position but then distort the argument, as in your summary that the discussion here is about describing ethnic cleansing as genocide. I have explained time and again that ethnic cleansing is not genocide. You insist that what happened in Bosnia was ethnic cleansing and so that this article is about describing ethnic cleansing as genocide. Fairview360 is right to point to the risks of a descent into polemics but when all reasonable discussion founders on your intransigence in relation to matters of which you seem wilfully ignorant, where else does that leave us? Going round in circles in a vacuum. Opbeith (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"You rule out of consideration any elements that lie outside the scope of the formal text of the ICJ's judgment." No I don't but if one wishes to emphasise the line that the ethnic cleansing is misnamed and is in fact was a genocide then one need a reliable source that states refutes Higgins's use of the word "sometimes" by using "often" or some other term.

Let's suppose that the ICJ had ruled the other way. I would be supporting the use of the term Bosnian Genocide to cover the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia because many reliable sources would follow the lead of the ICJ (just as they follow the lead by the ICTY over the Srebrenica genocide), but few reliable sources since that 2007 ruling have contradicted the ICJ. I would not support a person who wished to overemphasise the view that "the ICTY was mistaken and the Srebrenica genocide was a massacre but not a genocide because ..." because I am supporting Wikipedia's policy of presenting article broadly in line with that reflected in the majority of reliable English language sources.

Opbeith you say "ethnic cleansing is not genocide" but genocide can be a part of ethnic cleansing as shown by the Srebrenica genocide. If you do not want to emphasise what is commonly called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was genocide (it involved every other crime against humanity) then what is it that you want to emphasise and what are the sources you propose to use?

Opbeith you also wrote "So you simply ignore, for example, the very major issue of the Court's failure to call for the Serbian Supreme Defence Council Minutes. ..." See this article diff I think it refutes that observation and I think gives enough weight to the issue. --PBS (talk)

Philip Baird Shearer, you certainly include the reference to the Supreme Defence Council Minutes in the article, my intention was to illustrate the way you were using the Higgins reference in the discussion here and now without acknowledging that the ruling isn't necessarily the last word on the subject. Your insistence that Higgins's use of the word "sometimes" is crucial likewise fails to acknowledge any alternative understanding. Why should your interpretation that Higgins chose to use "sometimes" instead of "often" or "also" any more authoritative than the understanding that she used "sometimes" rather than "always" or "usually", in order to avoid issues extrinsic to the matter in hand? You resist the idea that the context in which her words should be understood might be something other than you understand it to be.

I don't understand what you're saying I am wanting to do when you say "If you do not want to emphasise what is commonly called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was genocide". I am simply saying that what is frequently called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia is considered by many people to be genocide and according to many reputable legal authorities (some of whom I have mentioned earlier, only for you to rush to discredit my citing of them) the ICJ ruling should not be considered the final and only word on the subject. What happened in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 is referred to as genocide by many people because they understand the process that others refer to more loosely as ethnic cleansing as involving not just the population group's displacement/removal but its effective destruction (partial or total).

Genocide is not part of ethnic cleansing, the assertion of "genocide" supersedes that description. To consider your example, genocide was not part of ethnic cleansing at Srebrenica, precisely the opposite. Again you seem not to appreciate what happened. The ICTY's finding in the Krstic appeal, in response to the defence submission that the bussing out of the women and children precluded the finding of genocide, noted that the forced transfer of the women and children was a part of the genocide. (That is why another editor included a reference to the forced transfer in the introduction to the "Srebrenica massacre"/"Srebrenica genocide" article and why the title "Srebrenica massacre" is incomplete as a description of what happened in the days following 11 July 1995, however many reliable sources use it as shorthand). Opbeith (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If Opbeith writes a concise description of ethnic cleansing and enters it into this article, Fairview360 will support such an edit with further refining edits and then as many multiple reverts as allowed by wikipedia. If PBS continues to insist that a description of ethnic cleansing does not belong in this article and backs up his absurd assertion by deleting such a description with multiple reverts, the article can then be referred to arbitration. An article that mentions ethnic cleansing is obviously worthy of a description of ethnic cleansing. That is so obvious, it needs no further substantiation. The only question is what the description of ethnic cleansing shall be. Fairview360 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)