Talk:Bosnian genocide/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

unidentified editor inserting a major section to the article without discussion and of entirely one point of view

An unidentified editor added the entire section that appears below without discussion. While the article would definitely benefit from representative samples of analysis, the section as proposed is one sided and does not include enough authors. It would be far better to choose perhaps 10 to 15 samples of analysis with each author limited to a few sentences indicative of their point of view.

Since the editor is unidentified, the introduced section is a relatively huge addition to the article, and it is one sided, Fairview360 is going to move the section from the article to the discussion page for further discussion. Fairview360 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Analysis section moved from the article

According to Serbian-American scholar Stevan M. Weine writing in 1996: The uniqueness of "ethnic cleansing" as a genocide derives not fromt its being mass murder, which it certainly is, but from other factors, including how the committing of atrocities acts upon survivors and witnesses. In "ethnic cleansing," traumas and atrocities have been systematically committed with the overwhelming intent of extending the circle of terror as far as possible. What is relentless here is not the effort at killing people, but the deliberate effort to annihilate a civilization and a person's sense of sharing in a multi-ethnic communality. This genocide strives to create witnesses who believe that Serbs are ruthless mass murderers, that Bosnian Muslims and Orthodox cannot live together, and that there is no possibility for a multi-ethnic nation. This deliberate assault on the values, norms, and ethics of a society seeks to create survivors and witnesses who will abandon their belief in multi-ethnic tolerance and communality and accept instead the image of ancient ethnic hatreds. The objective of "ethnic cleansing" is to create survivors and witnesses who will fear for their lives, flee their homes, and never wish to return. On 28 February 1993, in an interview to Associated Dr. Robert Jay Lifton expressed the opinion that: What's happening there [in Bosnia] merits the use of the word genocide. There is an effort to systematically destroy an entire group. It's even been conceptualized by Serbian nationalists as so-called "ethnic cleansing." That term signifies mass killing, mass relocation, and that does constitute genocide. Seven years later in 2000 Lifton wrote: Although it was smaller in scale, there was much in this killing that resembled the Nazi model. The similarity went beyond images of emaciated men in camps awaiting their deaths, beyond even the extensive testimonies of the slaughter and humiliation of members of the victimized groups (in this case including systematic rape of Bosniak women, sometimes with family members forced to watch) ... But there was one important way in which Serb ethnic cleansing deviated from the Nazi model. Almost from its beginning it was made visible everywhere by means of the mass media revolution of the second half of the twentieth century. Anyone with a television set was exposed daily to suffering victims and marauding Serb killers. Later the Internet would further disseminate details throughout the world. My own reaction to the early images resembled that of many others — an uneasy mixture of horror, anger, and shame. But in addition, it seemed to me so close to what I had observed in Nazi behavior, so much an expression of what I had come to call (in collaboration with Eric Markusen) a "genocidal mentality," that I felt impelled to take a public stand in favor of intervening to stop the killing. I worked with a small group of professionals on a UN-centered plan for doing so, and a few of us went to Washington to press our views on members of Congress and their staffs and on assistants in the vice-presidents’ office. We and other such groups experienced little success for a variety of reasons having to do with presidential resistance and domestic American politics. It seemed that the visibility of genocide did no necessarily put an end to it. Notes

Proposed account of the events

Convince link:ICTY Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic, Third Amended Indictment (IT-95-5/18-PT 26342 D26342 - D26270) 19 October 2009 -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The introduction as it is written now presumes too much prior knowledge on the part of the reader. It would help to have a sentence or two such as the following after the first paragraph:

During the Bosnian war, there was what international courts refer to as a joint criminal enterprise composed of nationalist Serbs whose aim was to create an "ethnically pure" state where only Serbs would live. In Bosnia, the nationalist Serbs pursued this aim through an "ethnic cleansing" campaign waged throughout territory controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army.

The next paragraph could describe the ethnic cleansing campaign as it does now in the introduction. Then, making it clear that it was part of the ethnic cleansing campaign, the intro could have a paragraph describing the Srebrenica massacre as it does now.

It could end as it does now showing how institutions, legal writers, and the courts have interpreted these events.

This would make the introduction a bit more coherent and provide the reader more context. Fairview360 (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's my proposal again. There's nothing set in stone about it but I think it covers most of the basic ground. I've modified the section header to take account of other comments.

The events described as the Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995)

According to the indictment charging Radovan Karadzic before the ICTY with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war (the "marked-up" indictment of 19.10.2010 - Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, Date: 19 October 2009, "The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic", Prosecution’s Marked-Up Indictment - PMUI 19.10.2009), the campaign to remove Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats from the territory claimed by the Bosnian Serbs involved the actions of a joint criminal enterprise that included individual politicians and political, governmental and military institutions[PMUI 19.10.2009, paras 6, 7 and 8]. Political and administrative policies were developed and implemented by the Bosnian Serbs to advance that objective; political and administrative bodies were established and military, security, paramilitary and volunteer forces were created to implement the programme; accompanying propaganda was disseminated that was intended to arouse fear and hatred of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, and the participation of Yugoslav People's Army (JNA/VJ) forces and Serbian paramilitary forces was enrolled. [PMUI 19.10.2009 paras 11 and 12; para 14]

As the campaign proceeded the indictment alleges that necessary steps to prevent and investigate crimes or arrest and punish the perpetrators were not taken, and efforts were made to deny crimes against Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats and the role played by Serb forces in those crimes or provide misleading information about them to representatives of the international community, non-governmental organizations, the media and the public, facilitating the commission of crimes. The delivery of humanitarian aid to Bosniak and Bosnian Croat enclaves was restricted in an effort to create unbearable living conditions for their inhabitants.[PMUI 19.10.2009 para 14]

The campaign of ethnic cleansing intended to remove Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats permanently from the areas of BiH claimed as Bosnian Serb territory involved a campaign of crimes of persecution that the indictment alleges demonstrated "the intent to destroy in part the Bosniaks and/or Bosnian Croats as national, ethnical and/or religious groups", in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This was manifested in the targeting of the leaderships of these groups and a substantial number of their members for destruction, most extremely in Bratunac, Foca, Kljuc, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica and Zvornik, and Srebrenica, as well as in Brcko, Kotor Varos and Visegrad. [PMUI 19.10.2009 para 38]. An associated joint criminal enterprise targeted the Bosnian Muslim population of the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo. [PMUI 19.10.2009 para 15].

Participants in the joint criminal enterprise that carried out the campaign were allegedly aware that genocide was a possible consequence of implementing the objective and they willingly took that risk. [PMUI 19.10.2009 para 39].

The following specific acts are alleged to have been part of the genocide: killings during and after takeovers of territory and killings related to detention facilities and the causing of serious bodily and mental harm, through cruel or inhumane treatment and conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, including torture, physical and psychological abuse, rape, other acts of sexual violence and beatings; inhumane living conditions, forced labour and the failure to provide adequate accommodation, shelter, food, water, medical care or hygienic sanitation in detention facilities. [PMUI 19.10.2009 para 40]

When applied to the crime of genocide at Srebrenica the term is used by the ICTY to describe the attempt by individuals and by a joint criminal enterprise to destroy the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica as part of the Bosnian Muslim national, ethnical and/or religious group by killing the men and boys and forcibly removing the women, young children and elderly men from Srebrenica. This took the form initially of a plan that was allegedly implemented in March 1995 by Radovan Karadzic and others to take over the Srebrenica enclave and forcibly transfer and/or deport its Bosnian Muslim population, as part of an (overall) objective to remove the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats permanently from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory. Following the attack on the Srebrenica enclave on about 6 July 1995, Radovan Karadzic and others formed and implemented a shared objective of eliminating the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica by killing the men and boys and forcibly removing the women, young children and some elderly men. [PMUI 19.10.2009 paras 42 to 47]

Opbeith (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Might many of the facts in the above suggested text be sourced from findings of facts from court judgments? Also, rather than relying solely on the indictment, there are probably plenty of news articles and other sources substantiating the above. Fairview360 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever why not, so much the better. However one of the key points in the discussion we have been having is that the indictment by the ICTY's OTP is in any case a valid reliable source. I've added a few more appropriate "alleged" to the above text to make it clear that all of the proposed insertion above as it stands at present is taken from the indictment rather than from findings of fact. As findings of fact are accommodated the wording should of course be modified accordingly. Opbeith (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Quoting small sections of this Third Amended Indictment, may be acceptable. But this type of summary is not acceptable, because much of the document is written is such a way that one needs to be a qualified lawyer to make such a summary and as such it need to be done through secondary sources. For example while looking for the link to the source above, I came across this: "Case No. IT-95-5/18-AR72.4, Decision on Prosecution's motion appealing Trial Chamber's decision on JCE iii forseeability, 25 June 2009 (doc)" and that is an interpretation of just one phrase used in this indictment. This is why we have in policy what is and is not acceptable from a primary source (see WP:PSTS). I think that Fairview360's point about alternative sources is well made. For example is there a press briefing on this indictment? If so how does that sum up the indictment? -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposal can be reformulated to provide quotation marks around the problematic areas and issues of interpretation dealt with subsequently. I'm not going to do it now because I have other matters on hand but I will before posting as an edit. As the text stands it provides basic information that is lacking from the article. The absence of the basic framework of relevant information whose inclusion PBS makes so difficult is a far worse defect in the article. Opbeith (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the citizens of Sarajevo were targeted, not just Bosnian Muslims. Fairview360 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I doubt that is what the charge of genocide relates to. I think the charge may be grounded in actions specifically directed against Bosniaks eg as in the ethnic cleansing of Grbavica.[1] Further investigation is needeed, but this is not a final proposal. The final version should include discussion of the siege of the city and whether the intent of the siege overall was genocidal Opbeith (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The charge of genocide against Karadzic specifically names Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats as the victims of genocide. Other sources that this article is using or will use describe the ethnic cleansing campaign as genocide. The siege of Sarajevo was part of the ethnic cleansing campaign. The victims of the ethnic cleansing campaign were not limited to Bosnian Muslims. Yes, more sources will need to be found that articulate the scope of the genocide and who the victims were. Fairview360 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources that state that the attacks on Sarajevo were part of a genocide it should not be included in this article. There is a strong case to say that such attacks were war crimes and they may have been crimes against humanity (not sure if anyone has been found guilty of those offences for the attacks on Sarajevo) but the current court case when finished will resolve what type of crimes there were if they have not already been subject to a judicial review. -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

From now on, each and every time PBS tries to imply that only that which has been proven in a court of law constitutes a reliable source, Fairview360 will type "NEMANEMANEMASANSA". This will mean: PBS knows that reliable sources are not limited to convictions and therefore his repeated attempts to hold this article hostage to such a limitation will not be tolerated. Fairview360 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to the last sentence in the above comment from PBS: NEMANEMANEMASANSAFairview360 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say that that an offence cannot be mentioned in an article until there has been a finding? Opbeith (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources have been provided that assert the ethnic cleansing campaign constituted genocide. Sources have been provided that describe exactly what the ethnic cleansing campaign included. The conditions inflicted upon the population in Sarajevo were part of the ethnic cleansing campaign. Sources have been provided that assert forced exile or forced transfer is a part of genocide, not only an indication of genocidal intent. Sources have been provided to show the preponderance of opinions among legal scholars as to what exactly constituted genocide in Bosnia. It is time to work on the text of the article and not be distracted by PBS' incessant rant regarding sources.

The text should be refined and then all the relevant sources can be provided.

Let it hereby be known that all editors agree with PBS that the article must be based upon sources. Fairview360 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360 I think you are conflating several distinct prepositions as put forward by the indictment we have been discussing. The prosecutors are using the relativity new concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) to present a case against Radovan Karadzic. But they are careful to present the case as not one Joint Criminal Enterprise but several overlapping ones. Each of these JCE incorporate different objectives and crimes. Just because Karadzic may have been involved in a JCE to commit war crimes against the population of Sarajevo does not mean that he may not have been involved in another JCE to commit genocide in Srebrenica, but equally if he was involved in genocide in Srebrenica that does not mean that the attacks on Sarajevo were part of a genocide, they may have been, but the source does not claim that they were. In deed it list the other areas where the prosecutor thinks that genocide took palace and it does not list Sarajevo as part of that list.

I would like to go through you assertion on sources. You write "Sources have been provided that assert forced exile or forced transfer is a part of genocide, not only an indication of genocidal intent." To date which of the sources you have provided do you think best asserts that "forced exile or forced transfer is a part of genocide, not only an indication of genocidal intent."? -- PBS (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

PBS is probably confused because he is thinking only in terms of the legal definition of genocide according to a narrow interpretation of the 1948 Convention. Fairview360 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ktr101 invitation

ktr101 is invited to participate in the current discussion regarding changes to this article.

Previously, the article was very limited on the description of what actually happened in Bosnia and long on the legal interpretations of what happened. It is evolving towards the following structure:

Introduction: brief summary of what happened and the range of legal interpretations indicating the preponderance of each

Description of what happened: (this has not yet been introduced)

Range of interpretations of what happened in terms of genocide. (At the moment, this is limited to the legal interpretations of the 1948 Convention.)

Hence, the article needs more description of what happened, a more nuanced and complete description of the range of interpretations of genocide in relation to what happened in Bosnia.

As one can see from the above, this is a contentious issue, though it does appear there is some progress however slow. Fairview360 (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I split the article is because the first half of the article talks about an international response of sorts of the genocide. When one wants to learn about a genocide, they aren't looking for the international response, but information that is occuring way down the page. As it is now, the article is confusing as even I was confused and I am specializing in this topic for a class! I split the article because essentially having two differnet subtopics on a page hurts it and there is nothing wrong with splitting up the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ktr101, your involvement here is welcome. You are absolutely right to point out that the article is confusing, not to mention that people with direct personal experience of the subject have found it more than confusing and even offensive. This article as it stands is focused on the Legal Status of the Bosnian Genocide rather than on the subject of what happened in Bosnia in 1992-1995 and why people describe it as genocide. That's why people visiting the article find it confusing and that's why some of us are trying to work towards reframing the article so that is actually about its subject.

Fairview360 is right to point out that it wasn't necessarily helpful to make a substantial change directly to the article without discussion just at this moment. What would be helpful would be to have your input into this discussion in the hope that it will enable us to do something concrete about the article. It might be useful to you too, as despite the frustration of often feeling that we are going round in circles we've been able to discuss some of the key issues in some depth in the process.Opbeith (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Genocides can be lumped into four broad categories. Those for which there is near universal agreement were genocides(These are genocides found to be such by international tribunals and the Holocaust). Those for which there is debate between experts over whether an event was a genocide, this often depends on the definition of genocide used by the experts an example of this is the War in the Verdee. The third grouping are those events defined as genocide by one group, and passionately opposed by another group, where there is strong political involvement on one of both sides (examples of this sort are Whitaker Report and UN General Assembly A/RES/37/123). The fourth group is the mirror image of the first group were there is near universal opinion that a genocide did not take palace.

In this case there is near universal agreement that Srebrenica was a genocide. There is nowhere near universal agreement that ethnic cleansing as carried out in the Bosnian War by Bosnian Serbs was a genocide. This is because the majority of reliable sources follow the lead of the international courts. Before 2000 the majority of popular reliable sources were probably in favour of a close linkage between ethnic cleansing and genocide. But since the ICTY court judgements and in particular the ICJ 2007 judgement, the majority of popular reliable sources do not seem to make the linkage but follow the guidance as made by the courts. Now one can argue that the courts themselves are basing their judgements on political decisions, as the article explains in the criticisms section, but the vast majority of non specialised articles do not take that into account when they use the terms ethnic cleansing, rather than genocide. This is the flip side of the Srebrenica genocide where the finer legal points over whether the population of Bosnian Muslims in Eastern Bosnia was a group within the larger group of all Bosnian Muslims. Both points are ignored in most articles that simply use as a definition the final verdict of the ICTY and the ICJ.

Ktr101 you wrote "When one wants to learn about a genocide, they aren't looking for the international response, but information that is occuring way down the page." It is predominantly international opinions that define which events were genocides. It is possible for two different bodies such as the US congress and the ICJ to view the same events and draw different conclusions. Given this difference of opinion in the sources, I think a better approach for this page, if it is not to be a dab page, is to keep it as a summary page. There is no point placing on this page lots of detail about the Srebrenica genocide when there is already a page on that subject. What is missing is an article on the events that everyone agrees upon happened and is usually called ethnic cleansing (to a similar depth as the Srebrenica genocide), which could be referenced here when specific allegation are made by a reliable source (such as the UN did in the 1990s) that some or all of those events constituted a genocide. I had been hoping that someone else such as Opbeith would write such an article about ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, but it looks as if I may have to do it if I want such an article to exist. -- PBS (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What this article needs is a section of about 4 or 5 paragraphs -- after the introduction and before the United Nations section -- that describe what actually happened in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995. That new section can then have multiple links to the specific events that took place during that time, particular massacres, etc. It can also include a link to the article on the overall ethnic cleansing campaign that it appears PBS has volunteered to write. Fairview360 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again PBS, I have no wish to write an article about ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, I am just interested in seeing an article at Wikipedia that deals properly with the subject of Genocide in Bosnia (ie not just at Srebrenica) 1992-1995, a subject whose substantive reality is affirmed by numerous knowledgeable as opposed to simply popular reliable sources. Ktr101, you now have an idea of the lie of the land here. Opbeith (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

PBS, don't Ktr101's comments give you a glimpse of the real world and what people coming to Wikipedia looking for information understand the subject to mean? The subject they want information about is not Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia, it is the Bosnian Genocide or Genocide in Bosnia. Listen to King Cnut and try to recognise the wood instead of the one tree that has a taxonomic label on it.Opbeith (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear ktr101's opinion of the possibility of an article titled "Bosnian Genocide (1992 - 1995) 15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Fairview360 (talk)

That would be a good idea if we were to move this page and then create a disambiguation link at the other location. The thing that I hate about this genocide and its aftermath is that people in Serbia basically deny that this ever happened. Furthermore, this is complicating the process for memorialization as one side denies it happening and the other side wants to acknowledge this. Because of this, there are issues with the building of memorials and memorializing the buildings that were the location of the massacres. I originally came to this article and was confused and amazed that I had to virtually go down to the bottom of the article in order to find out information about the genocide. As a result, I boldly split the article in two. Of an interesting note, the death toll ranges between ninety-two and two hundred thousand people so that might be a good sub-section. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The international courts and the majority of international sources (following the lead of the international court decisions) do not describe the events commonly called ethnic cleansing as genocide. Take for example the survey of English language newspapers (the four serious London newspapers, the NYT and the Washington post) I provided higher up the page. So to move the page to "Bosnian Genocide (1992 - 1995)" would be a biased title as the majority of sources do not recognise the events of 1992 - 1995 commonly called ethic cleansing as a genocide. --PBS (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would an editor take as an example something as misleading as PBS' "survey". He compares the news results of a past event with a current event. Obviously, the current event is going to produce far more results. Here are some current samples of the use of genocide and Bosnia in articles from the last three weeks where it would be hard to argue that the references to genocide are limited to Srebrenica.

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/us/28iht-letter28.html

National Public Radio http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_7186.shtml

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/30power.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Huffington Post, Mayor of New York City http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-koch/libya-the-arab-league-sho_b_835630.html

National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/2011/03/19/134686005/warren-christopher-dies-at-age-85

Fairfax News http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/un-slow-reaction-cost-lives-libyan-ex-pat-4078577

euobserver.com http://euobserver.com/892/31982

Glenn Nye is a former member of Congress and foreign service officer. He is a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/153613-genocide-prevention-month-from-bosnia-to-benghazi

Fairview360 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

More references to genocide taking place throughout the Bosnian war, not limited to Srebrenica:

http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/06/a-chess-game-in-the-libyan-desert.html April 6, 2011

http://thedartmouth.com/2011/04/11/opinion/poddar April 11, 2011

article refers to the "Bosnian Genocide" that was occurring in 1994 http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/arts/120185044.html April 19, 2011

Fairview360 (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of article titles have subordinate qualifying components that have to do with the substance of the article rather than the way the subject is referred to. This title or equally Genocide in Bosnia (1992-1995) simply indicate that the discussion is about more than Bosnian Genocide (Srebrenica) or Genocide in Bosnia (Srebrenica). This obsessive literalism is akin to cutting off your toes to make sure the shoe fits. Opbeith (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently, at history.com, the Bosnian Genocide is described as the entire ethnic cleansing campaign carried out by nationalist Serbs:

In April 1992, the government of the Yugoslav republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina declared its independence from Yugoslavia. Over the next several years, Bosnian Serb forces, with the backing of the Serb-dominated Yugoslav army, targeted both Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) and Croatian civilians for atrocious crimes resulting in the deaths of some 100,000 people (80 percent Bosniak) by 1995. It was the worst act of genocide since the Nazi regime's destruction of some 6 million European Jews during World War II. Fairview360 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Srebrenica genocide was the largest European genocide to be ruled as such in a court of law. It was also the largest widely recognised European genocide since WWII (although a few genocide scholars include expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe which by some estimates is said to have killed hundreds of thousands). The wording the history channel uses is ambiguous as it certainly allows for the inference that the first sentence was a genocide, but it does not explicitly makes the link so it could also be referring to the Srebrenica genocide and reading the sentences on ethnic cleansing and the last paragraph of the article it is likely to be that to which they are referring:

They attacked Bosniak-dominated town in eastern Bosnia, including Zvornik, Foca, and Visegrad, forcibly expelling Bosniak civilians from the region in a brutal process that later was identified as "ethnic cleansing." (Ethnic cleansing differs from genocide in that its primary goal is the expulsion of a group of people from a geographical area and not the actual physical destruction of that group, even though the same methods--including murder, rape, torture and forcible displacement--may be used.)

...

Over the better part of the next two decades, the ICTY charged more than 160 individuals of crimes committed during conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Brought before the tribunal in 2002 on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, Slobodan Milosevic served as his own defense lawyer; his poor health led to long delays in the trial until he was found dead in his prison cell in 2006. In 2007, the International Court of Justice issued its ruling in a historic civil lawsuit brought by Bosnia against Serbia. Though the court called the massacre at Srebrenica genocide and said that Serbia "could and should" have prevented it and punished those who committed it, it stopped short of declaring Serbia guilty of the genocide itself.

--PBS (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous about the statement in the opening paragraph which states: It was the worst act of genocide since the Nazi regime's destruction of some 6 million European Jews during World War II. The antecedent of the pronoun "it" comes from the preceding sentence: Bosnian Serb forces, with the backing of the Serb-dominated Yugoslav army, targeted both Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) and Croatian civilians for atrocious crimes resulting in the deaths of some 100,000 people (80 percent Bosniak) by 1995. Is PBS actually going to stick with the argument that he really can't tell what the pronoun "it" is referring to??? It refers to killing "some 100,000" people. Some 8,000 people were killed in Srebrenica. How can "it" be referring to Srebrenica alone when the preceding two sentences, the only preceding sentences, never mention Srebrenica? Rather, if PBS is going to try to dismiss the History.com article, he is going to have to manufacture a different line of argument. Fairview360 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not conclusive but it's indicative. The overarching title is Bosnian Genocide, not Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing. It refers to what happened in the Podrinja and notes that this was "identified" as ethnic cleansing - it doesn't say by whom, but notes the distinction between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide", appearing to acknowledge that these events considered under the heading of Bosnian Genocide haven't actually been authoritatively confirmed as such. It then refers to the unresolved charges of genocide against Milosevic, including genocide in Bosnia, as part of the subject. It then proceeds to refer to the ICJ finding on Srebrenica as another element. Clearly the article is not just referring to Srebrenica, even if it doesn't define its subject clearly. To suggest it probably is, is simply the expression of a point of view, which you so readily criticise me for. Opbeith (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Correction, Fairview360 is right, the introduction is unambiguous, so clearly the caveat about "identification" of events in the Drina Valley as ethnic cleansing distinctly from "genocide" does not represent a stepping-down from the overall assessment. That statement is conclusive.Opbeith (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanatory introduction to events.

Fairview360, I agree with what you say about presupposing too much knowledge on the part of the reader. For clarity I'm creating a new section here with a copy of your comment above and my suggestion of what might be useful to include by way of background before introducing the reference to joint criminal enterprises. Obviously references (citations) need to be added.

Fairview360's comment reproduced from above:

"The introduction as it is written now presumes too much prior knowledge on the part of the reader. It would help to have a sentence or two such as the following after the first paragraph:

During the Bosnian war, there was what international courts refer to as a joint criminal enterprise composed of nationalist Serbs whose aim was to create an "ethnically pure" state where only Serbs would live. In Bosnia, the nationalist Serbs pursued this aim through an "ethnic cleansing" campaign waged throughout territory controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army.

The next paragraph could describe the ethnic cleansing campaign as it does now in the introduction. Then, making it clear that it was part of the ethnic cleansing campaign, the intro could have a paragraph describing the Srebrenica massacre as it does now.

It could end as it does now showing how institutions, legal writers, and the courts have interpreted these events.

This would make the introduction a bit more coherent and provide the reader more context. Fairview360 (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)"

My suggestion for establishing the context in which the term genocide came to be applied follows. I'm not trying to establish any hard and fast principle about how the terms "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" should be used here, simply suggesting a basic framework.

"During the late 1980s Serbian and other Serb nationalists sought to ensure the maintenance within a decentralised Yugoslavia of a unified Serb population in a territory that would remain under Serb control, often referred to as "Greater Serbia". This involved the creation of autonomous Serb "states" on the territories of Croatia (the Republic of Serbian Krajina) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (Republika Srpska). Establishing secure connections between these territories and Serbia required the incorporation of strategic areas of Croatia and Bosnia where Serbs were outnumbered by other nationalities.

In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia subsequently found (Tadic Trial Judgment) that the strategic plan of the local Bosnian Serb leadership consisted of "a plan to link Serb-populated areas in BiH together, to gain control over these areas and to create a separate Bosnian Serb state, from which most non-Serbs would be permanently removed". The process by which the non-Serb population was forcefully removed from those areas in order to create homogeneous Serb territory became known as "ethnic cleansing".

The systematic and widespread violence that accompanied the ethnic cleansing of the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Croats from Bosnian Serb-controlled areas gave rise to allegations that Serb nationalists intended to ensure the destruction of the non-Serb groups in the territory concerned and the description of the ethnic cleansing of 1992-1995 as "genocide", in the wider sense of the term coined by Raphael Lemkin or the narrower legal definition established by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide of 1948."

Opbeith (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ratko Mladic arrested

BBC News, 26 May 2011 - Boris Tadic announced Mladic's arrest.[2]. In spite of Deutsche Presse-Agentur reporting RTS mention that Mladic was on a special flight to The Hague, the latest is that he's apparently still at the Interior Ministry in Belgrade where an extradition hearing will take place. http://english.blic.rs/News/7689/Live-blog-Ratko-Mladic-arrested (Blic, 26.5.2011) Mladic was arrested in Lazerevo, a village near Zrenjanin. Opbeith (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing vs genocide re Mladic prosecution

At http://www.rnw.nl/international-justice/article/genocide-a-fitting-charge-mladic David Tolbert, President of International Center for Transitional Justice and ex-deputy chief prosecutor at ICTY disputes Ian Buruma's hesitations over the charge of genocide which he considers suggests that because there was no intent to destroy the group Mladic should be understood to have carried out "ethnic cleansing", not genocide.

Tolbert emphasises that it is not the whole group that needs to be the target of destruction but a significant part, and that guilt does not require a significant part of the group to have been actually destroyed, only that the accused carried out acts that were aimed at destroying a significant part of the group. The problem of proving the crime lies in proving intent, but it is the intent that's the measure of guilt, not what was actually accomplished (which may be evidence of intent but is not the essence of the crime).

Tolbert also challenges Buruma's reservation that the term genocide may only be appropriate to refer to the Holocaust as being inconsistent with the origin of the crime in the 1948 Convention, inspired by Lemkin's concern over the fate of the Armenians in 1915-17, emphasising that post World War II and more recent developments in international human rights law and international criminal justice have been aimed at reaffirming basic, internationally shared human values and protecting target groups from destruction.

Abandoning Mladic's prosecution for genocide part from offending natural justice by letting Mladic off the hook after his subordinates had been convicted of the crime, would signal a supreme lack of commitment international level to affirm and uphold basic values. Opbeith (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page archives

A user has repeatedly removed the talk page auto-archive settings, despite their presence here for quite some time. They have been restored, but as a conciliatory gesture I have modified the settings to reflect those at Talk:Srebrenica massacre, where a similar attempt to delete them was also rejected last year. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Describing a different approach to arbitrary action as a conciliatory gesture is not conciliatory, it's simply misrepresentation. I removed the talk-page auto-archive settings because they were liable to disrupt the discussions here by removing material likely to be part of the next resumption of discussions. Because of conflicting views there are long pauses between bursts of activity, which is what makes a time-based auto-archiving system inappropriate. I removed the auto-archiving in order to ensure that the next round of exchanges is able to start where it left off as the only regular contributor currently around at the moment. You have not attempted to respond to that issue and you have dodged the issue so clearly indicated at the User:MiszaBot_III page, that auto-archiving, an arbitrary process, should proceed on a basis of consensus.

The situation here is different from the situation at the Srebrenica Genocide Talk article where the auto-archiving imposed without discussion by Joy removed various threads which recur in ongoing discussions of the subject (for example "Muslim attacks on Serb villages"). As I was the person most consistently involved in responding to recent challenges to the article's long-established content and doing the work of organising the relevant information I felt that it was less than co-operative for Joy to impose auto-archiving without discussion in place of the previous (more helpfully labelled) manual archiving. When I sought to revert Joy's changes you once again intervened with your fiat. I've learned that too much energy is wasted trying to engage with you - you are not conciliatory, you simply make arbitrary concessions.

I propose that we should return to a process of manual archiving in order to ensure that discussions here can be resumed where they left off when the principal contributors are ready. Opbeith (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As per comments on the other page, the material is not lost, nor is it in any way inaccessible. In fact, the archive index box even provides a search feature that arguably makes it easier for readers to locate specific material. Furthermore, previous discussions can be directly linked if needed, or even linked in a way that allows them to be displayed on the current page as needed.

Note that talk page archiving is a widely used and accepted convention across a wide range of article talk pages, and you have not (in my opinion) made a convincing argument as to why this page should be exempt from that accepted practice. Allowing the page to build up to without archiving, on the other hand, only creates problems. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not made a convincing argument why the principle behind the recommendation on the User:MiszaBot_III page, to implement by consensus, is overridden by your assertion that it is simply accepted practice. Opbeith (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Other War Crimes

The page does not mention that war crimes were committed by forces other than the Serbs, such as the Croats and Muslims.

What about Bosnian Muslim war crimes?

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/076.shtml

Here. There were war crimes committed by all three sides/factions during the war, yet only the Serbian war crimes are mentioned in this article. There was ethnic cleansing of Serbian civilians around Srebrenica by Naser Oric, yet it is not mentioned.

Many scholars say crimes were committed by the Serbs.

The most overwhelming war crimes were committed by the Serbs in Bosnia, while other sides committed war crimes, according to the Helsinki Convention investigating war crimes.

This article should make mention of the fact that war crimes were committed by all sides during Bosnian Genocide, and should write em all down right here. It's controversial whether or not events constitute genocide and smearing people as deniers or other name-calling is just plain wrong, because other people have a story to tell, too.

http://books.google.com/books?id=D9IPnOphym4C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Crimes+committed+all+sides+Bosnia&source=bl&ots=tKv68kNFZg&sig=7N80SIwXaOlpRBPD6O_Pyu-KEs8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xh1FT86RC8Xh0gHioq2ABA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Crimes%20committed%20all%20sides%20Bosnia&f=false

17:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)

However, in line with a majority of legal scholars, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have ruled that, in order for actions to be deemed genocide, there must be physical or biological destruction of a protected group and a specific intent to commit such destruction. To date, only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be a genocide by the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ.[8]

Then how come the whole article says that there was a genocide all around Bosnia, even though the article about genocides in history on Wikipedia, states that the genocide was only limited to Srebrenica, yet makes the case that there was genocide all across Bosnia, even though the international courts did not say it. That's a bit of a leap, I'll say myself. How can it be genocide when the ICJ only found Srebrenica to be genocide? Many argue that ethnic cleansing is not a form of genocide. Physical destruction of an ethnic group, it would appear in the article, was not proven by the ICTY, but does not state seem to come up with physical proof or biological destruction of a protected group and intent to do so. Yet, it provides no counterpoint proving such things, nor does it say anything if ICTY, can't prove whether or not any of the above criteria happened, how can you jump and say something happened here? The article does not seem to make the connection and does not seem very well written, and only seems to appear to me, to jump to a conclusion of genocide.

I have that as a question. I am not a genocide denier or whatever, I just want to assess the article and make sure it is properly written.

\ The article fails to mention that there were rapes on all three sided during the war in Bosnia, something also stated by the ICRC.

Also, it says there are 200,000 dead. How many of them are Serbs? I heard that Serbs were put in the body count and counting Serbs also killed in the body count of 200,000 dead for all sides, that was 200,000 dead for all sides if you even bother to read the report. How can Serbs killing their own be genocide? The article fails to mention that all sides committed war crimes in the war in Bosnia, or that concentration camps were run by all sides. Please be a little more specific instead of trying to vilify people here.

17:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/23/magazine/the-bosnian-calculation.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The article says 200,000 as if were all to be Muslims, when in fact that very casualty figure of 200,000 dead was for all sides involved in the war. The Serbs were not completely responsible for 200,000 dead throughout the war, as the numbers of dead are for all sides involved during the war in Bosnia. This is where I have a problem. I will cite figures.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/23/magazine/the-bosnian-calculation.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

However, contrary to the claim made by Bosnia, the ICJ did not find that genocide had been committed on the wider territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war, limiting local genocide to the Srebrenica.[336] Before this ruling the term Bosnian Genocide had been used by some academics,[337] and human rights officials.[338]

I am confused about the locating the genocide to Srebrenica, yet the article wants me to believe that genocide was all over, and other articles state that it was genocidal actions by Krstic and others, but does not find that there was genocide on the wider territory of Bosnia Hercegovina according to official reports, yet the article says that it was all over the place, even though the criminal court stated that it did not find genocide on the wider territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which confuses me and the article is confusing and goes against the official ruling that genocide had not been committed on the wider territory of Bosnia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_1992-1995

17:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am very confused here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It would seem as though somebody is trying to push an opinion here, that it was genocide throughout Bosnia, even though the official ruling says that it wasn't. Now pushing opinions and political agendas to a point, I think is wrong in my opinion. How can there be genocide if the court ruled that it would

Seems the person that wrote the article is unhappy with the official ruling in the case, which is my opinion seems stupid. Or the Serbian ethnic cleansing, the fact that one expert said that it seemed like there was something going on here, in Criticism of the ICJ ruling, but the article states that the court did not find proof of intent to destroy the Bosniaks or some of the stuff related to genocide, but yet the person that wrote it wants me to believe that there was genocide. Was there or wasn't there genocide? The article completely fails to answer that question, just an opinion of the ICJ ruling and the court failing to find a wider genocide throughout Bosnia confuses me here.

Was there or wasn't there a genocide in Bosnia? Rhe article just seems to suggest that some think that there was genocide and some think there was not. Rapes were commited by ALL SIDES, something the person that skewed the finding to blame the Serbs in the whole mess, and the report stated that these were rapes for all sided, including Serbs.

18:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)

http://www.ushmm.org/genocide/take_action/atrisk/region/bosniaherzegovina

Besides, Holocaust Memorial Museum says about the trial of Mladic could constitute as genocide or whether or not the behavior of the Bosnian Serb leaders constitues genocide, but this article seems to be premature in this case, seems to prematurely say that genocide took place, even though many aren't sure if it was genocide, or the opinion in the article that makes Serbs guilty, yet fails to mention Croat actions against Muslims, also or the actions relating to the fact, that the court isn't sure if Mladic's behavior constitutes as genocide, even though the article says it does, without ever if it was. It just seems to be someone's opinion of a genocide taking place against the official ruling whether or not it was or wasn't. It seems to prematurely say Mladic is guilty, even though, yes I know Serbs did ethnic cleansing, but it is disputed whether or not this is genocide or not. It would seem to be, but is it?

Abramowitz continued, “This case is important because, along with the ongoing trial of Radovan Karadzic, it could offer a judgment on whether the behavior of Serbian leaders during the wider Bosnian war constituted genocide.”

Is this genocide? Seems to be highly unsure of whether or not there was a genocide, if a lawyer says this on the Holocaust memorial. I think it's premature to say whether or not it was genocide or not. 18:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)

I have another question. How come the Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing says that it is not genocide?

Ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide. These terms are not synonymous, yet the academic discourse considers both as existing in a spectrum of assaults on nations or religio-ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or 'population transfer' whereas genocide is the "intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group."[

Now, I have a question about the article in relation to ethnic cleansing.

The articles in the category of Bosnian Genocide suggest that there were ethnic cleansings in different places, but the Wikipedia article suggests that it is genocide, even though ethnic cleansing and genocide are two different things. For example, there appears to be stated an ethnic cleansing here and there, but was it coordinated to do something like this? Was it somehow coordinated?

These population transfers were happening in several different locations throughout Bosnia, but they may be isolated incidents. Were they? Weren't they? I have many questions to ask here?

Ethnic cleansing can happen in several different ways.

ased on the evidence of numerous attacks by Croat forces against Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks), the ICTY Trial Chamber concluded in the Kordić and Čerkez case that by April 1993, the Croat leadership from Bosnia and Herzegovina had a designated plan to ethnically cleanse Bosniaks from the Lašva Valley in Central Bosnia. Dario Kordić, the local political leader, was found to be the instigator of this plan

What is meant by numerous attacks? Were they sporadic? Were they are centrally coordinated? What went on? Are there any documents proving what happened? Are t

I am not trolling here. I just want answers so I can make a more informed decision. The atrocities happened in different places.

How's this? There is no legal definition for ethnic cleansing.

There is no formal legal definition of ethnic cleansing.[28] However, ethnic cleansing in the broad sense – the forcible deportation of a population – is defined as a crime against humanity under the statutes of both International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).[29] The gross human-rights violations integral to stricter definitions of ethnic cleansing are treated as separate crimes falling under the definitions for genocide or crimes against humanity of the statutes.[30]

I am confused here by this. I am not trying to belittle anyone here, I just want straight answers. What happened to the people that were forcibly deported? What happened here?

Was it all a coordinated plan these various massacres and camps to happen at such and such date, or was it isolated acts of violence? Is it trying to piece it together as systematic? Does it mean genocide? These various attacks? I have questions. Are there any documents proving it?

Genocide happens all at once. The Jews were deported from Europe all once. These massacres happened at various times and locations. Were they ordered by Karadzic or Mladic or local commanders? Why did they happen?

Genocide would be it they occurred at the same time. This is NOT BS.

Seriously why can't you just let it go. There is a definition for ethnic cleansing. It is the same thing as genocide but is the word that Americans use to avoid having to intervene. Just end the dispute.

What happened to the 20,000 to 30,000 civilians that were expelled from Srebrenica? What was their fate? What happened? How many of them were Serbs? How many of them were Muslims? How many? It does not state which ethnic groups these civilians that were expelled from the area. They could have been Serbs, they could have been Croats or Muslims? Who were they?

The ethnicity does not matter because this was not an ethnic cleaning in any way, shape, or form.

I am skeptic with many question.

Its ok to be a skeptic, but a death toll of 25,000 is absurd, as massacres in Visegrad have determined 3,000 confirmed dead, Foca confirms 4,100, Srebrenica 8,400 and Prijedor province approximately 14,000, Sarajevo (in an attempt to expel) killed 12,000 along with the siege of Sarajevo, and I do include Serbs who were killed too. I have continually (according to the ICTY and US intellegence, German Courts) heard a 110,000 death toll for all sides 20,000 Serb solders killed, another 20,000 Croats soldiers, and a remaining 65-75,000 were killed as part of the ethnic cleansing. Including soldiers who WERE removed from their homes and therefore died trying to return. Even if you removed them it would NOT be 25,000. That is the lowest assumption and any assumption should leave room as he toll is not fully known, but should use the most mainstream media, and court documents available, and not rely on single states, with a conflict of interest.

(ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Milosevic Trial, Judges Concluded Genocide Proven

On 16 June 2004, in ‘Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic: Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal’, the Trial Chamber refused to acquit Milosevic on the same grounds, and ruled: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/tdec/en/040616.pdf

246. On the basis of the inference that may be drawn from this evidence, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, whose aim and intention was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslim population, and that genocide was in fact committed in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi. The genocidal intent of the Bosnian Serb leadership can be inferred from all the evidence, including the evidence set out in paragraphs 238 -245. The scale and pattern of the attacks, their intensity, the substantial number of Muslims killed in the seven municipalities, the detention of Muslims, their brutal treatment in detention centres and elsewhere, and the targeting of persons essential to the survival of the Muslims as a group are all factors that point to genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.106.29 (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

there is a difference between "inference that may be drawn from this evidence" and "inference that must be drawn from this evidence and more pertinently "a Trial Chamber could be satisfied" and "the Trial Chamber is/was satisfied". This is a decision on a motion for judgement of acquittal. What this is saying is that there is enough evidence to show that this is not a frivolous indictment, and the the trial should go ahead as the Judges may find that Slobodan Milosevic was guilty of a being a member of a joint criminal enterprise that might have committed genocide in those areas. It does not say that genocide was committed in those areas (although of course a separate judgement found that genocide was committed at Srebrenica) . -- PBS (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal:

"323. With respect to the Amici Curiae submissions concerning genocide, the Trial Chamber, except for its holding in paragraph 324, DISMISSES the Motion and holds that there is sufficient evidence that

(1) there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, the aim and intention of which was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, and that its participants committed genocide in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi;

(2) the Accused [Slobodan Milosevic] was a participant in that joint criminal enterprise, Judge Kwon dissenting;

[(3) the Accused was a participant in a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, to commit other crimes than genocide and it was reasonably foreseeable to him that, as a consequence of the commission of those crimes, genocide of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group would be committed by other participants in the joint criminal enterprise, and it was committed;

(4) the Accused aided and abetted or was complicit in the commission of the crime of genocide in that he had knowledge of the joint criminal enterprise, and that he gave its participants substantial assistance, being aware that its aim and intention was the destruction of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as group;

(5) the Accused was a superior to certain persons whom he knew or had reason to know were about to commit or had committed genocide of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, and he failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the commission of genocide, or punish the perpetrators thereof.]"

So, there is sufficient evidence that there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, the aim and intention of which was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, and that its participants committed genocide and Milosevic was a participant in the JCE. The Court had neither convicted nor acquitted Milosevic, it found that genocide had been committed and Milosevic was a member of the group which had committed genocide.Opbeith (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It found that there was sufficient evidence for the trial to continue. To draw the inference that you are drawing you need to find a secondary source supports that inference. -- PBS (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What inference have you decided that I am drawing? I have simply quoted the ruling on the Rule 98bis motion and summarised what it said. The ICTY found that genocide had been committed by the JCE, so that the trial could proceed. It did not find that Milosevic himself had committed genocide because the trial was unable to proceed to its conclusion when Milosevic died. You are the person who has always tried to narrow down the focus of this article so that genocide is defined by the ICTY's findings. This article is all about your inferences. And now you want secondary sources? Come off it. Opbeith (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Popular Culture vs Legal Definition

While the legal term according to the ICJ stated, that the Bosnian War was a period of ethnic cleansing not constituting genocide, it cant be denied that in popular culture the period is by far most often noted as the Bosnian Genocide, and not the Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing Campaign. A number of countries have legally recognized this period as a period of genocide, including the United States Congress, and Germany. Germany who were given the authority by the ICTY to try criminals for crimes committed by the Bosnian Serbs, found that Nikola Jorgic was guilty of genocide in 4 different municipalities in 1992 1 While people may say, according to International Courts it is not recognized as genocide, however in both popular culture, almost universal human rights organizations, and multiple state governmnents, and courts entrusted by International courts to try the war criminals, it HAS been recognized as acts of genocide occurring during the 1992 period. It should be noted in a seperate article, the recognition of this period as a genocide, but now were in the same situation as recognizing the Armenian Genocide. International courts, either playing politics, or dodging guilt in complicity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.129.88 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I will trust the court system before I will trust the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is simply untrue that the cases tried in Germany were given to them by the ICTY and in conjunction with the ICTY. The four court cases in Germany are separate from ICTY verdicts. The thought that the ICTY, whose sole purpose was to try "high-profile cases" would pass on such "high profile cases" involving the possibility of genocide is absolutely absurd. The cases were tried in the German national courts, not the ICTY or ICJ international courts. One may try to connect them somehow to the ICTY by claiming that the ICTY passed them on, but they didn't, and wouldn't do such a thing. Although the ICTY has passed on and urged the local courts of Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia to try cases, these are only cases where there is either no JCE or cases which are lower profile. It is pure propaganda to try to link the findings of the German court with the ICTY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, then you should re-examine the authority of the ICTY as it was passed to Germany by the ICTY, while you may not personally agree with every courts decisions and view it as "propoganda", it IS a court rendered decision as is the US Congress decision to recognize the period as a period of genocide though a national policy. we use them in reference to the Armenian Genocide, which had no International tribunal, so I dont understand why we would ignore national recognition with regards to this "conflict". Nikola Jorgic appealed to the ICTY to take his case, which they refused to appeal. Milosevic was also denied acquittal on the charge of genocide pursuant to rule 98BiS, citing "if the evidence was taken at its highest, it can be determined that genocide occurred". This occurred with another Bosnian-Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik who was found to posess the actus reus of genocide. (Not the Mens Rea however which is what found him personally not guilty), but the ICTY has found that acts that can be deemed genocide did occur.) So...to deny that the event had a significant genocidal nature that is recognized by nations and courts is not true and just an attempt to dismiss that fact ALL court decisions should be presented. Also, popular culture DOES have a purpose in an article dealing with genocide in modern times. their are many instances of genocide which are only tried by national courts, (i.e. Cambodia, Anbar Campaign, Armenian genocide) while they may have higher death tolls (excluding the Anbar Campaign) they popularly are referred to as acts of genocide by MANY academics and INTERNATIONAL media sources, which should be represented by Wikipedia and not simply dismissed as "propoganda". Wikipedia as any encyclopedia presents the facts and the mainstream consensus, not a revisionist or dissenting opinion, which while it should be noted, is not the primary aspect of an article such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.223.12.203 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)