Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about Srebrenica massacre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

List of victims

As with most statistics about the Srebrenica Genocide, the list is not final. Note: Srebrenica victims are subsequently buried in Srebrenica - Potocari Memorial and Cementery. As of 2010, more then 4500 DNA identified victims are buried there. Memorial Center of Potocari ( July 2010): 4524 victims already buried,

    of them - children:
    13,5 - 14 years old: 5
    14 y. old: 14
    15 y. old: 43
    16 y. old: 77
    17 y. old: 114
    -------------
    total:     253

Federal Commission for Missing Persons; "Preliminary List of Missing and Killed in Srebrenica"; 2005[1]

77.240.177.27 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 12. July 2010 (UTC) Kutil

6481 DNA identified, 8100 DNA supported

Update: 6,481 victims DNA identified: http://www.ic-mp.org/press-releases/dna-results-reveal-6481-srebrenica-victims/ DNA analysis supports 8,100 victims. Source: ICMP 24.82.187.116 (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Srebrenica Genocide - UN Security Council Commemoration on 12 July 2010

UN Security Council acknowledges Srebrenica Genocide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiteNGVWk7Q Opbeith (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I want this to be noted!!!!

Srebrenica wasn't a genocide. It was a revenge killing! Do you know how many Serbs were massacred in Jasenovac concentration camp in ww2 by bosnian and croat animals? Much more than we killed in Srebrenica. It was a revenge! And also since Bosnia is made of three kind of people: Serbs and Croats too I put in that muslims were the target because we and Croats are Christians. (Verbatimdat (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

What you say has been noted, and understood for what it says. Opbeith (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you should think that your genocide denial is made any more forceful by identifying Bosniaks as Muslims. You seem confident that all Serbs and Croats are Christians? Apart from individuals practising genuine Christianity and convinced atheists, the evidence of Srebrenica is that the collective identity you subscribe to includes a significant number of individuals whose religious affiliation seems closer to sociopathy than it is to Christianity. Opbeith (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well 96 percent of Serbs are Christians, both in RS and in Serbia (I don't count minorities like you and others, just Serbs). And also Croats have the near percentage like us. We declare ourselves as Serbs and Croats, not Bosniaks, coz we all know what's Bosniak- a muslim. We're just citizens of BiH, nothing more. (Verbatimdat (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

Muslim attacks on Serb villages

This article is so evidently one sided its ridicilous. There is almost no mention of Muslim attacks on Serb villages BEFORE the Serbs took Srebrenica in 1995 and these attacks were undoubtedly the main reason the Serbs took the town anyway. Here are UN documents and Security Council resolutions that directly condemn these attacks and they HAVE to be mentioned in the article. http://emperor.vwh.net/sreb/un-intro.pdf Introduction and historical background

A list of Serbian victims with names and dates of times of death: http://emperor.vwh.net/sreb/un-victims.pdf

Here is a description of the kinds of massacres that were committed in the region: http://emperor.vwh.net/sreb/un-massacred.pdf

Here is a list of Muslim perpetrators of those crimes and descriptions of what occured: http://emperor.vwh.net/sreb/un-perpetrators.pdf

Here is a list of Victim's statements about those crimes: http://emperor.vwh.net/sreb/un-statements-1.pdf

I do not edit on here very often but am willing to contribute, but I please with neutral and impartial editors to somehow incorporate this information in the article. These facts need to be mentioned. Yugo91aesop (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yugo91aesop, these "facts" have been mentioned and discussed here a number of times previously. If you read the documents you have linked to you (essentially one document) will see that there is nothing there resembling a Security Council Resolution.

These are parts of a single UN document. NB It is a UN document, not a UN report. When a document is submitted for discussion at the UN by a member state (in this case a report submitted to the Security Council by the then Yugoslavia ie Serbia), it is automatically assigned a UN document number. The UN document number does not imply any form of UN endorsement of the content of a document unless and until it is formally adopted by a UN body.

You are probably aware that emperors-clothes is not known as a reliably objective source of material on the Bosnian conflict.

If you are interested in the situation in the villages around Srebrenica as investigated by the UN, I would recommend you read the official UN report, "Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35—The Fall of Srebrenica", [2].

Opbeith (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow nevermind that link is alot better my apoligies. I thought that what I had was a UN report, atleast thats what it said on the site where I got it from. Yes I do know that Emperor's Clothes is by no means a reliable site, however you can find lots of links to old newspaper articles, transcripts from the Milosevic trial and other documents that I find useful. However, I still believe that the article on wikipedia makes almost no mention of the attacks by Muslim forces on surrounding Serbian villages from the period before the enclave fell and this NEEDS to be mentioned because that is the main reason the Serbs took the enclave in 1995. The safezones were NEVER demilitirized from within, so essentially the Bosnian forces could go on raids and attack Serbian positions outside the enclave, then retreat back into the "safezone" where the Serbs were not allowed to counterattack. Yugo91aesop (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yugo91aesop, the main reason why the Serbs took the enclave in 1995 was to complete the creation of Republika Srpska. It was the culmination of the ethnic cleansing of the Drina Valley which began in April 1992.

Efforts to justify the genocide in terms of the losses suffered in the surrounding villages almost invariably ignore the slaughter of Bosnian Muslim civilians in 1992 and then when surviving enclaves like Cerska fell to the Serb forces. They portray the campaign to defend the enclaves as a one-sided aggression. They communicate the impression that the villages around Srebrenica were occupied simply by civilians and not militarised outposts.

The "safe haven" agreement was originally intended to protect the civilians in Srebrenica who should have been guaranteed protection irrespective of the military situation. They were deprived of water, electricity, food, medical supplies by the besieging Serb forces, contrary to international humanitarian norms. They were the victims of indiscriminate bombardment, as exemplified by the massacre at the Srebrenica elementary school.

The safe haven agreement was the international community's ineffective response to public outrage at the impact on civilians - and children in particular - of the Serb military strategy. The Security Council did not originally envisage "demilitarisation" as such, it was a civilian protection measure. However UNPROFOR commanders insisted that given the situation on the ground, with access controlled by the heavily armed Bosnian Serb army, they would not be able to police humanitarian relief measures without making concessions to the Serbs. This was the origin of the supposed "demilitarisation" agreement.

In spite of massive difference in weaponry between the two sides this was meant to apply to both sides. However there was no Serb demilitarisation in the surrounding area. Within Srebrenica the feeble UN force - deprived of resources by the Serb stranglehold on access and a lack of determination on the part of the international community - reached a modus vivendi with the Bosniak defenders - arms were confiscated if seen or known about. Of course heavy armaments would have been visible, so the enclave's defence force relied almost entirely on light arms, some antiquated and some new, smuggled in from outside.

It was these arms that were used in forays around the enclave. The forays were led by soldiers but were often followed by large groups of civilians foraging for food and other essential supplies - in spite of the safe haven agreement the Serb forces were largely obstructing or diverting humanitarian supplies. These foraging parties were often involved in battles with the armed police and military units stationed in the villages. There were atrocities in the aftermath, but these have been massively expanded by propagandists such as Milivoje Ivanisevic.

So Muslim attacks on Serb villages did occur, but not simply as aggressive acts in isolation. Atrocities did occur, but on a much, much lesser scale than those perpetrated by the Serb forces in the central Podrinje.

On 24 June, as deaths from starvation were being reported in the town, Ratko Mladic, the man responsible for Directive 7.1, the plan to deprive the inhabitants of Srebrenica of the opportunity of survival and life, announced that continuing raids in his view constituted a casus belli. He notified UNPROFOR that these attacks violated the status of the safe area. When the village of Visnjica was raided, with one Serb soldier killed and three civilians wounded, the Serbs used this incident to condemn the UN presence, weakened by their own efforts, for failing to prevent this kind of action. Mladic's spokesman said the UN forces were aligning themselves with the Muslim army and since the UN peacekeepers had failed to disarm the Bosnian troops in Srebrenica and raids on Serb villages had continued, the safe area was no longer a safe area, and it was the Serbs' right to go in and 'demilitarize' the area themselves.

The raids on the villages were the excuse to proceed to the completion of the clearance of the Drina Valley of its Muslim population, achieved by the implementation of Mladic's genocidal plans.

Don't believe what I say, I'm not an authority, but read the documentation carefully. In the last resort, whatever alternative versions the propagandists come up with the evidence is there. When the apologists and genocide deniers dismiss the ICTY and ICJ verdicts out of hand as part of the political conspiracy against Serbia, they never deal with all the detailed evidence that has not only been laid before the courts by the prosecution but that the perpetrators have had the opportunity to challenge and defend themselves against.

In the end the strategic mission is what counts. Read Karadzic's Directive 7 of March 1995 (link in the article) and Mladic's amended version. These people weren't playing a bloody game of tit for tat.Opbeith (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not sure why the Domavina site is given in the Article as the reference for the Secretary-General's report. Domavina is completely reliable and there's extra information available there (notes added in red), but the authoritative source is at the UN site at [3] Opbeith (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really so much into the subject, but this might be interesting in terms of this conspiracy against Serbia - http://4international.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/usnato-owned-hague-icty-kangaroo-court-frees-kla-mass-murderer-ramush-haradinaj/

In my opinion, it seems that the Serb military authorities simply tried desperatly to stop the Muslims from doing those horrific barbarian things, and that's why they decided to kill them - but only males at the age that would able them to hold a rifle, no women, no kids, and it was all done as humanitarily as possible (i.e. blindfolded, shot in the head, so the victims weren't suffering). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That link is from a website that is non-reliable and clearly non-neutral; its non-neutrality is obvious in the sort of mission statement expressing its purpose to defend Israel and support Serbs. Because it's not neutral and not reliable, it can't be really used for anything. This article contains a vast number of documents that, in addition to being both reliable and neutral, prove that the goal of the Serbian military was nothing even close to, as you put it, merely preventing attacks against Serbian villages. Also, as it usually goes with humanitarian disasters, there was nothing humanitarian about this act. If you're interested in contributing material to this article that presents something that may be seen as a departure from international consensus, try to only present sources that don't appear to take sides and that are published by a source that's scientifically and journalistically reputable. The above presented link is junk and, unfortunately, there is plenty of it around. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but I'd like to ask you two basic questions: 1)as to taking sides: what if one nation was really sort of a "black character", and the other one was innocent? I'm not saying that this is the case with Serbia, I'm just wondering what wikipedia's look on that subcject, or in such cases is.

2) what if the so called 'reliable/verifiable sources' are written by individuals or collective units that are either a) paid for not telling the truth or b) controlled by the same forces as in previous possibility in some other way, be it intimidation, harrasment, live-threatening, etc. or (last but not least) c) interrested in falsifying the true version of events themselves ?? These are the two questions I'd like you to take under consideration in cases like this, 9/11, Gulf of Tonkin Incident, JFK Assasination and other "controversial", so to euphemistically speak :) Take care.

Anonymous contributor, the argument about making an unfair case against a particular side has been covered here a number of times. Someone claims - as if it was for the first time - that crimes were committed by all sides and all sides were to blame. We then follow the usual path of acknowledging that crimes were committed by all sides but that does not mean that all were equally responsible for what happened. We examine the weight of evidence that one party had a programme, the Greater Serbia programme, that provided a framework for ethnic cleansing and genocide, and the evidence that the large majority of civilian victims came from the party whose members were destroyed at Omarska, Visegrad, Foca, Srebrenica. Accusations are made that we turn a blind eye to crimes against Serbs, and these usually tend to refer to supposed evidence provided by the likes of Milivoje Ivanisevic and Stephen Karganovic. Fortunately those "verifiable" sources are fairly easily shown to be misleading concoctions, e.g. Ivanisevic's inflation of the number of Serb deaths in the villages around Srebrenica and Karganovic's pseudo-expert attempt to challenge the forensic evidence that the court found convincing in the Popovic, Beara et al trial. Of course there's a lot of time-wasting involved, but most of the "controversial" viewpoints have now been refuted umpteen times over. Opbeith (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Opbeith's summary is an accurate description of archived arguments on this subject. Fairview360 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Big Bird, there are two possibilities. Either the contributor failed to notice that the crime that explains why Srebrenica took place is supposed to taken place in 1999 (in Kosovo/a) because h/she has retrieved the wrong doctored photograph - it's the one with a head on a pitchfork that's supposed to date from 1992 (though from Brcko rather than from the Drina Valley) that usually comes up in relation to Bosnia. Or alternatively this is a clumsy double bluff. Either way it's irrelevant and malevolent. Opbeith (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This "neutrality" you look for exists nowhere. 24.36.78.185 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal analysis questioning the genocide verdict.

van den Herik, Larissa (2007), Henham, Ralph J.; Behrens, Paul (eds.), The criminal law of genocide: international, comparative and contextual aspects, Ashgate Publishing, pp. 83–93, ISBN 0754648982 {{citation}}: Text "The Schism between the Legal and Socila Concept of Genocide in Light of the Responsibility to Protect" ignored (help)

In the section that starts on page 83 called "The interpretation of the word 'Destroy'" Larissavan van den Herik reviews some of the ICTY Trial Chamber and the Appeal Chamber rulings. In a section called "The Application of the Word 'in Part'" that starts on page 84 she looks at how that was interpreted in the Srebrenica genocide and notes that "various scholars have criticised the Trial Chambers approach" (citing as footnote 40 Shabas, W.A. (2001), 'Was genocide committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina? First Judgements of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia', Fordham International Law Journal, 23–53; Tournaye, C. (2003), 'Genocidal intent before the ICTY', 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 447–462; and Sliedregt, E. van (2005), 'Commentary', Klip, A. and Sluiter, G. (eds) Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals, vol VII (Antwerp: Intersentia), pp. 767–772)

Having reviewed the findings of the Appeals Chamber in the Kristić case and a few other cases, she thinks that the Appeals Chamber applied the law inconsistently and in a final paragraph in the section concludes:

Ultimately, the question of whether the ICTY came to the correct conclusion in the Kristić case that genocide had been committed is a question of how to evaluates the evidence that was presented. Basic principles of criminal law require that a conviction is only entered if guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt (footnote 48 She cites the Appeals Chamber). Since the Appeals Chamber acknowledged that the defence argument that there was no genocidal intent could also be plausible, it should not have entered a conviction of genocide.(footnote 49 "This conclusion does not mean, of course that what happened in Serbrenica in July 1995 was not atrocious or impermissible. Undoubtedly, it was. ...).

As an ad hominem it could be mentioned that she is Dutch and the Dutch have a matter of national honour at stake over a genocide that their troops did little to stop. However she is an acknowledged legal academic and these legal views even if a minority view should perhaps be given some room in this article.

It is also notable because these type legal arguments do not revolve around the number killed, are but the sort of angels on pinheads legal arguments so loved by lawyers. I do not think that such an entry would fit with the current wording of the section "Opposition to the term 'genocide'" which starts "Despite the ICTY's finding ... most of which argue that fewer than 8,000 were killed".

I am not going to edit the article to add any of this information. I just wanted to present it here on this talk page so that others can use it if they want to. Given the content of her footnote 40, I do not think mentioning these legal views would violate WP:UNDUE, but others can make that decision if anyone wants to mention van den Herik's views in the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also Claus Kress, Kevin Jon Heller and others that argue for different legal qualification of the massacre. Although they are few compared to the predominant position of courts and academia, a subsection could be added to "Opposition to term "genocide"", dealing with this. --Harac (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The so called "International Association of Genocide Scholars" is a scam. There is nothing international about it. William Schabas runs it with a group of like-minded individuals in order to promote a story of 1.5 million Armenians, without giving names and evidence that 1.5 million were killed. The IAGS is an internet group, a very successful internet based group of activists. Prof. William Schabas denies that Bosniaks and Serbs suffered genocides in history. He is a genocide denier. More about him here http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2009/12/prof-william-schabas-questionable.html . Genocide denial in academic circles is nothing new. It happens every day. People like Schabas can think whatever they want, but numerous judgements of international and local trials confirm that Serb forces committed genocide of Bosnian Muslim people in the Enclave of Srebrenica by targeting "for extinction" (that's the exact term they used in Krstic appeal", by targeting for extinction the 40,000 Muslims. It's was genocide. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.172.92 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Harac, I'm afraid at the moment I'm not in a position to discuss in depth but van Herik seems confused. She's talking about conviction and guilt. Krstic's conviction by the Appeals Chamber was not for genocide but for aiding and abetting genocide. So I'm not clear what the relevance of her comment about any conviction for genocide in relation to Krstic is.

Since Krstic direct convictions have been handed down by the Trial Chamber in the cases of Popovic and Beara. So an updated version of her argument has to be awaited. The Trial Chamber in Popovic et al. considered Schabas's report prepared on behalf of Popovic and Beara or his proposed testimony on their behalf would provide enlightenment "on specific issues of a technical nature that are outside of its experience and knowledge" - ie wasn't relevant to its deliberations[4]. It did not rule out use of his analysis in arguments before the Chamber or Final Briefs. The Popovic et al. judgment indicates that if Schabas's arguments were referred to they did not not prevail, vide the two genocide convictions (sorry, at the moment not able to check through judgment). So there's no point discussing them unless and until the issues are raised in the genocide convicts' appeals and the Appeals Chamber has said anything further on the subject. Opbeith (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, PBS, I thought Harac was the author. This is a pointless diversion. You routinely point out when arguments have been superseded by subsequent legal findings. On that basis there's not much point wasting time on this here. This article is about the Srebrenica genocide as established by the ICTY and ICJ. The Popovic and Beara findings have confirmed that not only that the fact of the crime at Srebrenica is considered proven but also that individuals have been proven to have had the necessary intent. So that leaves the legal arguments concerning the nature of the crime in abstract, which are probably best dealt with at the WP article on genocide itself.Opbeith (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought this could be quoted as a specific form of genocide denial. --Harac (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Looking back on the Holocaust, there was plenty of academics claiming there was no genocide. There are academics who claim that a systematic slaughter of 2000 Tutsis who shought shelter in a Church does not constitute genocide. But the internationa tribunal thinks different. In my opinion, there is no question that a systematic slaughter of 8,000 human beings and forcible transfer of 30,000 constitute the worst act of genocider since World War II. Srebrenica was genocide. Why are we even discussing this... Yahalom Kashny (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Graphic Testimonies

Horrific testimonies http://www.vandiepen.com/en/srebrenica/detail/79-1)-writ-of-summons-(4-june-2007).html . We could incorporate that somehow in the article. Yahalom Kashny (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Nominated for Deletion

I've nominated this article for deletion due to lack of relevence and timeliness. If no response is forthcoming, and if adiquate changes are not made to bring it into line with Wikipedia policy (See WP:REL) I will go ahead and scrap it. McLovin 69.122.132.127 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you need a little help in nominating the article for deletion let me know. You yourself are unable to delete it without consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it will fail. Its a fairley notable event thats multiply sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If the user really wants to do that, it would also imo get little support, perhaps even a very speedy keep snow closure. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have faith that the folks in charge won't be that sympathetic to a buncha mozzies in Bozzie (especially since it'sa lie). It's as good as done. McLovin 69.122.132.127 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

MMMMM! rather difficult to AGF here. This reads like its very POV pushing motivated. But go ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm..the user added an AFD template from another article which was reverted, I think I will take this article back off my watchlist , it got added last night when Bosonian was blocked indefinitely. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That anyone could even consider offering McLovin assistance in deleting this article is mind-boggling.Opbeith (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

New users often require assistance, even if it is to discuss and to be directed and to see that deletion is unlikely. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has a history of that sort of visitor. And it also has a history of visitors like Bosonian going over the top with outrage because they see the actions of Wikipedia editors and administrators as fostering that sort of denial. I don't question that you were well-meaning, but there are some situations in which people flag what they're up to too clearly to deserve encouragement.Opbeith (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that whilst I agree that its clear what the acount is up to I also belive that they should be allowed to hang themselves (not encourage it but certainly aid them if they wish to make fools of themselves). The truth need never fear ignorance, but dogma should always fear whats true.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the principle you're supporting but unfortunately it's not simply a question of the truth not fearing ignorance. This is a crime which has a history of persistent motivated denial that has caused immense distress to real people in the real world - survivors, relatives and others - and sadly sometimes that has been through the vehicle of Wikipedia's treatment of the subject.Opbeith (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry bit I fel it is that simple, and it always is (and yes I know exaclty what I am saying, so we can avboid the obvious). If its ture thyen debate is a good thing, it helps to make in clear in the minds of thoe who waver what is (and is not) true. But if we refuse to vallow debate (not matter how follish) those who doubt think, "you know there may be something in this" (and don't bother with any clever comments, as I have said I know exactly what I am saying). Stupidity can only be defeated by debate, not by censure. The user may bleive exaclty what he has said, and may (when actualy presented with a reasoned debate) change thier mind. Just shouting at them YOU ARE WRONG NOW SHUT UP! will not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. It's a delicate balance of allowing discussion and closing down trolling. New users are a valued commodity and with a little help they may be constructive in another area. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

OK, CKatz, Joy imposes automatic archiving arbitrarily and you reimpose it arbitrarily, I've learned the pointless way that there's no challenging your fiat. I'd only point out that it's possible, I won't put it more strongly than that, that someone offended by the choice of article title, like Bosonian on this occasion but others before him, might not have considered it quite the carve-up Bosonian clearly thought it was if he'd had simple access to the previous discussion BigBear arbitrarily archived. Archiving prevents discussions becoming unwieldy, true, but the unwieldiness it imposes when referring to recurrent issues also handicaps discussion.Opbeith (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is arbitrary about archiving a page that is > 100 KB in length? Please don't make a religious issue out of something purely technical and practical - nobody is going to read that much text. If things get rehashed despite the fact all this text is still here, then that only helps reinforce that simple point. If you need an FAQ, create one and tag it so it sticks, see User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo#Delaying_or_preventing_archival_of_particular_threads. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Joy, what exactly is arbitrary is not bothering to discuss the automatic mechanism before you went ahead and added it - that is the simple point. And I'm not making religious issues out of anything - it's simply easier to refer someone new to Wikipedia/to the article to a discussion on the same page than to ask them to deal with looking in archives. Maybe you knew how to find your way around better when you started but a lot of people find Wikipedia arcane enough already. Opbeith (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply not archiving last year's worth of back-and-forth won't really help the newbies, because it's still a huge chunk of text they aren't going to bother with. Please go ahead and summarize these issues you want people to know about, and put them in a marked section (or a set thereof). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that in-depth discussion of the word "arbitrary" that you wished me to engage in, and thanks for inviting me to do a load more work, a kindly thought at the moment. I'm intrigued to be told that a discussion page that is > 100 KB in length needs to be archived when on a discussion page that is 487K and rising I read the introductory text "I will not archive my talk page. If you want to know why, read it. --Joy [shallot]". Arbitrariness is a complex notion.Opbeith (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have to do anything. My personal talk page is not a topic of general interest, but an article talk page is. I don't expect or suggest or particularly even wish anyone would read my talk page; whereas you seem to want other people to read stuff on this talk page. It's really unlikely anyone will read through >100kb of seemingly random other people's chatter just because you wish they do. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You keep misrepresenting what I have said. I am not insisting anyone has to read through anything, I'm simply saying that it's easier to refer them to information that's on the same page. You offer me the opportunity to deal with the situation you want to create by taking on a rather substantial burden of work. And you still can't be bothered to offer any explanation why you thought it appropriate to take arbitrary unilateral action without warning.Opbeith (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's on the same page, but still it takes a non-trivial amount of effort to find and extract. Certainly an amount of effort comparable to searching the archive or just clicking around the archive indices. So there's no apparent benefit in keeping the last year worth of talk all on the first page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Joy, you won't explain why you felt justified in acting arbitrarily, but CKatz has confirmed your entitlement to do so, so it's pointless me wasting more of your and my time.Opbeith (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I still do not see why this is an issue. After all, there are already 16 archive pages; what is so special about the material here as compared to all of the other discussions? --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing's an issue if you can't be bothered to read what I've said. That's OK, it's pointless wasting more time.Opbeith (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A norwegian UN-officer

Should Hagerup Hauklands name, figure into this article?

From http://www.nytid.no/arkiv/artikler/20050727/blank/ ,

"Hagrup Haukland and his staff - then stationed in Tuzla, with responsibility of the north-eastern section of Bosnia, including Srebrenica - did not escape critiscism in the Dutch Fact-finding-report."

--Sølvguttene (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If this officer is sufficiently notable to have their own article, rather than just a redlink then perhaps so. Its a bit difficult for non-Norwegian speakers to judge their relevance on the basis of the single linked non-English article. In this case I think Wikipedia:Write the article first might apply. RashersTierney (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly a case for a broader, more detailed and structured treatment of the role played by the UN forces. That might be better done in a sub-article or linked article. Here I think it's probably more important to concentrate on the key elements - Dutchbat's handing over of the refugees on the base to Mladic, Janvier and Akashi's reluctance/failure to deter the VRS, perhaps Rupert Smith's failure to press Mladic over the fate of the prisoners and at a level above all that, and particularly relevant in the light of Richard Holbrooke's death this week, the issue of whether the UN as well as individual Security Council members may have been party to a strategic decision to abandon Srebrenica and Zepa. That's already quite a lot to fit in. Opbeith (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Opbeith, it was the finding of hrw that "the international community also bears responsibility for the worst crime in Europe since World War Two. After promising protection to the inhabitants of Srebrenica, the United Nations and NATO allowed the “safe area” to fall. That responsibility is compounded by the continuing failure to bring to justice Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the two men indicted as the principal architects of the Srebrenica genocide. The Dutch United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) battalion based in Srebrenica failed to take the military action necessary to save the town. Robust NATO air strikes that could have stopped the Serb onslaught were never authorized, despite repeated requests from Dutch peacekeepers on the ground." http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/07/10/legacy-srebrenica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.163.223 (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Purported IDC/RDC discovery of 500 missing from Srebrenica

Mirsad Tokaca has pointed out that his reference at the launch of the IDC/RDC "Bosnian Atlas of the Dead" project in Banja Luka, to 500 persons from Srebrenica who were considered dead and have been discovered alive has been taken out of context. The IDC/RDC considers the misrepresentation of what he said a "classic abuse of the media". Tokaca was not referring to victims of the genocide, he was referring to IDC/RDC's work on human losses 1991-1995 in the municipality of Srebrenica. IDC/RDC have pointed out that this distortion of what he actually said was the responsibility of the Serb news agency SRNA. http://www.idc.org.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=243%3Ademanti-povodom-citiranja-gosp-mirsada-tokae-o-rtvama-genocida-u-srebrenici&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=50&lang=bs

How do I change title?

Hi, how do I change title in this fine encyclopedia that "everyone can edit"? The page should be titled "Srebrenica genocide" instead of "Srebrenica massacre". This is obvious by shear volume of references for the former v. the latter. Pray, any MI6/CIA/Mossad agents or their Serb chauvinist allies try not to respond this question, as it's intended for normal people only. Also, how do I remove this piercing-looks guy on top of the page? My 6 years old is having nightmares from that CIA analyst's strange looks. Thank you. Bosonian (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: how do I prevent these swiftly popping-up profiles from reverting without explanation my perfectly logical switch of terms "massacre" and "genocide" in the first sentence (as the latter is by large more important and accepted). Also, how do I prevent Wikipedia from remembering my broadband modem's embedded MAC address? Again, please no intelligence operatives -- stay put. Bosonian (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also: why is this article written in such a cold-blooded manner in terms of respecting genocide-deniers? It reads as if someone is describing the difference between two tastes of ice-cream and not judicially demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt genocide. As usual, please any lowlifes from imagined intelligence worlds, stay put. Thanks. Bosonian (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A person behind nick "Charles" (smells like injustice) has left the following message in my mailbox: "Please read the 3 revert rule, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.--Charles (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)" What does it all mean? Why does he not use any logics? Is he not supposed to offer counter argument to annul the arguments I offered on editing? He reads like non-human, machine coded mumbo-jumbo to me. Are you people real on here? Or some sort of military-grade sophisticated software perhaps? You sure as hell seem like a flock of sharks floating around Titanic, at least on this example of Bosnian Genocide (note proper capitalization). Mine mine, intelligence no doubt. Wikipedia a front store of the MI6/CIA/Mossad holy coalition. Nothing new on the poop front. Bosonian (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This name change has been proposed many times before and discussed at length so search the archives and see Wikipedia:Article titles. Also please drop the conspiracy bullshit as it only makes you seem paranoid. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

So has the variation in ice-cream tastes been discussed on infinitely many occasion too; your point being...? Dig deep, dive low. Dive steep, and you'll bow. As for the conspiracy, it appears it's time for you to dig: http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2569 Bosonian (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting a perfectly reasonable, minor edit? Are you a non-declared fascist? A Serb chauvinist? Who are you? Bosonian (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it does not adhere to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style guideline. The actual title of the article comes first and the alternative names follow after.

All controversial edits are discussed on the talk page which includes yours. It is up to you to justify why the article's name should be "Srebrenica genocide" rather "Srebrenica massacre". It is evident via Google test that the most common name is "Srebrenica massacre" not "Srebrenica genocide" as you suggest.

Google Web:

Massacre: 760,000 [5]

Genocide: 354,000 [6]

Google Books:

Massacre: 3,280 [7]

Genocide: 390 [8]

Google Scholar:

Massacre: 972 [9]

Genocide: 212 [10]

Google News:

Massacre: 3,410 [11]

Genocide: 372 [12]-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 01:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Google test" - is that really the level of intellectual rigour we should expect here?Opbeith (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To subject objective criteria such as references to subjective quasi-criteria such as Google count on a topic as humanistic as genocide undoubtedly does seem fitting of a profile of someone who treats genocide v. its deniers same as ice cream v. its taste-variants. Too bad I didn't succeed pissing you off the first time enough to get me banned from this Freemasonry playground. Hm, lets see if you morons can catch on in the second attempt: go fuck yourselves, you lowlife idiotic semi-educated imbeciles who actually believe they possess supreme quality just by belonging to a herd of manipulators. Ha! Who's pissed off now. Push the button, come on we know you're holdiiiing it, and he's holdddiiing it, and heeee's hoooooo... LOL Bosonian (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Bosonian either does not care or is unaware of wiki standards of conduct. Perhaps, he is a wikieditor using a sock puppet to indulge himself. In any case, Bosonian in his short appearance here has violated several wiki rules and, if he continues with this behavior, will no doubt be blocked. Fairview360 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In spite of the intemperate approach, the misguided criticism of Charles and the conspiracist nonsense, Bosonian is still essentially right. The arguments have been laid out here several times previously, above all the essential one that the title "Srebrenica massacre" refers simply to the historic killing of the men and the boys, and is inadequate to encompass the legal aspects of the crime, in particular the finding that these were not revenge killings or combat killings but part of a genocide that comprised not just killings but also the forcible transfer of the remainder of the Bosniak population out of the area (go back and read the Krstic Trial and Appeals Judgments if you have any quibbles). The title has not been kept due to conspiracy on the part of the CIA or anybody else but simply through ignorance, incomprehension and obdurate conservatism. There is adequate evidence of the widespread usage of the term "Srebrenica genocide" - summarised by me several times previously - for the "usage" argument to be an inadequate counter to the "accuracy" argument.

Bosonian's perhaps inappropriately expressed astonishment and anger merely reflects the amazement that people coming here from the outside world feel when they encounter the refusal of Wikipedia to acknowledge reality. He's only the latest in a long line to be put in their place by Wikipedia's "experts". Now let's all get back to the serious business of deciding which end we should crack our boiled eggs. Opbeith (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me. Misguided criticism? All I did was revert the page to conform with the title per MoS and ask Bosonian to read the 3 revert rule to avoid edit warring. Where is the criticism? That apart, genocide means the killing of an entire population, male and female young and old, not relocation. This was an appalling massacre of fighting age males, a terrible crime but not genocide.--Charles (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles, I've only just read what you said afterwards beyond your outburst about the assumed accusation against you. I made a similar but very different mistake. I replied without properly reading what I was replying to, but hadn't misread, I simply hadn't read most of what you said. You are utterly wrong. You have clearly not read the text of the UN Genocide Convention, you have no understanding of Raphael Lemkin's thinking that inspired the Convention and you have just asserted your own interpretation of the Convention over that of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice. You say outright that they did not validly issue their formal judgments that the crime of genocide was perpetrated at Srebrenica. Can I suggest you do some reading? Particularly read the Krstic judgments and how the judges carefully explained why genocide under the terms of the Convention had been perpetrated at Srebrenica. Read what they said in refutation of the defence submission that expelling the women and children from Srebrenica negated the notion that genocide had not been perpetrated. You may not be aware of the fact but you are advancing the argument of the perpetrators, as you do when you refer to "fighting age males" rather than to prisoners and segregated refugees (including minors, women and the elderly).Opbeith (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Charles, I should have phrased that more clearly, but I was referring to Bosonian's criticism of you in relation to the message you left for him being misguided, I wasn't imputing any criticism to you.Opbeith (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I see that now and do not know why I read it that way.--Charles (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that myself.Opbeith (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

CHANGE THE TITLE!!!! IT IS NOT "SREBRENICA MASSACRE", IT IS "SREBENICA GENOCIDE"!!!!!

CHANGE THE TITLE!!!! IT IS NOT "SREBRENICA MASSACRE", IT IS "SREBENICA GENOCIDE"!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA-1987 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the voice of reality makes itself heard. The massacre refers simply to the physical killings. What happened at Srebrenica - the subejct of this article - was more than just the killings, it was a crime of genocide. The killings were only part of the attempt to destroy a national/ethnic/religious group through a collection of various acts - killings, forcible transfers, rapes, etc. - planned and implemented systematically by a criminal conspiracy. Opbeith (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith, I generally respect your contributions (while not always agreeing with them), but the fact that you pursue this line of argument makes me question your seeming objectivity on other matters. The article on Wikipedia naming policy is utterly clear that (my emphasis throughout):

Generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article. There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus. The principal criteria used by editors when deciding on a title for an article include:

Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.

Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.

Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

There is even a section titled 'Non-neutral but common names', which reads:

When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate you (that would be a waste of both of our times), although I am mildly interested to know exactly how you justify a name change in light of the excerpts I've just quoted. Cheers and happy new year :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother -- I'm over it already! :-) Plus, I can see you have put forward your opinion in some detail in the preceding posts. I don't think it goes anywhere towards getting around the excerpts I've quoted, but really I don't care enough to want to put you out. Cheers to all, especially my old buddy Fairview ;-) (really, I'm not trying to be snarky! I mean it in good humour) Jonathanmills (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jonathanmills, I think it is legitimate to express a point of view concerning the inappropriateness of the article's title. I don't try to change the title but it's not unreasonable when others draw attention to its anomalous character for me to recall the problems that continue to be associated with it. I accept Aervanath' very fairly conducted review and his assessment that by a narrow decision and on a perhaps temporary basis he found against the request to change the name of the article. But when visitors from the real world intrude on the Wikipedia bubble and express surprise to find the article named as it is, I consider it legitimate for me to indicate to the puzzled visitor that their concern over the title's inadequacy is shared.

The terms "Srebrenica massacre" and the "Srebrenica genocide" are both widely used, but usage has varied and the two terms simply do not refer to the same thing. The subject matter of the article is a crime of genocide of which the massacre is only one aspect. The article is concerned with what happened at Srebrenica. That included for example the forcible transfer of the entire surviving population, the justice procedure that found the massacre to have been a component of the first crime of genocide perpetrated on European soil since the Second World War trial and the ongoing political and judicial issue of genocide denial. All this is not encompassed by the simple topic of the killings.

To go through your points and explain why I don't consider they indicate a lack of objectivity in considering that the "Srebrenica genocide" is the appropriate title while not seeking to impose it:

"what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article" and "Recognizability":

Certainly "Srebrenica massacre" is often used. This usage dates back to the period before the allegations of a genocidal intent/plan had been confirmed by the highest legal authorities and before any of the perpetrators had been brought to justice - it was a simplification of convenience. While it is still in commonplace use, its use is now often anomalous and inappropriate while the expression "Srebrenica genocide" has acquired more widespread recognition and currency, particularly since the European Parliament resolution called upon EU Member States to commemorate the event under that name.

"Naturalness":

I don't challenge the fact that for historical reasons, as above, "Srebrenica massacre" is probably more widely used. But familiarity of use - "naturalness" - is no justification for misuse, whether unthinking or as is often the case deliberate. It is that deliberate misuse which provokes the appalled reaction that many people less familiar with the subject find so difficult to understand. The simplified description "massacre" is not a "natural" usage in that situation, it's used intentionally to avoid acknowledging the finding of genocide and continue denying it, for example by those claiming that the massacre was an act of reprisal and the deaths were revenge killings, the sad but inevitable outcome of the history of the enclave's defence, rather than elements in a plan of genocide as the ICTY and then the ICJ established.

In any case, as far as the issues of recognition and naturalness are concerned any problem that Wikipedia users genuinely unfamiliar with the term "Srebrenica genocide" might have are easily resolved by the simple use of Redirect.

"Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously":

"Srebrenica massacre" does not identify the topic of the article precisely or unambiguously. It refers to only part of the topic and, as I have pointed out above, the ambiguity of the expression is exploited by those who want to obscure a key aspect of the topic, the genocide. The contrast between "the massacre of the men and boys" and the elimination of the remainder of the enclave's population by forcible transfer and other means is used by those like Lewis MacKenzie who refute the judicially established fact of genocide. They exploit the ambiguity that the designation "Srebrenica massacre" allows to persist.

"a single common name evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources should be used (subject to the other naming criteria), even if that common name is non-neutral [my paraphrase] - the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment":

The use of both names is widespread, there is no single common name. One term tends to be used more precisely than the other. When each is used appropriately there is no question of "judgment being passed". There are sufficient reliable authorities who identify what happened as the "Srebrenica genocide" for specified reasons for this not to be simply a partisan choice.

Jonathanmills, your irrepressible jocularity never really conceals the fact that you never feel fully comfortable with an article that restates the legally established finding that genocide was perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs at Srebrenica. Opbeith (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think it would be ridiculous for the article to omit the fact of the finding of genocide -- it's an important piece of information. I may happen to think the legal reasoning rather tortuous (rather than, as you apparently believe, careful), but that's beside the point.

What I don't feel comfortable with about the article is:

a) it is completely slanted, so that any evidence at variance with the Bosniak-nationalist position, ICTY findings etc is either erased or presented in a disparaging, rather than neutral way;

b) Many of the links and references are of poor quality (I recall when I was trying to tidy up the article that a huge amount of the references were either misleading, dead, or didn't contain the information they alluded to -- although this may possibly have changed);

c) As a mixture of points a) and b), I don't trust that the article is factually accurate (I've more than once had to correct blatant misinformation during my time here -- misinformation that doesn't get corrected because it comes from a pro-Bosniak-nationalist position);

d) The almost-childishly-poor quality of the article in some places (viz the change of 'Alternative Views' to 'Opposition to the term genocide', which isn't even an accurate description of the section).

However, I have realised that any attempt to rectify these situations is utterly fruitless due to the dominating presence of editors who clearly have no interest in these points. That's why I don't waste my time here anymore. 122.57.116.99 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oop, sorry, forgot to sign in. It's probably obvious, but that was me. Jonathanmills (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Jonathanmills, you have identified a genuine problem in the dead links issue. That's an issue for many articles that have been in existence for quite a long time and certainly needs working on. Regarding the matter of consistency and coherence, you will remember the days when there was a sustained effort to ensure that the apologist view was presented on some of the key issues, such as the number of the dead, the rationale for the killings, the role of besieging Serb forces in the surrounding villages etc. Much of the uneven quality of the article's narrative derives from the period before the ICJ confirmed the ICTY's rulings when there was a cycle of misrepresentation followed by refutation. Since the ICJ's ruling that activity has tailed off. In other instances sometimes awkward compromises were necessary on issues that hadn't been judicially resolved. When criticising the effect on the article of others' contributions, you might also reflect on the impact of your own interventions and your support for the efforts of Osli73. It would be less than accurate to say that your own "helpful suggestions" were always made from a neutral position, and your eagerness to proceed while at the same time asserting your ignorance of the details of a particular issue or situation was no great help to ensuring the clarity of the article. Opbeith (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into this in a major way, but I strongly dispute your negative characterisation of mine (and Osli's, at least in my experience) *actual contributions* to the page. No doubt some of my comments on the talk page were out-of-line (although you in particular appear to be more than willing to excuse similar behaviour from editors on your side), and doubtless we have different points of view, but the vast majority of my edits were actually trying to address the factual inaccuracies/ dead links etc. I'd be interested to see which of my actual page edits you had a problem with, although I realise that would involve trawling through old edit histories which you probably can't be bothered doing (fair enough too). While we're trading barbs, I would suggest that your prickly attitude towards editors who were attempting to make the article less slanted and your indulgent attitude towards blatantly biased, unprofessional editors on your side has played no small part in making this page a no-go area for the kind of disinterested editors it desperately needs to improve it from its current C-class quality rating. Jonathanmills (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed protection?

The page history is riddled with anonymous vandalism. Should the article be restricted to edits by autoconfirmed users? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In November, last month, there were 22 edits to the article, some from unconfirmed accounts and only one revert by cluebot. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you also quantified the "some"? :) The vandalism here shouldn't tend to be trivial or silly like the stuff Cluebot usually watches for. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

New users are a valued commodity and when presented with a reasoned debate may change their mind. So I'm told. Even when they declare that an article about the worst crime committed on European soil since World War II lacks "relevance and timeliness". Seriously, though, these IP vandals are pretty obvious and fairly easy to deal with. More serious damage tends to be done here by the rather brighter sparks, like Osli73, who are quite happy to confirm their identity. And hit-and-run anonymous vandalism has considerably declined since the ICJ judgment confirmed the ICTY finding of genocide but let Serbia off the hook over responsibility for genocide (and reparations). What's more of a problem is the repetitive raising by individuals with confirmed identities of discredited arguments like Lewis MacKenzie's finding that genocide could not have taken place because the women and children (most of them at least) were not slaughtered along with the men. They don't don't know and don't care about the history of the term "genocide", about Raphael Lemkin, about the reason why the Genocide Convention was worded as it is (or often even don't know how it's worded), about the ICTY's detailed analysis and discussion in the Krstic judgments, about the ICJ's confirmation of the ICTY's finding, and so on. The greatest danger of vandalism here these days tends to be from self-assured ignorance rather than from out-and-out malevolence or irresponsibility. Opbeith (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Osli was an extremely courteous and restrained editor (I've read all the archives) who was subjected to a lot of abuse and vitriol for daring to have a different opinion to the editors who control this page. Jonathanmills (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Osli73 was superficially very courteous, but then most of us judge people by their actions rather than by the way they express themsleves. Osli73 was disruptive, disrespectful and caused a lot of damage and anger, here and at other articles, and his deceitfulness was eventually exposed at Wikipedia which is why he is no longer here, unless he is still playing at "sock-puppetry". Jonathanmills, you associated yourself with him and his actions and your own interventions, professing naivety and cloaked in apparent good humour, have often been similarly disruptive. I'd suggest your reading of the archives may not been seen as impartial by some of those who had dealings with Osli73. Opbeith (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Other people may wonder why I'm reluctant to let Jonathanmills's comments pass without jumping in and adding my own. It's because I'm concerned about the return of "revsionism". Revisionist views about what happened at Srebrenica are still alive and flourishing, witness the invitations to Alexander Dorin and Germinal Civikov to participate in discussions at Leipzig Book Fair. Fortunately they don't always go unchallenged, as with the Canada government's decision to refuse Srdja Trifkovic admission to Canada a week ago. But as long certainly as Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, Goran Hadzic and a multitude of smaller fish have something to gain from encouraging doubt in the minds of the uninformed the revisionists are not going to give up. When I use the expression revisionism I'm not referring to historical reappraisal - where new facts or new perspectives make it legitimate to re-examine the historical record in the light of those facts. Revisionism is essentially about casting doubt on established fact. Creating doubt and exploiting the reasonable inclination of most people to hear both sides of an argument is often a more effective means of propagating falsehood than full frontal denial. So I'm reluctant to see Jonathanmills's attempt to rehabilitate/reinvent Osli73 pass unremarked, in case it signals the start of a revival of revisionism here. Of course it's the prerogative of anyone who chooses to contribute here to engage in discussion if they want to promote a revisionist perspective on Srebrenica, but it's important that no-one is in doubt what's going on. Opbeith (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Section heading - Opposition to the term "genocide"

I've restored this, if only because the page history suggests it has been here for quite some time and because it was the outcome of several acrimonious discussions in the past. Doesn't mean it cannot be changed, but probably best to sort it out here first. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in getting involved in Wikipedia again, particularly pages such as this one (actually I'm not sure why I'm here right now!) but it does seem to me that "Opposition to the term genocide" is a clearly inaccurate title for that section -- the material is about much more than just 'opposition to the term genocide'. Actually I'm enough of an old-timer to remember when the section was called 'Alternative Views', which was a pretty long-standing title, and I recall some people wanted to call it 'Revisionist views'. That would at least be a not-factually-inaccurate title (the argument was over neutrality). Jonathanmills (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, going back further, it seems you are correct. My only concern is that whatever the title, it avoids the loaded language that surfaced a year or so ago. --Ckatz^chat _spy 11:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't here a year ago (more like two or three years ago, from memory), but my objection is that the current formulation is simply inaccurate as regards what the section contains. But I'm sticking to my resolution to avoid wasting time trying to make changes. That said, I'm off to bed :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd just to point out that, as I'm sure Jonathanmills knows, the title "Opposition to the term genocide" was the compromise settlement arrived at after dissatisfaction over the imposition of the title "Alternative Views". The title "Alternative Views" waas adopted as the result of a campaign by those who were unwilling to accept a description of the views as denial of the genocide. It was not just a matter of these views simply "questioning the term" but in many cases often the established facts as well.

The section has included on and off many of those who challenge the legally established findings about the circumstances, responsibility, scale, intent, etc., of what happened, people who are often referred to as revisionists. Questioning the applicability of the term genocide is not in itself illegitimate when it concerns issues of significant legal principle. But the description of "revisionism" is more often with a penchant for questioning long resolved matters of substance. "Alternative Views" was not a neutral formulation, it was a neutralising formulation, which was effectively imposed rather than accepted by general consensus. I'm sure I don't need to draw obvious parallels with the unacceptability of other references to "alternative views".

"Opposition to the term genocide" is a very inadequate title but it is a compromise that those who respect the legal findings find, if not accurate, at least more tolerable than "Alternative Views". Certainly a more accurate title would be more useful but I don't see that being decided on without conflict. Jonathanmills, you have a knack for not making your own position and involvement entirely transparent. Opbeith (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)