Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Attack type = Military assault ??

122141510, regarding this edit I am posting to query both the fact of your restoring Military assault as the (primary) attack type and also your edit reason. Firstly, 'military assault' redirects to 'Offensive (military)', which is characterised in its lead as "An offensive is a military operation that seeks through an aggressive projection of armed forces to occupy or recapture territory, gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational, or tactical goal". You are effectively saying that the mass murder/massacre, genocide and rapes that occurred at Srebrenica was primarily an ordinary military operation intended to seize or occupy territory, when in fact all relevant territory had been seized and was firmly under Serb control before the massacre even began.

Regarding your edit reason: "The genocide was carried out by military". That does not automatically mean the massacre was a military assault. Militaries do many things apart from mounting offensives. Even within the history of genocides, Aushwitz, Babi Yar and countless other WWII mass killings were perpetrated by the SS, who were military. The Greek and Armenian genocides were mainly perpetrated by Turkish troops, but no one would claim that the SS mounted any kind of 'offensive' at Auschwitz or other camps. Ditto the other examples. Herding 1000s of unarmed men into sports fields and similar in order to gun them down (as is the case at Srebrenica) is not anyone's idea of a 'military assault' and it would be impossible I believe to find a source that claims that the massacre itself was any kind of 'military assault'.

What of course is true, is that in the days almost immediately prior to the onset of the massacre, Serb and other forcess attached to them mounted an offensive to sieze Srebrenica, (codenamed Operation Krivaja '95), which defied UN resolutions and directly challenged Dutchbat troops placed to deter any such action against the town. This "fall of Srebrenica" into Serb hands is clearly important background, but it is not what this article is about, which is explicitly about what happened after the fall, after Serb forces had total control of the town, ie,the 'massacre' itself.

I believe the entry has been there for a long time, and I only noticed it recently because of someone correcting 'CapitaliSation' of that text. Neither sources, nor the article itself support the notion that the massacre was any kind of 'military assault' or 'military offensive'. Despite the massacre being immediately preceded by such a military operation, I don't believe the term is justified as being the 'attack type', certainly not primary. Pincrete (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That language has been present in the article since at least 2016. The presence of the language in that article for so long represents an editor consensus, and should not have been changed without a conversation reflecting a consensus had changed. 122141510 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The need for a new consensus does not apply to minor textual changes. WP:BRD applies, which is why I've raised the matter here. Since you reverted, I assume you had a reason for doing so. Why did you revert to text which seems to contradict pretty much everything you write in the move discussion, that Srebrenica was primarily a genocide? Your edit reason appears to suggest that you didn't actually understand the text being re-instated. It all seems fairly WP:POINTy on the face of it.Pincrete (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

My edit reason does not contradict anything written above. I believe Wikipedia articles should be accurate. ""You are effectively saying that the mass murder/massacre, genocide and rapes that occurred at Srebrenica was primarily an ordinary military operation intended to seize or occupy territory, when in fact all relevant territory had been seized and was firmly under Serb control before the massacre even began." As you said, 'Military assault' redirects to 'Offensive (military)', which is characterised in its lead as "An offensive is a military operation that seeks through an aggressive projection of armed forces to occupy or recapture territory, gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational, or tactical goal", so it is in fact not limited to what you incorrectly suggested above. There's really not much to discuss here – your proposed edit makes the article less accurate. I'd encourage you to read the relevant articles again, as your summation above suggests you've missed entire relevant portions of them. 122141510 (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

So you don't believe that the Srebrenica massacre was primarily a genocidal mass killing despite wanting the article called the Srebrenica genocide? Seems like a contradiction to me! I don't know what "strategic, operational, or tactical goal" was intended by the massacre, except the elimination of all the males of one ethnic group from that region, which is usually called ethnic cleansing or genocide or sometimes androcide, not as either an assault or an offensive. You appear to be applying a very literal, semantic definition of offensive/assault. Are there any sources which describe the massacre as either an assault or an offensive? That's how WP operates, how reliable sources describe the main character of the event, not how you or I define those words. I would be very surprised if there any, let alone the majority which would be needed to justify 'pole position' in the infobox as the primary character of the event. I wholly acknowledge of course that the 'taking' of Srebrenica, prior to the massacre, was a military assault and may well be commonly described as such by RS, but 'the fall' is not the focus of this article.Pincrete (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"That's how WP operates, how reliable sources describe the main character of the event, not how you or I define those words." Indeed, and your shifting of what you think the article is or is not about doesn't change what the article is actually about, and that the article documents who executed it and how they executed it. Your proposed edit makes the article less accurate, and deviates from what sources have said. 122141510 (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Generalities about my supposed shifting position, or other behaviour, are not the topic of this section. Where are all the sources that say that the 'genocidal massacre' of 8,000+ males was primarily a military assault or military offensive rather than primarily a mass-murder or genocide? Where in the article is the military assault/offensive identified and covered (except as background of what happened before the massacre)? These are the only things that matter, everything else is just hot air. Presumably you had some reason for your revert, otherwise it again looks awfully as though you are simply making some point for reasons best known to yourself. Appeals to accuracy fall flat when it isn't evident or sourced what exactly one is being accurate about. How is it more accurate to describe the massacre as a 'military assault', rather than as mass-murder or genocide? Pincrete (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Much like your purely theoretical argument above regarding some WP:FRINGE distinction about the idea of whether a massacre is a crime or not, I fail to appreciate how you think whatever WP:POINT you're trying to make here has any bearing on reality. Asking me for a source to define it as a military assault when the opening paragraph of this article defines the genocide as executed by Serbian military and paramilitary units is self-evidently ridiculous. While you seem to be wanting to make an argument that your edit doesn't contradict the article, to the average reader who would have this edit put in front of them, it would. As you do not WP:OWN this article, it is written for an audience other than yourself, and your edit contradicts years of consensus regarding its presence there, you'd do well to try, if only once, to build consensus instead of bludgeoning anyone who identifies some of your contributions as idiosyncratic and unhelpful. 122141510 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The 'theoretical discussion' about whether 'massacre' was a (recognised) crime was on talk, attempting to make something clear to a novice, seemingly non-native editor. It was not article content, nor even about specific article content. And there is nothing remotely FRINGE about making a distinction between 'bad behaviour' which you can be charged with and punished for and 'bad behaviour' which you can't. You can't be charged with 'bloodbath' or 'carnage' or 'massacre', the charge would have to be 'murder', 'conspiracy to commit … ', 'genocide' or some other defined crime.

The opening sentence of this article does not describe the event as an assault nor an offensive, it describes it as a "genocidal massacre". You are using that opening sentence to justify giving greater prominence in the infobox to the notion that this was a standard military offensive than to the notion that it was the murder of 8000+ unarmed civilian males. Which does not meet anyone's definition of a 'military assault' either in general nor iro Srebrenica. Yes of course the masscre was perpetrated by the military aided by para-militaries, but not everything a military does is automatically an assault or offensive, if it were Auschwitz and countless genocides would be 'military assaults' as would the guarding of public buildings across the globe!

You still appear to be reacting to other editors, and your interpretation of their behaviour, instead of addressing the question. Who, what sources and where in the article is it made apparent that this was (primarily) a military offensive rather than genocidal mass-murder? That is the proposition that you are defending, but not one I have ever heard expressed other than from hard-line Serb apologists, which I don't believe for a second you are. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"You are using that opening sentence to justify giving greater prominence in the infobox to the notion that this was a standard military offensive than to the notion that it was the murder of 8000+ unarmed civilian males." You are too often offering either/or options when the answer is both. If you feel that "military offensive" is the incorrect terminology, and linking to military assault is incorrect and there's a better way to denote the military nature of the operation in the infobox, perhaps you might like to offer an alternative that can be agreed upon. The argument as you're making it is a disagreement on language which probably could be resolved, but your edit was to omit the information entirely, which probably could not be resolved. 122141510 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither 'assault' nor 'offensive' are either sourced nor apt nor expanded in the body and both are linked to the same article. They are synonyms for all intents and purposes, that point was made by me in my first post above. There is therefore no justification for either being in the infobox, certainly not in 'pole position' as the main character of the attack. You are still effectively arguing that because it was done by soldiers (and para-militaries), its central character was a standard military operation and that therefore all those dumb sources and other people that thought it was primarily an ethnically motivated mass-murder/genocidal killing have somehow got it wrong! Auschwitz and Babi Yar must be military offensives too after all! The claim does not even make sense, apart from being unsourced. What territorial or strategic gain was gained or sought by the mass-murder of 8,000+ unarmed, passive captives?

Unless you can come up with some sources that describe the massacre primarily as a 'military assault', it will be removed pretty soon. You've had more than ample opportunity to justify the content by something more substantial than has been offered thus far.Pincrete (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Neither 'assault' nor 'offensive' are either sourced nor apt nor expanded in the body and both are linked to the same article." Strongly disagree. As mentioned earlier, the opening paragraph contradicts your statement no matter how many times you repeat it. If you remove it it will be readded, you do not WP:OWN this article. 122141510 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I agree that the term 'androcide' is rarely used to describe the Srebrenica massacre. Although technically correct, (the mass killing of males), and although clearly supported by the article body, it isn't a common descriptor and I would be broadly neutral about it staying or going.

You still don't seem to understand what you have reverted to. Being done by the military doesn't mean that it is an offensive and anyway, being done by the military/paramilitaries isn't more important/more reported on than it being an ethnically motivated mass-killing/genocide. You are putting yourself in the position of defending a proposition as absurd as suggesting that the killings at Auschwitz weren't actually mass-murder or genocide, but in fact a 'military offensive' simply because they were perpetrated by the SS and attached soldiery who happened to wear uniforms! That the perpetrators mainly wore uniforms is clearly more important in characterising the event than that they killed 8,000+ unarmed civilian males!

Still no sources and no attempts to find them I see. Unsourced material, especially of a contentious nature, should be removed. It isn't a question of who owns the article. Pincrete (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"You still don't seem to understand what you have reverted to." Yes, I do, and I've said how I understand it and why I think the language is important. After reading your response, I'm again going to ask – would you like to offer an alternative to attempt to resolve what seems to be a semantic dispute? Let me try and explain to you one more time.

"Still no sources and no attempts to find them I see." I assumed you understood what I was getting at above and we might be able to skip ahead, but I misjudged the situation. For example, if I link to one of the same sources that is linked in the first paragraph to support the fact it's a military offensive and sure here's one of them for the sake of it, you and I aren't disagreeing on the fact the genocide was carried out by the military, but are having some abstract semantic debate about whether the term "military assault" or "military offensive" or something else is suitable terminology that is a correct two word synopsis that reflects military involvement.

There should be something to denote that the "attack type", per the infobox prompt, was not, for example, an ad hoc crime of passion that started and ended with the people on the ground, but a part of a systemic, premeditated action by the military, on the instruction of senior Serbian military and government officials, etc. You've argued '"being done by the military doesn't mean it is an offensive"'. As above, I really don't see why you believe this, as a military offensive is as such to "gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational, or tactical goal", and in trying to understand what exactly is your objection to the language, have tried to prompt you to offer an alternative. It doesn't necessarily need to be binding, it just needs to be something to try and proceed a conversation because you're currently just offering a sort of "it's either my way or the highway" approach that suggests you do seem to think you own the article, or at least get to unilaterally determine how disagreements are resolved. 122141510 (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Another possible topic of discussion here. Regarding your comment; "You are putting yourself in the position of defending a proposition as absurd as suggesting that the killings at Auschwitz weren't actually mass-murder or genocide, but in fact a 'military offensive' simply because they were perpetrated by the SS and attached soldiery who happened to wear uniforms!" I really am not, I don't see how it can't be both at the same time, these two things are not mutually exclusive and I don't know why you look at it that way. Would you like to explain yourself? 122141510 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The normal terms for conscious, premeditated killing are (mass) -murder and when done for ethnic motives genocide, or sometimes ethnic cleansing when accompanied by intimidatory actions. Conscious criminal intent and premeditation are central elements of murder, genocide and probably war crimes. The intent to destroy … the target group is the defining element of genocide. There are no specific terms AFAIK for such crimes when committed by the military, except various 'war crimes' - even though most genocides and similar mass murders have been perpetrated by militaries. Mass murder and genocide are precisely the terms which sources predominantly use to describe the massacre + also rape as an additional feature. These are also the terms we use in 'type of attack'. Does being performed by guys with uniforms really define the kind of event, more than what they actually did?

Soldiers getting 'swept away' by the feelings of the moment would never meet proof of intent or premeditation necessary for both murder and genocide convictions. Let us also remember that it was the civil and military leadership who were found guilty of genocide, (which required proof of their premeditation/planning and conscious intent), not individual soldiery charged with individual killings.

I can't find anywhere in the .pdf you link to in which the massacre is referred to as an 'assault' or 'offensive' or similar. Those words are used in the source, but in contexts which are clearly distinct from the actual massacre AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"Does being performed by guys with uniforms really define the kind of event, more than what they actually did?" No, but why are you inventing standards and expectations that don't exist? Once again, this isn't an either/or. It can be two things. It isn't "more". I haven't said it's "more". Retaining the information in the article doesn't imply it's "more".

"There are no specific terms AFAIK for such crimes when committed by the military" Alright, so how about military assault? 122141510 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I asked that question sincerely but on looking at it now I can't imagine how it won't result in circular argument. Since I'm trying to break a deadlock, I went to a third party and asked ChatGPT to comment on how the term 'Military assault' was relevant in the infobox, and it proffered that This refers to the organized attack carried out by Bosnian Serb forces against the Bosniak population of Srebrenica, which was designated as a "safe area" by the United Nations." I asked it to offer better terms to capture the same meaning and relevance, and it offered military operation, armed attack, and military offensive. The last of the three seemed most appropriate to me, so I asked it to expand on how that might suit, and it offered the following;

• Strategic Planning and Execution: "Military offensive" conveys a sense of premeditated, strategic military planning and execution. The events at Srebrenica were not random acts of violence but were part of a larger strategy orchestrated by Bosnian Serb forces to seize and ethnically cleanse the area. This term emphasizes the organized nature of the assault, which involved coordination among various military units and the use of sophisticated tactics.
• Aggressiveness: The term "offensive" inherently suggests an aggressive, proactive military action aimed at dominating an opponent. This aligns with the forceful and decisive manner in which the Bosnian Serb forces attacked the enclave, overwhelming the UN peacekeepers and the Bosniak defenders.
• Military Objectives: Using "military offensive" underscores that the actions had clear military objectives—namely, the capture of Srebrenica and the subsequent control over the region. It also implicitly communicates that these objectives were part of a broader military campaign during the Bosnian War, which involved territorial control and ethnic redistribution.
• Legal and Historical Context: In terms of legal and historical analysis, "military offensive" is a term commonly used in international law and military doctrine, which can help in discussing the events in a context that is analytically rigorous and universally understandable. It fits well when discussing the events in judicial settings or scholarly analyses concerning war crimes and genocide.
• Implications for Civilian Populations: The term does not shy away from the implications of such a military strategy on civilian populations. A "military offensive" often involves not only targeting armed opponents but also significant effects on civilians, which in the case of Srebrenica, led to massive displacement, loss of life, and atrocities.

You don't have to speak to all of those to prove whatever point it is you are wont to make, but how about "military offensive"? Which of these points do you strongly disagree with, why, and does your disagreement necessarily point to needing to exclude a term reflecting the information such a term necessarily provides? Could a satisfactory consensus be reached by some other manner – for example, as you've repeatedly brought up this either/or nature to your POV, then maybe your issue is with the 'order' of terms as they are listed in the infobox. Could changing the order address some hierarchical confusion you seem to have here? 122141510 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I object to any term which is not prominently used by sources to describe the character of the event and which does not feature proportionately in our article (which the infobox is a 'key facts' summary of). I'm not aware of any sources describing the massacre itself as either an assault or offensive, (though the massacre was preceded by such an offensive to 'take' the city). Sources rather than any machine intelligence is the relevant criterion I believe, the machine, in this instance, has a very logical but very literal analysis of the event.

If we ordinarily put the attack type in chronological order, assault might be first (if we included the background events). But we don't ordinarily do that, we put in order of how sources refer to the event/what sources say happened and the prominence of coverage in the article body, (thus the rapes are less frequently referred to and given less coverage in the article body than the killings, thus are listed laterin the 'type' list). IMO, it is highly debatable whether the preliminary 'taking' of the city was part of the massacre itself, which is what would confirm that this was 'an offensive'.

We may be arguing at cross-purposes as to the purpose of this parameter of the infobox, which I assumed was how RS described the "what was done" element, rather than 'whodunnit' or 'why they dunnit' - which is crudely what we are disagreeing about. I don't have time at the moment because of other commitments, but I think we are not going to agree on this, so should see what others have to say, and/or I will start an RfC if it remains unsesolved.

I wouldn't argue for a nano-second about some other minor changes,(such as 'androcide') but I do object to implying that the massacre was a conventional war-time military operation in any way. Pincrete (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510, I also fail to see what military assault would have with this article about Srebrenica Massacre. The massacre happened after undertaken military actions in Srebrenica. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea that the massacre happened after military action ended is what I think is the ambiguity here. When comparing how the genocide is documented in other resources, I noticed, for example, that Encyclopedia Britannica documents both the events in Srebrenica leading up to the period of the genocide (as Wikipedia has defined it) and also the period of the genocide in a single article. Many websites I read also did not clearly delineate a start point to the event. In fact, I even found that I had trouble keeping AI models like ChatGPT 'focused' on the genocide event when I prompted it, as it would often revert to talking about the entire event in full, rather than just the period of the genocide as defined here.

My point isn't so much that I think that this article should be merged with Siege of Srebrenica – for multiple reasons I won't go into here – but that there is a bit of a contrivance in the way it has been formatted. It is not as if on July 11 Ratko Mladic picked up a phone and said "this is no longer a military operation, now it is a genocide". I don't mean to be glib here, but I think it's the simplest way of expressing what I'm getting at – it's not correct to say the genocide "happened after undertaken military actions in Srebrenica". There is not a clear distinction that makes it possible to discuss it in that way, on this specific point. Rather, it happened both concurrent to and even as a part of military actions – or, rather, it is an action taken by the military, so it is itself a military action. I think that is reflected in the article and the sources, and the infobox should reflect that.

I was wondering if there was any easy way out by saying 'genocide as an attack type implies a level of organization that necessitates direct military involvement' but I don't think it necessarily was, as there are examples of genocides executed without exclusively military involvement (or even without military involvement whatsoever). 122141510 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with events in Srebrenica, but I was under impression that mass executions happened after men were separated from their families. Military Operation articles are structured in a different way than this article. I don't think that the event of massacre happening during military operation would imply that it itself is a military operation. It's just an event which happened during the military operation. I think that it just confusing to call this event a military operation, as those articles focus on military terminology, etc. I've also not seen anyone calling this event a military operation. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

From the military POV, this effectively was a military operation that was executed as part of the greater overarching RAM Plan, but I have not been successful in finding a primary source that makes that connection, so framing it that way in the article proper would violate WP:SYNTH. Having said this, even if I did find that information, I do agree that "military operation" is not necessarily the correct terminology to express to a reader that element of the subject of the article, which is why I didn't suggest it. As mentioned above, It's perfectly fine to attempt to figure out more appropriate terminology, but the article would greatly suffer if the current "military assault" was removed and nothing that would denote the same information, in the same manner or better, immediately replaced it. 122141510 (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Military operation is a bit more vague and and generic than 'assault' or 'offensive' but is otherwise almost a synonym. None of those IMO would be apt as the primary, defining character of the attack type. Certainly is was perpetrated by 'troops', but that info is already in the Perpetrator section, does it need repeating?

That the Srebrenica massacre was part of a greater strategic aim to create a geographically continuous area entirely of Serb majority territory, is widely held to be true. I wonder whether that is infobox material however, since it isn't reducible to a few words.

Regarding the after/during the military operation leading to the fall, I think the trials have established that the seizing of Srebrenica was always done with the specific intent of perpetrating the massacre (that there was conscious, premeditated intent), but as you say, we treat the 'fall' mainly as background to the massacre. From a purely practical viewpoint, it wouldn't be possible to merge with the 'Siege' article (article size here is already massive). Pincrete (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would the article suffer? This is just an infobox. The article body already is describing events around the massacre. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to say , I'm not that familiar with events around Srebrenica massacre, and this discussion is quite long. As I'm involved in other discussions I haven't read it all, but I tried to provide my opinion. I'm not disagreeing completely, but I don't see much benefit, nor I see much problems with your suggestion. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

From the military POV, this effectively was a military operation that was executed as part of the greater overarching RAM Plan. 'From the military POV' the Final solution was simply a, rational solution to a problem. That's how armies work, normalising everything they do, irrespective of how grotesque the resulting actions might be. But we aren't really interested in how Ratko Mladić etc perceived or portrayed the event, we are interested in how WP:RS characterise it. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources characterize it as a genocide executed by the Serbian military and paramilitary. Nobody is actively disputing this as this is reflected by the article and the sources used to compose the article, so I don't understand why you would want the infobox to downplay the involvement of the military in the event. 122141510 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Almost all genocides are perpetrated or led by military or para-militaries. There is a section of the infobox labelled 'Perpetrators' specifically to record 'whodunnit'. The 'type of attack' normally records what was done and NO sources record this as a military attack AFAIK, certainly you have presented none that do. It is pure WP:SYNTH to argue that because all sources agree that the perpetrators were people in uniforms, it is therefore a military attack. It simply wasn't and no sources say it was.

By the way, the main perpetrators were the VRS, the army of the breakaway 'Republika Srpska'. So they were mainly ethnically Serb, but not Serbian as such. The paramilitaries involved were mostly Serbians with a smattering of 'foreign' volunteers.Pincrete (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So they were mainly ethnically Serb, but not Serbian as such. The Serb/Serbian distinction in the middle of the 1990s – during the ongoing dissolution of Serbia – was not commonly made and it was actually relatively common into the early 2000s for some Serb[?], whether they resided in what is today's BiH or in today's Serbia, to still refer to themselves as Yugoslavian by citizenship. If I understand the way you seem to understand and prefer to define the politics, nationality, and ethnicities of the region, there were no Serbians in existence until 2006 [1].

I would suggest remaining on topic rather than making any "by the ways". By this point it's obvious we do not get along and should try to limit ourselves to remaining on topic. I actually am satisfied with There is a section of the infobox labelled 'Perpetrators' specifically to record 'whodunnit' as an answer to the topic actually at hand. As I believe the only other active participant in this conversation was Trimpops2, who did not find my previously argument compelling, and I've mostly accepted your rationale to remove (I object to the logic as you've argued it in full, but I'm tired of arguing with you), I would not argue with you if you were to claim you reached a consensus to remove the text in question. 122141510 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Members of the various republics and other entities that constituted Yugoslavia were commonly known by the name of that republic long before those republics became independent. I'm sure there were Serbians fighting in the VRS and there was much heavy weaponry inherited from the JNA, but the army that perpetrated Srebrenica flew under the flag of the VRS, whoever might have been 'pulling the strings' or 'paying the piper' in Belgrade.

Such distinctions were tediously, but necessarily, made in reporting outside the region, since attempting to distinguish Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims (the term commonly used at that time for Bosniaks) from Croats and Serbians was the only hope anyone outside the region had of getting a handle on who was trying to slaughter who, where (and why).

Thankyou for conceding on this matter, I will impement the change. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So then by your logic – Members of the various republics and other entities that constituted Yugoslavia were commonly known by the name of that republic – if you are consistent with it, you should assert that Bosnians perpetrated the Srebrenica genocide. Why do you do otherwise? 122141510 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC) This is rhetorical but a response is sincerely requested. Since you have such a large control of this article I would like to comprehend how you understand the question and how it might influence future edits of this article. 122141510 (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This is rhetorical precisely, and somewhat absurd! By analogy, we ordinarily refer to people from the US as Americans, however in the context of a race murder, we might need to be more specific and refer to a white or black American. If we were talking about events during The Troubles, the text would be meaningless if we failed to distinguish which kind of Irish/N Irish person was doing what and why. In the context of a largely ethnically inspired war in Bosnia mainly involving Bosnians of Serb ethnicity and those of Croat ethnicity, each to a degree supported by Serbia proper and Croatia proper, both mainly fighting Bosniaks, it is is necessary to make the distinction as to what kind of Bosnians, and to a lesser extent Serbians and Croatians we are referring to (all largely referred to by self-identification terms and those used by WP:RS). That's a concise response, out of the top of my head, to a self-acknowledged rhetorical question. But yes, Bosnians were killing other Bosnians, often with the aid of their ethnic 'fellows' from adjacent countries and from their respective diasporas. Clearly they felt a stronger attachment to their respective ethnicities than they did to the entity in which they lived.

I have no control of the article, very little of it has been written by me, and I think it has lost coherence, but I do watch it, precisely because it is a target of 'random' and PoV edits of all kinds. I'm not going to apologise for that.Pincrete (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete, I am glad you agree it is somewhat absurd – but it is a result of logical continuity with what you've asserted previously. Your assertions here don't make much sense if they're kept consistent;

• You feel it is important to assert a different between Serbs and Serbians – as I understand it, those who you refer to as Serbs are those by ethnicity, and Serbians are those by nationality.
• You assert that the Genocide was primarily perpetrated by the VRS, as in, "but the army that perpetrated Srebrenica flew under the flag of the VRS, whoever might have been 'pulling the strings' or 'paying the piper' in Belgrade". Such framing objects to identifying them as Serbian, and you prefer to identify them as Serb.
• But this is not consistent with what you just claimed – "Members of the various republics and other entities that constituted Yugoslavia were commonly known by the name of that republic"! If you are claiming that it is incorrect to identify the perpetrators as Serbian because they should be referred to by the constituent republic they are a member of, you would prefer to identify them as Bosnian. By identifying people born in the SR Serbia as Serbians, and identifying some people born in SR BiH as Serbs (and presumably some others as Croatian, and some other as Bosniaks) you are not being consistent in how you claim to identify individuals.

I invite you to try and explain yourself again and stick specifically to the questions as raised. That you've created a WP:TEXTWALL likening this to identifying people as white or black Americans reflects you do not seem to feel any obligation to be logically consistent – the US is not made up of consistent republics known as "black" or "white". The way you prioritize information here is not logically consistent. 122141510 (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I've struck part of this comment as I concede there are other possible reasons [2] Pincrete may be struggling to be consistent in their rationale and logic. 122141510 (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

USER:122141510 I barely understand this pile of nonsense. What I do clearly understand however is, that given even the most generous interpretation of its meaning, it has nothing whatsoever to do with any specific or tangible disagreement about the article's subject matter and is simply pointless interrogation. However, I will humour you briefly, You feel it is important to assert a different between Serbs and Serbians No I don't anymore than I think it important to be accurate in naming any group of people. Sources, not only I use the terms 'Serbs' for people of that ethnicity and 'Serbians' for people from that country. Ditto similar words for other ethnicities/nationalities in the region.

You assert that the Genocide was primarily perpetrated by the VRS So does the whole world doesn't it? I cannot even understand what is meant by the 'framing' nonsense, but my throwaway remark about 'pulling the strings' and 'paying the piper' is because Serbia proper is widely regarded as having been complicit in much done by RS/VRS, which is why Milošević ended up at the Hague, also charged with some variant of 'complicity … genocide'. But being complicit is not perpetrating a crime. Whether it is more or less immoral to be complicit is neither here nor there, it's a different thing from 'doing the deed'.

Lastly, your final point AFAI can see is literalist semantic twaddle at best. Never do I say that "Members of the various republics and other entities that constituted Yugoslavia were ALWAYS known by the name of that republic" People from Glasgow are commonly, but not always, known as Scots, they are also commonly, but not always, known as British, they may even be known as British Asians, Italian Scots. Glaswegians or many other 'labels' depending on several factors, including context, preference and which term sources use. I identify people as sources do ordinarily. In many contexts someone would be simply a 'Yugoslav', however in the context of the break-up of the country, and the various wars, it would be rare for an individual not to be identified by both their ethnicity and 'nation'. That isn't me. it's sources and the nature of the events themselves. If sources fail to impress you by their consistency, interrogate them, not me.

I invite you to try and explain yourself again and stick specifically to the questions as raised. I wasn't aware that you had been appointed Grand Inquisitor, but I'm busy so cannot take you up on your offer.

The proper place for complaints about an editor's behaviour, or their inability to be civil, neutral or competent is WP:ANI. Please go there if you feel that you have a complaint and stop wasting my and other editors' time by clogging up the talk page with these matters that don't even pretend to be about the subject of the article. Pincrete (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As you're unable to participate in conversations without hostility and again taking a victim role, I will be escalating. From consulting with other editors, the correct venue is apparently WP:NPOVN, though I did offer an opportunity on your talk page where I said if you felt you could not participate in conversations where you feel attacked if someone asks you questions, perhaps you might offer a better form of arbitration. However, since your editing habits seem to involve outright denying this article is about a genocide [3], I assumed this would be something which you would recognize would behoove you to clear up. You've chosen to accuse my questions of being piles of nonsense, semantic twaddle, and accuse me of being yet another historical figure which is not relevant to the discussion. These are not wastes of time, these are good faith attempts to reset the conversation and you've chosen to decline that opportunity. 122141510 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I stand by the semantic twaddle etc. Even if your questions had made sense, they had no relation to the section or article whatsoever and you had no right to ask them, nor to direct how they were to be answered. Apology accepted.

And accuse me of being yet another historical figure which is not relevant to the discussion. I barely understand this statement. Apart from the fact that I have never made such an accusation against anyone AFAIK, how exactly are you (or any editor for that matter) "a historical figure" who is either relevant or not relevant to the discussion ?

As for the rest of the amateur 'cod' psychology, I'd be more inclined to take it seriously if I felt it was coming from someone who could read! If you think that the edit you link to is denying genocide when what it says is: "What they (the sources) say is that people were found guilty of genocide because of their actions iro the event. In fact the ICTY ruling used as a main source specifically refers to the event as "The massacre at Srebrenica". The name of an event is not automatically the same as the name of a crime committed at that event then you clearly can't or don't read. The source used refers both to the name of the event (massacre) and the crime committed there, (genocide) it doesn't deny the crime and it is a perverse misreading of my comment to say that I say it does so. You have now repeated this statement several times despite having had the error pointed out. To misread something once is human, we all make mistakes, to do so doggedly and repeatedly is proof of bad faith or incompetence. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You enjoy arguing much too much – I'm done taking the WP:BAIT. I'm declining to answer anything in this post primarily because I don't see how we're going to have any constructive conversation from it. I don't see it having as any direct impact to the article or leading a conversation which will have any direct impact to the article. 122141510 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Errr it wasn't me asking pointless, off-topic, intrusive questions nor me attempting amateur 'analysis' of your reasons for using perfectly normal words! Nor asserting If you are claiming that it is incorrect to identify the perpetrators as Serbian because they should be referred to by the constituent republic they are a member of, you would prefer to identify them as Bosnian. Firstly I didn't say that the perps should be referred to in any particular way, merely that they should be identified correctly, using terms that sources use (most were not Serbians). Secondly If we followed that practice it would be impossible to communicate anything about the break-up of Yugoslavia, nor the various conflicts, that ensued. They involved both ethnicity and 'nationality'. Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

For consideration, and hopefully to cap this talk section;

The Trial Chamber found beyond reasonable doubt that there was a widespread and systematic attack directed against the Bosnian Muslim civilian populations of Srebrenica and Žepa, commencing with the issuance of Directive 7. The Trial Chamber found that the attack included the following components: the strangulation of the enclaves through restrictions on humanitarian supplies; the gradual weakening and disabling of the United Nations Protection Force, or “UNPROFOR”; and a military assault on the enclaves culminating in the removal of thousands of people from Srebrenica and Žepa. In addition, the Trial Chamber found that the military assault, on its own, constituted a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population. Messrs. Beara, Nikolić, and Miletić were found responsible for certain crimes against humanity and present challenges to the related findings of the Trial Chamber.

- [source]

I would recommend reading this for more context on Directive 7 as such. At time of issuance, it was Directives 7 and 7.1 are insufficiently clear to establish that there was a genocidal intent on the part of the members of the Main Staff who issued them. Indeed, the Trial Chamber did not even find that those who issued Directive 7 and 7.1 had genocidal intent, concluding instead that the genocidal plan crystallised at a later stage. In other words, although the goal of Directive 7 was to create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica this in and of itself was not a Directive for the genocide proper, but that decision came later. However, it is absolutely not the case that – despite some assertions otherwise – sources do not not describe the events at Srebrenica as a military assault; they obviously do. Rather, it is closer to the comment from Trimpops and my response – it is an artifact of Wikipedia's choice to split the Siege of Srebrenica and Srebrenica genocide into two separate articles by which an ambiguity is reached insofar as delineation. As I mentioned earlier, it is unwise to consider merging the article – if for no other reason, then because the current article already exceeds reasonable word limits otherwise – but I thought I would document this and clear up the probable reason for confusion, given how unproductive much of this conversation was. Editors might find it helpful to realize how some edge cases(? not sure if there would be a better term for it) in characterizing/summarizing the event might arise from how the event has been partitioned from the period of time before and after. Thanks. 122141510 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the massacre was preceded by an assault/attack on the enclave, (I believe I say that in my first post), but questioned how useful/widespread it is to characterise the massacre itself as an assault. The rest of your analysis I agree with Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sincerely encouraging you to dial how you deal with me. After reviewing this section it's pretty obvious there's limited ability to reach consensus the way you have been going. You did not really agree with me but pivoted to making posts with messages like Still no sources and no attempts to find them I see. Unsourced material, especially of a contentious nature, should be removed. In most of the time and words spent here you claimed no source ever used the language, and were primarily making an argument that it was WP:SYNTH. Had you linked to this specific source which used the language which you claimed no source used – military assault – and explained yourself clearer, I would've withdrawn my objection much sooner.

We're on the same merry-go-round in the talk section immediately beneath this one. I think you and I can reach a consensus on matters if we were to go piece by piece instead of flinging these grandiose theses at each other. If I may, I think you are too eager to escalate everything to – "take it to ANI" – in a way that suggests you think I am stupid and you have no obligation to deal with me. (And if I may not, then I'll withdraw it, but you should still consider that it is the impression you give.) 122141510 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)