Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Extreme bias

I removed all of this as it was not at all related to improvement of the article.Regards Mondeo (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding unsigned comment below: Changes in Srebrenica's demography is relevant I guess, this is as far as I understand a method used in estimating casualties. But still, this a controversial proposal. Perhaps wait for other editors' reactions. In any case it is a question about evidence (reliable sources). Regards, Mondeo (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Can a section about the current ethnic composition of the city of Srebrenica be added ? The problem is that it's extremely politically incorrect : Serbs have not driven Bosniaks out, but rather the reverse, and only a tiny minority of Serbs remain in one of their main cities.

I would also like to mention how this was not accomplished peacefully. The war in Srebrenica is not over, unfortunately. And despite this page's content, the "Srebrenica massacre" was a victory for the bosniaks, bosnian muslims.

my recent edits

Hi all,

Just to totally clarify what I have been trying to do vis-a-vis my latest edits:

1) the POV tag relates to the section above titled 'POV pruning'. Please READ and RESPOND to it if you think there is a problem with the tag.

2) the 'panicking soldier' thing: I've explained this TWICE now (NOT including the rather abusive non-explanation, which as I've noted, I deleted immediately upon posting). So please READ and RESPOND to either of those if you want to talk about that. (Just do a 'Find' on the word 'panicking' and you'll see both of my explanations.

And apologies again for my inexcusable recent lack of decorum.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1) According to your statement [1] you wrote on the talk page of other user when you asked him for help to the "Serbian thing": Interestingly, while large portions of the article are simply lifted verbatim from the judgement, in one of the few segments I did read, the judgement had been carefully 'pruned' to remove statements unfavourable to the Bosniak side, while emphasising those unfavourable to the Serbian side (surprise! Look at the talk page under 'POV pruning' if you're interested)., I decided to check your assertions.

I also scanned the source, and found that many events including massacres/killings were not included in the article, and many others had been pruned by yourself?! So, if you want to "improve" the article to be "favourable to the Serbian side", first of all you should restore your earlier pruning, and include events very important for the chronology of the genocide (neither for Bosnian nor Serbian side?!) from the judgement. Regarding the POV tag, I think the compromise is to rm it, until the discussio is over. Historičar (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi H (hope you don't mind me shortening your name for ease of writing!)

First of all, in the message I wrote to Osli you've linked to, I never said the words "Serbian thing", or anything to that effect, or that it should be "favourable to the Serbian side", so your use of quote marks is very misleading.

But no matter. Turning to your second paragraph, you write: "I also scanned the source, and found that many events including massacres/killings were not included in the article, and many others had been pruned by yourself?!"

I think you're misunderstanding my point, which is that *in those two (or three) paragraphs of the article specifically*, the ICTY judgement has been quoted pretty much verbatim, BUT has been selectively 'pruned' to make them *more favourable to the Bosniak side/less favourable to the Serbian side* than the original text of the judgement.

I laid out the paragraphs I'm talking about on this page, just up a few topics, under 'POV pruning re ICTY judgement'. I absolutely did not 'prune' anything from them (except where I mentioned, in the square brackets, that there was some stuff irrelevant to the issue, and none of that had to do with massacres/killings).

Finally, I'm not too worried about leaving the POV tag off for the moment, but I do feel pretty strongly that in its current form, *that specific section* (NOT necessarily the entire article) clearly suffers from a lack of neutrality.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I'm not going to do it imminently, but unless I can hear some arguments to the contrary, I'm inclined to replace the tag. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"panicked" soldier throwing grenade that killed a Dutch soldier

Saying the soldier "panicked" clearly implies the soldier was nearly hysterical and therefore not entirely responsible for his actions. However, the facts and testimony indicate that the soldier knew exactly what he was doing, that when he saw the Dutch abandon their post thereby leaving the entire Bosniak population entirely defenseless and vulnerable, the soldier threw the grenade as retribution. Hence, "angry" would be a more appropriate adjective to describe the soldier's state of mind Fairview360 (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Fairview -- and as I've mentioned, the bulk of online references appear to describe it as such (including an article by journalist David Rohde). So if anyone wants to insert that adjective with the Rohde article (or other similarly RS), I have no objection whatsoever.

I think I (stupidly and inexcusably) blew my top over the issue because, as well as conflicting with the bulk of the evidence, AND being something I'd gone over previously, it (as you suggest) attempts to deny responsibility for the action in (IMHO) a totally implausible way. I mean, since when did a panic attack cause someone to pull the pin on a grenade and throw it at a nearby target? But anyway, it appears to be resolved now. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding other nationalities involved.

After reading this entry I went to 'you tube' where there are several related videos and the usual heated and highly intellectual comments. The below is a copy/pasted comment from an hour ago from www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdMOG3gJvYs. I apologise for the language and the bad syntax and grammar, but I left it exactly as it was:

'you forgot to put someictures of naser oricKILLING SOME SERBIAN CHILDS OUTSIDE OF SREBRENICA,and thats the reason mladic killed them,because NASER ORIC KILLED 3000 INNOCENT SERBIAN CIVILIANS OUTSIDE OF SREBRENICA,iom greek but i now my brother fought in srebrenica with three other greeks,stop the fucking propaganda,what oric did cost this,what goes around comes around we say here in greece,in the next war i will fight with the serbs just like my granfather and my brother did,so fuck off'

I obviously can't prove the claim, but why would someone make this up? It is interesting to note that I have never heard the direct involvement of Greek citizens in the Bosnian region mentioned anywhere in Greece.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it.

Nelson buck (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbian claim about Oric killing thousands of Serbs was a part of a propaganda campaign by the Serbian Radical Party (Fascists) to undermine the Srebrenica Genocide and create a pre-text for the massacre in Srebrenica so they could justify themselfs to the Serbian people.They came up with it in 2005 at the 10th annivertsery of Srebrenica Genocide.The nationalist Serbs were caught moving the bodies from other parts of Bosnia and trying to present them as victims of so-called "moslem-terror". You can read about that here http://www.un.org/icty/briefing/2005/PB050706.htm and here http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/12/serbia13761.htm

About Naser Oric Serbian nationalists have presented a lot of false evidence and witnesses against him,so they could crate ground for this myth.A rumour is enough to encourage 50% of Serbian people who still vote for that party.http://iwpr.gn.apc.org/?s=f&o=163810&apc_state=henitri2004 http://iwpr.gn.apc.org/?s=f&o=235809&apc_state=henitri2005

About Greek citizens involved in Srebrenica Genocide http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/05/balkans.warcrimes http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2002/michas.htm

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as Griffin's posting his material, I'd like to present a slightly different take on the story about Naser Oric: http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=9244 Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Antiwar is a F blog.I asked you few times all ready not to use stupid blogs and present them as accurate info.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If JonathanMills wants to refer to that blog on the discussion page, there is no problem with that. It helps show people just how twisted JonathanMills' world view is. Fairview360 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, guys, a little more respectful please. JonathanMills is entitle to a world view as anybody else. And I don't think that Antiwar.com is a "F blog" (fascist?). Have a nice day. Mondeo (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I ment to say a F***ing blog.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Respecting a person's right to a world view does not require giving each world view legitimacy. Perhaps, Mondeo ought to read wiki's policy on world views that are deemed fringe. Wikipedia is quite clear on the issue. Fringe views are not given credibility at wikipedia. Obviously, just as one is entitled to their world view, one is entitled to the opinion that a particular editor is propagating views that are fringe (or one might say "twisted"). Fairview360 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, Antiwar is not a source of facts, it is a source of opinions and analyses. Perhaps GriffinSB doesn't like Antiwar.com, but that doesn't necessarily make it a stupid blog. But again, it is not a source for facts. Mondeo (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question whether i like that blog or not.It's just that it's a blog.No credibility.If we allow blogs into wikipedia,God knows what kind of crap would reach the articles.In this case a nationalistic blog with twisted or invented facts can't be included cause of unverified info.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then we agree on the conclusion: Antiwar.com is not acceptable as a source. Mondeo (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm well aware of the distinction being made here. I wouldn't dream of inserting a blog as a reference for factual information as such.

Griffin said it well: If we allow blogs into wikipedia,God knows what kind of crap would reach the articles :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Griffin, you wrote: Antiwar is a F blog.I asked you few times all ready not to use stupid blogs and present them as accurate info.

That is an outright lie. WHERE did I use blogs and present them as accurate info? Let alone where did you 'ask me a few times all ready [sic]' not to do that? Jonathanmills (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Read above. We already had two discussions about the Byzantine Sacred Art blog that you wanted to include into the article even though it's stories were proven to be false.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, and as I said, it was being used as an *example of a view*, NOT a reference for a factual claim. Jonathanmills (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is fact that the view (presented on the blog) exists, the view on that specific may of course not be representative of a larger group. Mondeo (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dutch documentary about Greek citizens involved in the Srebrenica Genocide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q13nwRe21ec Part 1 of 3

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Size of scorpion forces

Does anybody know an estimation of how many Serb forces were in srebrenica at the time of the massacre? Sorry if it's stated somewhere in the article, but it's hard for me to find this quickly. I'm wondering because unless these combined forces numbered only a few hundred, it seems practically impossible for 400 Dutch soldiers to fight them off. - Pieter_v (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

errors and distortions

Hi all,

I see that the article intro now reads that the Srebrenica massacre did not even involve *men and boys* with the women separated out, as basically every other RS on the internet describes events, but rather '8000 Bosniaks'.

This article has clearly been hijacked by extreme editors pushing strongly nationalist viewpoints (sorry if that offends the 'assuming good faith' rule, but I would argue that I do indeed have 'good reason not to', in this case). I'm not sure what can be done about it, as Wikipedia apparently doesn't take action in such cases (which is much to its detriment -- and I'm not having a go at administrators, as I realise they're busy and unpaid, and like I say I'm not even sure what could be done about it exactly), relying on the 'Wiki-process' to sort things out.

All I can observe is that that process is clearly NOT working with this article, as nationalist editors (and all from only one side) have simply bullied and/or frightened (or simply worn out) any editors who have tried to challenge their bias. And this has been going on for some years now and shows little sign of stopping (indeed, things appear to be getting more and more biased).

A long-running image at the top of the article shows the grave of a 13-year-old boy, but given that the vast majority of victims were *over* the age of 13, this is not very encyclopaedic and is clearly there just to make a propaganda point.

Anyway, given that (IMHO) trying to fight this bias is pretty much pointless, I write this simply to share my concerns with anyone out there who might be reading this. Also, I'd like to emphasise that I don't intend this as a personal attack on any editor/s -- there's nothing wrong with having a personal nationalist bias, but it needs to be left at the door when writing encyclopaedia articles. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I think that previous photos should be returned because they were better for the article in general. These are up-to-date, but it is better to have them in the news section that here. --Harac (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Harac

I agree with you about the 'original photos' in that I don't think having up-to-date photos of commemorations is as appropriate as having more 'generic' photos, especially at the top of the page.

With regards to the one photo I removed, just to clarify (if it wasn't already clear from my edit summaries) that I simply don't think it's appropriate to have a picture of a 13-year-old boy's gravestone, when all RS's say that basically all those killed were aged 14 and over. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonathanmills again does the same thing. Tries to minimize the genocide.

Instead of this sentence:

Although those killed were predominantly men and teenage boys, the massacre also included instances where preteen children, women, and elderly were killed.

He wrote:

Although those killed were almost entirely men and teenage boys, the massacre also included one, possibly two definite instances where a preteen boy was killed.

Here are some examples of the killings:

• (ii) 12-13 July: Crimes Committed in Potocari

As evening fell, the terror deepened. Screams, gunshots and other frightening noises were audible throughout the night and no one could sleep. Soldiers were picking people out of the crowd and taking them away: some returned ; others did not. Witness T recounted how three brothers – one merely a child and the others in their teens – were taken out in the night. When the boys’ mother went looking for them, she found them with their throats slit.

Or this:

• (i) The Humanitarian Crisis in Potocari: 11-13 July 1995

Soldiers wearing camouflage (but without insignia) threatening to slaughter the Bosnian Muslim refugees and a soldier wearing camouflage killed a baby with a knife.

And yes, why did you remove the picture of the boy's tombstone? To hide the above facts about the preteen children killings? Historičar (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Historicar does the same thing, misrepresenting the facts to make the massacre look *even worse* that it was.

He writes:

[excerpt from Historicar begins]

Instead of this sentence:

Although those killed were predominantly men and teenage boys, the massacre also included instances where preteen children, women, and elderly were killed.

He wrote:

Although those killed were almost entirely men and teenage boys, the massacre also included one, possibly two definite instances where a preteen boy was killed.

[excerpt ends]

Which is in fact just matching the text to the content of the ICTY judgement. Let's look at the 'examples' you gave:

As evening fell, the terror deepened. Screams, gunshots and other frightening noises were audible throughout the night and no one could sleep. Soldiers were picking people out of the crowd and taking them away: some returned ; others did not. Witness T recounted how three brothers – one merely a child and the others in their teens – were taken out in the night. When the boys’ mother went looking for them, she found them with their throats slit. (my emphasis)

That's in fact one of the killings I was mentioning.

As for this:

[excerpt from Historicar begins]

• (i) The Humanitarian Crisis in Potocari: 11-13 July 1995

Soldiers wearing camouflage (but without insignia) threatening to slaughter the Bosnian Muslim refugees and a soldier wearing camouflage killed a baby with a knife.

[excerpt ends]

You must think I'm pretty stupid not to *check* whether the sentence you've quoted is in fact in the link you posted. And I did, and it wasn't. I searched for 'baby' and 'knife' and it's simply not there. So you are utterly, utterly dishonest. Yet you think it's ME who should not be editing an encyclopaedia?

What it appears you are referring to is the following para:

Another testified that, at around 1200 hours on 12 July, he saw a soldier slay a child with a knife in the middle of a crowd of expellees. He also said that he saw Serb soldiers execute more than a hundred Bosnian Muslim men in the area behind the Zinc Factory and then load their bodies onto a truck, although the number and methodical nature of the murders attested to by this witness stand in contrast to other evidence on the Trial Record that indicates that the killings in Potocari were sporadic in nature. (my emphasis)

Which is indeed the other preteen I referred to (it doesn't refer to him as a 'baby', note).

And if you can read and understand English, it's pretty clear that the ICTY is expressing some major reservations about that witness' testimony, which is why I said 'one, **possibly two**'.

As for, "why did you remove the picture of the boy's tombstone? To hide the above facts about the preteen children killings?"

As I said in my edit summary, and just above, if we have a massacre of 8000 people, and all but ONE, MAYBE TWO (according to the ICTY judgement that's given as a reference) are over the age of 13, it is utterly inappropriate to have a picture of a 13-year-old's grave at the top of the article.

The other thing that is somewhat silly is that you're blind-reverting a whole bunch of edits which are actually just an improvement on the existing grammar and wording. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

REGARDING YOUR STATEMENT: You must think I'm pretty stupid not to *check* whether the sentence you've quoted is in fact in the link you posted. And I did, and it wasn't. I searched for 'baby' and 'knife' and it's simply not there. So you are utterly, utterly dishonest. Yet you think it's ME who should not be editing an encyclopaedia?

Well you didn't check it well, so your statement makes you look stupid after all. Let me help you:

The sentence is located in the footnote of the source: [2] Search it again!

Let me repeat the sentence you should search:

Soldiers wearing camouflage (but without insignia) threatening to slaughter the Bosnian Muslim refugees and a soldier wearing camouflage killed a baby with a knife.

You should use this key word: killed a baby with a knife. Do you want me to help you more? It is the reference number: 348 - Witness F, T. 1503 (soldiers in camouflage uniforms were looting houses); Ademovic, T. 1589.

Okey?

But that's not all. You removed this sentece as well: At the outset of the Bosnian war, Serb forces attacked the Bosnian Muslim civilian population in eastern Bosnia.

So removal of sentences, removal of picture and removal of references and changing the nature of the sentence are good examples of sneaky vandalism.

Cheers. Historičar (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I *did* search the full text. You should have referenced it better. Your reference was nowhere near what you were referring to (I mean in terms of physical position in the document), for one, which is poor editorship.

The reason I removed the other sentence you mentioned is for *wording* reasons, as the fact of Serbs attacking the Muslim population was mentioned in the very next lines! It wasn't 'sneaky vandalism'.

On the other hand, your blind reversion of a bunch of grammatical improvements is somewhat inexplicable.

And even though you've shown ONE SINGLE further example of a child -- or baby -- being killed by the Serbs DOESN'T disprove any of my theses, namely:

That men and teenage boys were the *overwhelming majority* of those killed, not 'predominantly';

Therefore it is a fudge to use the term 'Bosniaks' rather than 'Bosniak men and boys' (which is also what every other English-language RS online uses, as far as I'm aware);

Therefore the gravestone of a 13-year-old boy at the top of the article is wholly unrepresentative and thus inappropriate;

And you haven't provided ANY hard evidence of women or elderly being killed (and I'm NOT saying this didn't happen, just that we have to stick to the EVIDENCE).

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you changed the nature of the sentence.

Instead of this one:

Although those killed were predominantly men and teenage boys, the massacre also included instances where preteen children, women, and elderly were killed.

You removed mentioning the women and elderly. And wrote: included a small handful of definite instances where preteen children were killed.

Sneaky vandalism of course.

Regarding your statement that the gravestone of a 13-year-old boy at the top of the article is wholly unrepresentative and thus inappropriate is very sad. It is wholly inappropriate to kill a 13-year-old boy and thus sadly to hide that.

I am fine with Bosniak men and boys instead of Bosniaks. Historičar (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Historicar, you write:

[excerpt from Historicar begins]

Instead of this one:

Although those killed were predominantly men and teenage boys, the massacre also included instances where preteen children, women, and elderly were killed.

You removed mentioning the women and elderly. And wrote: included a small handful of definite instances where preteen children were killed.

Sneaky vandalism of course.

[excerpt ends]

Not 'sneaky vandalism', Historicar -- I'm just matching the text of the article to the text of the reference. Are you saying that SHOULDN'T happen??

Like I said, I'm NOT saying women or elderly WEREN'T killed -- I have no idea, I haven't looked into it -- but yeah, factual statements must be accompanied with an appropriate RS reference. Surely that's obvious?

As for:

Regarding your statement that the gravestone of a 13-year-old boy at the top of the article is wholly unrepresentative and thus inappropriate is very sad. It is wholly inappropriate to kill a 13-year-old boy and thus sadly to hide that.

My point is that you have an event where almost everyone who was killed, according to the ICTY (as far as I can tell) was over the age of 13. Then you have an encyclopaedia article where at the top of it is the gravestone of a 13-year-old boy! It's simply inappropriate because it's *wholly unrepresentative* of what went on.

If it's so unimportant (and I would agree that massacring an innocent 14-year-old in cold blood is hardly 'better' than massacring a 13-year-old one), WHY are you so keen to have it at the top of the page? Jonathanmills (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I've found the relevant Wikipedia guideline which I believe this photo clearly violates: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Specifically:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. (my emphasis)

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you vandalized the article according to the rules: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism

Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. You blanked much of the "12–13 of July: crimes committed in Potočari" section: [3] Historičar (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this was accidental, and I changed it straight after seeing your edit summary. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I see you are nitpicking, I see nowhere in the article that also one woman was killed in the genocide (or at least, one is found in mass grave so far, related to genocide). As for making things seem "even worse" than they are... well, frankly there is no such thing as more horrible and less horrible genocide in the same sense that there is no more or less pregnant woman, so talking in those terms seems absurd. I think the photo with the stone that says how many people were killed, should be returned (I would do it, but do not know how), and maybe a photo of musala, that central place of memorial centre. --Harac (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Call it 'nitpicking' if you like, but that doesn't justify distortions of the facts on an encyclopaedia.

As for one woman being killed, I have no objection to including it (indeed, it would seem to me appropriate to mention), but it needs a decent reference.

As for:

As for making things seem "even worse" than they are... well, frankly there is no such thing as more horrible and less horrible genocide in the same sense that there is no more or less pregnant woman, so talking in those terms seems absurd.

Well, it's clearly NOT absurd, otherwise why would these distortions be there in the first place? Similarly, why would you then care whether they were included or not? Jonathanmills (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a gallery section with the missing pictures. I will try to find out what happened with the woman part. Historičar (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link about the rape [4].

Regarding the baby killing: [5]

Munira Subasic, from the town of Vogosca near Sarajevo, lost 22 members of her family during the massacre at Srebrenica that lasted several days in mid-July 1995. She also witnessed the murder of a baby. A Serb, says Subasic, "told the mother to make the child stop crying. But when the baby continued to cry, he took it from the mother and slit its throat. Then he laughed."

Historičar (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PARTIAL LIST OF AT LEAST 500 CHILDREN WHO WERE SUMMARILY EXECUTED DURING SREBRENICA GENOCIDE & DUMPED INTO MASS GRAVES

• PARTIAL LIST OF CHILD VICTIMS OF SREBRENICA GENOCIDE

BEGIĆ BEGO MEHMEDALIJA 04.01.1989

MUSIĆ SELMA SALIM 1709987188742 17.09.1987

EFENDIĆ MELIHA ŠEVKO 2803987188122 28.03.1987

SMAJLOVIĆ FAHRUDIN JUSUF 01.01.1983

• MASS GRAVE: CHILDREN SHOT IN HEAD

Regards. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no way a blog is an RS. Find a better reference. Jonathanmills (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is official report [6] (Federal Commission for Missing Persons) with the names and IDs of the genocide victims. Compare the birthdates of those who were killed here with the blog report. It's the same. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. My main point is simply that we cannot use blogs as a reference for information *in the article*.

Two problems with the source you've cited, however:

1) It's not in English -- and this is an English-language encyclopaedia, so you will NEED to find something else for use as a reference;

2) (partly because I can't read what it's saying..) Isn't there a difference between the 'list of missing persons' and the definite issue of who was killed in the massacre? I mean, otherwise we'd surely just be saying that 8,372 (or whatever the precise number is) people were killed, not 'around 8000'. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sad explanation. You don't have to translate names of the victims in English?! That document contains the list of the names, you don't have to be Einstein to understand that...Historičar (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be Einstein to read Serbo-Croat, either -- but it's beyond me at the moment! ;-)

My point is that it doesn't point out in English *the information you originally quoted* -- ie, who was definitely executed as opposed to who was simply recorded as missing..? Jonathanmills (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So are you a judge or what? Sources in other languages are welcome here as well, if you don't speak Bosnian, I do, and other editors do...Historičar (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Historicar, this is an ENGLISH-LANGUAGE encyclopaedia. I'm not judging in some objective sense English versus Serbo-Croat/Bosnian (actually I like Serbo-Croat, which is why I'm trying to learn it!) Jonathanmills (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If the source is a foreign language source but one that is accepted by English language speakers as genuine - and there are plenty of native and second-language English speakers who accept the source - then the burden of proof is on you to find a source that refutes it. In fact the foreign language content of the source list is minimal and transparent to anyone with access to a pocket dictionary and minimal common sense. 91.125.239.132 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) --Opbeith (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The source provided by Historicar [7] (Federal Commission for Missing Persons) is informative, legitimate, and exceedingly relevant. It does not take an understanding of Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian to understand the essential content of document. That JonathanMills is trying to disqualify the source on such a thin technicality has the potential to call into question his credibility. Fairview360 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys,

I didn't mean to be disqualifying the source on a 'technicality', although it did probably look like that.

It's just that I couldn't work out whether it was indeed a list of 'victims' or simply 'missing persons' -- as you can probably tell, my Serbo-Croat is not very good!

Most people don't have a 'pocket dictionary' of Serbo-Croat, Opbeith, so it doesn't seem like an irrelevant criticism to me.

As for this issue 'ha[ving] the potential to call into question [my] credibility', I would have thought that has been done already! :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

just moved this unsourced statement here for discussion

Hi all,

I just wanted to get some feedback on the following:

"On 22 July 1995 an excavator dug a large pit and Bosnian Serb soldiers ordered approximately 260 Bosniak men who had been captured to stand around the hole. The men were then surrounded by armed Bosnian Serb soldiers and ordered not to move or they would be shot. Some of the men moved and were shot. The remaining men were pushed into the hole and buried alive."

This supposedly happened near Meces (it was under that subheading on the article).

I'm just wondering... Given that the story seems a little weird (if they all died, how did anyone know it happened? although I guess soldiers could have testified to having done it)... anyway, I looked through ICTY v Krstic, which appears to be the main reference for this article (I didn't read through it all, but did a 'find' on various key words) and didn't find anything about it.

So... just wondering if someone could provide a reference for this? Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The above statement appears to be from the initial indictment against Mladic and Karadzic: http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii951116e.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.41.84 (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

anonymous editors

Hmm... what a surprise, just as the 3RR deadline approaches, we have an anonymous editor entering the fray!

Well, I'm not going to jeopardise my own status, nor am I going to descend into the anonymous silliness myself (I don't really see the point), but whoever that was... I DID NOT delete a whole bunch of referenced stuff.

Whereas THEY deleted a whole bunch of uncontroversial tidy-ups, including of the reference to the baby killed by the camouflaged soldier, AND reintroducing the paragraph I moved over here (see the topic just above), despite the fact that I specifically changed it first to avoid that.

Really, Wikipedia NEEDS to take its head out of the sand and change its processes, because this is a mockery. Jonathanmills (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to the charge that I 'deleted references': I in fact deleted two of the three footnotes attached to the 'children, women and elderly were killed' bit... because THEY WERE ALL THE SAME REFERENCE!!

Honestly, the quality of this article (and contributions of the relevant editors) would be genuinely laughable (in fact, it is) except that it's a real shame to see Wikipedia being misused in this way. Jonathanmills (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• as far as I see it, it is of fairly good quality taking into account the complexity of subject matter, and facts such as that the mass graves are still uncovered monthly (and new evidence, info etc.), that there are still several huge legal cases to be decided, and several war crime inductees still at large. Abstractly speaking, this article will not be "completed" for a long time. I do appreciate all good hearted suggestions and constructive edits. I would like nothing more than to have this as at least "A" type article. Still looong to go. --Harac (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Error in US. Congress Resolution section

The article currently states:

"U.S. Congress resolution

"On June 27, 2005, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution (H. Res. 199 sponsored by Congressman Christopher Smith and Congressman Benjamin Cardin) commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. The resolution was passed with an overwhelming majority of 370-YES votes, 1-NO vote, and 62-ABSENT; Bernard Sanders voting in support of the genocide.[64]"

However, when the link is followed to the source, we see that Bernie Sanders, Independent from Vermont, voted "Yes" on the resolution. The single "No" vote was from Republican Ron Paul.

Also, I don' think that the "no" vote was a vote to support genocide - this is poorly worded, inflammatory, and should simply state that he was the lone dissenter on this resolution.

Would the keeper of this page please fix this error.

I think it has been fixed now -- however, this is yet another typical example of what is wrong with this page. I never even saw it there, but it is an utterly outrageous statement, and definitely defamatory. Jonathanmills (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What makes it even more ridiculous is they didn't even get the name of the Congressman they were defaming correct!! Jonathanmills (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• jep, he might have voted "no" for number of reasons, that does not immediately mean he is a genocide denier, or ever worse genocide supporter. In new edit the name could stay, but the sentence has to be rephrased. --Harac (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

89.146.164.131

Ah, I see we have a new contributor. Great to have you on board! (sarcasm alert)

Yet ANOTHER 'anonymous' editor entering the fray -- firstly to make a huge change with NO edit summary, despite the fact that ALL the issues have been/are being discussed on here; then to make it again with the edit summary 'women and elderly were killed' -- however, FAR more than the statement about women and elderly being killed was re-inserted, and secondly THERE IS NO REFERENCE FOR THIS, which is why I removed it -- which is, let me say again, NOT AT ALL THE SAME THING AS SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. (Sorry about all the caps -- I just want to make my point as clear as possible). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see why this article shouldn't be 'semi-protected' so that only named editors can make changes... because the way it is now just makes getting to grips with the disputes very difficult, and totally undermines the possibility of enforcing the 3RR rule. If there are any admins out there, is there a good reason for it NOT to be? Jonathanmills (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

removal of rape quote

Hi all,

While I've left in the mention of the rape in Potocari, I deleted the extended quotation regarding it (which is after all simply the text of the reference, and easily viewable from the footnote link) as I feel it is a pretty clear violation of the 'undue weight' rule: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Specifically:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other **verifiable and sourced statements**. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. (emphases mine)

Given that this article is about a massacre of 8000 people (and also, it is already WAY over Wikipedia size guidelines), I think it's pretty clearly a case of 'undue weight' to not only mention a single rape (don't get me wrong, I think the mention is fine), but also include a full paragraph describing it.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, Historicar has accused me of 'blanking', a type of vandalism, in my removal of the quote. (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism)

Let's just look at how Wikipedia defines 'blanking' (this is the full quote):

Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. (my emphases)

Now, the first thing is that I basically removed ONE paragraph in a huge article, so it doesn't even fit the first definition of 'blanking' ('removing all or significant parts' of a page's content).

Secondly, I DID provide a reason, both in the edit summary, and here on the talk page (which was ignored by Historicar), so that also means it fails to fall into the category of 'blanking'.

Furthermore, I haven't actually deleted any real *information* from the article, as the reference to the rape is still up -- all I've done is remove what is (IMHO) *excessive detail* about it.

'Blanking' does not mean 'removing any text whatsoever from an article', Historicar! You should look these terms up before you throw them around so readily.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell me. How would you describe genocide? ICTY used quotes among other things, pictures, videos etc. and you are persistent to delete pictures, quotes, explanations etc. anything which is plastic enough to describe genocide. Btw, the part you left about Ukrainian troops isn't sourced...Historičar (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your point is..?

You write "It has nothing to do with Undue Weight ?! it is a quote from the verdict", and yet as I helpfully emphasised above, the definition of Undue Weight reads: Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other **verifiable and sourced statements**. So just as I was never disputing the provenance of the picture of the 13-year-old's gravestone, I am NOT disputing the quote itself, merely saying that its inclusion amounts to a violation of undue-weight guidelines. Jonathanmills (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is how would you describe the genocide? Historičar (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In an encyclopaedia, by using neutral, factual language and letting the facts speak for themselves, as Wikipedia suggests. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

---

"a single rape"??? Does JonathanMills really think that there was only one single rape in Srebrenica? And that the fact some women committed suicide to avoid being raped is not relevant? The article describes the experience people had in Srebrenica. The quotes in this article taken from ICTY judgements describe what that experience was. Why does JonathanMills want to cover that up or tone it down as much as he can? It is rather offensive to see someone as ignorant as JonathanMills running amok with impulsive edits based upon his own limited knowledge. How can someone aware of the ultra-nationalist Serbs' tactics say that describing rapes at Srebrenica is not indicative of their behavior? Is JonathanMills not aware that the ultra-nationalist Serbs' use of rape to humiliate Bosnian Muslims was so extensive and systematic that it was classified as a separate war crime in international courts. Rather than thinking out loud, committing edits without sufficient knowledge, how about if JonathanMills does his homework rather than making the editors of this article waste their time being his tutors. Fairview360 (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fairview... (sigh)

WHERE did I say that there was only a single rape in Srebrenica? That's right, I didn't.

We're TALKING ABOUT a single rape in terms of this quote is all.

"And that the fact some women committed suicide to avoid being raped is not relevant?"

Sorry, did I remove information about that? That's right, I didn't.

"It is rather offensive to see someone as ignorant as JonathanMills running amok with impulsive edits based upon his own limited knowledge."

Well, I'm just basing my edits on the text of the references they're attached to, mate -- or deleting true information which violates the 'undue weight' principle. Can you give me a good reason why either of those two things SHOULDN'T happen?

"How can someone aware of the ultra-nationalist Serbs' tactics say that describing rapes at Srebrenica is not indicative of their behavior?"

But I thought I was totally ignorant on the topic? :-)

And again, did I ever say what you're saying I said? That's right, I didn't.

"Is JonathanMills not aware that the ultra-nationalist Serbs' use of rape to humiliate Bosnian Muslims was so extensive and systematic that it was classified as a separate war crime in international courts."

This article is about the *Srebrenica Massacre*, mate. And I'm NOT saying that rapes which occurred therein shouldn't be mentioned!

"Rather than thinking out loud, committing edits without sufficient knowledge, how about if JonathanMills does his homework rather than making the editors of this article waste their time being his tutors."

Perhaps it is you who should be seeking an alternative to 'thinking out loud'? And where exactly have editors had to 'waste their time' being my tutor? I'd say *I'm* the one who's had to tutor eg Historicar in the meaning of relevant WP terms ('undue weight', 'blanking') -- although that doesn't bother me at all. We can't all be complete experts on a topic, or every aspect of Wikipedia style guidelines, before we start editing, or nothing would ever happen. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a general comment on this discussion between the two gentlemen. As a social scientist (also statistican) I agree that in general a few incidents are not indicative of a strategy or pattern. If there is evidence that it was used as a strategy in other parts of Bosnia, this alone does not support the claim that incidents of rape in Srebrenica were part of a pattern/strategy in Srebrenica itself. Rape is unfortunatly commonplace during war, for instance a large number of polish women were raped by russians soldiers at the end of WW2. Myself am totally ignorant about rapes in Srebrenica specifically, I am only saying that it is hard to establish a pattern based on a scattered observations in a chaotic situation. Mondeo (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

unsourced paras removed by Historicar regarding Ukrainian troops

Just doing what Historicar meant to do before I got in his way.. ;-)

Here are two paras which are unsourced, also I think Historicar considered them POV (I haven't even read through them yet myself so have no opinion):

Group which reached Žepa together with the population of the Žepa, were in danger of being captured by the advancing Bosnian Serb unit "Drina". Heroic actions of 79 Ukrainian soldiers stationed there who, while being heavily outnumbered, defended the enclave from the "Drina" and Muslim fighters. This provided precious time which allowed more than 9,000 people from Žepa as well as newly arrived refugees from Srebrenica to escape from the advancing Serbian forces.

According to the report of the UN General Secretary, actions of Ukrainian detachment were one of the most successful operations of the UN mission in Bosnia.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Only thing I'd say about them for certain (at a glance) is that the grammar could use a wee tidy-up :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I can see Historicar's point in relation to the 'heroic actions' language -- clearly a bit POV. Jonathanmills (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seven Serbs Convicted of Srebrenica Genocide

Please do not remove this factual information. Please include it into the article. It's a fact. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gzMf5TP25p8ZMtqw04RJd6aaOYcwD927LEIG0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have deleted it because I have included the info in the article... this talk page is already a nightmare --Harac (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

missing or killed

Not 8000 was killed. it is a myth. We need source for 8000 killed not 8000 missing Which is not the same! 71.99.123.150 (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'd say about this is that Wikipedia's guidelines specify that articles should be 'verifiable, not true' and thus reflect the reporting of 'reliable sources'.

Personally, I think this is an utterly bizarre stance, but there you go.

I think there may still be SOME issue with this article, in that most 'reliable' English-language sources tend to put the figure at BETWEEN 7000 and 8000, but the 'myth' thing will have to, for the moment at least, be banished to the section at the bottom headlined 'Alternative Views'.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote in my comment under "denial" I think it would be wise to specify these numbers, for instance to differeniate between the number of persons confirmed dead (including cause of death), and the number of persons reported missing at the time of the massacre. Some of this information may of course become freely available during the upcoming Karadzic trial. I propose adding a new section specifying the estimated number of victims by category (in a table format) including information regarding the certainty these estimates. This may help resolve the dispute about the actual number and silence attempts to deny the actual massacre. 158.37.109.11 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough RDC states the figure of some 6600 if I remember right, so its certainly not below that number, although it is lower than the estimates of pretty much everyone including ICTY, ICJ and UN commissions (not to speak about the victims). --Harac (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Harac, RDC research is NOT complete, and not final. Therefore, approximately 8400 Bosniaks who died in Srebrenica (as per RDC Book of Dead) is not final. And for Jonathanmills, I am greatly dissapointed in him. He has been working on this article for about a year, and on numerous occassions he tried to discredit the facts in favour of those who deny genocide. - Mayda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"And for Jonathanmills, I am greatly dissapointed in him. He has been working on this article for about a year, and on numerous occassions he tried to discredit the facts in favour of those who deny genocide."

Can you give some examples of these 'numerous occasions'? Jonathanmills (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide denial

I think it would be factual to classify "Alternative Views" as Srebrenica genocide denial. Honestly, after ICTY and the World Court (ICJ) confirmed genocide in Srebrenica, plus recently 7 Serbs were convicted of genocide, there is no more doubts and alternative views. It would be safe to classify these types of 'views' as denials. Look at Armenian genocide, or other genocides. It is perfectly accurate to label Srebrenica genocide denial as Srebrenica genocide denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.83.72 (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is too big of an edit to be making on your own, especially anonymously. It's very loaded language, however accurate a description you see it as. I was just checking through the page and found a comment from Bosniak containing the following: you guys voted whether to use "alternative view" or "genocide denier" terms, and it was voted by popular vote in favor of "alternative view".

This suggests to me that there was a semi-official decision to use the term 'alternative views'. I'm not saying it can't be revisited, but like I say I don't think it's entirely legitimate for one editor to make a decision unilaterally. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple other thoughts: while I respect the fact that the anonymous editor has made their case here, I don't believe such an obviously controversial edit should be made so lightly. As I mentioned in my previous post, there appears to have been some sort of debate and vote in the first instance.

Another thing is that (particularly as the paragraph reads now; it has been changed slightly since I last saw it) the paragraph doesn't actually talk about 'genocide denial' per se, so it could potentially be defamatory to use that title to eg those who question the exact numbers. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This section now deals with several contested issues ranging from a total denial of genocide to the questions about the exact numbers (see also comments below including my own). Even "alternative views" may not be sufficiently precise as the paragraph covers a range of issues. Still there is a need to distinguish the various postions: total denial, questions regarding the term "genocide", and those that ask for more specific numbers (such as myself). Mondeo (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that a genocide-type massacre happened at Srebrenica. There is however disagreements regarding the scale of the massacre (the number of casualties). I am no expert in this area, but understand there is still a discrepancy between the number of persons reported missing (around 8000) and the number of victims found in mass graves. So perhaps it would be a good idea to add a section specifying the number of victims by source of information (reported missing, identified dead) and those found dead by cause of death (executed, died in combat, etc). Yet another section could perhaps deal with controversies. 158.37.109.11 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Around 10,000 people went missing after the fall of Srebrenica, (including at least 500 children executed) and hundreds of women were also killed, but they could account only for 8,100+ victims after removing duplicates and compiling a list which included first/last name, father's name, Yugoslav ID #s etc. Over 3,000 victims were DNA-identified, and thousands of more body parts await painstakingly slow DNA-identification process (ICMP in Tuzla?). Many victims were thrown into the Drina river and their bodies will never be recovered or identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

These are interesting and important issues. The last comment above (from 216.123.192.82) clearly illustrates the need for a more systematic display of the number of missing and confirmed killed as suggested by comments from 158.37.109.11. There are denial attempts and these should be discussed in this article. At the same time there discussions or uncertainties regarding the exact number of victims. The best way to silence denial attempts as well as end heated debates about numbers, is IMO to be specific about victims using reliable sources. I agree with comments above that at present, there is a need to compile an overview of the number of victims. This will also be interesting in relation to the upcoming Karadzic trial in the Haag. Mondeo (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Until today "more than 5,600 people identified by DNA analysis." http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hC3Li52k25YGA9n3XfrxVp9CqDkg

Good piece of info. But I wondered about the AFP/Google reference, is it stable? I will try to locate this in other reports. Mondeo (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to locate other reports, but it is a little confusing, see this article in WSJ for instance http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865236008137371.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Mondeo (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor Wolbo deleted a citation to Diana Johnstone's article without giving an explanation. I reverted Wolbo's edit. I checked the reference and it the two sentences clearly reproduce Johnstone's argument. Mondeo (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

At least 500 Children Died

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." At least 500 children died in Srebrenica genocide according to the research made by Hasan Nuhanovic, Srebrenica Bilten #41 page 7, published by the Association of Women of Srebrenica, March 2008 Edition http://www.srebrenica.ba/bilteni/41/bilten.41.pdf . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.182.47 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a small dispute regarding the word "children". Although UN defines persons under 18 as children, this may not be a common understanding of the word. I use the word "child" until about the age 15. In addition, using "child"/"children" in this context may elicit strong emotions and for that reason some may find the wording biased. Maybe it's better to be specific about the age of persons killed. Mondeo (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mondeo, what's commonly understood in the U.S. is not commonly understood in other parts of the world. The UN Convention is clear about the definition of children and I don't see why should you or anyone else have problems with it. Wikipedia is not "U.S. POV" only, let's stick to the facts and put "emotions" aside. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Every major news outlet, whose profession is striving for neutrality and communicating clearly, refers to "men and boys" when referring to the Srebrenica massacre. This is English wikipedia. In English, the word "children" elicits a picture of babies and young children up to puberty. The objective of wikipedia is to communicate clearly, to give the reader an accurate picture of what happened, not create false images. This has, by the way, been discussed extensively before. There is only one editor who has continued to push the use of "children". The current unsigned editor is pushing the same argument as before. Fairview360 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fairview360, the wording of the UN Convention is clear enough. The Convention has been ratified by nearly all member states. The US and Somalia have signed but not completed the ratification but the Convention has been ratified by over 190 other states. The definition is enshrined in international law. Your interpretation of the word "children" is just that, your own interpretation. Whatever your interpretation individuals under the age of 18 are defined as children and so there is a legal obligation for them to be treat as such and not as adults. Just because the US chooses to execute its own children doesn't stop them being children according to international law - individuals below the age of majority and to be accorded special treatment, in particular not subject to the death penalty. This is not "pushing an argument". This is not a US Wikipedia, this is an international Wikipedia. Over 500 children were murdered at Srebrenica. Opbeith (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not American and English is my second language, but still the word "children" elicits images of babies and children before puberty. Although the UN convention (ratified by most countries in the world) is clear, the article is sticking to facts by being specific about age and using the word "children" instead of specific age intervals does not add clarity as readers understanding of the word "children" frequently differs from that of the UN convention. Moreover one can not expect that readers look up the defintion of everyday words such as "children". Again I conclude that the best solution is being specific about age. One can maybe add a note on how the Geneva conventions regard the protection of children during war. Mondeo (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Above user:Opbeith argues about the UN Convention. There is no argument there. No one is disputing the above mentioned UN Convention. No one is questioning the legality of the UN Convention nor its classification of children, nor is anyone arguing for or against the US death penalty policy. The question is how to present the facts regarding the Srebrenica Massacre in such a way that effective communicates to the reader what actually happened. Which is more appropriate: "men and children" or "men and boys"? While arguing against the use of "men and boys", user:Opbeith seems to think he is arguing against the subjective interpretation of one wikieditor. Not so. In fact, the choice of using "men and boys" is the choice of every major English speaking newspaper. User:Opbeith has the rather daunting challenge of convincing wikipedia that his interpretation is superior to that of every editorial board of every major English speaking newspaper throughout the world. Rather unlikely. Fairview360 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

English may be a second language to Fairview (although he writes it beautifully), but he is dead right on this one (not sure if he'll be happy for my support, but there you go ;-)

As for the 'US POV' issue, I'd say that it would be far LESS likely in countries outside the wealthy West (such as the US) for the term 'child' -- in common parlance -- to apply to people all the way up to 18. Many cultures see 14 (or thereabouts) as the age of maturity. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonathanmills and Fairview have my full support. The term "boy" is most clear for the 15-18 interval. Mondeo (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm not querying the use of the expression "men and boys". That's a straw argument. Boys are male children. What I am challenging is the denial that over 500 children were killed at Srebrenica. I'm not sure why Fairview360 is misrepresenting what I said. 91.125.239.132 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The question here is not whether 500 of those killed were less than 18 years of age. The question is whether to refer to those killed as "men and boys" or "men and children". Fairview360 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not an attempt to deny that persons under 18 were killed, it is not a question about facts, but to communicate these facts in a clear, neutral and unambiguous way. Mondeo (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Fairview360, I may have misrepresented you. Can you remind me where it was suggested that "men and boys" should be replaced by "men and children"? --Opbeith (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user 24.82.182.47 insists on including the words "at least 500 children" in the introduction despite strong and well-founded opposition. I think this edit should be reversed. Mondeo (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is edit that changes "killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in the region" to "8,000 Bosniak men and boys, including at least 500 children in the region" makes the sentence look like a camel (a horse designed by committee). It opens up the question are boys and children different things? The 8,000 and the 500 may be chalk and cheese: it is not clear to me if the number of 500 includes girls, and whether boy babies are included or excluded in the totals. For this reason I think that mention of 500 should be moved down into the text where it can be explained that "XYZ estimate the number of children killed, including boys of military age, is 500" or "XYZ estimate the number of children killed, excluding boys of military age, is 500" whichever is the more accurate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That anonymous has been there again reverting Fairview's correction. Can we please stop this edit war? The issue of using the word "children" has been properly discussed. Mondeo (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardly any mention of the role of Bosniak forces

The article devotes very little attention to the role of Bosniak forces in Srebrenica. Firstly it makes only one mention of "supposed" Bosniak attacks from within the safe zone, while attacks certainly took place. Adding to this, the Bosniaks inside were getting increasingly well-armed, while the building up of troops inside the UN zone was in violation of the safe zone principle in the first place. No attention is made in the article for the perfectly rational concerns of the Serb command of such an increasingly dangerous hostile force that is operating under international protection, and which could not be attacked itself. The article is now presenting the whole operation as based on some evil scheme devised by some evil Bosnian Serb commanders, while military considerations may very well have played as well. Another thing that is almost entirely ignored is the bailing out of all these Bosniak Muslim forces out of the safe zone as soon as intel on a Serb attack came in. These forces were later fighting elsewhere and clearly showed zero consideration for the Muslim civilians in Srebrenica. Basically the Bosnian army (if you can call it that) A. abandoned its own civilians and B. let the DutchBat take care of the mess and left them to take the blame, which is what happened.

I thought this information would be common knowledge as I read it over and over in military reports, however in this encyclopedic article it is hardly mentioned. There is probably no definite answer still about why it went how it went, so please show more angles of the same story. If the Bosnian Serb forces were evil, so where the Bosnian Muslims for deliberately abandoning the civilians they were using as cover for their own attacks. Wiki1609 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I also assumed it as common knowledge, but did not read the article careful enough to see if this aspect was missing. If you can dig up reliable and relevant source material regardin the role of Bosniak forces, please share with us. Mondeo (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki1609 There is also no mention in the article that Serbs never demilitarized around Srebrenica. Also there is no mention that Serbs were increasingly arming themselves with heavy weaponry around Srebrenica in violation of agreements. There is also no mention in the article that Serbs were constantly blocking humanitarian convoys to Srebrenica which resulted in part of the Bosnian population starving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.192.82 (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable that both aspects is highly relevant information for the "background" section, but the inclusion of this information has perhaps been discussed already. This article has a long history, perhaps someone familiar with previous discussion can comment on this? Mondeo (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wiki1609, this article has a clear pro-Bosniak/anti-Serb bias. I noted the following regarding the pre-massacre situation in Srebrenica, above: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#POV_pruning_of_ICTY_judgement.3F

As for there being no mention of Serb heavy weapons and Bosniak starvation in the article, that's totally untrue. There are mentions of both of these (do a text search for 'artillery' and 'starvation'). Jonathanmills (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonathanmills, one possible reason why you may interpret this article as having a clear pro-Bosniak/anti-Serb bias is that under the heading "Srebrenica Massacre" previous editors have sought to describe accurately how 8000 Bosniaks were murdered in a genocidal operation by the Bosnian Serb Army under instructions from the Bosnian Serb Presidency. I think it's rather difficult to find neutrality in that situation.

Much of the emphasis and detailed evidence that you seem to find unpalatable is the result of factual information having to be inserted to contradict repeated tendentious editing - to put it politely - on the part of Serb apologists. You choose to ignore the history of the article in applying your criticism.

You rather oddly proclaim your ignorance of many aspects of the subject while working very hard to change the balance of the article. I have my doubts whether someone who claims not to know what Foca is should consider himself competent to contribute to the discussion let alone cause offence by his less than sensitive editing and self-justification. But that claimed ignorance sits uncomfortably with the viewpoint it's possible to triangulate from your interventions. The idea that you can offer Nebojsa Malic's comments as a serious counterbalance to the information about Naser Oric provided by GriffinSB's quotes from IPWR and Human Rights Watch tells me pretty much all I need to know. 91.125.239.132 (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, omitted my identity 91.125.239.132 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Looks like I'm not able to use my identity - which is Opbeith -- Opbeith (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Wiki1609, have you any idea what the balance of forces was in Bosnia? Are you seriously saying that the Bosnian Army's failure to prevent the equivalent falling to the Bosnian Serb Army is equivalent to the mass slaughter of a captive population? It's usually helpful to start with the essential fact and then work outward. Opbeith 91.125.239.132 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) -- Opbeith (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, but it seems to me that this article is run by only 2 people: Johnathanmills and Fairview. They constantly edit this article as they see fit. The article is their point of view. Other editors are pushed away by two dominant editors and there is no way to improve this article. Both Johnathanmills and Fairview resist facts. They resist facts that at least 500 children died, as per the definition of UN Convention on the Rights of Children. They also resist the fact that Srebrenica genocide denial is reality and is taking place not on 1 web site, but on tens of thousands of websites all over the internet. Both of you, do whatever you want. If you wish, delete the whole article, do it. Good luck, I am out of here.24.82.182.47 (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The irony is that as the above unsigned editor is claiming that Fairview and Jonathanmills are "running" the article, Fairview describes the majority of Jonathanmills' opinions as "twisted". Fairview and Jonathanmills are often in complete disagreement. However, it does appear from current and past discussions that there is a majority opinion, shared by both Fairview and Jonathanmills and others, that referring to "children" without further explanation gives the reader an inaccurate impression that over 500 killed were under 13... which is not true. Hence, in this discussion and in archived discussions, the proposal of referring to 500 children killed has not succeeded. Fairview360 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Referring to yourself in the third person, Fairview? I might have to take back what I said about you 'writing English beautifully' ;-) Jonathanmills (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept compromise to include the fact that at least 500 victims were under the age of 18. I will not engage in the article reverts anylonger. 24.82.182.47 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

update needed

Given the recent arrest of Karadzic and that only two ICTY fugitives remain (not several), this sentence and reference from the intro needs updating:

several fugitives from the ICTY remain at large and are suspected of hiding in the Bosnian Republic of Srpska or in Serbia. Fairview360 (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

'Genocide Denial' vs 'Alternative Views'

Hi all,

An anonymous editor has reverted my revert, saying that 'I am not the only one who has the right to edit this page'.

I most certainly am not. However, I raised two problems with the change from 'Alternative Views' to 'Genocide Denial'.

1. I think this is too big of an edit for a single anonymous editor to be making, given that a comment from Bosniak (further up this page) contains the following: you guys voted whether to use "alternative view" or "genocide denier" terms, and it was voted by popular vote in favor of "alternative view", which suggests to me that there was a semi-official decision to use the term 'alternative views'.

2. The information in the paragraph doesn't actually talk about 'genocide denial' in exclusion, so it could potentially be defamatory to use that title to eg those who question the exact numbers. (I think this is VERY important, as defamation is wrong and illegal).

Regards

Oh, sorry, I forgot to sign that. Was a few hours ago now. Jonathanmills (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Somebody also removed a quote from the sources without telling why. With the current version of this section, "denial" is in fact wrong. To keep the heading "denial", the section must be split in two. One part about the view there was no massacre at all and one part for views that are critical about estimates. Mondeo (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is crucial.

I strongly object to the title being changed sans some sort of official discussion and/or vote, as it appears that was how the original title was agreed on (to the Bosniaks -- imagine if this was done in reverse; ie a talk-page procedure had decided on something and then a random editor changed it back to what the 'Serb side' had wanted).. However, it is absolutely crucial that the article not be defamatory, and putting the heading of 'Genocide Denial' and then citing someone who is not actually arguing that -- and it's not just Diana Johnstone, there's that whole list of references in the footnotes -- is clearly defamatory. This is not only wrong, it could get Wikipedia into trouble. (Indeed, I'd be inclined to let the relevant authors know, if this edit were allowed to persist. No one deserves to be defamed). Jonathanmills (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan,you fight so hard to get a "counterbalance" into this article.How can a counterbalance be brought when a army executed 8000+ people.?!?!It would be the same as writing a article about the holocaust and trying to blame the Jews for what happened to them?!?! Isn't that crazy and immoral thing to do?Haven't those people suffer enough? Bosnian Muslims and Croats were attacked,it wasn't the other way around.If you combine warcrimes comitted on Serbian people by all three armies(Bosniaks,Croats and Albanians) you wouldn't even come close to the number of warcrimes commited by Serbian forces.Warcrimes unfortunatly happen in a war,so if you start one expect concequences.So i really don't see the point of arguing.

In some cases you were proven to be wrong and yet you accept the Serbian nationalist side of story without any criticism.You don't accept the owerwelming proof against them , 'cause you just don't want to.Eather you're dumb or you have a certain agenda.I think the second answer is the right one.You're not dumb,but you are simply enjoying taking things out of context. You think of this article as some courtroom, and you playing the Devil's advocate.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you're writing about me is rubbish, Griffin, and it's pathetic to act like you don't have an 'agenda', if that means a bias towards one or more sides in the Balkan conflict.

Which cases was I 'proven to be wrong' on, BTW? (Not saying they don't exist, but just wondering).

And, as I said to Opbeith, see my section above, 'POV pruning of ICTY judgement?' (to which NOBODY has responded, incidentally), for an *actual example* of the sort of thing I'm objecting to. Also you might want to note the (now removed) utterly defamatory (and incorrect!) reference to some US Senator 'voting for the genocide' -- this is the type of rubbish which ends up in this article on the watch of editors like yourself (not saying you wrote that particular sentence, but it is the general biased and unbalanced tone which is fostered).

Finally, to you, Fairview and Opbeith... with respect, take your attempted emotional bullying and shove it. I respect the fact that any or all of you may have personally suffered from the Bosnian war, but that DOES NOT give you the right to come on to Wikipedia and try to intimidate editors who don't agree with you.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is indicative of the whimsical impulsive nature of JonathanMills' presentation of "facts". He gets a superficial "understanding" based on conjecture and then presents it as fact. On what basis does JonathanMills feel he is in a position to state that Opbeith and/or Fairview are Bosnian? They are not. If Opbeith wishes to tutor JonathanMills on the truth of his own origins, he is free to do so. Fairview360 is an Anglo-Saxon Protestant American with no family ties nor ancestory whatsoever in eastern or southern Europe, as if that is relevant to this discussion. If JonathanMills is going to continue with such drivel, he ought to stop complaining about editors ignoring him. Fairview360 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this totally shows up YOUR inaccurate presentation of facts. My sentence reads 'I respect the fact that *any* or all of you *may have* personally suffered from the Bosnian war' (my emphasis), and you use it as the basis for launching a ridiculous attack claiming that I have categorically stated that you and Opbeith are Bosnian.

As for 'complaining about editors ignoring me', I'm just pointing out that much has been said about my supposed bias, but an actual example of the bias I'm talking about has remained unanswered for several months now. Jonathanmills (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what JonathanMills actually wrote: "Finally, to you, Fairview and Opbeith... with respect, take your attempted emotional bullying and shove it. I respect the fact that any or all of you may have personally suffered from the Bosnian war" It appears that JonathanMills has acquired the mentality that, when it comes to the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia, all comes down to a Serb point of view and a Bosnian Muslim point of view as if it is not possible that there are many people in this world who have watched this conflict from the very beginning without any prior affiliations who see quite clearly that the ultra-nationalist Serbs committed genocide, killed 10's of thousands of innocent and defenseless people just because they were not Serb and were living on land that had been deemed part of Greater Serbia, a place where ultra-nationalist Serbs wanted only Serbs to live. That view is not inherently "Bosnian Muslim". It is in fact part and parcel propaganda to try to reduce that view as being just that of Bosnian Muslims. It is also absurd to deny the Greater Serbia project since all one has to do is ask Seselj what he wants and he will tell you exactly that... an ethnically cleansed Greater Serbia. Those who see and speak clearly about the Greater Serbia project and the mass murders that were committed while trying to achive it are not necessarily part of some Bosnian Muslim group that JonathanMills is apparently referring to when he says "you". In any case, his previous outbursts and above comment "shove it" reveal a lack of the very objectivity and maturity that he claims others ought to have. Fairview360 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I was saying that IF any or all of you (hence 'may have') had suffered personally in the Bosnian war, I respect the fact that it will be a sore point. Your ability to extrapolate so much garbage from a simple statement like that is truly remarkable. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"like dude, you are like sooo cool and right on. Yeah dude" 128.253.117.77 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate ;-) Jonathanmills (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, guys, with all respect. I don't think any of this helps improving the article. Time to focus on content? Mondeo (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, Mondeo. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a general comment to JonathanMills, not a comment to article content. Perhaps leave this for personal talk pages. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statement moved here for further research: "In their eyes, further doubt was cast on the mainstream story when the UN High Representative Paddy Ashdown relieved and replaced the examining commission of Republika Srpska which supported the republic's initial self-exoneration. This only exacerbated the concern that there was non-neutrality among the Westerners resulting in focusing on the wartime acts of Serbs and neglecting those of Bosniaks and Croats." (fact check requested March 2008). Mondeo (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a "study" by the ministry of Republika Srpska which "concluded" that all the Bosnian Muslims there comitted suicide.I thinks that's why Ashdown had them fired.I'll try to find it for you.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the report being referred to is the one included in the footnotes (along with the other 'alternative' references). As far as I remember (I did look at it once, but it was a while back) it emphasises the Serb casualties around Srebrenica.

I very much doubt that it says anything as absurd as 'all the Bosnian Muslims committed suicide' -- although I'll believe it if you show it to me.

So I'm going to re-insert the sentence -- unless you can back up your (IMHO, wild) claim.

PS, are you Wolbo? Because that's who deleted the statement on the history page. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Griffin and Mondeo, I misunderstood who had moved what. Looks like Mondeo has moved the statement.

So, Mondeo, I'm just wondering what it is you object to in the statement?

In their eyes, further doubt was cast on the mainstream story when the UN High Representative Paddy Ashdown relieved and replaced the examining commission of Republika Srpska which supported the republic's initial self-exoneration. This only exacerbated the concern that there was non-neutrality among the Westerners resulting in focusing on the wartime acts of Serbs and neglecting those of Bosniaks and Croats.

I'll revert my undo so we can discuss. Apologies to all again for the misunderstanding. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wolbo deleted it, apparently because the fact check (citation) request had been there since March. I (Mondeo) copied it to the discussion page for future reference in case somebody will take the trouble to check the sources (under the assumption that the statement does have a factual basis). It seems that the deleted statement is based on the same source as the preceding sentence (it is is costumary in social science literature to mention the source only once if it is clear that the "neighboring" sentences are based on the same source), but in this paragraph it is not clear so maybe correct to take it out of the text until it checked. In any case, the statement is partly general and vague, may be difficult to identify as fact. Mondeo (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mondeo (and others)

I can see what you mean about it being somewhat vague and difficult to identify as fact, however I think there may be quite a bit of truth to it -- I've certainly seen Serbs (or defenders of the Serb cause) arguing that Ashdown's actions cast doubt on the 'mainstream story'.

I wonder what sort of evidence would be acceptable to 'prove' this? Jonathanmills (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Paddy Ashdown's actions are clear facts. But the rest of the statement summarizes in a very general and vague way "in their eyes" - whose eyes? Whose concern? Perhaps media coverage or opinions voiced in serb media from that period can make it more specific (and verifiable)? Mondeo (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Johnstone's article. If Wolbo or others thinks that the sentence citing Johnstone is inaccurate, please improve rather than deleting. I have read the article again and think that the sentence is fair, although I am not sure in what it might be inaccurate. In any case I think that it is relevant as Johnstone's article is a good example of "alternative views" related to the number of victims. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Opbeith

Just wanted to separate this as the discussion it's from has apparently closed:

Opbeith writes:

Jonathanmills, one possible reason why you may interpret this article as having a clear pro-Bosniak/anti-Serb bias is that under the heading "Srebrenica Massacre" previous editors have sought to describe accurately how 8000 Bosniaks were murdered in a genocidal operation by the Bosnian Serb Army under instructions from the Bosnian Serb Presidency. I think it's rather difficult to find neutrality in that situation.

So... you're saying because of the nature of the topic, it cannot or should not be neutral? Sorry, but the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to be neutral, whatever the topic.

Much of the emphasis and detailed evidence that you seem to find unpalatable is the result of factual information having to be inserted to contradict repeated tendentious editing - to put it politely - on the part of Serb apologists. You choose to ignore the history of the article in applying your criticism.

That's crap, with respect. See my section titled 'POV pruning of ICTY judgement?' for an *actual* example of material in the article I think is 'unpalatable'. To which nobody has responded, incidentally.

As for the history of the article... so what? If I can identify some type of bias in the present wording, what does it matter what the history of it is? It ought to be corrected.

You rather oddly proclaim your ignorance of many aspects of the subject while working very hard to change the balance of the article. I have my doubts whether someone who claims not to know what Foca is should consider himself competent to contribute to the discussion let alone cause offence by his less than sensitive editing and self-justification.

Erm... I think I pointed out that *most English-speakers* will not have a clue what Foca is, and this encyclopaedia is supposed to be for them.

However, again it's an irrelevant point... whether or not I know what or where Foca is, it's hardly a reason to be making some sort of blanket sanction against my editing of this page.

For example, a while back I was engaged in an edit war regarding whether the Bosniak who killed the Dutch soldier was 'panicking' or not. While I was inexcusably rude during that edit-war, the fact is, I was correct -- regardless of my ignorance regarding Foca.

As for 'causing offence by my less than sensitive editing'... can you give me an example of this? I've certainly never intended to offend anyone here.

But that claimed ignorance sits uncomfortably with the viewpoint it's possible to triangulate from your interventions. The idea that you can offer Nebojsa Malic's comments as a serious counterbalance to the information about Naser Oric provided by GriffinSB's quotes from IPWR and Human Rights Watch tells me pretty much all I need to know.

Right... so the fact that I read Nebojsa Malic's blog means I shouldn't be editing this article? Even though one of the regular editors is a blogger himself, only from the other side of the issue? (Incidentally, Malic tends to reference the facts he quotes from 'reliable sources', like any decent blogger).

The point is, it needn't matter what my personal views are -- and it is deeply hypocritical for someone so clearly pro-Bosniak as yourself to be claiming personal biases ought to be a disqualification from editing. The only point is whether *my edits* are biased, factually wrong, etc.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we include these children in the header, as 500 out of 8000 is a rather significant percentage.

Regarding argument and facts below: This has been extensively discussed in a separate section. The anonymous editor below simply repeats the same arguments. One question: what "header" are you referring to? Mondeo (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, so you'll dismiss UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, by saying, this subject has already been discussed? Don't you think you're very much POW'ing that, where your word vs an international body is disputed and you're claiming that they're wrong? The word 'Children' must be used as per UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Unless you dispute their deaths? 91.191.3.222 (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to repeat the arguments. See separate section at least 500 children died. After a long discussion the intro no explicitly states that 500 of the victims were under 18. Mondeo (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But then isn't it rather POW'ish if you say in one part of the intro that 'Men and boys' died and then say that more than 500 children died later on? 91.191.3.222 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed already. Please read the section I referred to. I will not repeat the arguments. Mondeo (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The following is a list of almost 500 children (any human being under the age of 18, as defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) killed in the Srebrenica Genocide.

The figures are taken from the work of the Sarajevo-based RDC (Research & Documentation Center), a non-partisan organization with a multiethnic staff, headed by Mirsad Tokaca, who have done the most exhaustive and accurate research to date on the Bosnian War. The victims have been categorized by name, father's name, date of birth, and for most, their JMBG Identification Number, a citizenship number assigned to everyone in Yugoslavia at the time.

As with most statistics about the Srebrenica Genocide, the list is not final.

The victims are as follows, organized from youngest to oldest:

BEGIĆ BEGO MEHMEDALIJA 04.01.1989

MUSIĆ SELMA SALIM girl 1709987188742 17.09.1987

EFENDIĆ MELIHA ŠEVKO girl 2803987188122 28.03.1987

HUSEJINOVIC SADIK OMER 101982000000 01.01.1982 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.177.27 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

HASANOVIĆ REMZUDIN HASIB 101982000000 01.01.1982

ŠABIĆ ELVIS IBRAHIM 1012981181354 10.12.1981

BOŠNJAKOVIĆ AMER MEHO 1109982000000 15.10.1981

ALIĆ MEHRUDIN ŠAĆIR 25.10.1981

MALAGIĆ IZUDIN OHRAN 2210981183128 22.10.1981

TURKOVIĆ ADMIN ADEM 30.09.1981

VARNICA MEHMED ASIM 207981183731 02.07.1981

ALIĆ OSMAN BAJRO 805981774556 08.05.1981

DERVIŠEVIĆ SENUDIN BEKIR 14.05.1981

OMEROVIĆ ADIL BEHADIL 10.05.1981

MUMINOVIĆ SAUDIN FEHIM 1604981183742 16.04.1981

AJŠIĆ MUJO ĆAMIL 12.03.1981

BAJRAKTAREVIĆ ESAD BEGO 1503981000000 15.03.1981

SMAJLOVIĆ FAHRUDIN JUSUF 19.2.1981

BEGIĆ BEGO MEHMEDALIJA 1602981183138 16.02.1981

ČEVIĆ NEVZET FIKRET 701981774548 07.01.1981

GABELJIĆ RIJAD IBRAN 301981000000 03.01.1981

HALILOVIĆ DENIS SELMO 101981188188 01.01.1981

MEMIĆ AVDIJA EMIN 01.01.1981

BEGANOVIĆ SENAD RAMO 2412980000000 24.12.1980

PLANIĆ EŠEF OSMAN 29.12.1980

MANDŽIĆ EMIR AHMET 1410980000000 14.10.1980

SELIMOVIĆ HAZIM ADIL 1610980181355 16.10.1980

SULJIĆ DAHMO ĆAMIL 710980183138 07.10.1980

ADEMOVIĆ FATMIR DŽEMAL 1709980181351 17.09.1980

MUSTAFIĆ MUNIR MUJO 3009980791015 30.09.1980

ADEMOVIĆ EDIN ŠABAN 108980774517 01.08.1980

ALIĆ OMER OSMAN 2908980000000 29.08.1980

MALATIĆ HASAN SMAIL 24.08.1980

BUDIĆ VELIJA OHRAN 1907980000000 19.07.1980

MAŠIĆ SULJO IBRAHIM 207980183134 02.07.1980

AVDIĆ ZULFO SMAIL 1003942000000 02.06.1980

KLEMPIĆ SUAD SULJO 2006980183764 20.06.1980

MALIĆ AVDO MUJO 2306980774510 23.06.1980

ORIĆ AVDIJA OMER 1606980188123 16.06.1980

SALČINOVIĆ ELVIR TURABIJA 2306980183156 23.06.1980

SELIMOVIĆ IBRAHIM REDŽO 2606980183745 26.06.1980

AVDIĆ ADMIR RAMO 3105980774519 31.05.1980

DERVIŠEVIĆ BEHRUDIN BEKIR 2105980791010 21.05.1980

KOVAČEVIĆ ADMIR HUSEJN 15.05.1980

MUJIĆ HAZIM OMER 2005980183121 20.05.1980

OSMANOVIĆ MEDIN OMER 2605980000000 26.05.1980

IBRAHIMOVIĆ SENAD SMAIL 1104980183126 11.04.1980

NUKIĆ NERMIN NURIF 2204980000000 22.04.1980

OSMANOVIĆ AHMEDIN MUNIB 1404980183138 14.04.1980

OSMANOVIĆ SULEJMAN AVDULAH 1104980183142 11.04.1980

SMAJLOVIĆ (RAŠID) HAJRO 25. 3. 1980

BEGANOVIĆ VEJSUDIN VEJSIL 2003980181355 20.03.1980

BEKTIĆ DŽEMAL HAKIJA 1903980183134 19.03.1980

JUSUPOVIĆ MIRSAD SULEJMAN 1003980000000 10.03.1980

MALATIĆ HUSEIN SMAIL 24.03.1980

OSMANOVIĆ ELVIS MUNIB 21.03.1980

PAŠIĆ AHMED MESUD 903980000000 09.03.1980

POROBIĆ ENVER OMER 04.03.1980

SALKIĆ ADNAN ABDULAH 2503980774537 25.03.1980

SEJDINOVIĆ BEGO MEHMEDALIJA 2503980791024 25.03.1980

ZUKIĆ ŠEFIK ŠABAN 103980183126 01.03.1980

FERIĆ NERMIN ENIS 202980133658 02.02.1980

HALILOVIĆ MUFID ALIJA 03.02.1980

HASANOVIĆ NIJAZ NUSRET 1002980183137 10.02.1980

HRUSTANOVIĆ MUHIDIN HAJRO 1402980183127 14.02.1980

JAHIĆ MEVLAD AVDO 502980774517 05.02.1980

MANDŽIĆ BEKIR JAKUB 14.02.1980

MUJIĆ SEMIR HALID 2502980183133 25.02.1980

ZUKIĆ SENAD RAMO 102980000000 01.02.1980

ADEMOVIĆ MUAMER HAKIJA 701980183201 07.01.1980

HALILOVIĆ NURIJA IZET 1001980183122 10.01.1980

HASANOVIĆ NEFAIL ESED 1001980000000 10.01.1980

HUSIĆ KEMO FADIL 1001980181383 10.01.1980

IBIŠEVIĆ SABAHUDIN MEHO 401980183135 04.01.1980

MEHIĆ AMIR JUNUZ 01.01.1980

MEKANIĆ ADEM FADIL 601980183746 06.01.1980

MUJANOVIĆ OSMO ADEM 02.01.1980

PALIĆ FIKRET ISMET 2001980183916 20.01.1980

SALIHOVIĆ KEMO IBRAHIM 301980000000 03.01.1980

ZUKANOVIĆ SABAHUDIN FADIL 601980183169 06.01.1980

HALILOVIĆ DINO DŽEMALUDIN 212979791019 02.12.1979

MALAGIĆ ADMIR SALKO 08.12.1979

HUSEJNOVIĆ ADIL OMER 12.11.1979

HUSEJNOVIĆ FADIL HASIB 1411979000000 14.11.1979

JUSIĆ SENAD JUSUF 2111979181357 21.11.1979

POROBIĆ ADIL RAMO 2711979774525 27.11.1979

SELIMOVIĆ OMER ABAZ 211979183128 02.11.1979

TABAKOVIĆ HAZIM RAMIZ 1311979183738 13.11.1979

VARNICA SADIK ZAJKO 1111979183739 11.11.1979

EMKIĆ ELVEDIN IBRAHIM 510979791028 05.10.1979

HALILOVIĆ NUFIK NAZIF 410979183120 04.10.1979

HODŽIĆ FERID OSMO 17109791831 17.10.1979

HUSEJNOVIĆ BEKIR FEHIM 1510979181355 15.10.1979

JAKUBOVIĆ JAKUB ŠABAN 1010979000000 10.10.1979

MUJČINOVIĆ NEZIR MUJČIN 2510979181359 25.10.1979

SALKIĆ SALIH MUHAREM 2610979000000 26.10.1979

SULJIĆ DAMIR KEMAL 710979183132 07.10.1979

ALIĆ RAMIZ HAKIJA 2409979181356 24.09.1979

GABELJIĆ SALIM MEHMED 25.09.1979

GARALJEVIĆ SALEM MEHMED 2509979183132 25.09.1979

MALAGIĆ NURIJA ŠABAN 809979181357 08.09.1979

OMEROVIĆ MEVZAD HUSEJN 909979183737 09.09.1979

OMEROVIĆ MIRZAD HUSEIN 09.09.1979

SMAJLOVIĆ NEDŽAD IZET 1509979791023 15.09.1979

ALIĆ NAZIF MUJO 108979183122 01.08.1979

DEDIĆ NEZIR ĆAMIL 1508979183736 15.08.1979

GURDIĆ ADMIR ŠABAN 108979183130 01.08.1979

HAKIĆ ALMIR HAMDIJA 808979183132 08.08.1979

HALILOVIĆ ALMIR SULJO 2608979183122 26.08.1979

IMŠIROVIĆ RAMO OHRAN 2908979183126 29.08.1979

KLEMPIĆ MUSTAFA MEHMED 2208979183736 22.08.1979

KLEMPIĆ VAHID MUJO 108979183734 01.08.1979

MEHMEDOVIĆ FAHRUDIN IBRO 108979183157 01.08.1979

MUSTAFIĆ AMIR ADEM 208979183739 02.08.1979

PILAV NERMIN AZEM 308979183121 03.08.1979

SELIMOVIĆ SUAD ŠEVKO 1808979183128 18.08.1979

ČOMIĆ MIRFET SULEJMAN 1607979000000 16.07.1979

HASANOVIĆ AZMIR VEHBIJA 407979181356 04.07.1979

HODŽIĆ MURIZ MUJO 2007979183730 20.07.1979

MEŠANOVIĆ MIRZA HAMDIJA 907979183122 09.07.1979

OMEROVIĆ SENAD DŽEMAIL 14.07.1979

PURKOVIĆ ADMIR ŠEMSO 3107979183127 31.07.1979

SMAJLOVIĆ ADMIR HAMID 24.07.1979

SMAJLOVIĆ SAMIR IBRO 407979183154 04.07.1979

BUDIĆ SELIM OHRAN 1006980000000 10.06.1979

HAJDAREVIĆ EDIN KEMO 1706979183120 17.06.1979

KOŠPIĆ ENIS SENAHID 2406979181357 24.06.1979

MEŠANOVIĆ ŠEFIK ŠAHIN 1506979000000 15.06.1979

MUSTAFIĆ OSMAN BEHADIL 606979181359 06.06.1979

SALIHOVIĆ DINO HAJRO 2606979183138 26.06.1979

SALKIĆ SEBIB MEHMED 2906979183123 29.06.1979

ALISPAHIĆ BEHADIL ADIL 19.05.1979

BUMBULOVIĆ IZET IDRIZ 1305979183126 13.05.1979

CVRK OSMAN BEHAIJA 1305979183134 13.05.1979

DELIĆ ELVIR HASIB 1905979183123 19.05.1979

HANIĆ SELIM REDŽEP 605979000000 06.05.1979

HASANOVIĆ RAMO MUJO 2405979774513 24.05.1979

KLEMPIĆ ESED ALIJA 1305979000000 13.05.1979

MUJIĆ HAJRUDIN MEHO 2005979183746 20.05.1979

OSMANOVIĆ AZMIR AZIZ 1505979183125 15.05.1979

SINANOVIĆ EDIN SEAD 1805979774518 18.05.1979

SULJIĆ SADET REŠO 205979183136 02.05.1979

AHMETOVIĆ EDIN AVDO 2904979000000 29.04.1979

ALIĆ SENAD HALIL 1604979183123 16.04.1979

ČOKEROVIĆ ZIJAD FEJZET 21.04.1979

DIZDAREVIĆ SELVEDIN SINAN 1304979183731 13.04.1979

MUSIĆ ESAD REŠO 2204979183129 22.04.1979

RAHMIĆ MUSTAFA ISMET 2304979181368 23.04.1979

REDŽIĆ IBRO NEZIR 804979000000 08.04.1979

SALKIĆ MIRZA SEJFO 604979186358 06.04.1979

ADEMOVIĆ ŠEFIK ŠEVAL 1003979183146 10.03.1979

ALISPAHIĆ ARMIN AVDIJA 1203979183129 12.03.1979

AVDIĆ ISMET NUSRET 103979183139 01.03.1979

BORIĆ JASMIN ŠABAN 1903979183732 19.03.1979

GUŠIĆ NIHAD MUJO 3003979171420 30.03.1979

HUSIĆ MUHAMED HASIB 2103979000000 21.03.1979

KARIĆ SELVEDIN IZO 1203979774518 12.03.1979

OMEROVIĆ KASIM RAMO 2303979774524 23.03.1979

SALKIĆ HAJRO VAHID 103979181365 01.03.1979

ŠEČIĆ MEHMEDALIJA HASAN 1503979000000 15.03.1979

TURSUNOVIĆ SENAD ŠAHIN 1703979183121 17.03.1979

BEKRIĆ SUAD JUSUF 402979183136 04.02.1979

HASANOVIĆ NIHAD HAŠIM 102979171428 01.02.1979

HUSIĆ AHMEDIN ENEZ 102979181350 01.02.1979

MEHMEDOVIĆ MUNIR KADRIJA 102979000000 01.02.1979

OMIĆ ZEID ALAGA 1902979183124 19.02.1979

OSMANOVIĆ EDIN IBRO 2402979774514 24.02.1979

SALKIĆ BAJRO VAHIDIN 28.02.1979

SELIMOVIĆ DŽENAIZ SEJDALIJA 1502979183126 15.02.1979

SMAJLOVIĆ SEVDET SMAJO 1602979183139 16.02.1979

HASIĆ EDIN NEDŽIB 501979183150 05.01.1979

HRUSTANOVIĆ ATIF DAHMO 1001979183135 10.01.1979

HUKIĆ NIJAZ ESAD 1701979183129 17.01.1979

IBRAHIMOVIĆ SENAD DŽEMAL 901979183132 09.01.1979

IBRIĆ VESID HASAN 2201979183138 22.01.1979

JUSUFOVIĆ ELVIR ABAZ 1801979183123 18.01.1979

KLEMPIĆ MURIZ MUJO 01.01.1979

MEKANIĆ MUSTAFA JUNUZ 01.01.1979

MEMIĆ HALIL ABDURAHMAN 13.01.1979

MEMIŠEVIĆ AHMET ADIL 2207979181354 01.01.1979

MUJANOVIĆ ALMIN BAJRO 501979000000 05.01.1979

MUJIĆ NUFIK REDŽO 301979183135 03.01.1979

MUMINOVIĆ SULJO FEHIM 3001979183132 30.01.1979

MUSTAFIĆ JASMIN MEHMEDALIJA 101979183756 01.01.1979

NUKIĆ DŽEMAL SEJDALIJA 701979183141 07.01.1979

NUKIĆ MUJO SMAJO 201979181362 02.01.1979

OMEROVIĆ ENIS ABID 01.01.1979

OMEROVIĆ MERSUDIN OMER 5019791813 05.01.1979

PUDILOVIĆ MIRZET AVDULAH 2001979183139 20.01.1979

REDŽIĆ RESUL REDŽO 201979000000 02.01.1979

SALIHOVIĆ DŽEMAL SALIH 201979181375 02.01.1979

SALIHOVIĆ ESAD RAMO 1501979183138 15.01.1979

SALIHOVIĆ FAHRO SAFET 01.01.1979

SALKIĆ MUNIB MUSTAFA 13.01.1979

SEJMENOVIĆ ALMIR ALIJA 101979184515 01.01.1979

SELIMOVIĆ MESUD HAJRUDIN 501979183177 05.01.1979

ALIHODŽIĆ AMIR ŠABAN 1101979000000 11.01.1979

BEGIĆ AMIR IBRAHIM 201979183734 02.01.1979

BEGIĆ MEDIN ISMET 1801979183735 18.01.1979

DEDIĆ SAMIR SADIF 01.01.1979

DŽANANOVIĆ NEZIR ŠAĆIR 3001979183124 30.01.1979

HAJDAREVIĆ ENEZ ŠAHIN 201979183750 02.01.1979

HASANOVIĆ DŽEMAL IBRO 1901979183128 19.01.1979

BAJRAKTAREVIĆ PAŠAD BEGO 112978183142 01.12.1978

BORIĆ DŽEVAD RAMO 3112978183739 31.12.1978

ĆEVIĆ MIRZET FIKRET 1612978000000 16.12.1978

EJUBOVIĆ HALID MEHO 812978183136 08.12.1978

SULJIĆ MUJO BEKIR 1012978183125 10.12.1978

ADEMOVIĆ AZMIR AZEM 2411978183120 24.11.1978

ČARDAKOVIĆ ALDŽAD IBRO 1311978171426 13.11.1978

KARDAŠEVIĆ FIKRET MEHAN 2511978183125 25.11.1978

MEHMEDOVIĆ SALIH ISMET 13.11.1978

OMEROVIĆ NUSMIR NURIJA 1811978000000 18.11.1978

SELIMOVIĆ JUNUZ ISMET 2511978183123 25.11.1978

ŠEČIĆ ELVIR NEZIR 511978183128 05.11.1978

ADEMOVIĆ BAHRUDIN BEHAIJA 410978183139 04.10.1978

ADEMOVIĆ FAHRUDIN HAJRUDIN 1510978183168 15.10.1978

ALISPAHIĆ AZMIR ALIJA 210978183136 02.10.1978

BULJUBAŠIĆ SAFET HAMDIJA 610978183134 06.10.1978

BUMBULOVIĆ NERMIN OSMAN 1710978183124 17.10.1978

ČAMDŽIĆ NIJAZ HUSEIN 3010978183138 30.10.1978

DURAKOVIĆ AZIZ HALIL 2010978183122 20.10.1978

HALILOVIĆ ELVIR RAMIZ 1510978183125 15.10.1978

HALILOVIĆ SEMIR SELIM 3110978183124 31.10.1978

HRNJIĆ IZET HUSEIN 1310978000000 13.10.1978

MEHANOVIĆ SIFET RAMIZ 1510978181386 15.10.1978

MUMINOVIĆ MESUD FEHIM 1410978181365 14.10.1978

MUTAPČIĆ EDIN MURADIF 2710978183748 27.10.1978

POROBIĆ ELVIR DEDO 210978183128 02.10.1978

SALIHOVIĆ ALMIR NAZIF 810978183133 08.10.1978

ADEMOVIĆ MUAMER HAKIJA 05.09.1978

ALIHODŽIĆ MUSADET MUNIB 2409978183126 24.09.1978

IBRAHIMOVIĆ RAZMIN JUSUF 1009978181350 10.09.1978

JUSUPOVIĆ JASMIN NURIJA 2909978000000 29.09.1978

KADRIĆ ŠEVAD KADRIJA 01.09.1978

LJESKOVICA AMIR BEDRIJA 2409978183134 24.09.1978

MEHMEDOVIĆ FERIS BAJRO 3009978181374 30.09.1978

MUJKIĆ MUHAMED OSMAN 1409978193144 14.09.1978

OMEROVIĆ ENIS ABID 2409978000000 24.09.1978

OSMANOVIĆ VELID MUNIB 1509978183127 15.09.1978

SALIHOVIĆ ERMIN HASAN 1209978000000 12.09.1978

SULJIĆ SUAD RIFET 13.09.1978

ZUKANOVIĆ SULJO ISMET 1509978183143 15.09.1978

AHMETOVIĆ SEMIR NEZIR 2008978183148 20.08.1978

AHMETOVIĆ ZIJAD MUJO 16.08.1978

BEKTIĆ SUAD NAIL 208978183131 02.08.1978

BULJUBAŠIĆ HARIZ HASAN 2508978183124 25.08.1978

HALILOVIĆ ŠABAN HALIL 17089781831 17.08.1978

HASANOVIĆ ALMAZ ALIJA 2008978000000 20.08.1978

HASANOVIĆ ENIS EDHEM 2508978183132 25.08.1978

HASANOVIĆ ESMIR HAJDIN 01.08.1978

HASANOVIĆ SENAID SULEJMAN 26.08.1978

HUKIĆ MEVLUDIN ŠABANIJA 1308978183733 13.08.1978

KABILOVIĆ RAMIZ JUSO 24.08.1978

MALIĆ ALIJA ŠERIF 2508978183736 25.08.1978

MEHIĆ LUTVO HASAN 2208978183767 22.08.1978

MUJIĆ RAMIZ IBRAHIM 01.08.1978

OMEROVIĆ SANEL ŠABAN 1400978000000 14.08.1978

PAŠIĆ MUAMER MUJO 208978183158 02.08.1978

PIRGIĆ SMAIL SULJO 2708978183131 27.08.1978

SALIHOVIĆ ENIS MUHAZ 308978183128 03.08.1978

SALIHOVIĆ HAJRUDIN MUJO 1808978183752 18.08.1978

SALIHOVIĆ SENAD SEAD 2508978183892 25.08.1978

SELIMOVIĆ DAMIR TURABIJA 508978183127 05.08.1978

SULJIĆ DŽEVAD HASAN 808978183120 08.08.1978

ZUKIĆ JASMIN RAMO 108978183153 01.08.1978

KAPIDŽIĆ MEHO NEZIR 1307978181351 13.07.1978

KARDAŠEVIĆ HAZMIR HUSEIN 14.07.1978

MUSTABAŠIĆ SAMIR SMAIL 02.07.1978

OSMANOVIĆ ELVIR HASIB 1607978183919 16.07.1978

PALIĆ MUAMER ALIJA 1907978171434 19.07.1978

PITAREVIĆ AZMIR AZIZ 807978183124 08.07.1978

SKELEDŽIĆ SUAD ŠAHBAZ 2407978183123 24.07.1978

ZUHRIĆ NERMIN NURKO 307978183733 03.07.1978

BEGIĆ DŽEMAL ESED 1507978183140 15.07.1978

DELIĆ ADNAN OHRAN 20.07.1978

HAJDAREVIĆ SEAD ĆAMIL 2507978181354 25.07.1978

HASANOVIĆ HAZIM HASAN 707978183138 07.07.1978

ALIĆ AMIR DŽEMAL 17.06.1978

ALJIĆ DŽEMAL SULJO 406978183146 04.06.1978

AVDIĆ RIJAZ RAMO 406978183138 04.06.1978

BEČIĆ ZIHNIJA VEHBIJA 906978181375 09.06.1978

DAUTOVIĆ EDIN OSMAN 2906978183138 29.06.1978

DAUTOVIĆ HEDIN OSMAN 2906978183138 29.06.1978

DELIĆ ERMIN ALIJA 1806978000000 18.06.1978

HASANOVIĆ SALČIN HUSEIN 2006978181363 20.06.1978

MEHMEDOVIĆ ĆAMIL SMAIL 906978181359 09.06.1978

MEHMEDOVIĆ DŽEMO ŠAHIN 1006978181378 10.06.1978

ORDAGIĆ NERMIN IBRO 1506978183772 15.06.1978

RAMIĆ NIJAZ SELMAN 1706978183135 17.06.1978

SMAJLOVIĆ VAHID NURIF 01.06.1978

SULJIĆ AVDIJA ĆAMIL 706978183123 07.06.1978

ZUKIĆ MENSUR IBRAHIM 1006978183141 10.06.1978

ALIĆ KADRIJA ĆAMIL 2005978000000 20.05.1978

ALIĆ MUHAMED REDŽO 605978183122 06.05.1978

ALIĆ MUJAGA HAJRO 1505978183148 15.05.1978

BUHIĆ RAZIM OSMAN 705978183763 07.05.1978

ČIVIĆ AZEM HAMED J 01009780000 01.05.1978

ČIVIĆ AZEM HUSNIJA 105978183146 01.05.1978

HASANOVIĆ EMIR ŠEVKO 105978183898 01.05.1978

HASANOVIĆ ŠEVAL ŠABAN 1505978183121 15.05.1978

MEHMEDOVIĆ MEHMED RAHMAN 2605978183731 26.05.1978

MUHAREMOVIĆ HAMDIJA MEHMED 01.05.1978

NUKIĆ JASMIN HIRKIJA 605978183133 06.05.1978

OMEROVIĆ ASIM IBRAHIM 405978183735 04.05.1978

SALIHOVIĆ RAMO SALIH 205978183124 02.05.1978

SMAJLOVIĆ SABAHUDIN SMAJIL 1205978183128 12.05.1978

RIDŽIĆ OSMAN ADIL 1504978181351 15.04.1978

SALKIĆ MUHAMED DŽANO 904978183138 09.04.1978

SELIMOVIĆ SALKO HAKIJA 2104978183120 21.04.1978

SMAJLOVIĆ NURIJA ALIJA 2704978183128 27.04.1978

SULEJMANOVIĆ SUAD IBRAHIM 2904978183127 29.04.1978

SULJIĆ MIRSAD TAIB 304978183130 03.04.1978

TALOVIĆ ISMAIL IBRAHIM 2304978181356 23.04.1978

AHMETOVIĆ HAJRO BAJRO 104978000000 01.04.1978

AHMETOVIĆ SAMIR RAMO 604978181352 06.04.1978

ALISPAHIĆ MIRSAD HAMDIJA 1004978183122 10.04.1978

ALISPAHIĆ MIRZET HAMDIJA 1004978183130 10.04.1978

HALILOVIĆ IBRAHIM IBRO 404978183127 04.04.1978

HALILOVIĆ SUAD JUSO 104978183786 01.04.1978

HUSIĆ RAHMAN HAJRUDIN 20.04.1978

HUSIĆ SEJDO SEJFO 904978181364 09.04.1978

NUKIĆ IZUDIN ISMET 1704978183132 17.04.1978

PARIĆ ALEM RIZO 104978183158 01.04.1978

AGIĆ HAMDIJA MEHMED 2003978000000 20.03.1978

BEGZADIĆ ALEN AZEM 2403978181362 24.03.1978

GARALJEVIĆ NERMIN RIFET 703978183140 07.03.1978

GERMIĆ NEZIR EMIN 1003978183746 10.03.1978

HASANOVIĆ BESIM EDHEM 29.03.1978

HRUSTIĆ JASMIN SALIH 1503978183129 15.03.1978

KAPETANOVIĆ MEHO SABIT 3003978173268 30.03.1978

MEHANOVIĆ ZURIJET IZET 203978183121 02.03.1978

MEHMEDOVIĆ ALMEDIN ABDULAH 2803978183746 28.03.1978

MUMINOVIĆ ELVIR HASAN 1503978183137 15.03.1978

NUKIĆ AZMIR AZIZ 503978181351 05.03.1978

OMERSPAHIĆ BELMIR AGONJA 07.03.1978

OSMANOVIĆ MUJO SELMAN 103978183143 01.03.1978

SALKIĆ MEVLID MEHMED 2903978183120 29.03.1978

SULEJMANOVIĆ ŠEVAL ŠEMSO 2003978183138 20.03.1978

ADEMOVIĆ ASIM TAIB 502978183137 05.02.1978

BEĆIROVIĆ NEDŽAD IBRO 2402978183733 24.02.1978

ČOMIĆ MIRZET SULJO 2002978181368 20.02.1978

EJUBOVIĆ AMIR ALIJA 202978183134 02.02.1978

GUŠIĆ MEHARIS MEHO 902978171420 09.02.1978

HUKIĆ ELVEDIN HAJRUDIN 1002978183138 10.02.1978

JUSIĆ AHMO RAMO 15.02.1978

KALIĆ NERMIN HASAN 28.02.1978

KRDŽIĆ RIFET OMER 17.02.1978

MAHMUTOVIĆ MEHMED DURMO 1002978183731 10.02.1978

MEMIĆ NEDŽAD REDŽO 2302978183127 23.02.1978

MUMINOVIĆ MERSUDIN MUNIB 14029781831 14.02.1978

SALIHOVIĆ RASIM OMER 01.02.1978

SELIMOVIĆ NIHAD OMER 2002978183735 20.02.1978

SMAJIĆ HUSREF HUSO 302978183146 03.02.1978

SMAJIĆ ZIJAD HASO 2202978000000 22.02.1978

SULEJMANOVIĆ ADEM ADIL 1002978000000 10.02.1978

SULJIĆ ALMIR BIDO 1702978000000 17.02.1978

ALEMIĆ BAHRUDIN DŽEMO 01.01.1978

ALIĆ ELDIN BEKIR 1201978183130 12.01.1978

ALIĆ SADET ADEM 1601978183120 16.01.1978

ALJIĆ NEDŽAD MUHAMED 801978183126 08.01.1978

BEGIĆ MEVLUDIN MUJO 1301978181353 13.01.1978

ĆATIĆ FARUK ŠEMSO 401978183136 04.01.1978

DERVIŠEVIĆ BEKTO BEHADIL 2201978193126 22.01.1978

DERVIŠEVIĆ SEJAD BEGO 601978000000 06.01.1978

FEJZIĆ SAFET SAKIB 301978183166 03.01.1978

GABELJIĆ ALIJA NEZIR 401978183128 04.01.1978

HODŽIĆ MEHDIN MEHMED 08.01.1978

IBIŠEVIĆ ESMIR MEHMED 2102978181354 21.01.1978

IBRAHIMOVIĆ AZIZ REUF 2801978183131 28.01.1978

JAHIĆ ALIJA HAMED 01.01.1978

JAHIĆ MEVLUDIN MUSTAFA 801978181360 08.01.1978

JAKUBOVIĆ HASAN EDHEM 2101978183121 21.01.1978

KARDAŠEVIĆ AZMIR HUSEJN 901978183139 09.01.1978

KIVERIĆ FIKRET RAMIZ 1002960000000 10.01.1978

MEHMEDOVIĆ AZEM IZET 2501978183154 25.01.1978

MEHMEDOVIĆ OMER HASAN 1001978183204 10.01.1978

MEHMEDOVIĆ SENAD SENAHID 1301978183127 13.01.1978

MUHIĆ ŠEMSO ASIM 301978183158 03.01.1978

MUJIĆ EDIN JUSUF 701978183733 07.01.1978

MUJIĆ HALIL ALIJA 301978183123 03.01.1978

MUJIĆ HASAN SELIM 1801978183138 18.01.1978

MUSTAFIĆ FAKIR SEJDALIJA 1201978183157 12.01.1978

MUSTAFIĆ KADIR EDHEM 901978183147 09.01.1978

NUKIĆ NERMIN RASIM 501978183122 05.01.1978

OMEROVIĆ HUSEIN IBRO 2201978183134 22.01.1978

ORLOVIĆ MUAZ SULEJMAN 101978000000 01.01.1978

OSMANOVIĆ MIRZET IZET 1001980000000 10.01.1978

OSMANOVIĆ NEDŽIB BEGO 01.01.1978

PALALIĆ MIDHAT JUSUF 1801978183146 18.01.1978

SALIHOVIĆ REŠAD REŠID 1201978181359 12.01.1978

SELIMOVIĆ MIRZET AVDO 01.01.1978

SMAJIĆ DŽEVDET HUSEIN 1701978183125 17.01.1978

SMAJLOVIĆ NUSRET ISMET 1501978183126 15.01.1978

ŠABIĆ EJUB ASIM 901978181357 09.01.1978

TALOVIĆ MIRNES MUSTAFA 2101978181358 21.01.1978

ALIĆ JUSMIR JUSUF 812978183128 08.12.1977

BEKTIĆ MUJO SAKIB 712977183146 07.12.1977

ÐOGAZ SAMIR HAMED 12.12.1977

HODŽIĆ FUAD FEHIM 112977183130 01.12.1977

HODŽIĆ JUSUF OSMAN 1512977183124 15.12.1977

KABILOVIĆ MEŠO ADEM 04.12.1977

LJESKOVICA SAFET JUSUF 2812977183148 28.12.1977

MALKIĆ OMER BAJRO 2812977183121 28.12.1977

MUJIĆ MUHAREM MIRALEM 312977181358 03.12.1977

MUMINOVIĆ SEAD SALIH 912977000000 09.12.1977

MUSTAFIĆ MUJEDIN MUJO 1712977183131 17.12.1977

MUSTAFIĆ SALIM IDRIZ 912977183146 09.12.1977

OMEROVIĆ ALIJA RAMO 14.12.1977

OMEROVIĆ ŠEFIK ŠABAN 912977000000 09.12.1977

OSMANOVIĆ ISMAIL HUSEIN 1812977181362 18.12.1977

OSMANOVIĆ SMAIL HUSEIN 1812977181362 18.12.1977

RAHMIĆ ENVER RAHMO 1212977181357 12.12.1977

SINANOVIĆ MIRZET IZET 1912977183130 19.12.1977

CVRK MUSEMIR MUNIB 111977183134 01.11.1977

ČIKARIĆ ELVIR NUSRET 2011977000000 20.11.1977

DEDIĆ ALIM RAGIB 311977000000 03.11.1977

MEHMEDOVIĆ FAHRUDIN AHMET 2311977183122 23.11.1977

MEMIŠEVIĆ MUSTAFA MEHO 511977183124 05.11.1977

OMEROVIĆ ADIB ABID 01.11.1977

OMEROVIĆ ADIB HABIB 111977183126 01.11.1977

SMAJLOVIĆ HAMED MEŠAN 2311977 23.11.1977

BAJRAMOVIĆ TAHIR ŠABAN 310977183129 03.10.1977

DEDIĆ SULEJMAN SULJO 2310977181360 23.10.1977

GURDIĆ MERSUDIN JUNUZ 210977000000 02.10.1977

HAFIZOVIĆ DŽEVAD DŽEMAIL 3010977000000 30.10.1977

HAFIZOVIĆ MUSTAFA IBRAHIM 1110977183158 11.10.1977

HASANOVIĆ MUHAMED HAMED 1110977183123 11.10.1977

HASKIĆ SAMIR ISMAIL 710977183135 07.10.1977

HUSEJNOVIĆ RAMIZ FEHIM 2110977181353 21.10.1977

MAŠIĆ SADMIR SADIJA 2710977181350 27.10.1977

MEHIĆ MEHO IBRAHIM 23.10.1977

MEHMEDOVIĆ RAMO HUSO 410977183131 04.10.1977

NUKIĆ ESAD HASO 1210977181362 12.10.1977

NUKIĆ MEHMEDALIJA ENEZ 910977000000 09.10.1977

NUMANOVIĆ RAŠO RAŠID 1010977183137 10.10.1977

PALIĆ NURIJA SUNO 2910977171427 29.10.1977

SALIĆ HASAN RAMIZ 3110977183139 31.10.1977

SMAJLOVIĆ SALMEDIN JUSUF 610977183122 06.10.1977

TABAKOVIĆ HARIZ RAMIZ 2610977183731 26.10.1977

ABIDOVIĆ FIKRET FERID 610977183920 06.10.1977

AHMETOVIĆ EDIN HIMZO 1010977171422 10.10.1977

ALIĆ NIRSAN SALČIN 510977183128 05.10.1977

BAJRAMOVIĆ BEHUDIN IKAN 810977183148 08.10.1977

ADEMOVIĆ SENAD SULJO 1909977183148 19.09.1977

BEĆIROVIĆ MEVLUDIN MEŠAN 12.09.1977

BEKTIĆ KIRAM SEAD 2009977183140 20.09.1977

DERVIŠEVIĆ NIJAZ ŠABAN 209977183746 02.09.1977

HAJDAREVIĆ AZMIR ZEJNIL 2609977181358 26.09.1977

HAMZIĆ RIZO ISMET 1509977183131 15.09.1977

HODŽIĆ SEDIF ISMET 05.09.1977

IBRIĆ HARIZ ALIJA 309977181355 03.09.1977

JAHIĆ NIHAD AZEM 2809977181357 28.09.1977

JAŠAREVIĆ IZUDIN IBRO 2609977183121 26.09.1977

MAHMUTOVIĆ EMSAD AVDURAHMAN 809977181368 08.09.1977

MEHMEDOVIĆ ALMIR ABDULAH 809977183123 08.09.1977

MUJČINOVIĆ RAMIZ OMER 209977183738 02.09.1977

MUJIĆ MUJO MUSTAFA 2809977183139 28.09.1977

MUŠKIĆ BERIZ ŠABO 2209977183735 22.09.1977

OMEROVIĆ AHMEDIN AHMO 2409977183130 24.09.1977

RAMIĆ ERMIN ABDURAHMAN 1509977183956 15.09.1977

UVALIĆ MENSUR OSMAN 1209977183758 12.09.1977

BEKRIĆ MEHO AHMO 2008977183144 20.08.1977

BURIĆ EDIN AHMO 1708977183126 17.08.1977

ÐOZIĆ SEMIR EDHEM 1408977183122 14.08.1977

HASANOVIĆ AHMO ALIJA 608977181370 06.08.1977

HUKIĆ SIDIK ZUHRIJA 208977183138 02.08.1977

HUREMOVIĆ MUSTAFA HASAN 1408980000000 14.08.1977

HUREMOVIĆ SAMIR MEŠAN 1908977000000 19.08.1977

HUSEJNOVIĆ SADIK OHRAN 2308977000000 23.08.1977

MALAGIĆ HALID HADŽO 1108977181355 11.08.1977

MANDŽIĆ ESAD ENEZ 3008977183741 30.08.1977

MEHMEDOVIĆ RAMIZ MEHMED 15.08.1977

MUJIĆ ZENUDIN HAJRUDIN 608977183128 06.08.1977

MUMINOVIĆ MENSUR MEHMEDALIJA 808977183135 08.08.1977

MUSIĆ ISMET HUSEIN 908977181358 09.08.1977

MUSIĆ SEAD OSMAN 1508977183739 15.08.1977

OMEROVIĆ HAJRUDIN RASIM 608977183136 06.08.1977

SALIHOVIĆ MIRZET SELMAN 808977183127 08.08.1977

SALKIĆ ELVIS ABDULAH 208977183154 02.08.1977

ZUKANOVIĆ SEAD IBRAHIM 2608977183125 26.08.1977

ALJKANOVIĆ BEHUDIN SAFET 2707977183131 27.07.1977

BEKRIĆ HAMED JUSUF 1507977183147 15.07.1977

DELIĆ ŠAHBAZ ŠABAN 3007977183745 30.07.1977

DŽANANOVIĆ MUSTAFA ŠAĆIR 14079771831 14.07.1977

FEJZIĆ RIJAD ŠABAN 2407977183138 24.07.1977

HASANOVIĆ MUMIN HAŠIM 2907977171426 29.07.1977

HASIĆ ZEMIR EDHEM 2307977183124 23.07.1977

HODŽIĆ ŠABAN NEZIR 1807977183124 18.07.1977

MUMINOVIĆ ZAIM REDŽO 2707977183735 27.07.1977

MUSTAFIĆ MEHO NEZIR 2607977183129 26.07.1977

NUMANOVIĆ SEID RAŠID 16.07.1977

OSMANOVIĆ MIRNES AZEM 20.07.1977

PITAREVIĆ ELVEDIN HUSO 2107977183126 21.07.1977

SELIMOVIĆ SANEL SALIH 1507980000000 15.07.1977

SMAJIĆ AZMIR HAMID 2407977183316 24.07.1977

SMAJLOVIĆ SAMIR RAMIZ 15.07.1977

SULJANOVIĆ NEHRUDIN IDRIZ 2807977183128 28.07.1977

SULJIĆ MUHAREM HAMDIJA 1807977183132 18.07.1977

Note: Srebrenica victims are subsequently buried in Srebrenica - Potocari Memorial and Cementery. As of 2008, more then 3200 DNA identified victims are buried there. Memorial Center of Potocari ( September 2008): 3215 victims already buried,

     of them - children:
     13,5 - 14 years old: 3
     14 y. old: 9
     15 y. old: 31
     16 y. old: 56
     17 y. old: 76
     -------------
     total:  175           

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.191.3.222 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 

Infobox/Summary

This article is in painful need of some type of summary box that briefly presents data/numbers. Especially, given the length of the article.70.171.46.92 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Myself and others have mentioned the need for a type of summary or table. The article is long and with lots of details, it is difficult to get an overview of the facts (number of missing, killed, identified, cause of death etc). Mondeo (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I second that. I also think there could be a bit more in the intro (just a line or two even) summarising the actual events, partly because as it stands, and (IMHO) even the name 'Srebrenica Massacre', suggests it was a single, one-off massacre when it was essentially a series of massacres. An article I saw in one of the UK papers the other day (probably the Independent, as that's the one I read) summarised it that way. Jonathanmills (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Children are Under 18 (PROOF)

National Center for Missing Kids in the United States ( http://www.missingkids.com/ ) defines a child as any person up to the age of 18. You can find pictures and other information of missing kids up to their age of 18. Additionally, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." So, why are you against the term CHILD? Are you denying that the Serb Army killed at least 500 children? 24.82.182.47 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Jonathanmills (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not use such words, but yes, I agree with JM. Mondeo (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry to be a little harsh, but I just meant that NOBODY here has been 'denying that the Serb Army killed at least 500 children'; the argument was over a different point entirely. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog reference again

Sombody added this citation in the intro, I moved it here for discussion: "Partial list of child victims, [8] The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." "

Blogs are not acceptable as a source of facts, according to the discussion above.

In addition, the edits seemed to mess up the intro, hope my fixes are OK.Regards, Mondeo (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Women and girls

An anonymous editor also added statements about women and girls, somewhat unspecific info and no specific citation. I am not sure if this statement belongs in the intro. Mondeo (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced info

Moved here for reference: "It took two months for the Srebrenica Massacre story to break. The NY Times headline of 18 July 1995 (by-line Chris Hedges) reported that 3,000 to 4,000 Muslims who were reported missing after the fall of Srebrenica (11 July 1995) had "slipped" through Serbian lines to safety in Tuzla. Hedges himself said the Muslim fighters were armed and fighting the 50 some miles through hostile country to Muslim-held territory. US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright told a closed session of the Security Council on 11 August 1995 that 2,000 to 2,700 Bosnians from the Srebrenica enclave were missing and might have been shot by the Bosnian Serbs. The Red Cross reported in September that 8000 Muslim men were missing. The first report of a "Srebrenica Massacre of 8000 men and boys" was in late September 1995." Mondeo (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not "Moslems," it's Muslims. 24.82.176.183 (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What?? Mondeo (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass graves: victims identified through DNA and buried at the Memorial Center

Some large mass graves: victims identified through DNA and buried at the Memorial Center of Potocari

1. Cerska Valley

  Total: 137 victims, 9 of them under 18y.old (15y:1,16y:4,17y:4)

2. Kravice

  Primary mass graves Glogova 1,2
  
  2003: 178  2004: 53  2005: 78  2006: 72  2007: 40  2008: 17
  Total: 438 victims

  Secondary mass grave Zeleni Jadar: 180 victims

  Total: 618 victims, 56 of them under 18 (14y:1,15y:9,16y:13,17y:33)

3. Grbavci and Orahovac

  Primary mass graves Lazete 1,2
  Secondary mass graves Hadzici Road 3,4,5
  
  2003: 211  2004: 39  2005: 72  2006: 34  2007: 28  2008: 9
  
  Total: 393 victims, 19 of them under 18 (13y:1,14y:2,15y:4,16y:5,17y:7)

4. Kozluk

  Primary mass grave 
  
  2003: 104  2004: 39  2005: 53  2006: 31  2007: 25  2008: 7
  Total: 259 victims

  Secondary mass grave Cancari Road 3: 68 victims

  Total: 327 victims, 19 of them under 18 (14y:5,15y:3,16y:7,17y:4)

5. Pilice (Zvornik)

  Primary mass grave Branjevo Farm: 94 victims
  Secondary mass grave Cancari Road 12: 54 victims
  
     
  Total: 148 victims, 9 of them under 18 (15y:4,16y:3,17y:2)

6. Cancari Road 2,5,7,11,13

  2003: 20  2004: 80  2005: 116  2006: 60  2007: 50  2008: 39
  
  
  Total: 365 victims, 12 of them under 18 (14y:1,15y:1,16y:6,17y:4)

7. Kamenica 10

  2007: 13  2008: 115
  
  
  Total: 128 victims, 4 of them under 18 (15y:1,16y:2,17y:1)

8. Nova Kasaba

  Total: 94 victims, 5 of them under 18 (15y:3,17y:2)

Victims identified through DNA and buried at the Memorial Center of Potocari - total:

  2003: 989  2004: 338 2005: 610  2006: 505  2007: 465  2008: 308
  
  Total: 3215 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.177.27 (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 

Latest news

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080924/wl_nm/us_bosnia_graveint Bosnian experts unearth more Srebrenica bodies

Just came out, in case its found to be good to add to the someone can incorporate it. Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I watched photos of mass grave exhumations in Kamenica "death valley." That was the 10th mass grave in the valley. Horrible.

There were 11 babies in a mass grave, FENA reported. Anybody has English source, so we can incorporate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.181.37 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a Srebrenica Genocide

This article's default location should be changed to Srebrenica Genocide, not Srebrenica Massacre. The reasons are obvious. This was genocide. Unfortunately, there is a group of editors that resists facts and they helped vote down many factual propositions in the past, so I am asking administrator to set this articles default location to Srebrenica Genocide.

This is not only a question about facts, but also a question about interpretation or "naming/framing" of facts. "Genocide" is the interpretation chosen by the court in Haag, also widely accepted by the international community. However, "massacre" is more descriptive of the events at Srebrenica. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

=> Oh please, spare me your philosophy. Johnathanmills invited you to come so and work this article so you can cause problems and deny genocide (interestingly, you used "Quotations" when you refered to Genocide.). At least you showed us your true leanings. Srebrenica genocide is not an interpretation, it's a fact, whether you want to accept it or not. Bosniak (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's not get personal. The name used is clearly important. Naming something as "genocide" (quotation marks are used to single out terms, it is not ironic) requires much more interpretation than naming something as "massacre", because a number of criteria must be satisfied for something to be called "genocide". Haag ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide, I am fine with that, I am not trying to deny it or cause problems, "massacre" (or perhaps plural "massacres") is still a more neutral and descriptive term. Thousands of men and boys were killed at Srebrenica, that is a massacre. Please drop the ridicolous accusations. Johnathanmills never invited me (he welcomed me), I am not trying to deny anything, I am not trying to cause problems, I do not have any "leanings" (except a commitment to truth and fairness). Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, editors who don't think the article should be titled 'Srebrenica Genocide' are not 'resisting facts', they are simply following the instruction for Wikipedia to REFLECT the most common terminology. If you google "Srebrenica genocide" (with the quote marks, so you only get those two words together in that order) you will get around 35,000 hits; do it with "Srebrenica massacre" you will get almost 100,000. Case closed. Jonathanmills (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

=> You trully surprise me with your false analogy. Of course Srebrenica Massacre word is more commong, because it was used since 1995, while Srebrenica genocide was used after the first genocide conviction. Remember, the first Srebrenica genocide conciction (Krstic) came in 2001. So stop manipulating and distorting facts. Bosniak (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is fair to say that it "also known as SG", but I think that "SM" should be used as the default title, partly because this is widely used and more descriptive/neutral. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC) .

Indeed, I think it is highly questionable to say that the SM is even 'also known as SG', as our opening sentence does. Take the two references given for this claim:

a) a TIME Magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,169877,00.html

b) a BBC online article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7461310.stm;

c) tacked on to (b) is the note that 'the SM has been established as genocide by the ICTY'

Regarding (a), the TIME Magazine article uses the formulation only in the headline; in the body of the article it refers to the Srebrenica massacre. Now, to anyone who understands headline writing, it is extremely misleading to use a headline as an example of what something's official title is.

What I mean is, articles about, say, the Columbine massacre probably referred to 'Columbine horror' or 'Columbine bloodbath' or whatever, but they're DESCRIPTIONS of the event, not its official moniker. The official moniker will (probably) be used in the body of the text, however, and when the TIME article actually does, it calls it the Srebrenica massacre, NOT the Srebrenica genocide.

Regarding (b), the formulation 'Srebrenica genocide' occurs nowhere in the text; and when it refers to the event, it calls it the Srebrenica massacre. The only reason this article is used, as far as I can see, is that it does indeed contain the word 'genocide', as in: "[t]he Srebrenica massacre has been established as genocide by the [ICTY]" -- which is also the note attached to the reference, ie (c) above.

But saying that the SM has been established as genocide is IN NO WAY evidence for the claim that the SM 'is also known as SG'.

Given the above, I'm going to actually remove the statement, which I know will cause howls of outrage (and/or a quick removal); however let me state clearly that if some decent evidence is found and provided as reference for the claim, I will of course not object to its re-insertion.

Finally, the anonymous editor said he was bringing in an administrator to look at this issue. If the administrator is reading this, I would like to raise the issue that apparently all the links to this page (eg in the Srebrenica (town) page, etc) refer to the SG, not the SM. While I don't have the energy (at the moment, anyway) to get into edit-battles on other pages, I do think this should not stand, particularly if there is no good evidence that the SM is even alternatively titled the SG.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

=> No you will not remove it, because I will insert it back, and then you go ahead and violate 3 revert rule. You are rude, one sided and offensive and you treat wikipedia as your own playbox. First you show google as an example and point out 35,000 or so "Srebrenica Genocide" terms as opposed to 100,000 "Srebrenica Massacre" terms. Then you claim that Srebrenica Genocide is not even valid term. Come on man, do you think that we are stupid? You should be removed from this article altogether, because you are not objective. You are here to deny genocide and destroy the truth about thousands of Bosniaks who suffered at the hands of Serb terrorists in Srebrenica. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22srebrenica+genocide%22&meta= Bosniak (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, Bosniak is advised to focus on improving the article rather attacking other editors. I don't think Bosniak has the power to rule that other editors are not "objective". So please stop it. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the same advice be given to Johnathanmills? I am not defending Bosniak, but Jonathanmills has been deleting important parts of the article, which provoved other editors. 207.194.55.89 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got some points although I do not fully agree. In my country the event is consistenly refered to as "massacre", whereas similar events during the war is occasionally and vaguely refered to as "the genocides" in Bosnia. After the ruling in Haag the it is often pointed out that the "Srebrenica massacre" was an "act of genocide". So I agree that it somewhat imprecise to say that it is "also known as SG", but it is not misleading in my opinion to. But again, I think the title should not be changed. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

=> Of course it's not misleading to call Srebrenica Massacre = Srebrenica Genocide. It's only misleading if you listen to pro-Serb propagandist Johnathanmills who is using his spare time (and he has a lot of spare time) to diminish the significance of the Srebrenica genocide, and to insult Srebrenica genocide survivors. Unfortunately, wikipedia administrators tolerate this kind of behavior and block/ban objective editors who stand up against Johnathanmills' pro-Serb-terrorist leanings. Bosniak (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has reverted my change on the grounds that it is a 'revisionist edit using bogus arguments'. To the contrary, it is those who insist on saying that the SM 'is also known as [the] SG' who are using bogus arguments, claiming that:

a) the fact that the SM has been established as genocide by the ICTY (undoubtedly true) is some sort of proof that the event *is known as [the] SG*;

b) the fact that 'SG' turns up in a Google search means that it is in fact an alternative title for the events at Srebrenica.

Now, (a) is transparently incorrect, so I'll turn to (b).

The main issue here is, in the references to the words 'Srebrenica genocide', are they actually referring to events as 'the SG' -- ie, is 'the SG' an alternative title for 'the SM'? And I think you'll find (I certainly have) that established English-language sources do not refer to the SM as 'the SG', *even where the words 'SG' appear together*.

Take the following example, from the UK's Independent newspaper (and this is a very recent article. contrary to User:Bosniak's claims, the SM has not become known as 'the SG' since the ICTY verdict):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/karadzic-supporters-riot-in-belgrade-as-seven-jailed-for-srebrenica-genocide-880325.html

Now, the headline reads: "Karadzic supporters riot in Belgrade as seven jailed for Srebrenica genocide".

However, in the two occasions in the body of the text where the events are specifically mentioned, it calls them 'the SM'.

Indeed, I have yet to find ANY established English-language sources which refer to the SM as 'the SG', so until editors can provide some, this phrase does not belong in the article.

Finally, I received the following message from User:Bosniak in my inbox today:

First of all, other editors have agreed to use the term Srebrenica genocide. Who are you to say that you will remove it? We will insert it back. That term has been used on Srebrenica genocide article for a long time, and who are you to threaten other editors? Who gives you right to threaten anybody? You think you can change the fact that what Serb terrorists had done to Srebrenica was nothing more but Srebrenica genocide? I sometimes surprise myself, why am I even wasting time on you. All you want is attention, and you're getting it by blatantly abusing wikipedia's policies.

Firstly, the fact that other editors have agreed to use the term SG means nothing if the claim does not have a solid base in fact -- ie, the claim that the SM 'is also known as [the] SG'. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and to treat it as such is in fact a 'blatant abuse of Wikipedia's policies'.

Secondly, as far as I'm aware, I haven't threatened anyone -- whereas I find receiving a message like the above, and being told I'm 'rude, offensive' and 'pro-terrorist', etc, would much more accurately fit that definition.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the strangest disputes I have ever stumbled across on WP. Of course it's OK to refer to it as genocide, the International Criminal Tribunal ruled it was one, and multiple highly reliable international media sources have used the term, referenced in this article itself. How much proof do you need? There's no need for anyone to threaten anyone, consensus is for its inclusion, and there has not been one argument remotely persuasive enough to counter the referenced opinions of the international community on the matter. These are all facts, there's no POV about it, it has been decided by a court and the term has since been used widely. Removing the term would be POV in light of this fact. Mfield (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnathanmills, I've been watching your edits and arguments, and you are the main cause of problems. True, other people disrupt this article too, but you are the main "culprit" causing trouble here. To suggest that Srebrenica massacre was not Srebrenica genocide is beyond comprehension. I am not getting involved with this "hell of an article." This article is a private page of Johnathanmills and his wikipedia friends. 209.53.181.70 (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, let's rewind to how this discussion started. One anonymous editor wanted to change the article to "SG" as the default (instead of the current "SM"). I think that the current version is satisfactory because the intro reflects the fact that it is regarded as a genocide (also as ruled in Haag), while the title uses a descriptive terminology. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful to review the move request from March 2007, which resulted in a lack of consensus for such a change. (The archived discussion is available here.) The discussion there found that while "genocide" was certainly in use, the majority of web and news references were for "massacre". As well, the ICJ judgement used both terms almost equally throughout the document. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, here I am again, and I am just going to explain my position again, mention some new findings of mine, and my current stance regarding this edit dispute.

Some people are still arguing that the fact that there was a genocide at Srebrenica (more specifically, that the ICTY found there was one) MEANS that the SM 'is also known as the SG'. But these two things are logically totally unrelated. There was a genocide against Jews and Gypsies/Roma during World War II; this does not mean that a common name for the Holocaust/Shoah is 'The Jewish and Gypsy Genocide'. Capisci? (Incidentally, 'common names' are what Wikipedia refers to as being worthy of inclusion as alternative titles for subjects, namely: what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.)

So, we get to the question of what 'verifiable reliable sources in English' refer to the SM as.

Now, I conducted an interesting experiment. Because in English, we use the definite article 'the' when referring to the name of a specific event (the Battle of Midway, the Columbine massacre, etc etc), I tried comparing the phrases 'the Srebrenica massacre' with 'the Srebrenica genocide'.

'SM' by itself turned up some 90,000 hits (funny how quickly these things change; yesterday it was almost 100,000. But anyway.) "The SM" turns up just over 40,000. Now, just to remove obvious blogs, I tried removing 'blogspot' and 'wordpress' from my search, along with 'newscloud' (which often references to blogs, and in any case is presumably nothing more than a double-up of existing online stories -- Newscloud simply links to external news or blog sites). Result: about 35,000 hits. Scrolling through the first few pages of these, it is easy to see 'verifiable reliable sources': well-known Western journals.

'SG' by itself turns up some 35,000 hits. However, applying the same filters as above, we end up with a grand total of...849 hits. Yep, you read that right.

What this means is that the vast, vast majority of references to the SM as 'the Srebrenica Genocide' come from blogs. And blogs are by no means 'verifiable reliable sources'.

Now, scrolling through that much smaller list (although I still only made it to around the first 100 hits), I did actually come across a very small handful of RS's which referred to 'the Srebrenica genocide' (interestingly, all of them also, and primarily, referred to it as 'the Srebrenica massacre', but that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion).

SO... while I am prepared to let this one go (although I will change the reference for the claim to make it more accurate), I think it ought to be noted that calling the SM 'the SG' is really pretty damn uncommon in English RS's. I think if editors were truly objective on this issue, they would agree that it is misleading to say that 'the SG' is a *common name* for the SM ('common names' are, remember, what Wikipedia considers worthy of inclusion as alternate descriptors in articles).

Cheers all Jonathanmills (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on Jonathanmills Google experiment and previous (and arhcived) arguments about the ruling in den Haag etc , it seems like keeping "SM" as the default title while also retaining the phrase "also known as SG" in the intro is a good solution to this dispute. No change, in other words. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to add: I did Jonathanmills test in Scandinavian language google (to compare to this english version). The terms equivalent to "the SM" is some 10 times more frequent in newsmedia than "the SG", this is true when looking at the period after the ruling in Haag. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks Mondeo. I was just going to add that my final position is that it IS something of a fudge to argue that '[the] Srebrenica Genocide' is a 'common name' for the Srebrenica Massacre; however given that it is used at least occasionally by mainstream English sources, and in the interests of editor harmony, I am not going to pursue the issue. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeated your analysis in Scandinavian languages (which tend to follow English language conventions closely) now on deep backfiles covering all published material (including material appearing only on print and material not freely available on the web). The pattern is very clear: "genocide" is used in conjunction with "Srebrenica" mostly in the indefinite form, often referring to "the Srebrenica massacre" as "a genocide"; "massacre" is mostly used in the definite form as "the Srebrenica massacre". In a few articles "the SG" is used interchangebly with "the SM". The term "genocide" was occaisionally used before the ruling in Haag, and the frequency did not changed radically after the ruling. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Impressive work, Watson! ;-) Cheers Mondeo. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Johnstone's article

Some editors keeps deleting the reference to Johnstone's article where she argues that the number of victims may be less than 8000. Johnstone's article is in the section on "alternative views". Nobody is saying that Johnstone is right (that she is a reliable source for facts), but her article is a well-known example of "alternative views". Please stop deleting this sentence. If you believe that the sentence is inaccurate, please improve it rather than deleting it. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

- It cannot be improved because Johnathanmills reverts all improvements. 207.194.55.89 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be discussed on Talk, consensus reached, and the improvements made. That way if anyone decides they WP:OWN the article and reverts consensus decisions unilaterally they will be violating policy and further action can be taken. Continuing edit warring won't solve or change anything except to maybe get everyone involved blocked. Mfield (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus on removing the reference to Johnstone's article. It has been there for some time, and there seems to be a consensus on calling that section "alternative views". Johnstone's view is alternative in that it questions widely accepted estimates. 207.194.55.89, please stop attacking other editors. I (not Jonathanmills) reverted the deletion because I was not at all convinced by the reasons for doing so. Please provide clear arguments and let us reach a consensus. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just tell me to 'stop attacking other editors'. I'll assume some good faith and that you must have been replying to the poster above, as I have done no such thing. You should really be more careful with your indents. Mfield (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, Mfield, Mondeo did address his comments to 207.194.55.89 'by name'. :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually no he didn't, he has since edited the comment to correct the indent and add in the IP address so it reads correctly. This is the problem with editing comments after the fact, the timeline gets messed up. Mfield (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My apologies, Mfield. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. That message was for anonymous editor 207.194.55.89. regards, Mondeo (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User Wolbo again deleted the reference to Johnstone's article. I have no tried to improve the sentence to more accuratly reflect Johnstone's main point as suggested by Wolbo. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnathanmills

No offence, but I believe Johnathanmills should temporary stay away from this article. He is causing too much disruption and deleting important parts of the article. 207.194.55.89 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)— 207.194.55.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Disagree. He is not better or worse than others with regard to deleting important parts. Disruption is not a good criteria for exclusion, there is no reason for such censorship. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Johnathanmills should show restraint, and Bosniak should also do the same. 209.53.181.70 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The "problem" I have with Johnatanmills is his pro Serb nationalist POV which he takes without any criticism.In a sick way he tries to bring some "balance" between armed paramilitary mercenaries (some were even members of some nazi organizations) and unarmed civilians and children. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you for your input. I haven't asked anybody to vote. This article cannot be improved with Johnathanmills' presence, because he is constantly reverting all improvements made by other editors. 207.194.55.89 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, where have I been reverting improvements to the article? Examples? I recall a while back I was engaged in a revert-war (during which I admit to showing an unforgiveable lack of decorum) regarding whether the Bosniak who killed the Dutch UN soldier was 'panicking'; however that was not an 'improvement' but a falsehood (or at least, it contradicted RS's) -- even Fairview sided with me on that one. Jonathanmills (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment to the IPs whose sole contributions are to complain about Jonathanmills: this page is not the appropriate place to discuss such matters. If you feel there is an issue with a particular editor, a more appropriate forum would be the Wikiquette alerts page or the dispute resolution page. Discussion here should remain focussed on the article subject. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

95% of editors on this page are trying to focus on the this article itself but get annoyed by Johnatanmills obstructing them to do so.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My Comment: Johnathanmills has showed his real face. The guy is not trying to improve anything. He is only trying to annoy other editors and diminish the significance of the Srebrenica genocide. He even removed the term Srebrenica Genocide and he even lowered the figure from 8,373 victims down to 8,000. He deleted many important sections of the article even though people like Mondeo asked editors not to do it. I have made an edit inserting 8,373 dead plus reference source, read here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1037403/Europes-worst-genocide-Hitler-How-Dutch-peacekeepers-looked-Karadzics-men-butchered-8-000-Srebrenica.html and as you will see, Johnathanmills will continue disruption by deleting other editors' contributions. He is not here to improve the article, he is here to delete what other editors already improved. Bosniak (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let us stop these attacks and focus on the article. The actual number might possibly be 8,373 or 8,374 or 8,372. This is still an estimate because a much lower number has so far been found in mass graves. Presenting an exact number gives the false impression that this is the right number. Bosniak added a sentence regarding "harmless old men...." in the introduction, this is already mentioned once in the introduction so I think it is redundant and should be merged with the existing sentence. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought I should leave a comment on a topic devoted to me! (even if it is misspelled :-)

Actually, I just wanted to clarify why I'd reverted Bosniak's edit: it's a reference from ONE article (albeit from a 'RS') which conflicts with what the bulk of RS's are saying (this is regarding the numbers issue) -- and while I agree with Mondeo that it cannot really be certain to be factually correct, I am mindful of the fact that Wikipedia favours 'verifiability, not truth' (which I think is a somewhat unfortunate prescription, however I can understand why it was adopted).

As for the 'many were harmless old men, women and children', I think the rather loaded word here is 'many'. Actually, the ICTY found that a very small proportion of the 8000 were women, or males over 65 or under 15 (and let's not get back into the 'are 15-18s children' dispute again!) :-)

Cheers all Jonathanmills (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Concensus

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of roughly 10,000 Bosniak civilians in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War.

People who favor the first sentence above, place your signatures here: Bosniak Atheist (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

People who do not favor the first sentence above, place your signatures here:

What aspect of the sentence? You changed the number of victims to 10,000 despite the long discussion on this and without reliable source. The issue of "SM" vs "SG" is already being discussed in separate section. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

' roughly 10,000 Bosniak civilians ' that part is absolutely likely to satisfy all sides, since it mentions the important word 'roughly' as new mass graves are constantly discovered and the number of perished can never by default be reliable. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

8,373 is the highest reliably sourced figure I've seen and that's what should be listed as the highest confirmed number. Speculations or rough estimates of unconfirmed deaths do not belong on an encyclopedia unless there are reliable sources that these estimates come from respected and trustworthy authorities on the subject. I don't see this as being the case but I have no objection to adding it if you can source and verify it. 10,000 may very well be true, but truth is not enough for Wikipedia, it must be verifiable. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We have to use the word roughly, as the opposite would have to be a precise number of victims, and logic would suggest that would be an impossible claim, right? Bosniak Atheist (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bosniak Atheist, you appear to be unaware that Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of factual material is 'verifiability, not truth' (see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Verifiability is based on so-called 'reliable sources', basically respected academic journals or mainstream media reports.

Actually I find this a somewhat odd prescription, but I can understand why it exists (it's probably going to give the factually correct answer the majority of the time, and it avoids arguments over truth which could just go on forever).

Now, most RS's DO NOT say that 10,000 died at Srebrenica; therefore the article should not state it, *even if it is true*, it's as simple as that.

I think 'estimated 8,000' is probably about the right formulation, given that some RS's put the figure as (arguably) a shade lower:

• BBC: 'more than 7,000' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm)
• NY Times: 'up to 8,000' (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/international/europe/11serb.html)
• PBS (American public television): 'more than 7000' http://www.pbs.org/wnet/cryfromthegrave/about/about.html)
• USA Today (America's biggest daily): 'As many as 8,000' (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-17-srebrenica_x.htm)

..while others (can't be bothered listing all the links, but I just looked through the first 50 hits on Google), including CNN, the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent (major UK dailies), MSNBC (US television network) and the International Herald Tribune have the figure as either exactly 8,000, or a couple have 'over 8,000'.

As for calling them all civilians, no RS's do that, preferring our own formulation of 'men and boys'; I don't think many people deny that at least SOME of the victims were not 'civilians' (not that executing soldiers is legal or proper, of course).

As for having a vote on the matter, that is completely the wrong way to go about it: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we shouldn't be violating the fundamental rule of basing factual claims on RS's just because a majority here wants to (not saying they actually do, but if they did).

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnathanmills, you are using cheap shots now. We can come up with references to 8,372 as well with references to 10,000. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1037403/Europes-worst-genocide-Hitler-How-Dutch-peacekeepers-looked-Karadzics-men-butchered-8-000-Srebrenica.html Whether you recognize Srebrenica genocide or not is your own business. But don't twist facts, ok? Try your games at the Holocaust article or Armenian Genocide article and I am sure you will be banned very quickly for disruption and deletion of paragraphs that other editors added as improvements. 207.194.55.89 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks on named editors. This is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)@Bosniak Atheist: So you're suggesting to round off 8,373 to 10,000? That's a little too rough, in my opinion. 8,000 or 8,500 might be more appropriate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

where did this number game come from? Even victims recognize the number of 8372, not 10000 etc.? --Harac (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Go to NGO Srebrenica Women page and you will see 10,000 names. 207.194.55.89 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is everyone ignoring the word 'roughly' being aggressive, this smells to me of Genocide denial gang, please read the article in detail. By the way new mass graves are found all the time, genocide casualties can never have the word 'roughly' removed from it if we use logic, since a new mass grave can be discovered 50 years later. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not in the business of guessing what could happen 50 years from now, we report on material that's been previously published and that is reliable. 10,000 fits no criteria for inclusion on this encyclopedia. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just by the by, the 8372 number is the number of 'MISSING OR killed' (emphasis mine). In any event, given the run-down of what RS's put the figure at that I've posted just above, and given that this is the ONLY thing which matters, I would say 'estimated 8000' is bang-on. Jonathanmills (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jonathanmills, you removed one reference regarding "Scorpions", I guess it is relevant although the information is not verifiabel (or verfied). Something someone mentioned in a single interview is not very strong evidence, I would like to see independent sources for this claim. And yes, "estimated" is the right word. This word implies that it is the best guess at the moment, while at the same time indicating that uncertainty remains regarding the true number. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mondeo, yeah, well, there are already two other references for the statement that the Scorpions participated (one from the Washington Post), so I don't think there's any problem with it in terms of verifiability anyway. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, reading too fast. Mondeo (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I favor the first sentence, although I would like the term "Srebrenica Massacre" to be change into Srebrenica Genocide. Here is another reference for Srebrenica genocide term: http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=347560&apc_state=henh 207.194.55.89 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A search of Google books returns "49 on "Srebrenica genocide"" and "628 on "Srebrenica massacre"" Google Scholar "72 for "Srebrenica genocide"" and "about 546 for "Srebrenica massacre"". "Srebrenica massacre" is the most common term (Use the most easily recognized name). --PBS (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Here is a reference to 10,000 + clarification http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Source_for_10.2C000_Srebrenica_Genocide_Victims . Bosniak (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosniak Atheist

Please don't confuse user Bosniak Atheist with user Bosniak. I welcome user Bosniak Atheist to participate and help us improve this article, but please note that we are two different people. I have noted long time ago on my user page that I am an Atheist, so some people might think that user Bosniak Atheist and user Bosniak = same individual which is not true. Bosniak (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody at least respond to my comment. Thank you. Bosniak (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What, this one? Yeah, I saw it: you and Bosniak Atheist are not the same person, even though you are also a Bosniak atheist ;-) Jonathanmills (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Source for 10,000 Srebrenica Genocide Victims

Since Johnathanmills has raised this issue on a number of occassions, I feel it is appropriate to provide valid references to this claim. So far, DNA supports 8,000+ killed in Srebrenica (see archived press release with original reference to International Commission for Missing Persons in charge of DNA identification [9]). Unfortunately, 10,000 is the number of missing relatives, and this can be verified directly with the NGO Mothers of Srebrenica, here is the link [10], quote: The task of this NGO is not to fight for women rights. The task is to search for more than 10,000 people missing in European largest massacre, committed by Bosnian Serb army, on July 11, 1995, in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please read the introduction article to find out more about this. Bosniak (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is an English translation of the pages you wish to show then please link to that. English Home page "Please read the introduction article to find out more about this." Unfortunately the introduction repeats the claim of 10,000 without giving a source for the claim. Has the Bosnian NGO Citizens Associations "WOMEN OF SREBRENICA" a register of dead and missing? If so where is this stated and has it been verified by a neutral third party? Or did they get their information from another source? If so what is it? --PBS (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

They are primary source. They don't need third party. Those are the names of 10,000 of their relatives. Here is a list of names of 10,000 victims with all their info: http://www.srebrenica.ba/nestali/NESTALI.txt What else do you need? God from heaven to come and tell you that Serbs slaughtered 10,000 Bosniaks? Sorry, he is busy. Bosniak (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced. As PBS suggests, if this indeed a robust estimate of missing or killed it should reflected in documents of neutral third parties. I propose that we keep it open until independent sources verify this number. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bosniak, thank you for providing the link to "NESTALI.txt". However I find the file confusing. AFAICT there are only 7335 lines in the file. Also there seem to be two different formats in the file with the format changing on line 6521. Please could you explain the difference. Line 6521 includes column headings which are not in English which might help with an explanation if they were translated:

ID prezime ime spol imeOca mjestoRod opstinaRod mjestoNest datRod datNest

Wrong. There are over 12,000 lines of text. Your slow internet connection stops your browser too early. Get a high speed connection so you can download all 12,000 lines of text. As to the Bosnian language translation --- Last Name, Name, Gender, Name of Father, Birthplace, Municipality, etc. 24.82.176.190 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that when saving it as a text file and using vim as an editor I have made mistakes. What do you think is on line 5045. In the text file I saved that line is the first out of sequence and reads "5046 Mehic Šahin Šaban .." do you have a line that starts "5045 ..." in your file?

The next number in the sequence missing is 5620 instead line 5619 reads "5621 Hrustic Semir ..." (+ 2 because 2 line missing) do you have a line that starts "5620 ..." in your file?

There are no other numbers in the sequence missing down to line that starts "ID prezime ..." which as I said is on line 6521. In the last 813 lines of the file numbers although sorted have lots of gaps. For example the last two lines are:

• 12619 Zukic Fahrudin M Jusuf Susnjari Srebrenica Baljkovica 18.3.1975 12.7.1995
• 12630 Zukic Jusuf M Ibro Susnjari Srebrenica Forest Srebrenica 1946-00-00 12.7.1995

IE the sequence jumps 11. Or for example there are in the last part of the file 12 entries for Muminovic but the sequence numbers go from 8485 to 8579 or 94 places. Given such a sequence jump and that the maximum number in the file is 12630 what makes you think that there are 12,000 lines of text? What software are you using to count the lines?

The lines before the line that starts ID must be in a different column format as the fourth column seems to be a date. Do you know what the format is? --PBS (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that there seems to be some similarity between some of the names before and after line 6521, but because I can not understand all of the words on a line, it could be because like "John Smith" the name is not unique. For example the name Ademovic Ahmet appears on the lines that start "5496 Ademovic Ahmet" and "102 Ademovic Ahmet ..." and both lines have the dates 3.10.1961 and 11.07.95 --PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sooo? That is a preliminary list. What do you expect? 24.82.176.190 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that if we are going to consider using the number 10,000 in the article based on the statement in the URL introduction that "10,000 people slaughtered and missing in a bloodbath organized, prepared, and commanded by the notorious Bosnian Serb Army Commander, General Ratko Mladic..." and if the file "NESTALI.txt" is the reliable primary source to support the statement, that "NESTALI.txt" would contain 10,000 unique entries. --PBS (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a change in the estimate from 8,000 to 10,000 should not be based on a preliminary list (possibly with errors) only? I am a bit puzzled by this. Why is this the only list the reaches the number of 10,000 (or more)? If the list is a reliable primary source, why is it not reflected in other reports/docouments? Regards, Mondeo (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

References Being Deleted?

Why are valid references being constantly deleted? For example, another valid reference [11] for Srebrenica genocide term has been deleted without any explanation whatsoever. Please refrain from deleting references and please insert this link as an additional reference in the article. Bosniak (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"SG vs "SM" has been extensively discussed, I don't understand how a single reference can change that. Given the ruling in Haag there is no dispute about the term as such, it is a valid term but not the most common term according to previous posts on this page. But of course, that is no reason to delete the reference. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My edits explained

Hi all,

Just to reiterate the logic behind my latest edits:

1. We should be saying 'an estimated 8000' rather than 'estimated 8372' because *that is what the vast majority of English-language 'reliable sources' use* -- and, just to explain, THAT is the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, NOT TRUTH (sounds odd, I know, but see here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability).

Some anonymous editor above said that my argument here was a 'cheap shot' because occasionally RS's mention 8372, (or over 8000) -- actually I never denied this, but pointed out that

a) these were the minority, and

b) it was not uncommon to see references to 'over 7000'; so 'estimated 8000' is a good distillation of the figure given by 'RS's. (By the anonymous editor's logic, it would be a 'cheap shot' not to have the sentence read 'over 7000' on the grounds that *some* RS's say that).

2. Fairview claims I am 'removing useful and informative references' in regards to (I assume) my deletion of two of the four references to the statement on the Scorpions. Actually, one of those was a straight double-up (the footnote read as a reference to an ICJ judgement, but in fact linked to the same IWPR article which was the first of the four references -- and the article did not mention the ICJ at all).

The second one I deleted was the interview on PBS, because I thought (and while I am totally open to debate on this point, I'd like to hear why I am mistaken) that *an interview with someone* on a (fundamentally RS) radio station is NOT really the same as an RS claim, which is what is needed for factual claims.

3. As for the gravestone photo which keeps being snuck in, I've been through that many times. Put it down the bottom of the page if you want, I won't object.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. #2. If claims are based on the same original source, citing once should be enough. As far as I can hear, the only additional information in the interview is the comment regarding the Scorpions being a unit from Serbia itself (not merely a Bosnian-Serb unit). All the other points are mentioned in the Washington Post article. I agree that the interview as a source of facts is very limited. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mondeo. Regarding [i]f claims are based on the same original source, citing once should be enough, agreed -- moreover, the article says nothing about the ICJ (didn't read it all, but did a search for both 'icj' and 'justice' and found nothing), while the footnote 'preamble' referred to specific paragraphs from an ICJ judgement.

As for the interview, I'd be interested to hear others' take on this issue, but as far as I can see, to give it the status of RS because it appeared in an interview on an RS would be an extraordinary principle (or are we to treat the claims of [insert nutjob here] as RS claims because they were made in an interview with CNN/NY Times etc?)

I guess if Vreme Magazine is determined by Wikipedia to be a RS it might be a different story..? Jonathanmills (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Any interviewee can claim anything in an interview, something doesn't become a well established fact just because someone said it in front of a microphone. What is most relevant about that broadcast piece, is that it is an independent "analysis" of the that very important videotape (which is kind of the original source in this case). Several indirect references to the same original source may however give the false impression that there are several independent sources. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnathanmills, merely providing extensive explanation of your edits DOES NOT entitle you to constantly delete improvements of other editors. I have noticed you have also been engaging on inviting other anti-Srebrenica genocide editors to join and help you. I think this kinds of activism is wrong. Bosniak (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks (you are repeating some untrue allegations). This is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is complete garbage, Bosniak: WHERE have I ever 'invited anti-Srebrenica genocide editors to join and help me'?

As for saying 'merely providing extensive explanation of your edits DOES NOT entitle you to constantly delete improvements of other editors', well, I would argue that my edits are in fact improvements!

For example, you've gone and re-inserted the reference which I deleted which was utterly misleading (it said it was regarding paragraphs of an ICJ judgement, but in fact linked to an article which said NOTHING about the ICJ)-- furthermore this was AN ARTICLE ALREADY LINKED TO in that bunch of footnotes... you've re-inserted two incorrect references for a single straightforward claim, and another which is only in Serbo-Croat... The formulation 'at least 500' members of an actually existing list is a very poor linguistic formulation, and is indeed CONTRADICTED by your Serbo-Croat source, which listed 499 names (I don't know which is correct here, but *if it is over 500 it should say 'over 500', NOT 'at least 500'* -- that is just good English)... and finally, what some random Balkan magazine journalist said in an interview IS NOT a good enough source for a factual claim, according to Wikipedia's standards.

Instead of RESPONDING to any of my arguments, you simply say I somehow don't have 'the right' to be making edits. But by your logic, how does your NON-explanation of your reverts give you that right? Jonathanmills (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to your (false) claim: I have noticed you have also been engaging on inviting other anti-Srebrenica genocide editors to join and help you. I think this kinds of activism is wrong.

I wonder what you make of the comment at the top of your talk page from Bosniak Atheist? To wit:

Greetings please assist in Srebrenica massacre I will join you. the goal is to defeat Mills and Mondeo in concensus. Lets unite all anti-genocide deniers. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think 'this kinds of activism is wrong' as well, or is it OK as long as it's from your side? Jonathanmills (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is this Johnathanmills? He is running the show here by deleting verifiable facts. I must confess wikipedia is more fun than I thought, but this should not be a place for "fun." We should work on improving this article because new info is constantly coming in. For example, Radovan Karadzic's arrest is new and should be included in the article. He is on trial for Srebrenica genocide etc. WalukHailey (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(sorry to cut in here, guys, but) Waluk: WHERE have I deleted verifiable facts? Can you give me any examples, or is this another utterly baseless charge? Jonathanmills (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the arrest of Karadzic belongs in the article. When/where was this deleted? The arrest is mentioned, but not the process in Haag. Please be specific if other verifiable facts are wrongly deleted (not including the redundant references discussed above). Regards, Mondeo (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

General comment: Jonathanmills has explained very clearly the reasons for the edits he did. As you can see frome my comments, I examined his arguments and basically came to the same conclusions. If you disagree, please share your reasons here. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

They have to stop. Everyone needs to calm down, read up on policies and stop this continual reversion war. Consensus needs to be established fully before controversial changes are made and then the edit made so everyone can clearly see what the consensus is. Constantly changing small things makes it far too difficult to see what is a valid change and what isn't. Just read through the edit summaries, it's a mess. I am requesting temporary page protection so some of these issues can be worked out without without the temptation to edit war. Mfield (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

More on 'at least 500' versus 'some 500' (or 'approximately 500', etc)

Hi all (particularly Bosniak),

Just to clarify my position on this issue (I'm pretty sure I already have, but just to make sure it is understood):

The original sentence read:

The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,373 names, of whom at least 500 were under 18

..which I changed to:

The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,373 names, of whom some 500 were under 18

Now, Bosniak has reverted this change, presumably because 'at least 500' suggests a higher number than 'some 500' and he thinks I am trying to play down the numbers.

But the point is NOT what the actual number of under-18 victims is, it's about clarity and good English.

Because this is actually not an issue where there can be any real dispute: we are talking about *the list* (the Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed) and how many under-18s are on it.

Now, if there are less than 500, but not much less (say, I don't know, over 450), it should say 'almost 500' (or 'nearly 500').

If there are more than 500, then it should say 'over 500' or 'more than 500'.

(If the numbers are extremely close to 500, it would be usual to say 'just under 500' or 'just over 500' for the sake of clarity).

BUT, one thing which makes no sense to say is 'at least 500'. Because the number is just a fact, not a guess.

The other thing is, I'm not sure if the number is in fact 'at least 500'. Because one of the references I pruned from that very statement (I pruned it because it was in Serbo-Croat, moreover I can't see why we need any reference for a statement about the Preliminary List besides the Preliminary List itself)... anyway, that article contained a list which numbered up to 499.

Cheers (and sorry for the long-winded explanation). Jonathanmills (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

These numbers (8,373 and 500) refers to the list, so the wording should of course precisely reflect the content that list. If there are 499 persons under 18 on the list, the word can of course not be "at least". In this context, the word "some" means the same as "about" or "approximately". Regards, Mondeo (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and if the number is over 500, it should (like I say) state 'over 500', not 'at least 500' -- because 'at least' is a term used in connection with *an estimate*, not a fact over which there can be no dispute. That's just good English. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected for 3 days due to edit warring. Hash it out here on the talk page, folks. Tan | 39 20:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Er... I have explained very patiently and carefully the reasons behind all of my edits (often repeating myself for the sake of clarity), and invited opposing comments (ie discussion) of my points. I've been met with nothing more than (baseless) personal attacks and/or claims that I somehow shouldn't be editing this page at all.

Nobody has explained why the page should contain broken/incorrect, redundant, or non-English-language references, how someone being interviewed on a mainstream broadcaster makes their statements a 'reliable source' for factual claims, how having a photo of a 13-year-old's gravestone at the top of the article is not a violation of the 'undue weight' principle (given the vast majority of the SM victims were over that age), etc etc...

Not exactly sure how anything can be 'hashed out' if one side is unwilling to participate in the debate. I wonder if some sort of arbitration is necessary? (I don't know anything about this, apart from the fact that it exists in some form.) Jonathanmills (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What kind of 'undue weight' are you talking about? You're twisting the facts. Even in the Holocaust (which was worse than any genocide), majority of people killed were over the age of 18. Now you are picking up on a grave of a child? No offence, but you disgust me. WalukHailey (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks, focus on content not contributer. Jonathanmills has a good point about the picture, it is somewhat misleading ("undue weight") to show the gravestone of a 13 y old when few at that age were killed in the massacre. This picture is only an illustration so it is not big deal, but it is still not representative of the facts described in the article. Jonathanmills is not twisting the facts. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mondeo, at least 200 children of his age or around his age were killed. And you call murders of 200 victims "a few"? Shame on yourself. You're the one making personal attacks and defending your friend Johnathanmills, who invited you here. I demand apology for calling murders of 200 children who were roughly his age "a few". Shame on yourself. And by the way, my mother is from Srebrenica, although we lived in Macedonia. So stop insulting people of Srebrenica and the victims of genocide. YardFly56 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how you define 'around his age', YardFly. We've already seen that the number of under-18s killed is approximately 500. The vast majority of these are 15-18 year-olds, a handful of 14-year-olds, and (very) few 13-year-olds. (We've already made clear in our intro that the vast majority of victims were 15 or over.) Thus it seems a pretty clear violation of Undue Weight guidelines to have the picture of a 13-year-old's gravestone right at the top of the article.

As for 'insulting the people of Srebrenica and the victims of genocide', that's completely your interpretation - I've never once insulted people from Srebrenica or those killed in the massacre.

Finally, I never invited Mondeo on here, nor is he my friend -- I just welcomed him on to the page after he began editing it (something Wikipedia recommends, incidentally). And as for him 'making personal attacks', can you show a SINGLE example of this? Because as far as I can see, Mondeo has been a model of civil behaviour. You would do well to follow his example, actually, given that your own post is hardly an example of good 'Wiki-quette'. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Waluk, if you do a search for the word 'undue' on this page, it will take you to where I have already explained (and debated) my position on this issue. I think the fact that editors -- for a time, at least -- did not re-insert the image at the top of the page indicates that they appeared to accept my argument. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

YardFly56: A "few" is relative to the total number of people killed at Srebrenica. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What editors, Jonathanmills? Is Mondeo "plural"? Or does he represents all of us? I, for one, haven't even noticed that the picture of a grave corresponds to a 13-year old. I don't carry calculator in my pocket, so I don't feel compelled to calculate ages of dead people based on their gravestones. Nobody has ever made a big deal out of that photo except you. You need to understand that you cant have everything you want and you should respect wishes of other editors too. It is evident that the picture does not represent undue weight and it should stay there. I do agree, though, that the number of 8000 is more representative, which is evident from my last article-edit. WalukHailey (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, as I said: That picture is not a big deal, but Jonathanmills is correct that a gravestone of a 13 y old is not representative of the facts, it is not untrue, it is a matter of giving undue weight. According to Wikipedia policy "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (see WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The "prominence of placement" is the problem with that picture. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Waluk. When I said "editors -- for a time, at least -- did not re-insert the image at the top of the page", I was referring to ALL the editors here, not just Mondeo (I'm not even sure Mondeo was editing this page at the time).

As for the 'not noticing he was 13 years old' issue (if I can call it that), the original caption underneath it read 'Gravestone of a 13-year-old boy'. I see that has been removed, but the issue still stands: why have that gravestone pictured (or care if it is removed, given there are a number of other pictures of coffins already at the top of the page) if not to make the point that it is a 13-year-old? (In any event, even if we assumed nobody was trying to make a point about anything, it is the FACT that it is the gravestone of a 13-year-old which makes it a violation of Undue Weight guidelines.)

As for "nobody has ever made a big deal out of that photo except you", that is surely an irrelevant point: IF the photo violates Wikipedia guidelines on 'Undue Weight', it shouldn't matter whether it is only me complaining about it; it ought to be removed (or placed at the bottom of the page, where it was for a time).

You also say "You need to understand that you cant have everything you want and you should respect wishes of other editors too" -- well, a) I have actually compromised on eg the issue of whether the SM 'is also known as the SG', despite the (severe) relative rarity of 'the SG' as a formulation in English-language RS's, and b) again, when I am simply calling for Wikipedia guidelines to be followed, I don't really think it matters whether I am in the minority or not, or whether other editors' wishes are that those guidelines be violated.

You state finally that "It is evident that the picture does not represent undue weight and it should stay there"; to the contrary that is absolutely NOT evident. Indeed, it is quite evident that it DOES represent undue weight, unless you think a picture which is wholly unrepresentative of an event should be placed at the top of an article's page.

As we are currently debating this issue, I'm willing to show good faith and leave it up there for the moment (as long as you can provide reasons why the picture does not violate Undue Weight guidelines); however, as this issue has already been discussed and I haven't seen any good arguments from you as to why it doesn't violate them, I am poised to remove it in the near future.

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Krusko Mortale just reverted Jonathanmills' edits without giving any specific reason. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted that, given that he hasn't even engaged with my reasoning here on the talk page. Also, he added another reference to the 'Preliminary List figure' sentence, but it was to a (long) ICTY document which said nothing about either 8106 or 8372. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than simply deleting the picture of a gravestone that accurately shows the victim of the massacre, the editors who hobject to the picture ought to replace it with a picture of a gravestone that they find acceptable, for example, the gravestone of a victim whose age is representative of the vast majority of victims. That way, the article and discussion page do not need to go through this same argument every few months. Fairview360 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Er... I beg to differ. The point is that the gravestone is a violation of Undue Weight guidelines (at least in its current position; I had no objection when it was transferred to the gallery at the bottom of the page). As such, it does not matter if it is 'accurate'; it should not be there.

It's not the responsibility of someone who corrects this infraction of Wikipedia guidelines to find a different image (particularly when there are already four images at the top of the page, two of which are of coffins).

I'm not trying to be difficult or petulant, but uploading images is not currently part of my skill-set (and copyright issues make finding an appropriate one something of a hassle), and I simply cannot see how it is my responsibility.

I'm still waiting to see if there are any arguments against my actual stance, ie that the image does violate Undue Weight guidelines, but unless I hear any, I intend to remove it. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Another incorrect claim

Hi all,

I've just discovered another inaccuracy in our intro:

While a sentence reads, "The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,373 names," the list linked to actually contains 8,106 names (http://www.domovina.net/srebrenica/page_006/Preliminarni_spisak_Srebrenica_1995.pdf)

There IS also a Daily Mail article attached to this sentence which states, "According to the most accurate records, precisely 8,373 Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered by the Serbian army during that brief period," but this does not mention the Preliminary List.

So... either the Preliminary List has been updated, in which case we need to link to the updated version, or this sentence needs correction.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not incorect. 2nd edition contains names of 8,373 names. 207.194.55.89 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Then, as I said, we need to link to the updated version. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to learn Bosnian language before you make such outrageous claims Johnathanmills. The list, containing 8,106 victims clearly says that another 500 victims avaits identification before they are included in the list. So, we are look at approximately 8,606 victims. Quote in Bosnian language: ""U toku su provjere za jos oko 500 zrtava ciji nestanak odnosno smrt nisu potvrdjeni iz dva ili vise razlicitih izvora." Bosniak (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Er... first of all, this is an English-language encyclopaedia, mate, so I shouldn't need to learn the Bosnian language to verify a claim given as a reference.

Second, I was told in an earlier dispute that you didn't need to know a different language to read the numbers on a list of names (which was a fair point -- and one I didn't dispute). And the list given clearly numbered 8,106.

Finally, the anonymous editor above has told us the 2nd list has 8,373 names, and given that that was the number quoted in the introduction (ie The Preliminary List...contains 8,373 names), surely that should be the number in the list provided? Not quite sure how any of this constitutes 'outrageous claims'. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolution 819

Regarding my revert, when I said "the specific part", I meant internal link to Resolution 819. Regarding other sources, it's better to have more sources, isn't it?

PS

I read the above discussion, it seems that Jonathan is acting like a policeman on this article. Please, you should respect the fact, Wikipedia is open to other users.

Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Krusko, please discuss before doing reverts, Jonathanmills has been very specific, please respond to his points rather than just reverting. These endless reverts is the reason the page got blocked. No, it is not generally better to have more sources. If sources are effectively citing the same original source one is redundant. And sources must be reliable.Regards, Mondeo (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So, Krusko, you reverted ALL those changes of mine just because you wanted to insert 'Resolution 819' in the 'Further Reading' section? Fine, then I will revert back and leave 'Resolution 819' in.. It would be better if you would do this yourself in future, though, rather than making a large revert just to achieve one simple aim.

As for 'acting like a policeman', I would have thought me arguing for my edits is less 'policeman-like' than those who simply revert them without discussion...

Finally, as to 'having more sources', no, more is not always better -- if you have a simple and specific claim like "The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,373 names", you should simply have a link to the list, not four, with three being to various unrelated sources; that is simply a waste of space and unencyclopaedic. And as Mondeo points out, the other refs I've removed have either been straight double-ups (surely we don't want a group of four footnotes with two linking to the same article?), or (arguably) non-RS's backing up a factual claim, which is obviously a no-no. Jonathanmills (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

reply to Fairview

Fairview, you reverted the following of my edits:

1. The Srebrenica massacre was the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II to

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.

Now, I'm pretty sure the former is simply correct grammar (we refer to any completed event in the past tense -- eg, "9/11 was the biggest terrorist attack on US soil"); in any event, I wasn't trying to make some political point, so if it bothers you, I think you're wrong but I'm certainly not going to fight over it.

The sentence The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II refers to the Srebrenica massacre's current relationship with all massacres since WWII. Events in the past can be referred to using the present tense as a way of emphasizing the event's relationship to the present. Here are examples using the Holocaust:

"The holocaust is NOT the only large scale genocide in world history and it is not even the largest and sadly will not be the last"

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:JpdjxBEKG3gJ:www.urbanbaby.com/talk/posts/50525528+%22the+holocaust+is%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=63&gl=us

"The Holocaust is a watershed event in history"

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:d8GBuXlW9HMJ:www.education-world.com/a_lesson/lesson187.shtml+%22the+holocaust+is%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=89&gl=us

"The Holocaust] is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide..."

"the Holocaust is both unique and universal."

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:cmMQxLvU5oIJ:www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/skeptic-3.html+%22the+holocaust+is%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=118&gl=us

The sentence The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II is saying that the Srebrenica Massacre currently stands in history as the largest mass murder in Europe since 1945. The use of the past tense is grammatically correct but lacks the emphasis that the present tense has. Fairview360 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Er... you admit that the use of the past tense is 'grammatically correct', so IMO it should be used. Culling a few (completely random - one is from a talk board?) online examples of the use of the present tense regarding past events doesn't change this. I can't imagine other encyclopaedias would use the present tense, presumably because they would rather use correct grammar than 'add emphasis'.

But in any event, as I said, I really don't care -- if you want to use incorrect grammar, I'm not going to edit-war over it. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What has eluded JonathanMills is the fact that both are grammatically correct. Fairview360 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not -- referring to a completed event in the present tense is very unusual, technically incorrect (particularly in that sentence) and would not be used by any serious encyclopaedia. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

JM would benefit from reading relevant sections on tense in "The Grammar Book" which would explain how past tense is sometimes used when speaking about a present situation ("Did you want cream with your coffee?) and present tense is sometimes used describing a past event ("3:43:13 is the fastest mile ever run.") Here is a description of the credentials of The Grammar Book authors from Amazon.com: Diane Larsen-Freeman is Professor of Education, Professor of Linguistics, and Director of the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She is also a Distinguished Senior Faculty Fellow at the School for International Training in Brattleboro, Vermont. Dr. Larsen-Freeman has been a conference speaker in over 50 countries of the world and has published over 100 articles in her areas of interest. Her Thomson/Heinle books include The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher¿s Course (1999; co-authored with Marianne Celce-Murcia), From Grammar to Grammaring (2003) and the fourth edition of Grammar Dimensions: Form, Meaning, and Use (forthcoming, Series Director. From 1980-1985, Dr. Larsen-Freeman was Editor of the journal Language Learning. In 1997, Dr. Larsen-Freeman was inducted into the Vermont Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1999, she was selected by ESL Magazine as one of ¿the ESL pioneers.¿ In 2000, she received the lifetime achievement award from Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Certainly, wikipedia is going to defer to their judgement as opposed to the arbitrary declarations of JM. Fairview360 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps JM is not a native English speaker. One can find the present tense being used to refer to a past event in respected academic journals, in encyclopedias, and in wikipedia. To a native English speaker, the first of the following two sentences will sound correct:

a) The Holocaust is the largest known genocide in modern times.

b) The Holocaust was the largest known genocide in modern times.

The first sentence and variations thereof using the present tense can be found in essays, articles, academic papers, etc. In any case, JM is obviously not qualified to be making such sweeping definitive statements. Fairview360 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In the above example the first option (using IS) appears to be more correct. Until figures are revised, or a far more severe event takes place, then the wording flows far better to state that it IS the largest. WAS suggests that the event has now been surpassed by another and was correct only for a particular period in time and is no longer current. Mourner (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I say, I'm not going to edit-war over it, as I didn't intend for it to be anything other than a grammatical tidy-up. In response to FV, however, I am indeed a native English speaker, and I am quite aware that the present tense is SOMETIMES used in relation to past events, however I strongly dispute that the sentence in question warrants it. In an encylopaedia (like, say, Wikipedia), completed historical events are almost always described in the past tense (and I respectfully dispute Mourner's contention that the past tense suggests the event is no longer the biggest etc; rather it indicates that the event is completed rather than ongoing). That may be a 'sweeping statement', but IMNSHO it's also correct. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

2. You re-inserted the article I deleted from the 'Alternative Views' reading section -- I deleted this article because it appears in the already-linked Srebrenica Research Group report, so I thought it redundant to have it linked twice; however, again, if you feel it should still be there, it's no skin off my nose.

If JonathanMills does not object, then there is no need for JonathanMills to revert it.

I *do* object, as it's redundant and a waste of space, and therefore unencyclopaedic; however, as with the previous example, I don't care enough to fight with you about it. I have no idea why you would object to my deletion of this reference, however -- it's a tidy-up. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"unencyclopaedic" ? Footnotes will reference the same book but different chapters in order to guide the reader to specific content. This occurs in respectable encyclopedias. Perhaps, JM needs to find a different adjective to describe that which is different from his own opinion. Fairview360 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's NOT "referenc[ing] the same book but different chapters in order to guide the reader to specific content", it's providing a list of references of which one is essentially a double-up, given that it is the opening article from the already-referenced SRG website. That would be like referencing an entire book, AND a specific chapter of that book, in the same footnote. I think that is unencyclopaedic, in that it would not be found in a typical encyclopaedia. Again, though, I have no desire to edit-war over it, as it was simply an (attempted) tidy-up. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

3. (a ref): Report] of Srebrenica Research Group, concludes that "the contention that as many as 8,000 Muslims were killed has no basis in available evidence and is essentially a political construct". to

Report of Srebrenica Research Group, concludes that "the contention that as many as 8,000 Muslims were killed has no basis in available evidence and is essentially a political construct" and includes articles questioning if the Srebenica massacre was actually a "hoax".

Your edit summary for this one reads: saying that there was no evidence and that the claim of a massacre was just a political construct is another way of saying it was a hoax, so how is using the word "hoax" misleading???

I have a couple of problems with this:

First of all, the Report itself does not once contain the word 'hoax' -- and while you argue that using the word 'hoax' is not misleading because it *means* 'the claim of a massacre was just a political construct', surely you're aware that to put a word in *quote marks*, as the text does, is misleading if it does not actually exist?

Secondly, the word 'hoax' appears in a single article on the website of the SRG (an 'additional reading' type section) -- this makes the use of the plural 'articles' incorrect; furthermore I would argue that to mention this in such a tiny summary of the report is a violation of Undue Weight principles.

I might also add that if the word 'hoax' means the same as 'the claim of a massacre was just a political construct' (as you argue), and I have left the latter statement in, why do you care if the word 'hoax' is removed?

4. Finally, you re-inserted the photo of the gravestone with the edit summary: Perhaps JonathanMills is giving undue weight to his own opinion. Does any other editor believe this picture of a gravestone does not belong in this article?

This is a very poor reason to re-insert the photograph. I've stated quite clearly why the photo violates the Undue Weight principle, I've opened it out for discussion (leaving the photo up while any debate might be taking place), and received no sound arguments as to why my analysis is wrong. It's hardly important whether you or anyone else 'believes' the picture belongs in the article; if you can't rebut my contention that it is a violation of Undue Weight, then it shouldn't be there (at least in its current position). Jonathanmills (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

JonathanMills believes the photo should not be in the article while claiming that the beliefs of other editors are irrelevant. Not much basis for discussion if that is the position JonathanMills is going to take. Fairview360 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Er... I opened the issue up for discussion, Fairview, and got basically no reply (except an *assertion* that I was wrong). I don't think the views of other editors are 'irrelevant', but as you know Wikipedia is not a democracy, so ideas and arguments ought to trump (unexplained) 'beliefs'.

The fact that you take this stance while you never actually attempted to engage with my arguments is somewhat ridiculous, and suggests to me that you tacitly realise that my position is in fact correct. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If JonathanMills read archived discussions, he would see that there has been ample discussion on this matter. There is the opinion that a photo such as this one belongs in the article. There is the opinion that it does not. There is JM's interpretation of wiki policy which he presents as an objective reality. There is the opinion of others who do not share JM's interpretation. The suggestion which has been made before is this: for an editor so inclined such as JM, instead of deleting the gravestone photo, replace it with another gravestone picture with an age indicative of the majority killed.

JonathanMills presents opinions that have been argued ad nauseum on these discussion pages. Perhaps, before insisting that editors give him their time, JM ought to read the archives and see why the editors who have been here for some time are not interested in getting on the merry-go-round again. Here, it is simple. There are editors who believe the photo belongs in the article and is entirely consistent with all relevant wiki policies. And there is JM who keeps deleting it claiming that it violates wiki policy. And while JM keeps claiming that majority opinion means nothing at wikipedia, many issues are in fact resolved through... yes... voting. Enough said. Fairview360 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is rubbish, Fairview. Nobody (yourself included) was able to present a coherent argument as to why the photo didn't violate Undue Weight principles, which are indeed wiki policy. As to 'the suggestion made before' (which was your suggestion alone) that I find a photo which represents the ages more accurately... why on earth is this my responsibility? If a photo violates Undue Weight, it ought to be removed, simple as that. And I fail to see how there is some sort of objective need for a gravestone photo anyway. If YOU feel that there ought to be a gravestone photo, go and find one yourself.

As for 'past discussions', the most recent past discussions were a few months back (scroll up the page), where again there were no serious arguments raised for why the photo did not violate Undue Weight (at least sitting in its position at the top of the page). Your description of a 'merry-go-round' of arguments on this issue is pure fantasy. [Further to this, I actually just did a quick check of all the archived pages, and could see ZERO discussion having ever taken place there on this issue (I may have missed something, but I did a Find search for 'grave' and none of the matches referred to this photo).]

As for the archives more broadly, I HAVE read them, and it is clear to me that the various reasonable editors who have opposed the pro-Bosniak cabal currently in control of this page were simply worn down and left out of frustration... there is nothing in the archives which suggests your side won the day with their arguments. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether JM agrees with it or not, an argument has in fact been presented for keeping the picture in the top of the page, the argument being that the picture corresponds with the following sentence in the intro: "the massacre also included instances where boys under 15... were killed." Again, whether JM agrees or not, the argument has been presented. Additionally, an argument has been put forward as to why simply deleting the photo is not preferable, that being that it is better to offer an alternative as opposed to simply deleting photos. Lastly, through the years, editors of a whole range of opinions have been been worn down and quit, not just editors of one opinion.

(reverse indent): Whether JM agrees with it or not, an argument has in fact been presented for keeping the picture in the top of the page, the argument being that the picture corresponds with the following sentence in the intro: "the massacre also included instances where boys under 15... were killed."

Hmm... that sounds like YOUR argument, via your edit summary (rather than take up my offer of discussion here on the talk page, you decided to accompany your edit with that single statement).

In any event, I hardly see how this means that the picture does not violate Undue Weight. The sentence you're quoting from reads in full: Although those killed were almost entirely men and boys aged 15 and over, the massacre also included instances where boys under 15, men over the age of 65, and reportedly also a baby were killed (my emphasis). And if you read through the single discussion we've had on this specific issue (it's on this page, under the heading 'Errors and Distortions' and 'Photos'), I have never disputed that under-15s were amongst the victims; I simply stated that (to re-quote from Wikipedia on the topic of Undue Weight):

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. (my emphasis)

Your argument appears to be that because a statement regarding the killing of under-15s appears in the intro, it is not a violation of Undue Weight to add a photograph showing it. In fact, this is quite the opposite of the logic needed to follow UW guidelines: the more already existing in the article on a single aspect of something, the MORE likely further material on it will violate UW. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

JM might want to be a bit more thoughtful than to write such statements as "there is nothing in the archives which suggests your side won the day with their arguments." Nothing? Not one case of an editor making an argument to support their point of view? Nothing? And JM claims he has actually read the archives? "pro-Bosniak cabal","your side"?... JM is clumping together editors who have disagreed vehemently. Presumably, if one has read the archives in their entirety, one would be able to make distinctions between the different editors as opposed to clumping them all together while making definitive sweeping accusatory generalizations such as this. There are in fact editors who are not driven by an affiliation with one ethnic group but rather are in the midst of a good faith effort to preserve the truth as they see it. Of course, in the midst of that effort, there are vehement disagreements. Welcome to wikipedia. Fairview360 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(rev indent) "JM might want to be a bit more thoughtful than to write such statements as "there is nothing in the archives which suggests your side won the day with their arguments." Nothing? Not one case of an editor making an argument to support their point of view? Nothing?"

Actually, FV might want to be a bit more thoughtful than write statements as the above, as he has clearly confused my statement "there is nothing in the archives which suggests your side WON THE DAY with their arguments" with an (imaginary) contention that the archives do not contain a single case of a pro-Bosniak editor "making an argument to support their point of view"!

This of course makes all the difference. JM now claims that he said no editor from the "pro-Bosniak cabal" ever successfully argued their point. Never. Not once... right. Fairview360 (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is (again) a ludicrous misrepresentation of what I said. Let's remember the original discussion:

FV: JonathanMills presents opinions that have been argued ad nauseum on these discussion pages. Perhaps, before insisting that editors give him their time, JM ought to read the archives and see why the editors who have been here for some time are not interested in getting on the merry-go-round again.

JM: I HAVE read them, and it is clear to me that the various reasonable editors who have opposed the pro-Bosniak cabal currently in control of this page were simply worn down and left out of frustration... there is nothing in the archives which suggests your side won the day with their arguments.

FV: JM...claims that he said no editor from the "pro-Bosniak cabal" ever successfully argued their point. Never. Not once... right.

..which is nonsense. My statement was simply disputing FV's claim that the archives provide evidence that 'his side' has been through and refuted the points I raise. The notion that I said "no editor from FV's side of the debates ever once successfully argued their point" is a complete figment of FV's imagination. Jonathanmills (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, let me suggest that we all focus on content. Have a nice day. Mondeo (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As for lumping editors together, I do apologise for that statement, in that I am aware that editors here DO have differences of view; however, I don't think the contention that the editorship is generally slanted towards a Bosniak-nationalist viewpoint is too far from the truth; furthermore I've been called many a name on here (Serb terrorist, genocide denier etc) so I'm not going to feel too guilty about my 'sweeping accusatory generalization'. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re # 4: I have stated my opinion on this before, and support Jonathanmills' position that the photo is relevant but that it should be given a less prominent position. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As suggested before, rather than deleting the photo of the gravestone and sparking an edit war, either reposition it as suggested above, or find another gravestone picture with an age indicative of the majority killed. Fairview360 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have now put it with the other photos in the 'gallery' at the bottom of the page, where it was for a time (don't know what happened -- I never removed it from there); however, I dispute your description of who is 'sparking an edit war'. Actually, the issue was debated at some length a while back, and then the photo was gone for a significant period. The recent conflagration was sparked by someone choosing to *re-insert* the photo, seemingly in defiance of the discussion which had occurred. Jonathanmills (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"seemingly in defiance of the discussion"? A rather convenient interpretation. How about if JM waits and sees if there is another editor who believes the photo should not be in the introduction. If there is an editor besides JM who wants to delete the photo from the intro, how about a suggestion on an age that would be acceptable, 18? 19? 21? What age, in the opinion of an editor who objects to the photo in question, is old enough such that it does not supposedly violate wiki policy? Fairview360 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fairview, as you can see from my comments I am one of those editors that support JMs conclusion: the picture is OK in a less prominent position. If you can find a picture of the gravestone for a 20 or 30 year old man, that would be in line with WP policy. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fair"view, if you paid a modicum of attention to my posts, it would be patently obvious what my position is, and there would be no need for your plaintive questioning. However, for your benefit, I'll restate it: we have a massacre where the overwhelming majority of the victims were over the age of 15. We then have, at the top of the page (I mean in the top group of pictures), a photo of the gravestone of... a 13-year-old. In other words, if you find the gravestone of anyone 15 or older, that would not violate the Undue Weight principle.

Finally, you rejected my proposed compromise of having the photo at the bottom, with the edit summary 'see discussion page'. Yet you've presented absolutely no arguments (again) as to why the photo does not violate Undue Weight in its current position. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the photo should be repositioned elsewhere in the article. Indeed I am of the belief that there should just be one iconic photo heading the article and the other photos positioned throughout the text as they are referenced. I have in mind a photo such as a picture of the mass grave stones to head the article. This is a similar approach to that taken in other articles - Auschwitz or 9/11. Mourner (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact the article is now looking quite ridiculous concerning the positioning of photos. I see that the picture of the 13 year-old is back at the top - but we also have two photos that are now both at the top and the bottom of the article! This contributes to the article, which already suffers from a lack of continuity, looking shoddy and amateur. I repeat my point above again - let us agree one iconic photo, which is similar practice to other main articles, to head this page and then reference other photos throughout the article. And those that want to just cut and paste photos daily please take more care as you have left this page looking increasingly amateur. Mourner (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If JM's position is "patently obvious", then why is it Mondeo seems confused as to what JM's position is? Mondeo believes that JM's position is that the picture belongs in the article but in a less prominent position. Yet, JM puts the picture at the very bottom and claims that is a compromise. If JM believes the picture belongs in the article but with a less prominent position, how does including it at the bottom of the article constitute a compromise? Fairview360 (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not if I am confused or not, but how to use this picture in accordance with WP principles. Including the picture at the bottom in a gallery clearly makes it less prominent than putting it near the top. Articles are read from the top and down, putting something at the top means that is important - this is pretty obvious. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Does anyone know where an editor can find an alternative gravestone picture? Fairview360 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is putting the photo at the bottom with the other photos not a compromise? It seems a lot more of a compromise than demoting it by a single photograph at the top of the page, as FV did. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re # 3: After investigating the Srebrenica Report site, I agree with Jonathanmills. The word "hoax" is only used in the report by Carlos Martins Branco (with a question mark added). Mr Branco's report is only an article "related" to Srebrenica, so it is misleading to say that it is part of the group's report or conclusion. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre vs. Srebrenica Genocide

I am back after voluntarily removing myself from making any edits on this article. The least I want is to disrupt improvements of this article, but unfortunately, instead of seeing improvements, I see deletions of sources, deletions of sentences, deletions of important data. I won't engage myself in any edits for now. Let Johnathanmills delete more data so we can start reverting lost sources and important data with better improvements. For today, I just want to point out that Srebrenica massacre is not the best term we can use. Sure, it is popular term because ICTY handed down genocide conviction in 2001 (that's why Srebrenica massacre term is more popular on Google, but not necessarily more correct). As you know, Vidoje Blagojevic was the second Serb to be convicted for Srebrenica genocide by the ICTY. Later, his conviction was overturned on appeal. In its acquittal decision, appeals Chamber of the ICTY also used the term Srebrenica Genocide. See here: http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2007/pr1158e.htm . I recommend that we change the name of the article to its original version - Srebrenica Genocide. Let us do this without politicizing issue and quarreling. We don't need that. Thank you.Bosniak (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Please read the article on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Regards, Mondeo (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosniak, I'll put to one side your suggestion that we change the name of the article and just address your statement: The least I want is to disrupt improvements of this article, but unfortunately, instead of seeing improvements, I see deletions of sources, deletions of sentences, deletions of important data. I won't engage myself in any edits for now. Let Johnathanmills delete more data so we can start reverting lost sources and important data with better improvements.

I address this because you're not the only editor who has complained about me in these terms. I'm not offended, but I just wanted to respond: where have I deleted 'important data'? I have deleted *broken and redundant* (ie doubled-up) references, as well as the odd one which didn't fit Wikipedia guidelines, but the idea that I am somehow 'standing in the way of improvements' to the article is frankly ludicrous -- to the contrary, I am constantly trying to make improvements, even ones as innocuous as deleting redundant refs or correcting grammatical errors, only to have them reverted by others and (on occasion) my name besmirched with utterly false accusations.

If any editors really want to make genuine improvements to this article, they could start by going through from the beginning and checking references to see if they match the sentences they are attached to -- as I have stated at the bottom of this page (underneath someone pointing out yet another), the page appears to be riddled with inaccuracies in this regard.

The article is also in dire need of some editing in terms of its length, which is something I began doing some time ago, but got to a point where the text became so unintelligible I could not proceed (this was about where the article first mentions an 'asphalt road', if anyone wants to try and sort things from there). Jonathanmills (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

8606 Victims of Srebrenica Genocide

The preliminary list, containing 8,106 victims clearly says that another 500 victims avaits identification before they are included in the list. So, we are look at approximately 8,606 victims. Quote in Bosnian language: "U toku su provjere za jos oko 500 zrtava ciji nestanak odnosno smrt nisu potvrdjeni iz dva ili vise razlicitih izvora." http://www.domovina.net/srebrenica/page_006/Preliminarni_spisak_Srebrenica_1995.pdf Bosniak (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This http://www.springerlink.com/content/t8457j673l88p203/ estimate by demography experts concludes that a minimum of 7475 persons were killed. This of course does not conflict with Bosniak's updated number, but the reference should be included because it is an impartial, scientific investigation. I am not sure if this scholarly investigation is independent of Bosniak's source, I will try to find out. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. Mondeo, I'm just going to move your reference here for the moment -- not because I think it's not relevant or important (I don't know if it is or isn't, personally) -- but because it's attached to the sentence The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,373 names, of whom some 500 were under 18, and includes several dozen women and some girls. I think a reader would expect the only thing footnoted after that statement to be... a copy of the list, as I've argued previously.

Again, I don't mean to be needlessly deleting info, and I'm not saying it's irrelevant, just that it's in the wrong position. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reference: (ref tag) Research by Brunborg, H., Lyngstad, T.H. and Urdal, H. (2003): Accounting for genocide: How many were killed in Srebrenica? European Journal of Population, 19(3):229-248. [12] reaches a conservative estimate of at least 7,475 killed, while their likely estimate is 7,536. Brunborg et al. finds 76 male victims under 16 years of age, 629 male victims over 60, and a total of 48 female victims. (ref tag)

Yes, I was actually thinking about including the estimate itself in the text (because this appears to be an estimate that appears to be mostly independent of the one already cited), then I ended up attaching it to the only point in the text where estimates are discussed. I think it is higly relevant as this is the latest evidence compiled by independent experts and published in an academic journal. As the number of victims is still contested, I think we should look at sources like these. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Republika Srpska 2002 Report

Republika Srpska negationist report In 2002 the government of Republika Srpska issued a report claiming that the Srebrenica Massacre of around 8000 people never happened. According to the report, endorsed by Srpska top politicians like the president Mirko Šarović and by most of the Bosnian Serb mass media, claimed that only 2000 had died, and all of them were soldiers from Sarajevo’s Bosnian Army — and many of them would have died of “exhaustion”. The International Crisis Group and the United Nations condemned the manipulation of their statements in this report.[65]

The report actually states that 1,800 Muslim soldiers died in battle, 100 from exhaustion and probably 100 due to "personal revenge" or "lack of knowledge of international law". The original edit should be rewritten with the details provided above. To write that 2,000 died and "many" from exhaustion isn't correctly what the 2002 report states. Mourner (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Mourner. To be honest, almost every time I bother to check things posted in this (enormous and bloated) article, they are either slanted or incorrect. For a long time, there was a scandalous statement that a US Congressman 'voted for the genocide' (sic) -- and it was even the wrong Congressman! :-/ Jonathanmills (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that the report should be correctly referenced as the Report on Srebrenica by the Republika Srpska Office of Relations for the ICTY (Darko Trifunovic). I have never seen it called the Republika Srpska negationist report (other than on this article). The title of this sub-section should be perhaps named Republika Srpska Report (2002) and the correct name referenced below. Mourner (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Want to have a crack at starting on this? :-) Jonathanmills (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First evidence of Genocide in Srebrenica

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e5MCWrdbAk --(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link but what point are you making regarding the article? The discussion page should be used for discussing the article not simply chucking links up (regardless of their merit or otherwise). Mourner (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My point was to bring awarness to some editors about the existance of evidence of genocide in Srebrenica because some people like to deny it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your motivation, however the purpose of the talk page is to suggest, and discuss, improvements to the main article. Mourner (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The link is useful and can be incorporated as a reference in the article. Also, if it is decided that videos are introduced in the article, like in some other articles, this video (or rather the original archive footage without commentary) and one of executions by Scorpions should be included. --Harac (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, this is very useful stuff. But I doubt that this version of the film qualify as a reliable source. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the footage was good enough for ICTY and ICJ,so it must be ok for wikipedia with it's "high" standards :)))))) --(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the transcript of it's usage in the court. http://www.un.org/icty/transe88/060908IT.htm --(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Zoran Petrovic distance himself from the use of his video as being evidence of a massacre? If I find time I will watch the link you have provided and reserve comment until then. Mourner (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In this documentary Zoran Petrovic is confronted with the actual film (uncut version) and asked about his lies.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And his response was? Apologies for pushing you on this but please understand that the responsibility of editors is to provide content for inclusion in the article. You have given the link but haven't yet shown to me the context within which it should be used. If I can suggest that you produce a suggested text to include in the article, detailing the relevance of this video, for discussion here. Of course if the link to the video is just to influence other editors rather than for inclusion within the article then there is no requirement for you to do this. Mourner (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He admitted some parts that he ereased like the shot of Bosniak men missing since that day captured on a balcony,but when asked about a large pile of bodies infront of a stock house he said:That's it.Stop.I've told you enought(too much).A section should be made about the attempt of hiding evidence of the genocide by the Serbian and Bosnian Serb governments.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica: Autopsy of a Massacre - 52-min documentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZyCxJWitEw&feature=related --(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I was not referring to the footage as such, but rather to YouTube and the guys commenting on the footage. I would count YouTube as a reliable source. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a summary of the main points of this video? What evidence is it introducing? I appreciate the link but will also appreciate if you direct me to to what you consider is it's main value to the article. Unfortunately i don't have 52 minutes spare at the moment but trust you have reviewed the footage and can summarise it. Mourner (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have only seen first ten minutes of this second documentary since you have to pay for the rest of it.But the first documentary is full 29 minutes about the genocide footage shot by Zoran Petrovic who also tried to destroy the crucial evidence.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think if we can agree a general rule it will help all parties. Do not post up links to videos unless you have first seen the full version.Mourner (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What parties?Two parties here,the people who respect the victims of the genocide and people who don't.Those people use history revisionism not to update the factual information of an historical event but to use it for political purposes and goals in order to minimize the crime and it's nature. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I made no reference to two parties - I said all parties which referred to all editors active on this article. It does you no favours as an editor when you put up links to videos that you haven't yet watched. Mourner (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand.I've only posted it here for people who are really interested in the subject and want to pay to see it.The documentary is NPOV 'cause of the ICTY standard as it follows the man who has done most of the research for the ICTY on this issue.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on YouTube are unfortunatly unavoidable.But the userschannel on this film is the official channel of Journeymanpictures,so the author's rights are respected.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but in any case I would not count YouTube as a reliable source. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the only way for the film to be seen since Journeymanpictures is using YouTube as it's official website for uploading documentaries.Otherwise you would ban a crucial evidence about the genocide on a basis of some inproper comments made by viewers?!?!?!What we can do is warn our readers about the comments before they view the documentary.For example,the readers are warned that by viewing this documentary they may incounter profanity in the comments section.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, viewers' comments can be ignored, but I was more concerned about the commentary on the film itself (I would prefer the complete uninterrupted footage). I would not count Journeymanpictures as a reliable source either, sorry. Let's keep it here on the discussion page until we find a better version. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well,this documentary is important because Serbian nationalists,propagandists,revisionists and negotists are using Zoran Petrovic's denial of this footage as an exuse to say that this was somehow a Western imperialist,Vatican,Nato,Ustashi anti-Serb propaganda(LOL) while Zoran Petrovic is scared for his life and for his family's lives.Can you explain howcome you don't view Journeymanpictures as a realible source?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the actual documentary makers are Dutch and this documentary was played on the Dutch national tv Nederland 3.But Journeymanpicturas has the rights to show it to his audience.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Off Topic

Hope nobody gets mad! Guys, I need you to review this article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Vi%C5%A1egrad and to make necessary changes so we can make it (1) Objective, (2) Factual, and (3) Neutral. Is anybody interested to jump in and help? Thanks! Bosniak (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

New mass grave found,933 victims

http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have ref to other sources? Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newscloud.com/read/Srebrenica_Genocide_Mass_Grave_Yields_933_Bodies_in_Kamenica?skipSplash --(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the same ref. Mondeo (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Sorry.Didn't check that.I'll look it up right now.

One more mass grave found this month.Evidence that proofs the moving of the bodies in order to hide the genocide. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6138420.stm --(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A Mass grave discovered in September

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017391689&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull --(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Serbian cover-up campaign also included Kosovo(Albanian) victims.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/serbs-silent-over-massgraves-find-673435.html

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Inquiry Into Loss of Bosnia Photos

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E1DD143AF931A2575BC0A96E958260

A soldier's film was destroyed when it was wrongly developed by the Dutch Ministry ...

Actually there were 2 seperate films with pictures destroyed on 2 seperate occasions.The lost photos are believed to have had evidence of Dutch soldiers helping seperate men and women thus helping Serbs carry out the genocide.This should also be mentioned in the article--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant and can be mentioned, but does that NYT article really say anything significant? The result of the inquiry mentioned is much more interesting, I guess. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - what is relevant is possibly the details of the inquiry. The report linked to above doesn't give enough information to justify inclusion. See request below for links regarding the inquiry. Once we have more information we can then make an informed decision. Mourner (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The result of the inquiry was that the 2 films delivered on 2 seperate occasions(in a course of a year) were both destroyed by a "human error".But the guy who took these pictures testified about the pictures he made.I have a lot of info about this,but unfortunatly 99% is Dutch.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide any links regarding the inquiry conclusions? Mourner (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Only in Dutch. http://www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Srebrenica/inhfilmpje.html --(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The soldier who took these photo's said that some Dutch soldiers heleped Serbs with seperating men and women.That is offcourse complicity in genocide.The first film was destroyed by a human errorSecond film was unclear and the owner can't get it back ;)That weblink gives all info about the lost photo's from Srebrenica.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which link on the page is the actual final report? It just seems like press reports to me. (My Dutch is possibly not as good as your so apologies if I have missed the link). In any case isn't NRC a Dutch evening paper? Mourner (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes,it's the Dutch newspaper.I'cant find the rapport online.It happened in a time when internet was just started to spread around the globe.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Republika Srpska's report and official apology

This section of the article includes the following statement:

"The committee released a report in October 2004 with 8,731 confirmed names of missing and dead persons from Srebrenica: 7,793 between 10 July and 19 July 1995 and further 938 people afterwards."

The report actually only confirmed that 1,332 individuals had been identified. Does anyone have any evidence that the 2004 report listed 8,731 names? Mourner (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised if it's an error or a distortion, but does this have anything to do with the fact that there were two Republika Srpska reports? Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2002 report - which we have discussed previously - estimated, at then-current knowledge, 2,000 deaths. The 2004 report confirms 1,332 deaths can be identified. I am willing to edit the main article but considering there are several interested parties involved in this article, including possibly the author of the above quote, I am offering the opportunity for someone to provide details of the 2004 report confirming 8,731 names. I trust it was just a simple misunderstanding. Mourner (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem(s) with the lead

Hi all,

Just wanted to introduce my concern with the make-up of the 'lead' (introduction) to this article.

Wikipedia's prescription for leads reads:

The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

Now, I think the lead on this page is pretty lacking in light of this: rather than giving an overview of the contents of the article, it talks a lot about the fact which it was deemed a genocide -- which I agree is important enough to be mentioned in the intro, but I think a lot of stuff isn't there which deserves a mention. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the intro needs to be improved, it is a bit cluttered at the moment, mix of overview and factual details. As suggested earlier, some sort of summary (for instance number of deaths) in addition to intro is needed. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you comments - indeed I also believe that the whole article is unnecessarily repetitive and badly constructed. Certain parts appear very amateur - see my comments above regarding pictures. However, we should take one step at a time and seek to get consensus on a correct introduction as per the above instructions. Mourner (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan,you are again deliberatly trying to sum-up the article with your rules about how long it's parts should be.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan hasn't done anything yet, he is just arguing that something needs to be done. JM is refering to WP rules, not his own. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan is trying to F up the article as much as possible by using the wikirules in such way that the article gets damaged.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion about the article introduction other than using a profanity in respect if another editor? If you think the introduction does not need editing just say so. Mourner (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have an opinion.This article should be expanded to that extent as far as the information about this event goes and Jonathan should be banned from this article.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies but you can expand on this - This article should be expanded to that extent as far as the information about this event goes - as I don't quite understand what you mean. Regarding banning editors from article there is of course an escalation procedure. However, I don't see how a request for editor input as to whether an introduction should be rewritten in any way constitutes a breach of policy. Mourner (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What I ment to say was that the lenght of an article is unlimited.As it all depends on how much factual information there is.I'm talking about Jonathan in general.Few months ago he tried to shorten the article simply by suggesting it was too long by his standards?!?! I'm sure that Jonathan would also sum-up the Holocaust article in a few sentences and blame the jewish people for fighting the SS and getting themselfs killed.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you restrict yourself to commenting on an editor's actual work rather than making assumptions as to views they may or may not subscribe to? Regardless of the length of an article surely we can agree that the introduction should follow the general Wikipedia policy. Mourner (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro needs proper contexting and it should look more proffesional.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the intro as it stands now is the result of intense debate (and massive edit wars that lasted a few months). Every word, every sentence has been discussed at length. What JM is suggesting is scrapping all of that effort and starting over. That is not a good idea. While editors criticize Griffin for being vague in his criticism, those suggesting a wholesale alteration are equally vague. Sentence by sentence, the intro does summarize what happened and gives context. Fairview360 (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, it appears the introduction has indeed been stuffed with additional clauses and sentences that are redundant (e.g. "prior to the genocide") and peripheral (e.g "Dutch government resigned"). See section below. It is that version that had every sentence, every clause, every word go through intense debate. Fairview360 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Farview: Sure, but the intro includes a mix of relevant and marginal info. For instance the name of the presiding judge at Haag is not a crucial fact. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually even that sentence was discussed at length with that exact wording agreed upon since it makes clear that the quote is from the Presiding Judge summarizing the case not from the court decision itself. Fairview360 (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was only an example of what I regard as details that do not belong in a summary/introduction. The name of the judge can be included in a footnote or in the more detailed sections below. My point is that if the purpose of the lead (intro/summary)is to present the main points/overview, it should not be cluttered with such details. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks all for your comments.

I just wanted to clarify a couple of matters:

I'm not actually against having an intro longer than four paragraphs or anything (although I don't think it should be totally ignored that Wikipedia does prescribe this). I simply think it could do better at being an overview of the entire article -- at present, more than half of the intro concerns the findings of the ICTY and ICJ on the matter -- and I think the wording could be better in parts.

My previous criticisms regarding the length of this article were based on the fact that the article was over 100KB (now 144) and Wikipedia recommends that articles no longer than 30-50KB (old limit was 32KB), and the fact that I thought the article could definitely use some editing.

The fact that the intro was the product of previous edit-warring, as FV points out, is not a reason not to improve it. I do understand, however, that it is highly desirable to avoid edit-warring. I suggest the use of one or more 'sandboxes' (I'm not sure how to set one up, although I'm sure it's simple enough, but I wasn't planning to do this right this second). Jonathanmills (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One change I will put up for suggestion right now is to take the following:

In February 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concurred with the ICTY judgement, stating:

"The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995."

The ICJ also ruled that Serbia failed to take "all measures within its power" to prevent the genocide, and that Serbia was to cooperate fully with the ICTY and that it must transfer to the Hague individuals accused of genocide or any other acts for trial by the ICTY, and several fugitives from the ICTY remain at large and are suspected of hiding in the Bosnian Republic of Srpska or in Serbia.

and edit it to:

In February 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concurred with the ICTY judgement. [as footnote] "[T]he acts committed at Srebrenica...were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such...accordingly...these were acts of genocide."[end footnote]

The ICJ also ruled that while it was not directly involved in the massacre, Serbia failed to take "all measures within its power" to prevent the genocide, while several fugitives from the ICTY remain at large and are suspected of hiding in the Bosnian Republic of Srpska or in Serbia.

Anyway, that's just a first-draught suggestion. Open to any changes (I'm not even sure I'm happy with it, especially the final paragraph, as the two statements seem a little disjointed).

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It might me argued that legal qualifications at the beginning of the article do not have to be so detailed, especially since there is a particular section on that in the article itself. The quote from the judgment could be curtailed in a manner proposed, however the next paragraph seems to, also, curtail the Serbia's responsibility which lies certainly in not preventing genocide, but also in Mladić issue and in non-compliance with provisional measures. In order to avoid edit wars, introduction should be decided beforehand here in discussion (if it is decided that rewriting is needed at all). Regards, --Harac (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Harac, thanks for your input. Regarding the sentence on the ICJ judgement and Serbia's responsibility for the SM, I would argue that the sentence as it stands is actually *exaggerating* Serbia's responsibility in not mentioning at all that Serbia was found not guilty of direct involvement.

I'm open to changes on the precise wording, but that ICJ verdict was covered in this manner by the Western MSM (mainstream media) -- ie, that Serbia was not guilty of direct involvement, but guilty of the (lesser) charge of 'failing to prevent'.

As for the other stuff I dropped (Mladic and ICTY cooperation etc), that was basically an attempt to reduce the non-essential stuff from the intro, however I'm totally open to change on that; it was basically a first stab at an edit. (Perhaps such secondary info could be included in the footnote?) Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The first thing we should change is the first sentence.The new opening sentence should sound something like this : Srebrenica Genocide,mostly know as the Srebrenica Massacre.Also the title of the article should be changed into SG,not the SM 'cause of the ICTY and the ICJ rulings.Those two UN courts recognized it as an act of Genocide,so it's recognized by the whole world,except in Serbia where they would probably call it The Srebrenoca "Genocide" Myth - along with 50 other massacres they still deny as well.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That is more of a moral argument than one based upon wiki policies and not an argument that has ever gained much support among editors. Fairview360 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)