Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

revisionism

could you offer explanation for removing my edits. it is not true that version of bosnian serbs was that bodies were of serbs, but of muslims killed in the battle (i.e. trying to flee srebrenica region)- that was the argument which denied the massacre. please offer source for the claim made in the article. --bane

The word alleged

It seems that various people are deleting and reinserting the word "alleged" in the article, without any discussion, for instance in the following sentence

[The Srebrenica Massacre] refers to the killing of a large number of Bosniak men in the region of Srebrenica, allegedly by the Bosnian Serb army of general Ratko Mladić.

Can we please try to build a consensus? I think it is misleading to say "alleged massacre," since there are many reports from independent organizations, including the Yugoslavia Tribunal, the UN, and the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, concluding that a massacre did take place, while I know of no similar reports concluding that there was no massacre. However, the word "alleged" may have refered to something else, for instance that the massacre took place under the command of Mladic. Perhaps Everyking can explain why he wants this word in the text? May I also suggest that edit wars can sometimes be avoided if precise references are provided for the statements in the article, especially the controversial ones? -- Jitse Niesen 10:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The current wording is fine, it doesn't talk about allegations but clearly states that there has been a court indictment. --Shallot 10:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, Mladić is known to have been the supreme commander of Bosnian Serb troops in the area so his responsibility exists for crimes committed by his troops, only its extent can be debated. --Shallot 10:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second Shallot's statements. The use of alleged is in my opinion riddiculeous concerning whether the massacre occured, was carried out by Serbian troops under command of Ratko Mladic, and if Serbian troops conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Eastern Bosnia. The only thing that is debatable is the extent and exact number. This I feel is resolved with the following quote: "Due to the nature of these events, mass confusion, and propaganda from both sides, the exact numbers, details, and causes of this are debated to this day" --Asim Led 00:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nikola's edit dd 12 Aug 2004

Nikola, I think it would be more productive if you could amend the current version of the article, instead of replacing it by an old version of Srebrenica. If you want to delete some parts, fine, say so and we can discuss it. But please don't just delete everything. -- Jitse Niesen 21:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not me who deleted anything, it was Asim who, instead of copying the article from Srebrenica and editing what he didn't like commited "Removal of various propaganda, point of view bias, questionable sources, decisevly opinionated external links, and irrelevent material." and any mention of Naser Oric and his hordes. Nikola 06:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed rash statement, although I still suggest he read the article more closely and stand by my statement that the original Srebrenica page was riddiculeously biased. This is I believe a far more fair article that notes the shamefull actions of both sides. Asim Led 14:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I understand this is an emotional subject, but can we please try to keep our heads cool? ~~Asim, I doubt it is helpful to indulge in personal attacks~~ (thank you, Asim). Nikola, can you please explain what you mean with your remark about Oric? He is mentioned in the current article, in the fourth paragraph. -- Jitse Niesen 13:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's emotional for exactly these reasons... for the Bosnian Serbs, it's just another one in line of reprisals against the Bosniaks and it's incomprehensible for them why anyone would be raising that much of a stink over it without paying much attention to the prior events. Whereas for the Bosniaks it's incomprehensible how anyone could superimpose any other facts over the one that that 7.5K of their people were killed there. Each argument has some merit but it's still only fair that we concentrate on the most important facts. The present version does seem to accomplish that — it doesn't omit the information about Naser Orić, but it doesn't pontificate about it either. --Joy [shallot] 13:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that most Bosnian Serbs don't believe in "7,000 Bosniak men massacred" story at all. Nikola 06:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That number is taken as an established fact by the ICTY, do you want to say that they are lying? Some independent researchers even put the number at 8.000. GeneralPatton 23:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well Bosnian Serbs also believe that Bosniaks wanted to set up a fundementalist Islamic state with Foca as the new Mecca and that the only reason Serb soldiers fired at hospitals and museums is because Bosnian government soldiers provoked them by setting up positions there so as to attract media attention. It is a generally accepted fact that Bosnian Serbs were the most brainwashed and propaganda fed people in the Balkans at the time. Asim Led 13:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this part of the third paragraph:

Like most Bosniak populated cities in the region, Bosnian Serb forces began bombardment of Srebrenica at the very outset of the conflict. Similar to other Serbian bombardments at the beginning of the conflict, there is no indication that these attacks discriminated between military and civilian targets.

... is very calmly and neutrally phrased, probably more than I would have done. Freewheeling bombardment was an alarmingly popular tactic that probably caused the most damage and casualties in the war overall but in a slow manner which meant that it was often ignored and/or understated. --Joy [shallot] 14:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Except that it never happened. BBC[1] suggests that the only shelling (and not bombardment, BTW) worthy of notice occured during the capture of the city.

The BBC story notes in paragraph for the initial two days that the siege lasted since May, and that the UN peacekeepers called for air support when the bombs got too close to their facilities. So basically I've no idea where you drew this conclusion from and I'd find it very hard to believe that a siege is set up over the period of two months without any bombardment. --Joy [shallot] 09:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should assume that Naser Oric never happened either, since after all he is not mentioned on the page. The shelling/bombardment referred to in that paragraph occured at the outset of the war, whereas BBC only talks of 1995. Asim Led 13:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Joy, I think this needs some more proof. I'm not sure what the difference between shelling and bombardment is, but I'd use shelling if the explosives are fired from artillery and bombardment if they are dropped from planes. For the moment, I removed this part. But I did replace Nikola's version of the article (again), because its first paragraph does not even refer to the topic and its fifth paragraph (on the number of victims) is rather confusing. -- Jitse Niesen 12:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Notice also that "Bosnian Muslim fighters in the town asked for the return of weapons they had surrendered to the peacekeepers but their request was refused." but "One peacekeeper was fatally wounded when Bosnian Muslims fired on retreating Dutch troops." with the weapons they didn't have :))) BBC is funny but for sure anti-Serb so I trust them on the shelling. Nikola 06:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't say "the return of all of their weapons". It says "of weapons they had surrendered to the peacekeepers". Try reading without Hanlon's Razor in mind... --Joy [shallot]

I did not pay attention to such a distinction when writing the article, however by 1995 Serb forces used improvised airplane bombs and fired them from the hills at many major cities (most notably Sarajevo). These could destroy three story buildings in one hit. Asim Led 13:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This version is better *snicker* --Joy [shallot]

Neutrality disputed

According to 1991 census, 25% of city residents were Serbs. They must have lived quite unnnoticeable lives as the article doesn't mention them at all.
At the very top of the article - 7,000 victims. This number is heavily disputed.
According to the article, they have all been "killed". According to Serbian version of the story, they were killed in combat. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.

And that is just the first paragraph. Nikola 08:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1) 1991 census deals with the municipality not the city itself, so to say 25% of the city were Serbs would be quite faulty.

Well, let's say that the city core population was 5% Serb. They still are not mentioned. Nikola

Do you have any hard facts? And what are you trying to imply? GeneralPatton 09:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only that this article doesn't mention at all what happened to Serbs who lived in Srebrenica. Nikola 10:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you have any legitimate information about that, feel free to add it. GeneralPatton 16:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2) 7,000 is the number generally cited by international sources, the article repeatedly mentions that the exact number is unknown and disputed.

The number is generally cited by non-neutral international sources. The article mentions that the exact number is disputed, but well below the introduction. Nikola

ICTY is a "non-neutral" international source to you? What about Republika Srpska's own comission that also found the number to be around 7000. Only die-hard Serb radicals are disputing that, not even a majority of RS population, as indicated by the latest election results there. All of this has been coverd in the article. GeneralPatton 09:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, ICTY is a non-neutral source. RS's commission was heavily pressured by the high representative into giving "correct" conslusion, and even this article mentions that. Nikola 10:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So who is then a "neutral" source according to you, and what is the "agenda" of ICTY and why was RS commission pressured? Are you talking about some kind of an "international conspiracy" against Serbs?GeneralPatton 16:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3) That Serbs consider them to have died in combat is worthy of mention as dealing with the Serb opinion, and will be added, but not in dealing with the cold hard facts. A large number of men were killed: Fact. They were killed in combat: Serb Opinion which brings up a false perception that we are dealing with a traditional battle.

Wrong. A large number of men were killed: Fact noone disagree with. They (or most of them) were killed in combat: Fact some disagree with. The event might indeed have been a traditional battle and that perception might indeed be true. And the introduction does not simply state that the "men have been killed". The introduction states that "Srebrenica Massacre was killing of men by a person indicted for genocide which is one of the most horrific events. Nothing of that stands if they were killed in combat, and nothing of that is true. Nikola

You claim all of them were killed in combat, even tough ICTY has in fact found it otherwise, or is it all a "conspiracy to you", even Dragan Čavić acknowledged civilians were killed on purpose. All of this has been coverd in the article. GeneralPatton 09:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't claim that all of them were killed in combat, only that the RS claimed that all of them were killed in combat, and that that claim is not accurately represented in the article. Nikola 10:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, RS government doesn’t claim that anymore, that was the official line when Karadzic was in power. The article does mention that the Serb nationalists dispute the comissions finding, that's pretty NPOV i'd say.GeneralPatton 16:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The rest of the article presents the facts and readers are left themselves to determine if they agree with the Serbian view or not. In short I see nothing about this article that deserves a NPOV notice. Asim Led 00:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The rest of the article is even worse than the introduction. Nikola 23:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Any examples?

I agree with Asim, it should be noted that RS Comission for Srebrenica also validated the number of 7000. The idea of “battle casualties” has been proven as deceptively fallacious at the Hague tribunal. GeneralPatton 05:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The original RS commission most definitely did not validate the NATO claims. Paddy Ashdown then appointed his own commission which did but this is not the same thing. Several people seem to be using the western funded ICTY as being equivalent to an impartial "court" - a suggestion the Wiki article on the subject disputes - any reference to the court should make this clear. An article on the Katyn massacre which correctly said that an international commission had determined that the Germans done it without mentioning that the commission was appointed by Stalin would not be maintaining impartiality - the same principle applies. Neil Craig

Double standards

Its funny how Nikola is fighting hard to remove the NPOV notice from the Demographic history of Kosovo article [2] [3], yet he keeps inserting it here. hmm... Nikola, i have yet too see a fact-backed explanation about what you think is POV in this article. GeneralPatton 16:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Personal attack"

In his latest revert, Nikola stated "GP retorted to personal attacks as usual. The end of any discussion with him)". Would Nikola explain where did I do such a thing? It looks to me like he cannot validate his claims and now he’s seeking other ways of keeping that NPOV notice. GeneralPatton 18:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this article. Please stop edit warring and discuss the problem on the talk page. — Kate Turner | Talk 19:01, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

DNA identification

The two versions are that DNA has been used to identify 200 or >4000 of the bodies. Which is it, then? --Joy [shallot] 03:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/11/bosnia.srebrenica/ says it would get done 200 per month since August 2001. If it really came out that way, that's 7600 by now. Can anyone find a newer reference? --Joy [shallot] 03:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At the time of that article, more than 1000 had been identified. Im not sure of the exact number but I believe its closer to 4000 than 200. Asim Led 03:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, found something better with a narrower web search.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3884599.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/12/bosnia.massacre.ap/ (Associated Press)
http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2004/jul/12/wnw_6-2.htm (Associated Press)

All of these have stories from this year about 989, >1,200 and then 1,327 people identified by DNA and then buried in batches. It seems that the tempo of the identification process picked up recently. The revisionist stories are all outdated. --Joy [shallot] 03:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

moved external links

I'm moving the links to newspaper stories about the topic to Talk because there's just too many of them to be useful in the article, and they also tend to keep repeating the story and then report just a few new tidbits. --Joy [shallot] 11:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm also moving the following link here:

Western media article excerpts on Srebrenica

It starts out as some sort of analysis, but ends up as yet another Serb nationalist apologist diatribe about how everyone's conspired against the poor old defenseless Serb people of Bosnia, both the western press and the Muslims on a jihad, la la la la... After the morgues of eastern Bosnia have finally filled up with thousands of human remains, this kind of propaganda is entirely worthless and indeed offensive. --Joy [shallot] 11:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This too:

BBC: Srebrenica Muslim chief on trial

--Joy [shallot] 23:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Schouten quote

Moved here from the article:

the senior UN officer on the scene at the time said:

"Everybody is parroting everybody [about Srebrenica] but nobody shows hard evidence. In the Netherlands people want to prove at all costs that genocide has been committed. I don’t believe any of it. The day after the collapse of Srebrenica, July 13, I arrived in Bratunac [alleged massacre site] and stayed there for eight days. I was able to go wherever I wanted to. I was granted all possible assistance; nowhere was I stopped." (Captain Schouten, the ranking UN officer on the scene in Bratunac, Het Parool, 27/07/95)

However, in a 2000 interview, Schouten said that he had heard shots in Bratunac, fired in two long bursts, which had seemed reminiscent of executions. So I think the above quote is outdated. By the way, UNMO Major De Haan was in Brutanac with Schouten and I think he would outrank a captain. -- Jitse Niesen 01:13, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hearing bursts of fire during wartime is not unusual - the point is that he was there & saw no massacre. I think it is improper for those not putting the "revisionist" view to edit (or censor) facts or verified quotes, particularly from the one section of this article that they hold no responsibility for. If somebody wanted to put up a new section "criticisms of alternate view" I would undertake not to alter it if the Natoists were to allow me to post in the same way. --Neil Craig

When a statement is proven to be irrelevant/wrong, then it's not wrong to remove it. --Joy [shallot]

As regards the DNA - the fact that for 7 years it was impossible to identify more than a few bodies & then suddenly they started doing so in their hundreds is a legitimate reason for suspicion if one believes that the fact that the ICTY being funded by Nato members makes them less impartial than Patton says. Neil

And on the other hand, it could just be that they lacked funding/expertise/experience/circumstances to do the analyses in a more timely manner. Do you think it's an easy task to go around forested mountains searching for covered up graves, digging bodies out and then sorting out the remains in a state where DNA can be isolated with certainty from them? Especially when it done in the RS where pretty much everyone is aware what shit went on after the fall of the enclave, and has naturally been hostile to the whole idea of uncovering the whole disgrace. --Joy [shallot]

I would be interested to hear in what way Capt Schouten's statement is either wrong or irrelevant. In fact I would strenuously dispute that anything I have had censored here is untrue (if it was irrelevant I obviously would not have posted it). However I take it from what you said Joy that you consider it would be quite proper for me also to remove anything untrue. Neil

Egad, I just saw the latest commit... Please stop this trolling. I can't be bothered to revert right now but I'm sure someone will find the time to do a point-by-point rebuttal. Can't you go play devil's advocate somewhere else? --Joy [shallot] 20:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Joy/Shallot it is grossly improper of you to censor commentry here, particularly when you refuse, or are unable, to point to a single thing said which is not clearly true.

I'm not censoring your commentary here, I'm simply pointing out that such commentary in the article is wrong and unencyclopedic. You've also managed to alienate Everyking with the amount of blather, which is quite an accomplishment IMHO. --Joy [shallot]

You have already been caught on the Franjo Tudjman entry posting his hagiography produced by the Croatian nazi government as your own independent work. Since you are a citizen, supporter (& possibly employee) of that genocidal regime as well as a Jewish Holocaust denier I think, if you wish to exchange insults rather than facts I could find something worse to say about you & your spamming than merely "trolling". Neil Craig 7/11

What's wrong with you? You can't read page histories? You can't comprehend that I did not write most of the Franjo Tudjman article, and instead that Mir Harven did?

You aren't acquainted with the exact meaning of the words "genocidal", "Holocaust denier", or "spamming"? For someone who's so trigger-happy on the use the former two words, I'd at least expect for them to have read the explanation of logical fallacies at nizkor.org. --Joy [shallot] 10:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neil Craig, you are making it very hard for the rest of us to take you seriously unless you tone down your language. Please keep yourself to the subject of the article. -- Jitse Niesen 11:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)