Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 11

message: As so much of the discussion relating to this article focuses on issues which have been clarified or resolved by previous contributions, it is rather frustrating to find there is no easy way of directing contributors to previous discussions.  Most of the archive link titles are date-related with no indication of subject, and when the links are accessed the content is presented in a haphazard menu whose item titles are often vague and uninformative.
We're advised not to edit Archive Files.  So does anyone have suggestions how we could provide a useful summary of subjects already covered with links to previous relevant discussions?
--Opbeith 10:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving issues 

message: Can I ask for the information given at the head of the page to include advice to new contributors to make the title of their comments as focused and specific as possible?  If specific issues are referred to in an accusation of bias or inaccuracy a generalised title offers no guidance to anyone wanting to refer back to the way the discussion may have developed.  In fact a generalised accusation is effectively the expression of a point of view and so not very helpful in nailing down inaccuracies and omissions.  I know it may be hard to ask someone who is unhappy with the overall balance of the article not to voice that opinion but it will have been based on disagreement with specific points.
--Opbeith 11:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titling of comments 

message: HanzoHattore, I can understand your reason for moving the two maps to places in the article that are more closely linked to the maps' specific content.  But you don't seem to have given any thought to the impact this would have on the article as a whole.
The start of the article is now completely lacking any maps that would give the new reader a quick understanding of the geographical context.  As a result of the arbitrary deletion and relocation of images over the last couple of months the article is now a graphic wasteland.  The text is informative and useful but displayed in a typographically unstimulating format. Images not only inform the text they also help the reader to navigate through and assimilate the large volume of information it contains.
Although the notion of ad hoc contribution is central to Wikipedia I'm not sure why people consider that this should be seen as an invitation to carry out dramatic revisions at will without any need for discussion.  It's the law of the jungle rather than the ethos of the community.  If someone wants to make a large number of changes to an article it would show some basic consideration for fellow contributors if they provided a summary and an explanation on the Discussion page, preferably of course before proceeding to make the changes.
The principle of open access is central to Wikipedia but in the case of large, reasonably complex and controversial articles perhaps some form of built-in delay mechanism might be appropriate, so that changes can still be made but at least there's scope for discussion before the article is thrown into a state of upheaval and pointless aggravation by an act of intellectual violence - Wikitedia, for lack of a better word. --Opbeith 11:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures, graphic principles and the desirability of giving notice of large scale or numerous changes 

message: I propose that the title should be fully capitalised as a compound proper noun, being the name of a unique event, thus "Srebrenica Massacre".  I mentioned this once before ages ago.  If there are no objections by then I'll do this in one week's time, on 16 January. --Opbeith 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of Title 

message: : The ICTY website contains several summaries of the trials & judgments (including appeals) for several Srebrenica related cases on their website in PDF format. Although a summary of the Krstic judgment has not been added yet. 
: Just click on the "Case Info" logo. 
:ICTY judgments
Gardenfli 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Relatively)New Summaries of ICTY Judgments 

message: In the article, the following sentence:
:Surrounding Serb villages were used as bases to attack Srebrenica on a daily basis from day one, as concluded by ICTY. [12]
where [12] is .
However, linked document doesn't state that, anywhere. It uses the word "base" exactly once:
:In the spring of 1992, fighting groups had been formed on territorial bases and local leaders were chosen for their personal qualities, such as courage and achievement. Consequently, a number of them, including Akif Ustic, Hakija Meholjic, Ahmo Tihic and Ejub Golic, to name a few, asserted independence in the early days of the conflict and persisted in this attitude throughout the period relevant to the Indictment.
And even this is different meaning of the word than one implied by the article. Nor can I see any interpretation of [12] which would enable the above sentence. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. [12] repeatedly states that, f.e.:
:On 21 June 1992, Ratkovici, Gornji Ratkovici and Ducici were attacked by Bosnian Muslim fighters from two nearby villages and followed by a crowd of Bosnian Muslim civilians. [...] Consequently, the destruction of property in Ratkovici and Gornji Ratkovici on 21 June 1992 by Bosnian Muslims fulfils the elements of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, not justified by military necessity. [emphasis mine]
And so on, and so forth, for every attacked village. I will edit the article accordingly. Nikola 23:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ICTY appears to judge that they didn't, and on this article ICTY's judgements are regarded as absolutely infallible. Nikola 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source abuse 

message: I took the liberty to delete the entire mud-slinging thread full of mutual personal accusations not pertaining to the article. Now that we know who's who and what are whose positions, can we get back to discussing the article? You guys don't have to like each other's personalities and views, but this kind of discussion doesn't lead the ultimate goal—the article—anywhere. So, where have we stopped? Duja► 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start over?

message: From Hague Judgement:
In the proceedings against Naser Oric when the ICTY examined the attacks by Bosniak units under his control on various villages in the vicinity of Srebrenica it found that although there was no justification for the wanton destruction that took place in these villages, there was evidence in many cases of militarisation, military presence and provocative military action. In various villages referred to in the proceedings village guards received at least some military support. At the time of the attack on Ratkovići, Gornji Ratkovići and Dučići, a number of Bosnian Serb village guards were present. Although there was conflicting evidence the more convincing evidence suggested that at least some of those village guards underwent special military training and were relatively well-armed. The Trial Chamber did not exclude a military justification for the attacks on the villages.
In Bjelovac and Sikirić village guards received weapons and ammunition from the Bratunac Brigade of the VRS, and there was a Serb and Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. Weapons and ammunition were stored in Bjelovac, and positioned in between houses in Ložnicka Rijeka and Kunjerac. The school building of Bjelovac was used as a kitchen to feed passing Bosnian Serb fighters.  Bosniak 21:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serb Military Presence 

message: To change the title of a section that begins :
A range of alternative views of the Srebrenica massacre exist, from those who believe that the massacre did not take place at all to those who believe that far fewer than 8,000 were killed or that most of those killed were the result of combat, not executions.
from "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism" to "Critical views" waters down the title of the section to the point of irrelevance.
The title described the subject of the paragraph perfectly adequately.  This change is not simply needless meddling.  It seeks to disguise the brutal reality that there are people who deny, minimise and excuse what the United Nations has accepted as being the worst atrocity committed in Europe since the Second World War and flies in the face of the legal judgments that have confirmed the facts of what happened (insofar as attempts to conceal those facts allow) and established that the crime of genocide within the meaning of the Genocide Convention was perpetrated at Srebrenica.
This change of title can only be understood as a deliberate attempt to minimise the seriousness of the crime.
--Opbeith 07:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, a lot of people on Wikipedia suffer from your diagnosis Mr. Beith. "Everyone who disagrees with my view is biased", right? (Not that I do, just with the way you choose to behave in presenting it...)--Hadžija 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hadžija, my view is just my view and that's where it starts and ends.  I'm happy to keep pointing out that it counts for very little alongside the view of the matter expressed by the Secretary General of the United Nations and the International Tribunal in the Hague, etc. --Opbeith 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As someone with no knowledge or interest in this topic, "denial of the massacre" sounds biased, whereas "critical views" sounds neutral.  I therefore favour the latter. —Psychonaut 08:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "denial of the massacre" sounds biased in describing "... those who believe that the massacre did not take place at all"?  Ummm.  --Opbeith 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "denial of the massacre" is biased in describing "those who believe that far fewer than 8,000 were killed".  If someone believes that only, say, 4000 were killed instead of 8000, that does not make them a "massacre denier".  If you want to write a section specifically about those dissenting views which expressly deny that a massacre ever took place, then feel free to call it "Denial of the massacre". But you should not lump both massacre deniers and those who merely question the extent of the death toll under said heading. —Psychonaut 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Psychonaut, please explain why "denial of the massacre" sounds biased to you. I would argue that it is preferable to "critical views" because it is far more specific. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Denial of the massacre" is problematic precisely because it is far more specific.  The section in question states that it covers "a range of alternative views", including views which expressly recognize that the massacre did indeed occur.  —Psychonaut 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychonaut, to help you remember the title, here it is again: "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism" --Opbeith 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: …all three terms of which are nicely subsumed by the succinct, neutral, and non-inflammatory "Critical views". —Psychonaut 19:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Psychonaut has been biased and pro-Serb since I joined Wikipedia. He has been constantly complaining against Bosniaks to administrator notice boards.  Bosniak 07:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in the petty ethnic feuding between Serbs and Bosniaks.  I concede that your second statement is true, but unfortunately that reflects more poorly on the Bosniak editors involved than it does on me. Anyone who cares to examine my contributions to WP:ANI and WP:RfAr will see that I will report anyone who severely disrupts Wikipedia, regardless of their proclaimed ethnic or national allegiance. —Psychonaut 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critical views" or "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism" 

message: Sorry for missing out on part of the discussion, but I have changed the title from "controversial views" to "alternative views" for two reasons:
#The section does not give any third-party references to support the assertion that these views are controversial.
#The opening paragraph of this section describes the views as "alternative views".  Thus far no one here has objected to this characterization, so let's simply title the section using the words from the article we have already implicitly agreed upon.
—Psychonaut 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative views

message: Revisionism, denial etc - all these words are POV. They implicitly support one point of view over another. There's not much more to say...--Hadžija 16:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Denial is real and fact. Oh Hadžija, hadžija, I didn't except this from you. We can't change facts. How would you call it? --HarisM 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Controversy regarding..." Stop The Lies 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: Ok, I've reached my limit.  I thought we were having a civilized exchange of viewpoints, but this seems to have turned into a cross-examination, and I'm not not prepared to be treated like a criminal defendant.  I didn't seek out this article; it only came to my attention when Bosniak decided out of nowhere to post nonsense to my talk page.  I spent
last
week
trying
to
remove
blatant
libel, when it should have been obvious to anyone with an open mind that the allegation trampled all over our biographies of living people policy.  Opbeith finally agreed yesterday that he's willing to drop that little bit of libel "until the allegations are confirmed."  Which, I concede, is an improvement over Bosniak; his standard for inclusion of libel is "rv, allegations have not been proven to be untrue".  Opbeith's latest source of indignation is whether "genocide" is a legal term.  Clearly it's a "legal term" as far as the ICTY is concerned, otherwise there could be no genocide trial.  But I concede I didn't express myself very well, and Opbeith has been trying to get me to confess to my crime.  So, to make Opbeith happy, yes, genocide is a "legal term" to the ICTY.  That having been said, the man on the street doesn't refer to the legal definition when he talks about genocide.  Is the Darfur conflict a genocide, Opbeith?  I say it is; the United States government says it is; apparently the United Nations says it's not.  So yes, Opbeith: I assert that the United Nations does not have the unique authority to say that one situation is a genocide and another is not.  You disagree, which is your right.  If I follow your position to its logical conclusion, then I don't have the right to assert that what's happening in the Darfur is in fact a genocide, because the United Nations has not ruled it to be so.  Arguing in the other direction, MacKenzie simply makes the argument that busing the women, children, and old people to safety before selectively murdering the men and boys of fighting age -- clearly a horrendous war crime -- is not typically what we think of when we use the label "genocide".  Your position is that Srebrenica is genocide, as the United Nations has ruled it to be so.  By the same legalistic argument, the 400,000 dead in the Sudan are not the victims of genocide.  Ok, fine.  If those are the house rules for participating in this article, I'm more than happy to walk away.  It's clear to me now that it's not actually possible to have a civil conversation here.  The article is all yours, Opbeith. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured that out a while ago... *sigh... Don't waste your breath trying to save this article, it's a lost hope. Pretty soon, it will be saying that Mackenzie himself committed genocide while raping Bosniak women and receiving money from Serbian warlords all at once!  Stop The Lies 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm done 

message: Jim, I haven't treated you like a criminal defendant, what I have done is try to make you justify yourself, given the way you came into the discussion presenting yourself as an arbiter of truth and good conduct.  Yes, I'm afraid I have been pretty uncompromising in my response to your arguments, because you presented yourself as someone, with no axe to grind, acting in the cause of accuracy, fairness and good conduct to defend Lewis MacKenzie against rape allegations.  You then proceeded to make assertions and provide interpretations, based on highly biased sources, that go to the heart of the article's content - the issue of genocide and the scope of the massacre.
 
It's certainly not my article, as you put it.  I've contributed very little to the content of the article in fact because I think it's important to look at the article as a whole, and that's difficult while we're arguing over specific points.  So I don't see myself as a defender of the article as such.  What I am concerned about is the legitimacy of its content and that's what this Discussion page is about.
If you are so concerned and scrupulous where other people's views are concerned you should be as careful with your own.  In your "Parthian shot" posting you misrepresent what I have been saying about libel and genocide.  I don't say that I and, more importantly, the UN cannot be challenged in areas whose status in law has not been determined.
For example, you say the rape allegations are libellous.  I say that you can't call them that yet, because MacKenzie has not sued for libel and no case has been heard.  But we are both simply expressing our own different views because there has been no legal hearing or determination.
If I'm "willing to drop that little bit of libel", it's not because believe that including the allegations isn't justified - I think I was pretty clear about that.  These allegations are important in terms of their relevance to MacKenzie's reliability as a commentator on the issue of Srebrenica, which is the subject of this article.  But there is enough evidence elsewhere of his unreliability for it not to be worth the effort to continue disputing this specific point until legal action by MacKenzie or by the Bosnian prosecutor gives us a definitive judgment.
The same considerations regarding legal status apply to the fact of genocide in Srebrenica or Darfur.  You seem determined not to concede that genocide is a concept defined authoritatively in international law.  You certainly have expressed your view adequately, and do so again - "it's a "legal term" as far as the ICTY is concerned" but "the man on the street doesn't refer to the legal definition when he talks about genocide".  In other words it is the man on the street's definition to which we should refer for the purposes of Wikipedia articles.  I disagree.  There are a lot of us men and women in the street disputing what the "man in the street's view" actually is, such as the man on the street in Khartoum who may choose to understand the term in the sense that Omar al-Bashir gives to it.
Srebrenica is legally genocide.  Darfur is not yet legally genocide (and nor for that matter is the "religious cleansing" taking place in parts of Iraq at the moment). Nevertheless I believe along with you that what is happening in Darfur is genocide and I hope that eventually charges will be brought and the perpetrators brought to justice.  I'm disgusted by the failure of the UN to reach the political consensus that will allow it to act.  It's an obscenity.  But genocide in Darfur is still a matter of my personal judgment, not yet a proven crime.
I believe charges should be brought.  The basic law exists in the Convention on Genocide.   But the convictions don't exist yet.  I believe that what is happening meets the criteria of the Convention but it can still be argued that the charge hasn't been tested and proved.  What we're discussing in relation to Srebrenica in contrast is cases that have been tried and appealed, where the fact of genocide has been proved. 
Someone who claims to be furthering the objectivity of the article while presenting themselves as an innocent with no axe to grind and claiming an innocence of the issue should not be making claims about the basic facts using inaccurate arguments and drawing on biased sources, particularly when so much effort has already gone into covering this ground already.
I'm sorry to hammer on.  But meddling with the truth is indeed poisoning the well. --Opbeith 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide - there's a difference between what we see happening before our eyes and a fact established in law 

message: In August and December Osli 73 and/or Karl XII raised the issue of respect for copyright with reference to ICTY judgments.
I contacted the ICTY and have had an e-mail reply from Mr Christian Chartier, Senior Officer at the Registry Communication Service of the ICTY.
Mr Chartier informs me that quoting from or reproducing a Judgement or document is not seen by the ICTY as a copyright violation.  He remarks that there is ample evidence that the Tribunal's case-law is in the public domain.  Judgements are always rendered during public sessions; the hearings are broadcast live on the ICTY website; the actual judgements are released on the website within minutes of the completion of the hearing along with the summary read out in court by the Presiding Judge.  Their publication on-line and in the "ICTY Judicial Reports," clearly indicates that the Tribunal favors any further dissemination of the work of its Chambers.
The one "condition" that he draws my attention to - as a matter of common sense rather than anything else - is that when quoting from or reproducing an ICTY document, including Judgements, this should be indicated fairly and clearly by referring either in the text itself or in a footnote to the case name, the case number and the actual paragraphs/portions quoted and reproduced with quotation marks, and ideally a hyperlink to the document as found on the website could also be added. --Opbeith 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issues relating to ICTY judgments as raised by Osli73 and/or KarlXII 

message: This is a copy of a post I made at the Srebrenica article, after a reference to "many children" being among the victims at Srebrenica was removed.  I noted that a discussion of the issue might be more appropriate here.
In 1997 Amnesty International noted that more than 100 minors were still missing, including 
Hazim Hasanovic (born 1978), Suad Suljic (born 1978), Edin Ahmetovic (born 1977) and Semir Ahmetovic (born 1979), Jasmin Zukic (born 1978), Senad Zukic (born 1980), Muharem Mujic (born 1980), Sifet Mehanovic (born 1978).  (AI Index: EUR 63/026/1997 - 23 October 1997) http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR630261997?open&of=ENG-BIH
The videotape given by Natasa Kandic to the Serbian war crimes investigator and the ICTY provides visual evidence of the murder of chidren at Srebrenica.
According to Tim Judah and Daniel Sunter's article in The Observer at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1499516,00.html four of the six Bosniaks taken off the coach at Trnovo and assasinated were under 18.
Three consecutive names among the FCMP's listed 8373 names of the dead and missing are the children
531 ALISPAHIĆ ARMIN AVDIJA 1203979183129 12.03.1979
532 ALISPAHIĆ AZMIR ALIJA 210978183136 02.10.1978
533 ALISPAHIĆ BEHADIL ADIL 19.05.1979
http://www.srebrenica-zepa.ba/srebrenica/spisak.htm
Azmir Alispahic was one of those killed on the Kandic videotape.  The horror experienced by Nura Alispahic and her daughter Magbula as they watched the tape of their son and brother Azmir being killed has been widely reported.
I've seen reference to 12- and 13-year-olds being among the victims.  The FCMP list names
5217 MUHIĆ NESIB HASAN 00.00.1984
7594 SMAJLOVIĆ FAHRUDIN JUSUF 01.01.1983
2775 HASANOVIĆ REMZUDIN HASIB 101982000000 01.01.1982
4469 MALAGIĆ HARIS IBRAHIM 00/00/1982
and
1188 BOŠNJAKOVIĆ AMER MEHO 1109982000000 11.09.1982
The last named was two months short of his thirteenth birthday.  The other four don't have accurate birth dates and presumably for whatever reason their disappearance was reported by someone other than immediate family.
Of course there are plenty of slightly older names on the list.  There are 16 dates of birth in 1981 and 53 dates of birth in 1980.
So, there were many children among the victims.
--Opbeith 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child victims of the Srebrenica Massacre 

message: Psychonaut, although you say that quotes aren't italicised in English in fact it's perfectly standard practice in English, particularly when you have a block of text sandwiched between other blocks that aren't quoted text.  Italicisation is an alternative to using quotation marks around the quoted text.
In fact you may remember that the quote here was italicised before the recent editing to-and-fro took place.  It had lost its italicisation without anyone putting in the quotation marks, so I was simply restoring the status quo.
Personally I think italicisation makes for easier recognition as a quote but I've no great preference in the matter.  I'm happy to go with the general choice if that's what's agreed.  But if it's decided to stay with plain text then you'll need to put in the enclosing quotation marks.  --Opbeith 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicisation of quotes 

message: Laughing Man, You decide to flag the article with the notice "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints.  Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page."
It's certainly your right to add a warning like that if that's what you really believe.  But by sticking the flag on the article in that arbitrary way you're effectively telling us that you're not interested in discussing your proposal or listening to other people's viewpoints before you go ahead and take your own action.
Or are you simply trumpeting the advance warning of yet another onslaught by the revisionist concert party?  I hope you've taken on board the basic idea that individuals engaging in controversial actions should first discuss changes in article content on an article's talk page that was expressed in the following ruling, quoted on this Discussion page only a couple of months ago:
"Relevant decision by the Kosovo arbitration committee:
7) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.
Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Too few opinions" flag