Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 4

message: I find this page highly offensive. It's a long apology for war criminals and mass murderers. The more I look, the more see wikipedia being used by those who defend hate crime.
:I think the opposite, this article has as fundament bad researching, most facts are based on press reports and it is strongly under the influence of western propaganda. --Arsenio 20:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 81.1.71.69's comments

message: In his edit today he wrote :“This event happened shortly after the Krajina Holocaust in which virtually the entire population of the Krajina Republic (250,000) in Serb populated territory claimed by Croatia was ethnically cleansed & 10s of thousands killed - this has not been generally regarded as being as controversial as Srebrinica, perhaps because of German, American & NATO involvement.”
Well, this is an amazing error filled distortion of history; first of all, Srebrenica happened in early July 1995, while Operation Storm began on August 5, 1995, a full month after Srebrenica. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of Serbs left a day or two before the Croatian army came in an effort organized by Serb leadership, probably to populate the ethnically cleansed areas of Bosnia and improve the number of Serbs in Kosovo and Vojvodina were many were settled (this kind of ethnic engineering was done by all sides), they were not expelled, and there is countless evidence and documents that attest to this. Third, not even the most radical of Serb nationalists claim that there were "10s of thousands of Serbs killed during Operation Storm", the number given by them are around 1000-1500, while Croatian authorities put it between 150-300. ICTY puts it around 500-600.
GeneralPatton 12:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, it is a very specific charge by some person named Greg Elich who wrote "14,000 Serbian civilians lost them lives" and provided no backing for this claim whatsoever. This may be "specific" but it's not credible at all. --Joy [shallot] 12:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[User:Neil Craig]]

message: The DNA identification of these bodies, however delayed, does cause problems for the pro-Serb view, but the fact that the HQ of the body set up to carry out the identification is in Sarajevo & that one of it's commissioners is the Dutch PM Wim Kok who commanded the Dutch troops who let Oric through their lines to commit genocide in the first place, suggests that when western leaders set it up the problems of maintaining impartiality & truth were never important.
: This kind of commentary doesn't belong to the article. Without anyone actually claiming that the DNA identification process is partial and untrue, it's just a (baseless) opinion. --Joy [shallot] 22:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  195.93.21.6 comments moved from the article 

message: : CIA satellite photographs were used during the war to publicize suspected locations of the mass graves near Srebrenica. Several mass graves from which the bodies were exhumed were not found there; instead, they were found near the sites of Orić's raids. -- elaboration necessary - where exactly is all this? --
A map would be useful. At least a map of the Srebrenica region with the safe area colored, and the fifty-odd Serbian villages named in the 1994 FRY report. Something like http://www.kakarigi.net/maps/081s.jpg but with tagging. --Joy [shallot] 12:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  locations of mass graves 

message: Should this page be moved from its current name "Srebrenica Massacre" to "Srebrenica massacre"? --Eleassar777 my talk 20:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions

message: Didn't the Dutch government resign after the massacre over their soldiers' failure to protect the village? Wouter Lievens 09:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. As Politics of the Netherlands shows, the Dutch goverment of that time (the first cabinet Kok) served out its term. However, the second cabinet Kok resigned in 2002 after publication of the NIOD report, as stated in the article. -- Jitse Niesen 23:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch Peacekeepers

message: The article states "The video has caused a public outrage in Serbia."
Are they outraged that Serbs committed such acts or are they outraged that someone alleges Serbs committed such acts . . . or a bit of both?
Can someone please edit the article to confirm?
I think that the sentance was taken directly as media outlets reported the story without much consideration to what it refers to as you pointed out.  I agree that it is ambiguous but I would be inclined to say that it is a first thing.  Can someone confirm.  Otherwise this sentence may need to be taken out as it also may be relative and subjective.--Dado 21:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguous 

message: User Asim Led said that he : found no reference to the 28th regiment of the "Bosnian Muslim Army"
Of course you "can not find"  it becouse you deleted (2 times) the link/reference to this article from ZNet:
"When the Bosnian Serbs captured Srebrenica in July 1995, it was reported that the 28th regiment of  the Bosnian Muslim Army (BMA), comprising several thousand men, had just fled the town. [33] The media failed to ask how such a large force could have been present in a disarmed "safe area." (Politics of War Crimes, chaps 2-3. The UN estimated that there had been 3-4,000 Bosnian Muslim soldiers in Srebrenica just before its fall.)
So please STOP with your vandalism! (Marjan)
:In fact, the edit summary of Asim Led was: 
::Revert. I've found no reference to the 28th regiment of the "Bosnian Muslim Army" or "BMA" anywhere except on "Zmag".
:Everything around the fall of Srebrenica is very well documented, and if there was a regiment in that town, then it must be possible to find some more references. I'm afraid that Mr Henman's article is not that credible on its own, as his opinions are not quite mainstream, and in the footnote, he is referencing to his own book to support the statement. By the way, could you please sign your comments on the talk page by typing ~~~~ (four tildes)? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please give some reasons why these links should be included? If I agree, I'll put them back in. It is more fruitful to discuss then to go into a edit war (this also goes for Asim Led, of course). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. However, I don't think dividing the sites in "supporting genocide theses" and "opposing genocide theses" is helpful. What you call the Bosnian/NATO point of view, is in fact also the point of view of the UN (including the ICTY), Japan, Indonesia, Red Cross, and pretty much the whole world. Furthermore, it is extremely helpful to describe the websites. I tried to reorganize the list, retaining the Republika Srpska's report and the articles of Branco and Herman to present the Serb side. I have no idea why the NIOD report (which is already listed under References) is listed as "opposing genocide theses". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The reason that I am deleting the link to Vera Vratuša's commentary at http://www.nspm.org.yu/Debate/2005_exyu_vratusa.htm is that it is not relevant to this article. It is a vigorous critique of a text by Jan Willem Honig, which makes little sense without the original text. There are very many texts on Srebrenica, including many from the Serbian point of view, so we can't include everything but we must select those that are relevant and give extra information. Please explain why you want it before you insert it again. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to the 28th regiment of the "Bosnian Muslim Army" 

message: The 11 July is now commonly being taken as the date for the anniversary of this event, marking the day that Serb forces entered the town of Srebrenica and overran the defending UN troops . And we currently have the massacre as an event in the 11 July article. However, at the moment, the article doesn't make this clear, highlighting 7 July as the date that Ratko Mladić's forces entered the enclave (and from memory, took up positions in the hills surrounding the town).
I think this is an anniversary that should be remembered on the front page today, but at the moment only the Srebrenica article mentions the 11th. The date really ought to be mentioned explicitly somewhere in the article. -- Solipsist 10:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 10th Anniversary

message: The real story behind Srebrenica
By LEWIS MacKENZIE
Thursday, July 14, 2005, Page A17
(need subscription)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
posted at: 
http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/jul05/hed7098.shtml
" As the Bosnian Muslim fighters became better equipped and trained, they started to venture outside Srebrenica, burning Serb villages and killing their occupants before quickly withdrawing to the security provided by the UN's safe haven. "
:Lewis McKenzie has nothing to do with the Srebrenica massacre, or the Srebrenica region at all. He was never in the area, nor was he even in the Balkans at the time. Mr.McKenzie actually left Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993. It is also worth mentioning that long before he started political commentary for various Serb radical media, McKenzie was accused by numerous Bosniak detainees in Serb camps of war crimes (rape) during his visit to the site. Asim Led 19:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globe and Mail article about Srebrenica 

message: I have added the NPOV tag to this article as requested on my talk page by Oldadamml. 
I have not read the article nor the talk page and am not going to participate in the discussion or make changes to the article. If you want the protection removed then request it at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 09:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag 

message: A request was made on my talk page to remove the NPOV tag from the article because there was no justification made on this page for it. I cannot make any conclusions from this page as it is frankly a complete mess. To try and move the situation forward I ask everyone who has an objection to content in the article as it exists at the moment to note it below in the format
*What I object to
**Why I object to it
***What I think would be better
If you disagree with what someone else has written explain why, don't remove or revert it. Keep all objections/comments as concise as possible I will edit comments to remove personal attacks, and keep them short. Please read and be aware of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Three revert rule, I will block people who don't abide by them - this is your warning. Thryduulf 21:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the NPOV objections

message: The article says that the article were taken hostage. I didn't read all the references, I have to admit, but this is formally incorrect and at best inaccurate, I believe. They were very much aware that the Serbs had superior forces and probably felt threatened but were not formally taken hostage. Andries 14:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is indeed confusing, to say the least. It seems to claim that all Dutch soldiers were taken hostage, which is definitely not true. However, a few of them were taken hostage by the Serbs. I'm thinking specifically of a group of six led by Sergeant J.A.J. van Eck who were manning Observation Post U and taken hostage on the evening of 8 July. Groetjes, Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch were not taken hostage

message: I agree with User:Jitse_Niesen that the article is mess, and I agree with User:Thryduulf
that talk page is the mess. 
I suggest that opinions from UN peacekeeping commanders should be clearly stated in the article without  Bosniaks or Serbian added propaganda :
I mean at prior cited part from [] and []
I will left to others to write the proposal. --Oldadamml 10:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mess