Talk:Srebrenica Genocide Memorial

message: hi (anyone out there? Bosniak?)
Just to say that this is apparently not the official name for this site, which appears to be the Srebrenica-Potocari Memorial and Cemetery (or Srebrenica-Potocari Memorial Centre?)
Not sure how to edit the actual title of this article, though... Anyone know how? Jonathanmills 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect name 

message: HalfShadow and Ckatz have resisted attempts to remove Kiosa's inclusion in the Srebrenica Genocide memorial article text of Stephen Karganovic's attempts to call the ICTY's genocide findings in the Popovic et al. case into question.  I have deleted Kiosa's text as inaccurate, unreliable and irrelevant.  Popovic et al. is the most recent finding (June 2010) of genocide at Srebrenica.  It identified responsibility for the logistical arrangements for genocide, most relevantly here on the part of Ljubisa Beara.  The "evidence" cited here and by Karganovic comes from a report produced by Ljubisa Simic as part of Beara's defence team.  Its substance was rejected by the Popovic et al. Trial Chamber.
Karganovic is well-known as a contributor to the genocide denial work of the Srebrenica Historical Project (SHP) and a member of the defence teams of war criminals including Momcilo Krajisnik.  He promotes the incompetent work of Ljubisa Simic at the SHP's website and in his commentaries published on supportive websites.
Simic describes how his analysis is based on ICTY autopsy reports without mentioning the fact that these reports are long superseded as a measure of Srebrenica victim numbers (per Dean Manning's evidence to the Popovic et al. trial. ICTY handed over all identification work to ICMP in 2001, since when many more primary, secondary and tertiary concealed mass graves have been located, a fact unacknowledged by Karganovic or Simic, but key to the conclusions of the Trial Chamber concerning the number of identified victims).
Simic's questioning of the ICTY's estimate of the number of bodies is based on an assumption that identification of whole bodies is essential to victim identity confirmation.  The issue of the principle of "reassociation" in determining numbers of victims was discussed in the Popovic et al. Judgement in relation to Debra Komar's evidence.
The Trial Chamber Judgment noted that formerly ICTY archaeologists has used the Minimal Number of Individuals in a mass grave assessment in order to estimate numbers at a mass grave site.  This method provides an estimate of the minimum number of individuals whose presence is necessary to account for the number of body parts or bones exhumed from a given grave.
The figure is arrived at by counting the most widely present type of bone in a given gravesite (not necessarily femurs, as Simic seems to assume).  Bones other than the bone chosen for the MNI calculation were only considered to represent individuals if it was obvious that the bone in question did not represent an individual already accounted for by the other bones.
(This method of estimation was used to overcome the loss of intact remains when primary graves were disturbed by re-exhumation and bone-mingling when reburials were carried out in September/October 1995 in order to ensure more effective concealment of the original crimes.)
However the Trial Chamber in the Popovic et al. case noted that DNA evidence from ICMP provided a much more accurate representation of the number of individuals located within the graves and said that reassociation methods like MNI had been superseded.
As far as defence queries about the problems that incomplete decomposed bodies posed for determining time, manner and cause of death, the Trial Chamber was satisfied that there was sufficient other evidence before it, particularly relating to executions and execution sites, to satisfy it of the reliability of the conclusions reached in the Prosecution's expert reports.
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/tjug/en/100610judgement.pdf
See Section J.  Total Number of Deceased: Forensic and Demographic Evidence - paras 607-664
Regarding the ICMP's policy not to supply DNA identification reports to either the OTP or defence teams, without relatives' agreement this is an ethical issue.  The ICTY has not refused this as Karganovic suggests. In response to Karadzic's "fishing expedition" -  
"Are you saying that people are falsifying DNA results, the professionals that did it in the first place?  Or is this just a hopeful assertion that you're making?  I mean, what basis have you for this sort indication, and what exactly does it mean?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Lordship, this is just a possibility.  It's a possibility that nobody can exclude at this point."
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/trans/en/090723SE.htm
Judge Bonomy and the OTP agreed to a request for sampling.
The ICMP is accredited and has established protocols and Karadzic has not offered any grounds for doubting the validity and accuracy of its procedures.
But in any case this is an issue of relevance to war crimes trials, not to the article about the Memorial, unless and until there are specific validly raised doubts concerning the identities of the victims buried at Potocari.
The response of both HalfShadow and Ckatz to the warning that was flagged up showed little sign of interest in the quality of the article.  When I advised HalfShadow at his/her User Page about the reasons for doubt concerning the information he/she reinstated, my message was simply deleted with the comment "I literally don't care".  That hardly seems adequate explanation for ignoring the warning about suspect information and sources.  CKatz appears to be more interested in pursuing possible sightings of Bosniak than in investigating the accuracy of challenged information.  I suggest the latter should be editors' first concern.
Opbeith (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ljubisa Simic's unreliable evidence, cited by Stephen Karganovic 

message: I'm unclear why "memorial" in the article title is uncapitalised when it's capitalised in the full title.  This is a proper name, abbreviated, and as such the significant components should be capitalised. Opbeith (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: As of 2010, more then 4500 DNA identified victims are buried there. Memorial Center of Potocari ( July 2010): 4524 victims already buried,
    of them - children:
    13,5 - 14 years old: 5
    14 y. old: 14
    15 y. old: 43
    16 y. old: 77
    17 y. old: 114
    --------------
    total:     253   
    women:    7
    men:   4264       
    ----------------------
    total: 4524
    77.240.177.27 (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of victims 

message: The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,372 names, of whom some 500 were under 18 ( 33 under 15), and includes several dozen women and girls. As of July 2012, 6838 victims have been identified through DNA analysis and more than 6000 victims have been buried at the Memorial Centre of Potocari.
Srebrenica victims are subsequently buried in Srebrenica - Potocari Memorial and Cemetery.
Memorial Center of Potocari ( July 2015): 6377 victims already buried, of them 406 boys under 18 and 14 women and girls.
The summary of victims of Srebrenic massacre buried at memorial place in Potocari according to their birthdate:
      1995:   1       note 1
      1984:   1       note 2
      1982:   1       note 3
      1981:  14
      1980:  47
      1979:  99
      1978: 168
      1977: 221
      1976 - 1955: 3202
      1954 - 1935: 2098
      1934 - 1925:  447
      1924 - 1915:   72
      1914 - 1899:    6
      Total      : 6377
note 1: new-born girl
note 2: Together with his 15 yo. brother killed with grenate explosion during shelling of Srebrenica
note 3: Died in woods after 19.7.1995
77.240.177.27 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims identification