Talk:Bosnian Genocide case

message: I would suggest changing the words "Bosniak muslim" into "Bosniak". --EmirA 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From skimming the article Bosniaks, this make sense. Changed. Be bold! --Geoffrey 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bosniak?

message: How can a state be judged? Isn't it like judging the Atlantic Ocean, or judging women? Can anything be judged, not only people? Or does "Serbia" refers to all the present Serbs?
It kind of remains me when the king of Spain sentenced all the Netherlanders (but a family) to death... --euyyn 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??????? 

message: Can we discuss major changes to this article, such as changing the name of the article, before you proceed with changes.   Whoever changed the name of the article gave a poor reason ie. "more useful name".
90% of all reports on this topic call this case Bosnia genocide case or Bosnian genocide case.  Given the profound nature of the case I think this is far more appropriate name. It is not merely a border dispute such as most other cases that this court has taken on and it deserves to be istinguished.
Curent name, although is typically used in the legal system, in a general public domain could also mean a soccer match "Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro".  I would strongly suggest moving it back to its original name "Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ". --Dado 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sympathetic to the above comment, but would want to settle on a name that could be used consistently for other legal cases at the ICJ. AndrewRT 11:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not only the above, but don't forget one of the burdens on prosecution is proving there was an intent to cause genocide at all - Bosnian Genocide ase starts sounding POV-ish. Daemon8666 14:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is by its current name going against the grain of what is commonly used name.  Not one media source calls this case as Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia Montenegro in particular due to ambiguity of the name morphology (it used to be Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia).  I thought we were supposed to use commonly used phrases.  All alternates are still called out in the article and we can redirect BiH v SCG on Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ.--Dado 18:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was finally  to your suggested name, unfortunately with the wrong capitalization, 'Bosnian Genocide case'.  My attempt to fix that didn't work because of a collision on an existing redirect page at small-g Bosnian genocide case.  A request to fix that is pending. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: There may be several errors in the article.  For example, saying Yugoslavia is not a UN member state and therefore do not have standing to sue Nato member states does not mean the same thing as ICJ not having jurisdiction over Nato member states.  I have marked "disputed". – Kaihsu 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand which part you're disputing. Is it a section, a sentence or the whole article? Can you clarify. AndrewRT 12:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand either.  Perhaps a few additional sources should be noted but hardly that article justifies an NPOV tag.  I will remove the tag until you clarify it.  Stating that "There MAY be several errors" cannot justify a dispute.  Please be careful not to misuse NPOV tag --Dado 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If I'm not mistaken, jurisdiction regarding crimes against humanity are binding upon all. (couldn't remember the exact latin term, sorry) Wouldn't that make S&M prone to indictment and punishment iff the judges ruled that there indeed had been a genocide? (kutukagan 08:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: Is there chance of the trial's success? If there is, what would BiH ask from Montenegro (and what from Serbia)? --PaxEquilibrium 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Success 

message: I have removed the Srebrenica Genocide Blog from the list of external links because it was added by the author of the blog himself (to this article and to many, many others) in contravention of WP:COI.  However, I suspect that it may actually be useful to keep here (I'm not sure, as I don't know much about the Bosnian Genocide and about the blog).  If someone other than the author re-adds it, please leave a note here so that it isn't mistakenly removed again. —Psychonaut 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com 

message: As Serbia has been cleared the article will need to be re-written to take into account the full judgement. -- Phildav76 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write required 

message: Since it has been officially determined by the Hague that "there was no Bosnian genocide on the scale of the whole country in an effort to exterminate the Bosnian Muslims" apart from the incident in Srebrenica, the article Bosnian genocide should be merged with the article Srebrenica massacre, or it should simply become a 'Redirect' to Srebrenica Massacre, because in this case it becomes simply redundant. Maîtresse 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sure --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't redundant. Hague only determined that Serbia as state was not involved in genocide, which was committed by Army of Republika Srpska (as noted by court). This article must stay, in order to describe ethnic cleansing and genocide in Foča, Višegrad, Bijeljina, Zvornik, and so on... But I see your point. Nothing can surprise me these days. I will cite you: incident in Srebrenica...   --HarisM 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bosnian genocide]] merge with [[Srebrenica massacre]] 

message: Boris Tadic declared that he is planning to present a law to the parliament about accepting the role of Serbia in the massacre. I think it is a positive step forward for the relations between Bosnia and Serbia. See you, Deliogul 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move by Serbian side 

message: The language in the following excerpt seems provocative and possibly POV:
"It was concluded however that Serbia failed to punish those who carried out the genocide, especially general Ratko Mladić. Despite the evidence of widespread killings, siege of Sarajevo, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing and torture by different Serb forces which also included JNA (VJ), elsewhere in Bosnia, especially in Prijedor, Banja Luka and Foča camps and detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia."
This paragraph's wording "different Serb forces which also included JNA" further confuses uninformed readers about the difference between Serbs and Serbians (in suing the state of Serbia and Montenegro rather than the Serb people the UN fails to address crimes commited by ethnic Serbs from other countries and unintentionally punishes Albanian, Hungarian, and Roma minorities in Serbia as well as Serbian Muslims from the Novi Pazar region.) Additionally, the language suggests the writer clearly believe the verdict to have been wrong, since the prosecution's evidence is presented along with the verdict in a sensationalist tone of disbelief. I contend that this paragraph at least, and any similar examples be re-written to avoid confusion or editorialization, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.81.110 (talk) 20:37, 28 February, 2007 (PST)
:If you have suggestions for re-wording please provide them, or otherwise be bold and make the changes yourself, while explaining them on the talk page. Maîtresse 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provocative & possibly POV language 

message: Let me start by saying I'm nearly totally ignorant of international law and how these courts work. So, I imagine there are many others like me reading! What is the result of the trial? Great, they are guilty of violating an international agreement. We obviously aren't going to build a jail cell around the country. What use is the verdict? Is it simply a result for victims to go to lower courts and demand compensation? If someone more familiar could clear this up, I know I would appreciate it as well as anyone else who doesn't understand what is so significant about it.
Thank you,
Liastnir 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penalties? 

message: *Genocide Court Ruled for Serbia Without Seeing Full War Archive, The New York Times, April 9, 2007
*Survivors of War Crime Outraged at Verdicts, OneWorld.net, Apr. 13, 2007
I’ve just added these two article in the “External links” section. If anyone here wants to add more content in the article using the articles above as references, that’s OK.--MaGioZal 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Read this

message: Since the entire "Significance" section is without references/sources I suggest we put some in there or remove the section alltogether (which would be too bad, since it makes the article more interesting rather than just an account of the ICJ judgement). CheersOsli73 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance

message: Footnote #7 has a broken link: http://www.icj-cij.org/cijwww/cdocket/cbhy/cbhyjudgments/cbhy_cjudgment_20070226/bhy_judgment.pdf  Bosniak (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Link Broken 

message: Can this article refrain from using legalese where not strictly necessary, e.g. in the 1st sentence "return". See WP:JARGON. Pcap ping 04:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Returned is not a legal term it is a general term used in other contexts as well. -- PBS (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legalese 

message: The Index of the judgement can be found on page 43-44/4-5 (PDF 4,6) of the judgement (the document seems to carry dual paging and just be be further confusing interlaces English and French pages and the PDF numbers --thanks to the French pages--are different again). However the index is clear because it refers to numbered paragraphs not page numbers.
*The first quote comes from 154/115 (PDF 226) § 276. It is in a section called "(4) Article II (a): killing members of the protected group" (§§ 245–276)
*The second comes from 175/136 (PDF 268) §319. It is the last paragraph in a section called "(6) Article II
(b): causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group"  (§§ 298–319)
I think this paragraph has problems because Marko Attila Hoare does not make it clear that this is a synthesis from two paragraphs from two different section of the judgement and by using quotes makes them appear as if they are from the same page or at least the same section. I think that the paragraph would be better constructed without quotations:
::*citation 1:  the judgement  paragraphs  § 276, 319
::*citation 2: 
-- PBS (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overwhelming evidence 

message: The article is poorly referenced and relies way too much on primary sources and overuse of long quotations.  Additional reliable, secondary sources are needed.
There are only thirteen references currently, of which by my count eight are primary sources or press releases, two are from reliable news sources in English (but one of those is a dead link), and one is a standard legal reference book cited in support of a original interpretation in the article (Bosnia will need to show...").  Of the other two, one (the Bosnian Institute) would be okay in the context of an article with many other secondary references.
 
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources.  Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material.  The place for long, direct quotations from primary documents is in Wikisource.  Those Wikisource documents can then be linked to from the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of primary sources and long quotations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bosnian Genocide case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/26/international/i033600S38.DTL&type=politics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked. Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified