Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The word ''alleged'' 

message: Its funny how Nikola is fighting hard to remove the NPOV notice from the Demographic history of Kosovo article  , 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)
thread_title: Double standards

message: 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)
thread_title: "Personal attack"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: DNA identification

message: 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)
thread_title:  moved external links 

message: I moved the following external links from the article:
* Read the forbidden Srebrenica report   
* "Official" Story of Srebrenica Casualty Number is Challenged by Experts   
* Srebrenica and Naser Oric: An Analysis of General Philippe Morillon’s Testimony at the ICTY 
I deleted them because we do not want to link to any article written on the Srebrenica Massacre; in my personal opinion, we need only sites referenced explicitly in the article, and perhaps some major collections of good articles. Before reinstating the links, please consider to integrate their content in the article itself or (if you feel that would not be appropriate) explain why. -- Jitse Niesen 19:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More moved external links