Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 12

message: Hi Duja. I thought you were Serbian (well I guess you are), but based on the information you posted on your website, you are also a Bosnian. In fact, you were born and lived in the region I came from. No matter how you feel, you are full blooded Bosnian, and I am glad you are respecting your Bosnian roots and not trying to vandalize Srebrenica Genocide article. I have sent you an email, so drop me a line. Cheers. Bosniak 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duja 

message: Lewis - SUC
While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how much has been directed towards payment for speakers and journalists, the SUC [Serbian Unity Congress] and Serbnet have set up a special fund for this purpose. Based on former UN General Lewis MacKenzie's own admission which was later corroborated by Serbnet -- that he was receiving over $15,000 per speaking engagement -- the amount spent on MacKenzie represents more than what the SUC is paying to PR firms such as Manatos and Manatos, Inc.
But just, who is Gen. Lewis MacKenzie? To answer that question, one must go back to 1992. In December - same year - the chief Bosnian military prosecutor in Sarajevo, Mustafa Bisic, formally charged Gen. Lewis MacKenzie with sexual misconduct against civilians while on duty in Bosnia, and requested that the UN revoke his displomatic immunity. MacKenzie was accused of raping several Bosnian women being held captive in a Serbian prison camp, as a "gift" from Serbian officials. The victims were later executed by Serbian soldiers, allegedly to 'erase evidence'.
Here is an archived version of investigative article published on June 4th, 1993 by Pacific News Services:
(...)
In a letter to the Bosnian president dated Dec. 3, 1992, Bisic cited the eyewitness testimony of a Serbian guard who had worked at the camp, known as Kod Sonje. The guard claimed he saw MacKenzie and several escorts arrive in a military transport vehicle with the UN insignia. The eyewitness claimed guards were then ordered to release four Bosnian Muslim women prisoners to MacKenzie. According to the prosecutor's complaint, the women were later murdered by camp guards under orders to "erase evidence" of this "unusual gift."
:::This is just according to Serb guard, you can read more in the source that I provided. Investigation started in 1992, is re-opened now, because new evidence came out.Emir Arven 16:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Students Against GEnocide (SAGE) -- Project Bosnia is a national student organization based at Stanford University and is an affiliate of the American Committee to Save Bosnia. Over the past eighteen months SAGE has been monitoring the activities of Serbian activists in the San Francisco Bay Area as part of an on-going campaign to discredit Serb-nationalist apologists and revisionists. The information presented in this briefing was collected from a vast number of sources. This includes personal correspondence, private meetings and forums organized by the Serbian Unity Congress and its affiliated groups. This briefing was written by Brad K. Blitz, a Ph.D. candidate in international development education at Stanford University.
So, to say that they are part of the "Serb guard" is a little bit misleading. The SUC is in fact the largest Serbian organization in the United States. Regards Osli73 14:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lewis and Serbian Unity Congress

message: Laughing Man, I understood that you were supposed to be discussing your edits, rather than making them on an arbitrary basis.  Nevertheless it's interesting to see Osli73's eccentricities returned to public inspection.  Now perhaps you'd be so kind as to consult with Jitse and Duja about restoring other contributions that you've all chosen to dispose of without any form of prior discussion. --Opbeith 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about?  Is it about this article?   If it is yet another personal attack, please do not waste your time.  I have restored  relevant comments deleted (about this article) deleted by 89.146.128.58.  It seems some editors here are more focused on getting the attention off the problems with this article and on to other editors instead.  Please try comment on the article content, not the contributors here.  Thank you.  // Laughing Man 15:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing in and out of existence 

message: Osli73, Another arbitrary deletion that shows how much attention you pay to other people's discussions.  The sourced reference to "gendercide" has a direct bearing on the argument MacKenzie uses to argue that genocide did not occur.  This was discussed.  You don't take part in the discussion.  You don't discuss your opinion regarding the point's relavnce.  You simply delete.  This is not good faith but fits the pattern.  --Opbeith 11:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opbeith, again, it is your conclusion that "gendercide" has a direct bearing on the arguments of Mackenzie. It was original research. Wikipedia should reflect the common view, not your own personal analysis, no matter how insightful or well made. Regards Osli73 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of the reference to Gendercide 

message: El C, it's hardly a minor edit to delete the message reminding us "Osli73 willfully violated his parole. What is the consequence?89.146.148.169 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What parole? It looked like there were mass removal of comments while placing "Osli73 willfully violated his parole. What is the consequence?" instead, which looked suspect. Rollback action is deemed a minor edit by default. El_C 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Opbeith, you addressed a message to El C, which it appeared that he hadn't noticed.  I've never had any contact with User:El C in the past.  I simply invited him to respond to your question; I didn't suggest that he respond in any particular way.  This was me "mustering support for Osli73" from El C: User talk:El C#This thread might interest you.  Is your sarcasm actually necessary? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It does tend to make it hard to have a civil conversation when your base assumption is that everything I do or say comes from a position of bad faith.  I assure you, you're very much mistaken in that theory. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major / minor edits 

message: Osli73, it appears that either you don't read or you don't understand your own links.
"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_research
Still I suppose you'll tell me my use of that quotation counts either as "original research" or "stating the obvious" and of course all the Wikipedia experts will agree with you.  Moi cynical?  --Opbeith 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original research" 

message: This article needs to move forward. Endless discussions about Gen Lewis MacKenzie's involvement in Serb-run rape camps and his own admission that he was paid by Serb lobby to hold speeches, is just a waste of time. MacKenzie is not a central person of Srebrenica Genocide. Let's focus more on Gen. Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic and their involvement in the massacre. I am sick of endless (several months long) discussions about MacKenzie. We can just delete him from the article and end this waste of time. There are more important issue to be focused on. And Osli73, please assume good faith and stop disruptive behavior, especially sarcasm and cynicism towards user Opbeith. There is an old Chinese saying: WE have two ears and one mouth, which means we should listen more and talk less. You are doing absolutely opposite. So far, you have absolutely ignored everything Opbeith explained, wrote, and discussed with you. Ignorance is very annoying and leads to continues disruption to improve the article. I would rather we focus on Mladic and Karadzic, than on Mackenzie. In my next edit, I might even delete MacKenzie from the article after all. This is getting ridicolous, counter-productive, and disruptive. Bosniak 08:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Osli. Sorry I couldn't respond earlier, I had some other problems in my life. Why not just get rid off whole revisionist section? They are not central players in the massacre. Lets just delete the whole category, and maybe we could open another article espousing their agenda? Or maybe, we could add new categories to their articles (e.g. Lewis Mackenzie article, etc) and espouse their opinions? I just don't see how can we improve this article if we waste another 6 months discussing revisionist views. If deletion of category is not plausible, then we could do mix of your and my suggestions. You proposed we "simply say that there are a number of 'observers' with dissenting views regarding the massacre". I propose we also mention that their views are viewed as revisionist by some. In fact, their views are clearly revisionist. But, does it really matter? Should we continue wasting our energy on "revisionist", "alternative", "controversial", "dissenting", "leftist" views? Let's find quick compromise and move on with improving other aspects of the article. Let's just work together objectively, and let's stop edit wars; it's counterproductive, and we are all tired of it. Bosniak 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough of MacKenzie, please 

message: i know this has been brought up before, but hopefully in the spirit of compromise and honesty, we can get a good solution.
"at least 8300" means a strict lower bound of 8300.  "At least" means the casualty figure could be higher, but it is impossible for it to be lower.  I don't think the evidence supports "at least."
The source says it is a "preliminary List of Missing and Killed in Srebrenica" not just people killed.  Also, it s a preliminary list, is the final list available?
The cited list has two sources of error...... (1) casualties of Srebrenica who were not reported as missing (2) People reported as missing who didn't die (they just went missing), and (3) people who died, but didn't die at Srebrenica.   How do we know that error from (2) and (3) is less than error from (1)??
I've read an estimate of 7000, an estimate of 8000 etc...  they are in the same ballpark, but they do NOT agree with the "at least 8300" language.  The President of the United States in a statement on the 10th Anniversary of the Massacre in Srebrenica said, "On July 11, we remember the tragic loss of lives in Srebrenica ten years ago. The mass murder of nearly eight thousand men and boys was Europe's worst massacre of civilians since World War II and a grim reminder that there are evil people who will kill the innocent without conscience or mercy."
I therefore propose the following replacement language "...killing of approximately 8000 Bosniak males..."  I think articles are more persuasive and heavy hitting when they are obsessively accurate.  When I read articles with errors, I have a tendency to discount the entire thing. -- Mgunn 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear all, should we then go ahead and edit the current figure to "an estimated 8,000"? Regards Osli73 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a problem with using "estimated 8,000" missing/killed, as long as we mention (somewhere in the article) which source stated 8,300 missing/killed. I think listing more reliable source will create better understanding of the issue. Also, I propose we somehow incorporate hardship associated with DNA identification (which is painstankingly slow process). Bosniak 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "killing of at least 8,300 Bosniak males" 

message: Someone recently changed some text from "Bosniak" to "Bosnian". What is/should be the principle in this article - Bosnian or Bosniak? Cheers Osli73 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no general principle because the terms refer to two different sets of people (one being a superset of the other).  "Bosniak" should be used when the article discusses Bosniaks, and "Bosnian" when it discusses Bosnians who are not necessarily Bosniaks.  —Psychonaut 15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's (usually) not our decision to make.  We need to go with whatever the original sources refer to them as.  Problems arise only when sources conflict as to how they refer to the people in question.  —Psychonaut 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You should not refer to the "Bosnian" government because the "Bosnian" government wasn't really Bosnian and supported only Bosnian Muslims - a.k.a. Bosniaks. Nikola 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The government of Bosnia is by definition Bosnian.  —Psychonaut 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The government in question was not the government of Bosnia. Nikola 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To Nikola Smolenski --- The Bosnian Government was internationally recognized government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Period. If you Serbs did not recognize it, it's your problem. This was democratically elected Bosnian government, whether you accept it or not. Bosniak 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely irrelevant. The government did not have control of Bosnia nor support of Bosnian population. Nikola 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Facts that that the government in Sarajevo didn't control all of it's territory and had the support of a large minority of its population are relevant, especially when we are writing an article about an event in the civil war waged against that government. 99% of the governments in the world do control their territories and have support of nearly entire population, and usage of the phrase "Bosnian government" implies that it was the case with this one, which it wasn't. If you disagree with the phrase "Bosnian Muslim government", which phrase would you use to refer to it, so that it is clear that the government was not fully legitimate? Nikola 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnian or Bosniak? 

message: *Support. This is the most neutral description, and was the term used in the text of the section before the edit warring began. —Psychonaut 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, are established much better. As it was pointed here already, people can't agree even how many millions(!) of people died in the Holocaust, or at Auschwitz-Birkenau (Auschwitz: anywhere between 1-4 million, and the museum now say less even then the Nazis claimed). Was it 6 million? Was it 20 million? The Holocaust is really a huge mystery. What just about everyone (denial ahoy) would agree would be like "a lot of people were murdered by the Germans, and a lot of them were gassed to death." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bosniak, as I explained on your talk page, I am not prepared to accept you misrepresenting me on Wikipedia. How can I "impose" something when I don't have the authority to do so - or the ability to enforce it? --Ckatzchatspy 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, problem solved. I mixed you up. You are not administrator.  Bosniak 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, so the Holocaust was "an ugly incident in a brutal World War" (and yes, the Polish, Soviet, etc populations were in direct conflict with Nazi Germany, and in this war 9 million Germans died and hundreds of thousands or more were raped, so you know the war was indeed "brutal"). You can "dispute any details" of Srebrenica (like whethever chemical weapons were used, because it's not established), I don't think it's what we mean by "controversional views". --HanzoHattori 02:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative views

message: *Weak oppose.  This title is somewhat misleading, because if a minority position is controversial, then by definition so must the majority position be. —Psychonaut 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial views

message: *Support. Not as good as "Alternative views", because this description defines the views solely in relation to the majority view, as opposed to presenting them as independent views in their own right.  However, I suspect that the description is mostly apt. —Psychonaut 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical views

message: ::I'm adding this title because it is the one that was used for most of last year -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism

message: *Strong oppose. While the views certainly include some which could be characterized as genocide denial, some of them quite obviously are not.  One can still hold that a genocide or attempted genocide was perpetrated even if one believes that less than 8000 people were massacred. —Psychonaut
*Strong oppose. This attempts to label all critics as 'Genocide deniers' and thereby equating them with the infamous Holocaust deniers. This has nothing to do with the numbers killed, the ICTY findings of Genocide was not based on the numbers killed but on their selection. Likewise, people can agree with the ICTY that 7-8000 persons were killed but still don't see it as Genocide. Are they "Genocide deniers"?Osli73 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez. No one really knows how many died in Holocaust, or even who include among the victims. We are talking about plus/minus many millions, go figure. The numbers of Srebrenica are MUCH better estabilished. By their names, even - including many (most?) identified by their remains found (practically none of Holocaust victims were identified and buried in a non-mass grave, even when their bodies found by the allies - and most were cremated). --HanzoHattori 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, the list of these excellently established numbers includes people who are dead and missing, and it is not known how many are dead and how many are missing, and there are cases of people from the list who are dead but were not killed during July 1995, and so on.  Nikola 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In Poland now, 62 years after the war ended, there's a project to establish how many people really died... ROUGHLY (including how many were killed by the Soviets). The Auschwitz museum now says 1.1 million people died at the camp - it used to say it was 4 million (these from all over the Europe, so semi-related). If you remember, the classic work of Holocaust denial is Did Six Million Really Die? The correct answer is: no one knows, but probably many more (right now it's not only the Jews counted). What happened in Srebrenica is established in a little detail compared to, say, what happened at Auschwitz (being the symbol of the Holocaust). --HanzoHattori 02:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide denial

message: *Support.  Not as good as "Alternative views", because this description defines the views solely in relation to the majority view, as opposed to presenting them as independent views in their own right.  However, I suspect that the description is mostly apt. —Psychonaut 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skepticism

message: Should we place pre-war ethnic map into the article? Bosniak 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This map is misleading, as it is done by municipalities, and creates impression that Muslims live on larger territory than they really do. Nikola 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Nikola Smolenski, it does create that impression - and the reason they don't live on such a large territory is because of what you continue to deny was genocide.  A lot of them just don't live any more, full stop.  If the sort of comment you have just come out with was made in the real world it would be met with the sort of straightforward response it deserves, but here that's not allowed. --Opbeith 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They never lived on such a large territory. Nikola 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Any ethnic map of political subdivisions would have this fault since the overwhelming majority of Bosnia-Herzegovina's territory isn't actually inhabited or even privately owned. Such maps are meant to provide a political context to ethnogeographic presentations, and the fact of the matter is that municipalities are as far as we can go to create an accurate regional depiction without descending to politically trivial subunits. Live Forever 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, a cartogram would probably not suffer from these problems. I don't understand what "providing political context to ethnogeographic presentations" means, I don't see why the fact that most of BH territory isn't inhabited is important, and local communities are not politically trivial.  Nikola 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't be against adding one, but only if it was a village by village one based on the 1991 census results. Live Forever 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: And by this I mean it would be specific to the Srebrenica municipality/region. Live Forever 00:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion needed... 

message: Whatever I do on wikipedia, and whichever edit I make, he is there behind my back, checking and checking, and then commenting on my Talk Page even though I told him not to write in my Talk Page long time ago. This guy is stalking me. I have politely asked him to get off my back. This is ridicolous. His nickname "Psychonaut" tells me a lot about him, but whatever he does to himself is not my concern - all I want him is to get off my back and stop stalking me. I am here for Srebrenica massacre article, and for or because of him. Bosniak 04:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, believe it or not, there is no rule against 'Wikistalking', and even if he is following you around and reverting edits he deems POV or Anti-serb, there really is nothing you can do about it. You will just have to defend you edits, assuming they can be justified. If you believe he constitutes an actual troll, you can try contacting an administrator. The Myotis 04:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have a concern, the appropriate action is to contact an administrator, not to make claims on an article talk page. However, you may want to think this matter through very carefully before proceeding any further. It is a very serious accusation, and your edit history may well justify the actions you're complaining about. --Ckatzchatspy 12:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems to have been prompted by my tagging of what is apparently a copyright violation on Bosniak's part (see User talk:Bosniak#Image copyright problem with Ethnic composition before the war 1991.gif). I've left a note on his talk page referring him to WP:STALK. —Psychonaut 12:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This heavy policing of copyright issues is reminiscent of Osli73's campaign about quotations from ICTY judgments when it was pretty obvious that that sort of material had been released into the public domain. It took me ages to get confirmation from the ICTY but when I did they told me (I can't remember the exact words) something along the lines that they were delighted for it to be used, subject to due attribution. Quibbling in the face of common sense is not necessarily unreasonable, but when it's almost always in one direction then its objectivity comes into question. The map is directly relevant to the Srebrenica Massacre article in that it provides the explanation for why ethnic cleansing and genocide took place. Rather than start by picking a fight over copyright violation when an illustration offers insight into the substance of the article I would have expected informed/neutral editors/administrators at least to discuss the possibilities of a "fair use" attribution.  But that doesn't appear to be the way of the world at this article.  --Opbeith 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychonaut is Stalking me