Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Archives
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Archives: Discussions from 2004 The Drina Corps US resolution January – July 2005 August – December 2005 January – July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October & November 2006 December 2006 January 2007

KarlXII/Osli73 - identity crisis resolved

I removed all text in this section. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Srebrenica massacre article (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). It is not the place to discuss the behaviour of other editors. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, deleting Opbeith's comments borders on censorship. Let him speak. There is tons of genocide denial garbage on these discussion pages that were never bothered to be deleted. I know you are trying to be objective and fair, but please understand that double standard has been exercised for too long on this politicized topic. Suddenly we see urge to call genocide deniers "critics" and people with "alternative views", etc. Why don't you go ahead and call Holocause deniers "critics" and people with "alternative views"? Go ahead, test it at Holocaust and Holocaust Denial pages. It's simply not going to happen. If you question facts (whether it's the fact that holocaust happened, or the fact that Srebrenica genocide happened) you are not only questioning - you are denying them. Why? Because during the process of questioning, these deniers also seek theories that will support their conclussions! They are not interested in objective analysys of events, as it has been evident for a long time on these discussion pages. Opbeith tried too many times to reasonably explain people many facts behind the genocide in Srebrenica; he has been careful enough to place things into proper perspective, avoiding taking any sides. He is extremely objective and reasonable individual and he is one of those people who thinks thoroughly before he answers anything. He is very sensitive about facts of the case and his valuable opinion should be preserved, and not deleted. If people are going to question that one plus one equals two, then they are denying fact of the equation. We do our best to reason with unreasonable, but so many times world depends on unreasonable individuals who simply refuse to think and continue their ways of genocide/holocaust, small and large scale massacre denials. To get back to the topic, I am contributing this document from the United States Congressional hearing on Srebrenica genocide. Please read it carefully http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa49268.000/hfa49268_0f.htm . Bosniak 08:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to act kindof mediator here; maybe it's mea culpa for the first deletion of personal exchanges, but things are heating up again. So, let me express several opinions and/or facts, in no particular order:

• WP:TALK states, among other things, "Keep on topic", "No personal attacks", and "Never post personal details", with the proviso "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". I am not accusing you, Opbeith, of incivility, but you did post analysis of your opponents' views and personal background on several occasions. While those weren't grossly off topic, I deem their removal by Jitse as [borderline] justified.
• The section "too few opinions" is archived indeed:: Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 11#Too few opinions by Laughing Man. I don't quite approve this act, as it had some things relevant to the article, but it also had some nasty hints at "yet another onslaught by the revisionist concert party", and the tag is not in the article anymore so the issue is moot anyway.
• To me, it was more or less clear from the start that KarlXII is Osli73 (which doesn't necessarily mean it was clear for all). He ultimately confirmed that himself, and admitted it was an error; KarlXII account is now blocked. End of story, please. He did employ some questionnable tactics (talk-much-then-edit-quickly) in the past, for which he has warned by the ArbCom. However, I didn't see that repeated recently.
• I also knew that Hadžija was Estavisti. Since he's gone, it hardly matters now.
• For the record, User:Evv has requested username change to User:Ev. He's not very active in this article (but he is in related ones); just that anyone doesn't get surprised again.
• I kind of understand your frustration, but, trust me, the recent exchange of low kicks here is far milder than many edit wars I've seen. I don't want to be sound cynical, but get a skin. Apart from some questionnable (but not entirely inappropriate) removal of talk page comments, I don't think anyone has insulted you or Fairview personally.
• In sum, while the events at this talk page weren't exactly the model behavior, they were well within acceptable limits (with the exception of User:Bosniak, who is likely on his way to be banned from this and related articles). I sympathize with his strong feelings about the matter, but see WP:TIGER.
• We're dealing with a sensitive topic here, obviously. But the article seems to have reached a relative stability and the remaining question is how much of "alternative views" have enough due weight to be included in the article. But the spirale of assuming bad faith won't lead us to the solution.

Duja► 08:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Duja, I know I'm verbose, so feel free to delete this after reading it (I'll delete it anyway after it's had a brief run). I'm not concerned for my own right of expression. What I am concerned about is the outcome of discussions on this page.

Let us be clear. The Secretary General of the United Nations pointed out that what followed the fall of Srebrenica was a tragedy that was shocking in its magnitude - not since the horrors of the Second World War had Europe witnessed massacres on this scale. What we are constantly arguing about at the Srebrrenica Massacre discussion page is exchanges in which that reality, its scale or its motivation are denied.

You talk about Bosniak being banned for breaking the rules of Wikipedia when he fights to defend the facts that substantiate that reality while you, Jitse and Laughing Man condone the use of multiple identities to challenge facts established in many authoritative sources.

Your original deletion removed an exchange which centred on Bosniak challenging the actions and views of individuals whose behaviour appeared to bear out his accusation of their partisan motives. [1].

"I am keeping my head cool, but it's ridicolous to explain things to "those" people over and over again. They simply don't listen, just like their leaders refused to listen. Their target has stayed the same - destruction of this article, just as was their target to destroy muslims of Bosnia during early 1990s." That's a sweeping condemnation but looking at the reality of what goes on here I don't see it as being too far off beam. The fact and details of genocide are repeatedly denied here. When those who engage in that process of denial are challenged they change their names and come back again.

Duja, I accept that you and Jitse have made your interventions in the interest of promoting harmonious discussion. Even though I felt there was a degree of misrepresentation in your initial deletion I accepted that your action wasn't unreasonable in terms of its effect. I'm willing to compromise in the interests of ensuring a reasonable forum for discussion on this page.

What I'm not willing to do is to negotiate the facts of atrocity. When I have raised the issue of other people's views (not their personal background as you claim - simply their views, expressed openly here or elsewhere) it has been with the intention of establishing the reality behind their interventions here after that reality has been denied or dissimulated.

Just go back and look at the sequence of events that led to my exchange with the name-switching individual with the blog (whose personal identity I did not compromise - I couldn't, I don't even know it - even though he made accusations against me and identified me). Go back and look at the identity changes evident here and judge for yourself what sort of pattern emerges.

It's disingenuous to pretend that there's no history here and unwarranted to describe the situation here as stable. Periods of intermittent quiet rarely last. The substance of the article is not yet agreed. There are points where a more specific wording would be justified. I, and I'm sure others too, hold back from making those changes because I have a limited amount of energy available to defend those changes from the inevitable reversions.

Your reference to the TIGER page is quite inappropriate. The analogy comparing Wikipedia to a natural history museum safeguarding a collection of type specimens was obviously made by someone with little understanding of the sociology of knowledge or the role of information in the world.

The reference there to Simon Wessely is instructive. Here is a very powerful man who has sought to establish his authority over a field of knowledge. His victims' efforts to challenge his authority are not always as measured as dispassionate third parties might like. So their personal experience is denied because it is inappropriately expressed. The powerless driven to despair are rendered even more powerless when the rational but unengaged administer the rules of civilised conduct in a way that protects those who know how to exploit them.

You're quite right no-one has insulted myself or Fairview360 personally. I don't think either of us cares a fig about personal comments made about us, I think we both have a sense of proportion regarding the relevant significance of our personal sensitivities and the enormity of the subject at issue.

I think you've simply missed the point. Both Fairview360 and I are angry at the way facts are disregarded and the truth is distorted. We both started out with a "skin" of reasonableness and a willingness to engage in discussion.

I watched Fairview360 have his skin abraded away by the wilful unreasonableness and deceit of those with whom he engaged. Now I've experienced the same sapping of my reserves of tolerance. But I'm certainly not going to "get a skin" in order to live with duplicity and accept moral equivalency.

--Opbeith 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Things have stabilized here. But it's probably just a matter of time before someone comes and starts posting questions that were already discussed probably over 1,000 times so far (e.g. Lewis Mackenzie, Diana Johnstone, Oric attack on Serb village of Kravica in which 11 civilians died, challenging numbers of dead, challenging UN conclussions, challenging numbers of missing, etc). Wikipedia admins did nothing to stop obvious unreasonablesness with members who kept pushing their revisionist points even when they were presented with ICTY judgments. I mean, it's laughable to call obvious genocide deniers with such polite names as "critics" or "alternative views". Come on. What Opbeith stood for is calling people their proper names. I have no problem with people questioning what happened in Srebrenica. Me and Opbeight have questioned Srebrenica events for many months, but instead of looking for answers that would support our conclussion, we looked for answers that were supported by ICTY judgements, UN Conclusions, Congressional Hearings, Human Rights Reports etc. There are generally two types of genocide deniers, (1) those who reference other revisionists to justify their conclussions, and (2) those who reference factual findings (e.g. ICTY judgements) by taking carefully selected judicial findings and placing them out of context to gain credibility. For example, there was a case when someone holding revisionist views abused ICTY findings by cutting and pasting one sentence out of context which stated that Naser Oric attacked Serb villages. The point of this abuse was to prove that Serbs were victims of Oric attacks and that Serbs somehow needed to revenge for those attacks. Of course, nobody mentioned that long before Oric attacked and killed 35 soldiers and 11 Serb civilians in Kravice village, Serb forces massacred hundreds of Bosniaks in other villages around Srebrenica, Foca, Bratunac, Zvornik, etc. And of course, nobody failed to study judgements long enough to bring a point that these Serb villages were in fact military bases. But Opbeith was there to point out:

In the proceedings against Naser Oric when the ICTY examined the attacks by Bosnian Muslim units under his control on various villages in the vicinity of Srebrenica it found that although there was no justification for the wanton destruction that took place in these villages, there was evidence in many cases of militarisation, military presence and provocative military action. In various villages referred to in the proceedings village guards received at least some military support. At the time of the attack on Ratkovic'i, Gornji Ratkovic'i and Duc(ic'i, a number of Bosnian Serb village guards were present. Although there was conflicting evidence the more convincing evidence suggested that at least some of those village guards underwent special military training and were relatively well-armed. The Trial Chamber did not exclude a military justification for the attacks on the villages.

In Bjelovac and Sikiric village guards received weapons and ammunition from the Bratunac Brigade of the VRS, and there was a Serb and Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. Weapons and ammunition were stored in Bjelovac, and positioned in between houses in Ložnicka Rijeka and Kunjerac. The school building of Bjelovac was used as a kitchen to feed passing Bosnian Serb fighters.

With particular reference to the attack on the villages of Kravica, Šiljkovici and Ježestica on 7 and 8 January 1993 - the Orthodox Christmas day attack - the Tribunal noted that throughout the summer of 1992, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslims engaged in mutual fighting in the area of Kravica and Ježestica. The fighting intensified in December 1992 and the beginning of January 1993, when Bosnian Muslims were attacked by Bosnian Serbs primarily from the direction of Kravica and Ježestica. In the early morning of the 7 January Bosnian Muslims attacked Kravica, Ježestica and Šiljkovici. At the time of the attack a number of village guards were present. Convincing evidence suggested that the village guards were backed by the VRS and following the fighting in the summer of 1992 had received military support, including weapons and training. A considerable amount of weapons and ammunition was kept in Kravica and Šiljkovici. Moreover there was evidence that besides the village guards, there was Serb and Bosnian Serb military presence in the area.

http://www.un.org/icty/oric/trialc/judgement/ori-jud060630e.pdf "Prosecutor vs Naser Oric, Judgement". United Nations. 30 June 2006. paras. 590-676]

In these various instances the Tribunal while not excusing the actions of the units under Oric's control also described the wider context of conflict and military aggression in which those actions took place. The argument that seeks to explain away the Srebrenica Massacre as a spontaneous act of revenge often makes reference to a series of attacks on Serb villages and implicitly on Serb civilians by units under Oric's command in a way that ignores or underplays the militarisation of those villages and the provocative and retaliatory actions launched from them in the months and years before the final onslaught on Srebrenica

Opbeith was here to point many, many important facts, and he tried his best to reason with unreasonable. I must admit I lost control many times, and I admire Opbeith for being patient and having a thick skin. Both of us voice strong opposition to genocide denial. He is very sensitive to denials of human suffering. He's not just sensitive about Srebrenica, he is sensitive about Holocaust and genocide in Rwanda. He is kind, gentle, peace-loving human being, and as such, his views were not challenged properly. Instead of a fair debate, revisionists spat on his views, attacked his character, refused to even take into consideration his opinion, and to my shock - some admins even censored his opinion, which is reminiscent of islamic dictatorships and censorship police we can see in the Middle East.

And on a positive side, things have stabilized here, and let's hope they stay that way.

Bosniak 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See my coment below, at the #disputed tag section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duja (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

disputed tag

Hi everyone, well looks like I won't be the most popular person for adding a disputed tag to this article! I promise to read all through the talk-page archives when I get the chance (have glanced at a few) but I have to at least say that I don't see how the ICTY can be considered an independent and supposedly reliable source, as many arguing against the 'revisionists' appear to claim. The ICTY is an institution set up by NATO, after all! And I would argue a tag at least directs readers to the talk-page archives. Also, in response to the argument that people disputing the facts are 'revisionists' because Holocaust deniers are, this doesn't follow. Surely by that logic, anyone who disputes anything (well, any alleged massacre, anyway) can be called a 'revisionist' (a very loaded term) by a person who agrees with it. Anyway, looking forward to reviewing the archives. Cheers everybody.

Oops, forgot to sign and date that. PS, for the record, I am open-minded about this topic -- I'm not convinced the sceptics/ 'revisionists' are correct by any means. But I do know some shocking lies were told about the Serbs by the Western media -- eg Slobodan Milosevic's 'Kosovo Field speech' was portrayed as a nationalist diatribe, when it was nothing of the sort! (This was reported accurately by Western media agencies at the time, but later distorted beyond recognition. See http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/milosaid.html for a discussion of this.)

Jonathanmills 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The ICTY was not set up by NATO; it was by the UN Security Council Resolution 827. And if I may be so blunt, what would you call people who dispute the facts? The massacre was not an "alleged" massacre (and I'm not saying at all that you are claiming that it didn't happen); it is a proven fact; it not simply an opinion. Calling those who deny the that a massacre took place; or who cite considerably lower numbers, like only 2,000 dead "alternative views" seems to seriously call into question the basic absolute facts of the article; that a massacre occured in Srebrenica. Gardenfli 08:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"The ICTY was not set up by NATO; it was by the UN Security Council Resolution 827." Apologies; I should have said 'set up by the NATO powers'. But it was clearly put through the UN on the urging of the big powers in NATO. Moreover, they largely provided the funding, etc, and indeed have given indications as to how fully they are the ones behind the agenda: eg, see here: http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/tribdocs.htm

But the main point is that it is absolutely ridiculous to portray the ICTY, or the Western media organisations (given the appalling scale of distortion they were responsible for vis-a-vis Milosevic -- again, take a look at http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/milosaid.html) as somehow beyond question. And, having looked over some of the discussion archives here, (as well as the fact that most of the references in the actual article appear to be drawn from one of the above), it appears this is the assertion of those attacking the sceptics (to the point of calling them 'revisionists' and 'deniers', both thoroughly loaded terms.) So it is not a 'proven fact'; it is a contested fact. The 'controversial articles' listed provide more than enough evidence to at least cast some doubt on the official story (although, I say again, I have no particular view, as I wasn't there -- but I would venture to guess no one on this talk page was.) All that said, there is no good argument for removing my tag -- the fact is that pages and pages of talk-page archives clearly demonstrate that the factual accuracy and neutrality of this article are indeed disputed. I am thus replacing it. Jonathanmills 08:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are a sockpuppet. And you didn't read the article. So you cannot judge about the article if you didn't read it, and you are a sockpuppet. Emir Arven 10:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. And how do you know I didn't read the article? And just out of interest, have you read the articles from the Srebrenica Report Group or any of the other 'controversial' links? Or the article documenting the appalling distortion of Milosevic's record on the part of the Western media?

Jonathanmills 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonathanmills, if you want to challenge the legitimacy of the ICTY, as anyone is free to do, rather than refer us to the opinions broadcast by the brightest and the best at emperors-clothes it might be more useful if you cited the opinions of some more authoritative legal minds. The ICTY was set up by the UN which as is often the case failed to come up with adeqaute resourcing.

As I understand it the ICTY is funded partly out of the UN's general budget and partly from voluntary funding by individual member nations. As far as I'm aware you're correct in saying that NATO member countries who are also members of the UN have helped find the necessary resources to allow it to proceed.

If the ICTY continues to receive funding out of the UN's general budget this would suggest to me that the UN has not withdrawn its confidence from the ICTY and is still happy to have the ICTY continue its work. If you want to convince me that the ICTY is in fact an unreliable authority you need to show me evidence of a substantial loss of confidence on the part of the UN's member states.

If you want to convince me that the ICTY is simply a NATO creature I think you also need to show me that voluntary funding has not been provided by other non-NATO countries.

And if you want to convince me that the ICTY findings lack legal substance you'll need to offer me some evidence that the body of informed opinion in the field of international law rejects them.

The ball's in your court. --Opbeith 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for keeping the tone friendly, Opbeith. And your questions are of course to the point. I will get a reply to you when I get the chance. (This is not a cop-out - I'm actually at work right now).

Jonathanmills 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, as I see it,

1. it's not for the editors of this article to analyse the nature of the ICTY or any alleged complicity or bias of 'western' media. We should simply summarize and report the prevailing understanding of the event. As I see it, the view presented by the ICTY is accepted by the majority of other sources.
2. as there is a minority (or rather, minorities, since they don't appear to be a coherent block) who dispute various parts of the massacre as presnted by the ICTY/majority, their views should also be presented, thouth, of course, with much less weight/space allocated to them.
3. in both cases, the icty/majority view and the minority view, there is no need to label either of them as "revisionists", "alleged rapist", "fundamentalist", "Nato created" or other. Just say that the ICTY view is the view accepted by the vast majority and that the minority view is, well... a minority view.
4. Since the article currently strays somewhat from the ICTY/majority view, eg with the case of MacKenzie, the Scorpions and the >8300 killed, I agree with you that it is contested. In my opinion, the selection of information presented, the wording and conclusions drawn also means that in some cases the article is POV.

Regards Osli73 09:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when is murdering 2000 people at once not a massacre? —Psychonaut 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The past discussion seems to revolve around namecalling of "alternative"/"revisionist"/"denial" views. The general problem is that those views come by multiple people with a variety of motives, some of good faith, some of political agenda, and some of hatred. But I don't think that the relevant ones deny the scale of massacres, and putting them all under "genocide denialist" label is a) likely unfair b) dangerous. Some of those raise legitimate concerns, some less so. My general attitude (which doesn't have anything with any sort of revisionism of mine) is that we should avoid ugly namecalling and let the readers reach their own conclusions. Call it "overt political correctness" if you like, but see also WP:BLP: thus, I don't mind "alternative" or "sceptic", less so "revisionist", and I fail to see any actual relevant "denialist" view. Here's an interesting reading: [2] (ad nauseam: I don't provide it because I endorse it, just because it gives an overview of additional sceptic views). Duja► 10:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Duja, you miss the point in dismissing the issue as one of namecalling. The article had a section "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism". You seem confident in your understanding of what has gone on here in the recent past so it puzzles me that you are describing what has happened as "putting them all under the heading of "genocide denialist"".

You say that you don't see any actual relevant "denialist" view when there has just been a lengthy exchange here on the subject of Lewis MacKenzie's view that happened could not have been genocide - which he expressed over a year after the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY had considered the line reasoning that he advanced and had confirmed that genocide under the terms of the Genocide Convention had taken place.

We have recently had the argument put forward at some length that the man on the street has a different view of genocide and so the rulings of the ICTY and the text of the Genicide Convention can be legitimately disregarded.

You say that the relevant views don't deny the scale of "massacres" when MacKenzie's downward revision of the figure accepted by the ICTY is repeatedly cited and only a month or so ago someone was claiming that only 2000 people had been killed.

Your analysis substantially misrepresents what has been going on here. It's not namecalling, it's not a game. And I'm puzzled as to your purpose in posting a link to a page that contains a ragbag of many of the "alternative views" points that have been dealt with here already - including the view that"What happened in Srebrenica was not a single large massacre of Muslims by Serbs, but rather a series of very bloody attacks and counterattacks over a three year period which reached a crescendo in July of 1995." What exactly are you trying to say with all this?

--Opbeith 11:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, we seem to talk past each other. I don't see how I "misrepresent what was going here", when you can see for yourself that 90% of edits in the article and 90% of talk page space were devoted to the section currently called "alternative views", and most of it was how to phrase those views. As for my statement that "no-one seriously suggested 2000 as the figure", I see I was wrong and I retract that, although you'll agree that MacKenzie just questions the total death toll not-really-suggesting 2000 as the figure. Nowhere did I say or hinted that it was a game either (nor I think it is), nor I have any intention to play with numbers.
As for the link I provided, I already wrote the disclaimer; sorry, I don't feel compelled to write a 100-word sentence "this-is-the-view-of-some-people-but-it-doesnt-have-anything-to-do-with-my-opinion" next to every sentence of mine. I provided it in good faith, in case anyone wishing to expand or clarify that section can find some material for research and/or see what we're talking about (what are we talking about, btw?). I don't think that "The Revisionist" is a reliable source and I don't plead by any means to include that in the article; it does quote some people which might be relevant though.
But, can we stay on topic, please? Is the phrase "Alternative views" acceptable (I'm not too happy with it, either)? If not, how it should be titled? "Scepticism" comes to my mind as a potentially useful word stronger than "alternative" (and, yet again disclaimer, I don't avoid calling "denialist" someone who is an outright denialist). Duja► 13:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Duja, your reference to "namecalling" suggested that the discussion of the words used to describe the positions that people took with respect to the question of genocide, the scale of the massacre and its reality was a simply a matter of personal disputation. If it's not a serious issue concerning the meaning of the words we use, then it's just a game.

The person who I was referring to who suggested the 2000 figure was not MacKenzie, it was an individual who posted to the Discussion page just before Christmas.

You say you don't avoid calling "denialist" someone who is an outright denialist, but you said that you didn't see any actual relevant "denialist" view. How are we going to define "outright denial"? MacKenzie questioning the view that what happened at Srebrenica was genocide when the ICTY Appeals Chamber's ruling on genocide at Srebrenica taking account of the issue of the transfer of women and children had been in the public domain for over a year seems to fall quite clearly into that category. --Opbeith 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My use of term "namecalling" was inadvertently sloppy; I couldn't foresee it would be subject to such scrutiny. Well, fine, substitute it with "phrase". One way or another, if I thought it was a game, I certainly wouldn't spend so much time discussing it.
However, several editors have expressed concerns that "genocide denialist" is a libelous and loaded term, which should be avoided, especially regarding WP:BLP. We don't disagree about the substance fo MacKenzies views, and don't dispute the references, but their qualification is an editorial decision. Even if I might agree with your qualification of MacKenzie's statements. I'm trying to say is that we should err on the side of caution.
On the other hand, some stuff in the section regarding Serbia and Serbs' position in the article is outright wrong, i.e. the one that "Serbia, officially, has condemned the massacre from the very beginning". I watched the news at the time and I can tell you first-hand that it was met with utter silence and glorification of liberation, covered by Mladic's speech in front of frightened crowd of Bosniaks (I don't recall whether there were adult men in that crowd) regarding "how they have nothing to worry about and that they will get protected by VRS".
And, finally, another couple of interesting links NY Times Op. Ed. Vreme article on Scorpions (Serbian). Duja► 14:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Duja, I'm not trying to catch you out. I'm just emphatic about drawing attention to the implications of what is being said because it's important.

I don't class Lewis MacKenzie as a "genocide denialist", as I'd understand that term, in that I'm not aware of evidence of him having formally expressed his support for or having participated in a systematic effort to deny the fact of genocide at Srebrenica. The term hadn't in fact been used here before. The term we'd been discussing was "genocide denier"

From the evidence of his own words (his July 2005 article in the Globe and Mail) it's clear that MacKenzie questions the legal finding that genocide took place at Srebrenica, a finding that was arrived at after due consideration had been given to the argument MacKenzie expresses as "if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women go".

MacKenzie contests the ruling of the ICTY and its deliberations on the Genocide Convention. As a private individual with no specialist legal expertise he refutes the finding of genocide made by the competent legal authority. It's clear as daylight - MacKenzie is saying that what happened at Srebrenica should not be considered as genocide, in other words he denies that what happened at Srebrenica was genocide.

Having said that, I'm certainly happy to agree with you that there are parts of the article that do need calm review and reorganisation. And like you I remember the horror of those chilling pictures of Mladic reassuring those fearful children whom he was preparing to make orphans.--Opbeith 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone notify the appropriate authorities about Osli using a sockpuppet to avoid his parole and have him blocked? There is no reason why anyone should have to listen to this person. Thank you. 89.146.136.242 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Osli, you again! After your sockpuppet role?! Come on man! Try to be honest sometimes. Emir Arven 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Osli. Your disputed tag was removed by an admin, and the admin happens to be of Serbian ancestry. It's obvious that support for your actions is diminishing, even among Serbs. The number is not 7,000 but 8,000 as confirmed by the United States Congressional Hearing on Srebrenica ( read here ). Let's not constantly play with number, we are not toddlers. 1. When it comes to "the exact number of kiilled" - there is no such number, as new mass graves are being discovered every month. It's a work in process, and as you know - DNA identification process is painstakingly slow and will take years to complete, so we can put names to the each victim. 2. I have no problem with presenting revisionist views unless they are placed in revisionist category. If you read the article, you will see that we mentioned Naser Oric's killing of 11 civilians in Kravice (please don't forget that before Oric killed 11 Serb civilians, 100s of Bosniak civilians were slaughtered by Serbian army). Also, MacKenzie's revisionist views were presented as they are. 3. I think rape accusations should be included, but for now, let's just avoid dealing with it. We all want to avoid another edit war, don't we? 4. Well, it could be useful to shorten the article, but when I say "shorten" I mean "paraphrase" longer paragraphs and make them shorter and more to the point. I am not sure would it be useful to categorize "disputed" issues... How about we categorize revisionist issues? Why is it so hard for you to accept the term "revisionism"? It's a widely used historical term. Bosniak 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ex Osli73 semper aliquot aliquod novum. "My general feeling is that no one editing this article has disputed that some 7000 or more were killed or that it was a massacre and defined as genocide by the ICTY."

Forget that today someone claimed here that the ICTY can't be said to be an independent and reliable source, likewise the lengthy exchange that argued that the man in the street's definition or Lewis MacKenzie's definition of genocide should take precedence over the ICTY's or the Genocide Convention's. On 27 January you yourself were remarking at my Discussion page "Whether the casualties in the Tuzla column should be included can of course be discussed - though, again, the editors of the article aren't really the ones who should make that judgement. Attacking less well armed opponents with the intent to kill is quite common, but is generally not referred to as "genocide" or "massacre" ..."

The next day on your Discussion page, after informing me that I obviously saw the Tuzla column as unarmed refugees (when I had discussed the difference between and relative proportions of armed members of the column and the unarmed civilians fleeing the imminent prospect of extermination), you said that you saw the column as being "the poorly armed remnants of the 28th Division".

If you disregard the civilian members of the column who were slaughtered while prisoners in the custody of the VRS on the grounds that they are military casualties, how do you get to the figure you say you accept? And if you're suggesting that we shouldn't "generally consider" the deaths of people you've identified as "less well armed opponents" to be "genocide" how do you reconcile that point of view with the ICTY's ruling?

It's impossible ever to be certain what your circumlocutions mean, where you'll be shifting your position to next or what arbitrary action you're about to spring on us. That's why it's not as easy as you suggest to discuss these issues with you.

OK, Duja, Jitse, I'll delete this one myself as soon as you tell me to. --Opbeith 19:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent response Opbeith. I would also like to add that we are not here to defend or apologize for Bosniak actions, but we are here to contribute our knowledge to this article. Osli, the attack on communist army (JNA - Yugoslav People's Army) in Tuzla is a separate issue. Tuzla is not Srebrenica, it has nothing to do with Srebrenica. However, if you want to discuss this issue in another article - you are more than welcome to do so. We should keep on topic with Srebrenica article and refrain from writing essays encompasing all Balkan events. Bosniak 19:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, you've got hold of the wrong Tuzla column. Osli73 and I were discussing the people "killed in fighting", as he described the members of the column of 12,000-15,000, approximately two thirds of them unarmed civilians, who died trying to escape from Srebrenica and make their way towards Tuzla. Members of the column made up the large majority of the victims at Srebrenica when they were slaughtered as defenceless prisoners. --Opbeith 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, quite obviously this is a controversial article with differences of opinion and understanding of the events and how they should be presented. So, therefore it would seem quite logical to have a contested-tag added to the article. It is of course equally understandable that those who feel that the article today reflects their views are not interested in a contested or pov tag.

• Regarding the numbers killed, which Bosniak raised, I have given numerous examples of how the most commonly used figure is between 7-8000 with the note that the exact number is not known. In light of that, it would seem very odd for this article to, with such certainty, state that over 8300 were killed, based on a document which includes missing and killed.
• Regarding the Tuzla column, which Opbeith brought up, I have simply argued that it would, for example, be questionable to include soldiers killed in fighting (no matter how uneven the armaments were) be included in the numbers of people killed in the massacre.
• To categorize all persons who don't believe that >8300 persons were killed, especially given that the numbers are so uncertain, as a 'revisionist', with the sinister connotations (ie "Holocaust revisionists") this is meant to give is POV.
• It is quite apparent that the allegations against Mackenzie back in the 1990s were part of a political smear campaign against him. To mention it here is nothing but a continuation of the same smear campaign.
• Finally, I completely agree with Bosniak that the article should be shortened/pruned.

Regards Osli73 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, perhaps you might deal with the specific point I raised about how your position with regard to the Tuzla column makes nonsense of your position on other matters.

Whatever you, I or anybody else thinks about whether the article needs shortening/pruning, you should be well aware that your record disqualifies you from acting as arbiter on the subject. --Opbeith 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, we've been over the Tuzla column issue several times. I don't see how my position on that contradicts my position on "other matters" (which ones are you referring to, if I may ask). As for being disqualified from editing this article, well, I'm sure this would be very convenient for you and for anyone else who doesn't wish to discuss these contentious issues. However, this is not up to you. Regards Osli73 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, We may have "been over" the Tuzla column issue several times but I still can't see where I get a plain answer from you.

If you hold that all the members of the column were members of the 28th Division of the BiH Army and hence combattants, that the members of the column who died were "killed in fighting" and that "attacking less well armed opponents with the intent to kill is quite common, but is generally not referred to as "genocide" or "massacre"" I don't see how this is consistent with your stated position that you accept the figure of 8000 victims of the massacre and you accept the fact of genocide at Srebrenica.

It's this inconsistency between what you claim to accept in one breath and what you believe in another that makes me challenge the sincerity with which one or other of these views is being expressed. I'm aware that questioning your sincerity is going to get me deleted again but despite the scruples of editors who are willing to allow you free rein, the Wikipedia "Assume Good Faith" guidelines [3] provide adequate justification for comment on a pattern of provocative and disruptive interventions. --Opbeith 10:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone seems to have edited out Osli73's last contribution. When I raised the issue of Osli73 using the identity of KarlXII and this was deemed an unacceptable personal comment. Osli73's explanation that this was an error was accepted. So it's been decided that we have to go on putting up with him. That said, I'm grateful to the editor for relieving me of the tedium of returning to Osli73's inability to deal in a straightforward way with challenges to his logic/good faith. --Opbeith 13:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, this is getting quite tedious. I'm saying that

1. if a more or less well armed column of men as part of a formal military unit, in this case the 28th Division of the BiH Army are attacked while trying to escape this may be unfair, but it's not a "massacre". This report by the RS Government on the massacre (page 12 and onwards) describes it.
2. However, if they are captured and then killed as POW, then this certainly is a "massacre".
3. Therefore, to include all those 8300 identified persons "killed and missing" around Srebrenica around the time of the Serb takeover of the town in the number of persons killed in the Srebrenica massacre is stretching the truth.
4. As for the numbers killed in the massacre, I don't know. Most sources (see the list further down on the Talk page) say somewhere between 7-8000. So, that's what I believe and what I think the article should say as well.
5. The Srebrenica massacre doens't become any more or less Genocide just wether or not 7000, 8000 or more than 8300 persons were killed there. It's still Genocide.

Regards Osli73 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, don't you realize that you just used the Serb Government Report on Srebrenica to justify your sick claims? You have just used the "source" who previously publicly denied genocide in Srebrenica. You are actually sourcing Hitlers claims against Jews and you personally justify them and give them credibility with accepting that genocide happened, but also accepting that some of Jews that Hitler killed were in fact worth killing. This is sick. I am taking vacation for a day or two. This is just sick. Bosniak 04:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Duja

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)

Lewis MacKenzie rape allegations

I was under the impression that we'd come to an agreement that those ridiculous rape allegations have no place in this article. Do I have to keep this article on my watchlist forever to keep removing them? User:Emir Arven, please review the talk page history; I'm not going to waste everyone's time reposting the arguments again. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We didn't agree that the rape allegations were ridiculous and we didn't agree that they had no place in this article. What we did agree was that without them there were already sufficient grounds to question Lewis MacKenzie's authority as a commentator on matters relating to Srebrenica without needing to mention the allegations. --Opbeith 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They are patently ridiculous. The original allegations were fabricated; the current ones run over the same tired ground. No charges have been filed; a prosecutor engaged in idle gossip with an AFP reporter, having initiated no legal proceedings whatsoever. The allegations have been repeatedly added to the article for the past several months in an attempt to smear MacKenzie's name as an ad hominem attack on his character. Let's just stick to the facts. Ad hominem arguments simply make you look desperate, as if you believe that the simple facts aren't enough to make your point. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The rape allegations against Mackenzie are quite obviously attempts by some Bosniak groups to try to smear someone who is perceived as a critic.To reiterate them here has nothing to do with his credibility as a commentator on Bosnian affairs (which is why he is allowed to express his opinions in mainstream western media). It's the same as if/when Serb groups add charges of "islamic fundamentalism" to try to smear Bosniak politicians. Cheers Osli73 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, please don't...you have no shame, just remember when you pretented to be Karl in order to promote Serb propaganda! Emir Arven 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli or whoever you are now, the sentence is info about re-opening the investigation based on testimonies of raped women. Show some respect to the victims. Emir Arven 22:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Emir Arven: Please review the recent talk page history; we've been over these arguments repeatedly. Opbeith: You have complained that you can never take the time to work on the substance of the article because you have to continually revisit old arguments. Here's a demonstration of why that happens. It appears from the edit history here and on other talk pages, including User talk:Osli73, that this politically motivated smear has been removed many, many times over the past several months, with exhaustive discussion about the source of the original fabrication, and the reasons why this ad hominem argument has no place here. Can I ask you to show some respect for WP:NPOV and drop this, please? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Emir Arven, regarding "Show some respect to the victims.": With all due respect, alleged victims. A local prosecutor engaged in idle gossip with an AFP reporter. He has not filed charges; Lewis MacKenzie has not been charged with any crime. The only reason for continually juxtaposing MacKenzie's comments with those unsubstantiated rape allegations is to serve as an ad hominem attack on his character. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't know yet, because the investigation is re-opened (it was also opened during the war, because MacKenzie was well known by his friendship with today most wanted people that are hiding from justice, the war criminals Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic responsible for this genocide). But I put just the fact that the investigation was re-opened. Emir Arven 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Emir said:

MacKenzie was well known by his friendship with today most wanted people that are hiding from justice, the war criminals Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic responsible for this genocide).

Emir, with all due respect, that's ridiculous. MacKenzie's responsibilities in Sarajevo required him to have a working relationship -- not a "friendship" -- with all sides of the conflict. If you read his book, you'll find that his life was threatened by the JNA because they got it into their heads that he was personally responsible for a Bosnian ambush of JNA troops. As far as I can tell, the reality in the Balkans is that you're either an ally or an enemy -- nobody is accepted as being sincerely neutral.

But I put just the fact that the investigation was re-opened.

Just in passing, you added that comment using a non-reliable source that isn't even in English. Emir, can I ask you to honestly examine your motives for adding it? Is it possible that you added it because you believe MacKenzie is a Serb-loving, Bosniak-hating criminal, and calling him a rapist casts doubt on his credibility as a military analyst? The allegations themselves were known to have been fabricated when they came out of Borislav Herak's mouth in 1992. I spent far more time than I ever wanted to explaining all of this last month. These new allegations repeat the same old outrageous fabrications about MacKenzie raping Bosnian women in "Camp Sonja", a site that he never visited. It's now several months after Oleg Cavka gossiped to a reporter, and he still hasn't initiated any actual legal proceedings. Adding vague and unsubstantiated allegations as you've done here violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

'Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

The only possible reason for juxtaposing MacKenzie's comments about the Srebrenica massacre with the observation that a local prosecutor had a chat with an AFP reporter about rape allegations is to tell readers that this witness is not to be trusted. That's not how you go about writing an WP:NPOV encyclopedia article.

There's certainly good reason for including that {{Round In Circles}} template at the top of this page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the testimony of a raped woman from Sonja? Emir Arven 15:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Testimony! Perfect, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, please, Emir. I would love to read testimony reported by a reliable source. Please read WP:RS first, and note that Bosniak's blog is not a reliable source. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim Douglas, on the whole I agree with you that until charges have been laid and proven the victims should be referred to as alleged victims. That's potentially hurtful to people who have a far closer personal acquaintance with matters than you or I but if we are observing the principle of "verifiability" rather than "truth" then that's the line we should try to follow where it's reasonable.

The rape allegations are relevant and important in that they have a bearing on MacKenzie's apparent partiality towards the Bosnian Serb leadership (going beyond the requirements of a "working relationship") and subsequently his endorsement of Bosnian Serb perspectives. But MacKenzie is only relevant to Srebrenica insofar as his opinions are regularly cited in support of tendentious arguments about the scale of the massacre and the fact of genocide. His unreliability has been adequately demonstrated. That's why I'm not convinced that the allegations need to remain in place here.

But with all your insistence on observing legal niceties you actually misrepresent the position regarding the laying of charges against MacKenzie. And I also find it disturbing that you consider it appropriate to lecture people about observing the niceties of libel law who have actually been on the receiving end of genocide, an area where you consider anything goes and feel free to disregard and reinterpret the provisions and findings of international law. --Opbeith 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I should add that in Emir Arven's exasperated response to Osli73 it's clear to me that in the context of the Bosnian war where rape was used as a weapon of war it's legitimate to refer to women who say they have been raped should as victims plain and simple unless there's a concrete reason for disbelieving them. That's a separate issue from the matter of acknowledging that the identity of the perpetrator remains unproven. --Opbeith 09:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, it's quite clear that the original accusations of rape against Mackenzie were part of a propaganda war. That is why no respectable western media cover this or give it any credence. The Bosnian government, just as the Bosnian Serb government, the Croatian government and the Serbian government all engaged in propaganda, including exaggerating civilian casualties, gory details of beheadings, mujahedeen, etc etc. Just as rape was used as a "weapon of war" it was also used as a "weapon of propaganda" in the war. This is one very clear example of this. To qualify a persons comments with "alleged rapist" is not serious. To include it in the article would reduce its quality (even more). Regards Osli73 01:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a number of original comments regarding Mackenzie in the article.

1. To begin with, these were typical examples of original research and not sourced.
2. To a certain extent they were simply stating the obvious, eg that he disputes the numbers killed or that he apparently doens't agree with the findings of the ICTY.

Why not just say that there are also non-Serb commentators who don't agree with the view presented by the ICTY and then give examples of what some of them have said, including Mackenzie. There is no need to try to tarnish them with fake rape allegations or various allegations. Regards Osli73 10:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My take on this article

Editing this article, there are a few: (1) a few Serb revisionists (2) a few hyperbolic Bosnians (3) a few sane people working towards an accurate article

In any case, edit wars by groups (1) and (2) have made editting this article by group (3) completely pointless. The goal of the first two groups is to push their version of reality as much as possible without getting banned from Wikipedia. Logic and argument are useless, because groups (1) and (2) aren't listenning to logical argument. They respond only to power, the threat of getting banned, and on Wikipedia, the standard for getting banned is quite high. There are really no penalties for raising bogus objections, making intermittent false edits, and otherwise being a massive nuisance.

I'm not editting this article because it's a massive waste of time. I could make a few changes, but protecting the changes, arguing on talk page etc..., would be an absolute full time job. If MacKenzie comes in and sues Wikipedia for libel, fine with me. That's what Wikipedia deserves for having a barely policed process that lets intellectually dishonest editors hijack an article because they have more free time. As far as I can tell, the only way to get banned is to blatantly vandalize, make personal threats or violate the 3 revert rule, other than that, everything appears to be fair game. -- Mgunn 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mgunn, I share your frustration but at the same time I'm aware that this isn't an academic exercise. Knowledge doesn't exist in isolation from the real world. We're not engaged in describing a herbarium specimen. We're dealing with an event that has destroyed and continues to destroy people's lives.

We need to distinguish between attempts to promote a biased account of history and the irruption of understandable and proper anger when experience is being traduced. We're in the immensely privileged position of being able to take a relatively detached position, we should be careful how we judge the actions of others. --Opbeith 08:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this be an academic exercise? Why should emotion have anything to do with this article at all? I'm disappointed with the constant conflict mentality. In the brief period I've watched this article there has been this constant barrage of inappropriate edits: some people keep trying to take out any reference to "genocide" and other people keep inserting stuff like this wild MacKenzie stuff. The allegation of rape against a Canadian general while on active duty is an absolutely extraordinary allegation. I'm not Canadian, but I have great confidence in their legal system and military, and if there anything to the allegation, I'm sure they would have taken action. Also, the idea that a NATO military officer should be turned over to a foreign country for alleged actions while on active duty is also extraordinary. The position being argued regarding MacKenzie is an absolutely radical position both with regard to facts and international politics/law. -- Mgunn 11:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to have any knowledge of the precise legal situation so I would hope to be corrected by anyone with better information. The crux of the matter appears to be that MacKenzie has diplomatic immunity. The Bosnian prosecutor's office wishes to interview him. Unless he has been interviewed charges can't be brought in the Bosnian courts. Because MacKenzie has diplomatic immunity he does not need to respond to requests for an interview. The Canadian government is being lobbied to encourage MacKenzie to waive his immunity and agree to attend an interview, which I presume could be arranged on Canadian soil. I don't think that at this stage it's a question of the Canadian government simply "turning him over". --Opbeith 13:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Former General Lewis Mackenzie is already under investigation in Bosnia and he was invited to respond to charges of rape. Serbian and leftist web sites are posting distorted and highly suspicious material trying to prove that he is innocent, etc. Well, let him face rape victims, let him answer charges. If he is innocent, then be it. He has been avoiding responsibility for too long. And he's been paid by Serb lobby to hold speeches. I mean, the guy is obviously pro-Serbian, there is no question about that. Is he guilty of rape? I don't know - let the courts speak. He claims he didn't do it. However, he never wanted even to bother to visit Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina and answer allegations of rape. Jim Douglas, Osli73, and similar people will continue to disrupt this article - as they do right now. It is not my responsibility to police them. You know well when I react to vandalism that I either get blocked or banned. There is a clear double standard, however, I tend to assume good faith. What I learned here is that it's imposible to reason with unreasonable, so I don't take it to heart as I did in the past. Let's stop this endless Mackenzie discussion. He's not that important. Cheers. Bosniak 07:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, please don't mischaracterize other editors; it's not polite. Your definition of disruption and vandalism appears to be any contributions from editors who disagree with you. As far as being blocked for "reverting vandalism", I'm sorry; I don't see it. Here's your block log; which one of these was you getting blocked for "reverting vandalism"?

1. "No personal attacks"
2. "threatening legal action"
3. "vandalizing AfD votes"
4. "3RR"
5. "disruption, revert-warring, trolling, incivility - discussed on ANI"

For the record, I did stop the MacKenzie discussion. After a long, painful week, I was under the impression that we'd reached a consensus to omit unsubstantiated rape allegations -- and yet here they are again. Since we're all agreed that we'd like to stop this endless MacKenzie discussion, can I ask you to remove it from the article, please? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No because it is not info about rape allegations, but about re-starting investigation. The problem is that he never showed up in Bosnia, in Courte to answer some questions. So, when you mentioned his Serb-frinedship, it might me the truth:

Lewis and Serbian Unity Congress

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.[4]

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)

Emir, the organization you are referring to (www.freeserbia.net) doesn't have any address and only claims to be run by "Serbs who live in exile." You should know that setting up websites pruporting to respresent groups which in fact don't exist is a quite common media strategy (eg used by the Russian govt in lobbying for recognition of Transdniestr region in Moldova). The information you are referring to is collected by people described as follows:

"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)

Editing in and out of existence

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)

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)

Scorpions

I have removed the comment about the Scorpions being "special state security forces of Serbia" from the intro text. While it is clear that the Scorpions did indeed participate, it is not clear that they were, at the time, under the command of Serbia. This IWPR article goes into quite a bit of depth on the issue, saying:

The question that will necessarily arise at the tribunal, should the tape showing the executions be admitted into evidence, is under whose command the Scorpions operated in the summer of 1995 when they are alleged to have killed the six Muslim men and boys in Trnovo. The prosecution at the tribunal claim that the Milosevic-led Serbian security authorities were in charge of the unit, while the former Belgrade leader has insisted that it was under the control of the Croatian Serb authorities.

According to IWPR sources, the Scorpions at the time of the atrocity were formally part of the 11th Corps of the VRSK, the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina, the self-proclaimed Croatian Serb statelet.

Medic, in testimony given a few years ago in a case involving one of his former comrades, said the Scorpions unit was formed in 1991, initially to provide security for the eastern Slovonian oil fields. He added that in 1996 it became a reserve unit in the Serbian Public Security Service Special Anti-Terrorist Unit, SAJ.

This was confirmed last week at the Milosevic trial, when witness General Obrad Stevanovic, the former Serbian assistant interior minister, told the court that “the earliest point that [the Scorpions] could have been [subordinated to the Serbian interior ministry] would have been after the end of the war in Krajina, after mid 1996 or perhaps slightly earlier [that year]”.

A recently published report by the Serbian organised crime department into links between the Scorpions and the Belgrade authorities says that the paramilitary unit did not come under the command of the SAJ until March 1999.

Likewise, this Centre for Southeast European Studies article writes that "While the perpetrators and the victims of the crime shown on the tape have been identified, it remains unclear under whose command the unit was in July 1995.". In conclusion, it would appear to be pushing it to label the Scorpions as "Serbian" implies that they were Serbian state control while this is far from established. Regards Osli73 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a trial in Belgrade now, against Serbian police unit, Scorpions, so don't spread bull shit! Emir Arven 07:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You have already tried this once, when you were blocked because of your sockpuppet role, and we have been through this discussion, the information is sourced. Emir Arven 07:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Emir, no need to use this type of language. You are correct, that there is a trial going on in Belgrade of some of the members of the Scorpions unit. If you read the iwpr article (see above) you will see that it is hoped the trial will spread some light on under whose responsibility/command the Scorpions acted. Until then, it would be premature to say, or imply, that they acted on behalf of the Serbian/YU state. The two references you are referring are quite clear in saying that the link is not yet clear.

There is, as you are probably aware of, another trial going on at the Intl. Tribunal between BH and YU (now Serbia) regarding alleged Serbian involvement in the civil war in Bosnia, where the issue of the Scorpions chain of command is seen as important. Again, neither of these trials have been completed. So, until then, it would be wrong for the article to make this appear as fact. Regards Osli73 13:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Red Berets (Seb state security) were also sent to Bosnia, to take part in another massacre - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08ZZ4HcWQBY#GU5U2spHI_4 (Serb paramilitary leader talking about their involvement). You can recall Red Berets from the crackdown on them after the Dindic murder. --HanzoHattori 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, this may very well have been the case, though I don't think the editors should draw their own conclusions from a Youtube film. As for the Scorpions, since neither Emir nor anyone else has produced any stronger and credible evidence of the link, should I go ahead and remove the comment about the Scorpions and their link to the Serbian state? Regards Osli73 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have interpreted the lack of reply to my comment above to mean that there are no wellfounded arguments against removing the mention of the Scorpions in the introduction. Cheers Osli73 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See if you can remember discussions your sockpuppet participate in. Do you remember the link now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.146.146.141 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

~8000 vs >8300

The article current states that "at least 8300" were killed based on figures of "missing and killed". I advocate using "an estimated 8,000" since most estimates vary between 7-8000. Thus "an estimated 8000" seems fair. Some examples:

1. HRW ("“Safe Areas” for Srebrenica’s Most Wanted; A Decade of Failure to Apprehend Karadzic and Mladic, June 2005) uses ther words "between 7,000 and 8,000" [5]
2. The Enclyclopedia Britannica says "more than 7,000" http[://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9403267/Bosnia-and-Herzegovina]
3. "Accounting for Genocide: How Many Were Killed in Srebrenica?", European Journal of Population, Sept. 2003. It concludes that "We conclude that at least 7,475 persons were killed after the fall of Srebrenica." [6] and [7]
4. BBC writes "more than 7,000" ("Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica")[8]
5. CNN referst to "up to 8,000" ("Srebrenica: 'A triumph of evil'", May 2006)[9]
6. Domovina.net cites "Around 8000" ("Srebrenica : Introduction", May 2002)[10]
7. NIOD report writes that "The Yugoslavia Tribunal concluded that between 7000 and 8000 men were executed, although this does not allow for the possibility that some will have died during the march for any of a number of other reasons. Based on the Bosnian Serb figure of approximately 6000 'prisoners of war' captured by the VRS, it seems that of the 7500 missing persons, approximately 6000 faced execution while the others met their end through some other cause." (NIOD report, Part IV, Chapter 2:20, "Review")[11]
8. ICTY in its judgement against Krstic writes "between 7,000 – 8,000" (ICTY, April 2004, para. 2)[12]

Remember, Wikipedia is not the place for Original research. Regards Osli73 01:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not place for Serb propaganda, and you were blocked because of that, remember? The information about 8300 people is sourced with the detailed list of people killed. The list is a based on research conducted by an institution, Federal Comission for Investigation. Emir Arven 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody, please control yourselves. You know that we must not make personal attacks in the form of reminding contributors that they have been blocked or that they have deliberately misled other contributors as to their identity. You know very well that we must only talk about the article, not the reality that lies behind the changes made to it. Osli73 is a protected species. Please be civil and stop causing offence to the Friends of Osli73. --Opbeith 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Friends of Osli73, thanks again for your suppport and assistance in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's content and reputation. Your eagerness to leap on all references to Osli73's disruptive background and willingness to allow him free rein on his return perhaps explains why he now feels justified as part of his campaign to establish the non-existence of rape charges against Lewis MacKenzie in deleting my addition:

"These views propose a different definition of genocide to that contained in the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Writing in July 2005 MacKenzie chose not to refer to the ICTY Appeals Chamber's confirmation in April 2004 that the original Trial Chamber was correct in rejecting the defence that genocide could not have occurred because the women and children were transferred away from the area. The Canadian government has not publicised any intention to seek a revision of the Convention's wording.

MacKenzie's views also dispute the Appeal Chamber's finding in April 2004 that 7000-8000 Bosnian men and boys were murdered at Srebrenica although he offers no new evidence to contradict the Court's findings.

MacKenzie's views are frequently cited by commentators who are reluctant to accept the ICTY's findings."

Osli73 appears to consider these comments on a par with the rape allegations. So, Osli73, would you mind telling me why you object to me circulating these lies I invent? --Opbeith 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Emir, yes, you have used the Federal Commissions list of "missing and killed" as a reference. What I am saying, is that this doesn't necessarily equate the numbers killed in the massacre. This is also probably why most other sources (see list supplied above) cite figures between 7-8000. This has nothing to do with "Serb propaganda" (I'm interested, which of the above sources is it you are referring to?). Obviously, the exact number of persons killed is uncertain, which is why I prefer a more general comment like "7-8000" or "an estimated 8000". Regards Osli73 13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, you tell me that you consider all the members of the Tuzla column to be poorly-armed members of the 28th Division of the BiH Army. You tell me that the killing of less-well armed opponents are not "generally considered" to be victims of a massacre or genocide. So where do you get all these estimated 8000 victims of a massacre that you accept was genocide. You can't say that there were 8000 victims and then define victimhood so that the only people you accept as victims are the number separated at Potocari, roughly 2000 as far as I know. Please let's have a bit of straight talking / thinking. --Opbeith 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As a separate point, so that I hope you will answer it separately, you are constantly emphasising the "missingness" of a number of the victims as a reason for not accepting the list of reported names which have been memorialised at Potocari. The massacre occurred in 1995. It is now 2007. I understand, subject to correction by someone with more up-to-date / accurate legal information, that in English law a missing person can be declared dead by a court after a period fo seven years has elapsed without any sign of them being alive. I think the same is true in the US. A large number of mussing English victims of the tsunami were in fact declared dead after a period of a year. Can I ask on what grounds you feel entitled to believe that the missing of Srebrenica are still alive? --Opbeith 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, you are citing NIOD Report which was highly innacurate and biased. Read here... Peace. Bosniak 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your using the "Srebenica Genocide Blog" to claim this? The most far thing from a reliable source as possible. // Laughing Man 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, very simple:

1. I suggest using the term "estimated 8000" simply because this is in line with the figures cited by the majority of sources when referring to the massacre.
2. I have no doubt that all of the 8300 persons on that list are most likely dead. What I am contesting is that all of them were 'massacred'. Some may, as I have said, have been killed in fighting before or after the attack on Srebrenica. This is the same as when Bosnian Serb authorities try to include military casualties in the number of victims of Naser Oric's attacks in 1992-1993.

Finally, I only suggest that the article use the figures used by the majority of sources when describing the massacre. I have nothing against mentioning that the total number of missing and killed in the Srebrenica region in the summer of 1995 is 8300. In fact, I have always been in favor of a speparate section discussing the numbers killed and where and the various attempts at identifying and counting them. Regards Osli73 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Osli73", you still don't seem prepared to explain how and why you agree with the figure you mention. You've said that you regard all members of the Tuzla column as poorly-armed members of the 28th Division. You suggest that members of the Tuzla column who died were "killed in fighting". You suggest that you don't believe that killing less well-armed opponents counts as massacre. That suggests that you don't in fact believe the 8000 figure, regardless of whether you're happy to suggest using it. So, how many of the dead and missing from the Tuzla column (estimated figures will do)will you allow to be included among those massacred at Srebrenica? --Opbeith 00:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I don't see how the accusations of a political blog (which I believe you are actually a contributor to, if I remember correctly) can have any weight in the manner. There are plenty of Serbian blogs (even newspapers) who produce all kinds of twisted explanations and 'proof' that the ICTY is biased and nothing but a Nato invention to punish Serbs. Let's keep those types of accusations out of this article (including the ones about Mackenzie being an alleged rapist, which are also much promoted on the srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com). Again, please come up with some reliable sources. Regards Osli73 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, why are you misrepresenting the point Bosniak made? He was talking about the NIOD Report being inaccurate. And Laughing Man, please keep yourself to the facts and save the insults for your own entertainment elsewhere.

Before dismissing Srebrenica Genocide Blog so summarily, I suggest you both read the relevant page first.

Srebrenica Genocide Blog cites its sources quite clearly. One relevant source is an IWPR article giving Jan Willem Honig's comments on the NIOD report, as follows:

"According to Jan Willem Honig, senior lecturer in war studies at London’s Kings College and co-author of the highly-praised “Srebrenica, Record of a War Crime”, the truth lies somewhere in between. Although he says the report “has an aura of independent academic research,” Honig is critical of its length, saying the sheer abundance of information makes it possible for anyone to pluck from it whatever they need to make their point. This, he says, is a liability because the report is not always consistent. “It's possible to draw different conclusions from the different parts in the book. Therefore one can imagine it is useful to both defence and prosecution,” he said. Honig said he found numerous errors in the report as well. For example, he said an explanatory map inserted as a graphic aid to explaining the Bosnian Serb battle plan does not correspond with the plan as described in the text. And neither the written description nor the map accurately describe the actual plan."

and the supplementary comment "Honig is not alone in criticising the report. Many readers have complained that the index is poorly organised and full of errors, particularly regarding peoples’ names. Even those who worked on the NIOD report have been critical of it. One of the nine NIOD-researchers, anthropologist Ger Duijzings recently told the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, “Information from sources that I found unreliable, I found back in Part 1 [of the report] – used by [fellow-researcher] Bob de Graaf, if he thought it fitted in his argumentation." (http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=166497&apc_state=henitri2004)

Call me old-fashioned if you will but when you say that something is inaccurate I think it's worth checking your own accuracy as well. --Opbeith 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I’ll try to answer your three questions (as I understand them) separately:

1. I don’t see any need to specify exactly how the 7-8000 victims were killed. I simply accept that the vast majority of sources say that (a) it’s difficult to know exactly how many were killed and (b) then go on to give figures in the range of 7-8000. The article should reflect the common well-informed view of the massacre, eg that presented in the ICTY judgement against Krstic or the NIOD report, not draw its own conclusions. I would welcome a section on the various estimates of persons killed and missing and the attempts to identify them. It would certainly be in order to mention that the Federal Commission for Missing Persons has named 8300 persons missing or confirmed dead in the Srebrenica region during the summer of 1995.
2. The NIOD report was indeed criticised by one or two persons not involved in it. However, as far as I understand, these criticisms were about details, not the overriding findings of the report. Just as I don’t see any need to qualify the NIOD report as being “alleged inaccurate”, I don’t see any need to include rubbish like “the ICTY has been described as inaccurate and anti-Serb by many commentators” whenever the ICTY findings are presented. In the same way I don’t see any need to describe Mackenzie as an “alleged rapist” or the Bosniak government as “alleged Islamic fundamentalists”, etc.
3. The information on Mackenzie I removed was completely unsourced and part of the same type of negative labelling as the rape accusations. Why not just say that Mackenzie is one persons with differing views and then present what he says.

I hope I have answered your questions. Regards Osli73 10:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) OK, Osli73, now at last you've finally explained that you are making a distinction between the deaths of members of the Tuzla column before they were taken prisoner and their deaths as prisoners of war. That I can understand. It's just a shame that it takes so much effort to get that explanation from you. But anyway, that makes your position on the numbers understandable.

However I still don't understand why you insist on classing all members of the column as armed combattants prior to the time when they were taken prisoner. Given the evidence in UN and ICTY reports that the majority were unarmed civilians this seems an untenable argument. Since the evidence suggests that the soldiers were spearheading the column while the majority of casualties were suffered in what appeared to be planned and coordinated ambushes and attacks on the rear parts of the column by well-armed VRS forces I'm puzzled by your insistence that the deaths of civilians fleeing a well-founded fear of extermination should not be considered part of the plan of extermination within which those VRS forces were acting?

(2) "The NIOD report was indeed criticised by one or two persons not involved in it."? Five lines above the start of your answer - "One of the nine NIOD-researchers, anthropologist Ger Duijzings recently told the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, “Information from sources that I found unreliable, I found back in Part 1 [of the report] – used by [fellow-researcher] Bob de Graaf, if he thought it fitted in his argumentation." (http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=166497&apc_state=henitri2004)

"However, as far as I understand, these criticisms were about details, not the overriding findings of the report." Well, as I remarked already, was directed at the fact that the report's conclusions were not "overriding", because of a lack of coherence. I quoted the report of Jan Willem Honig pointing out that the sheer abundance of information makes it possible for anyone to pluck from it whatever they need to make their point - which is a problem because of the report's lack of consistency as well as its numerous errors. So I still think you misrepresent Bosniak's criticism of the report.

(3) MacKenzie's views about the Massacre are unsourced? Do I need to quote the full wording of the Genocide Convention? It's in the public domain. The Globe and Mail article is referred to. The established facts concerning the points at issue - the finding of genocide and the numbers of victims - are sourced throughout the article. MacKenzie has no direct knowledge himself of what happened but he is regularly referred to as a supporting voice by "alternative" commentators (as anyone would know who gave a moment's thought to what other people have asserted here). Are you denying that?

And are you really entitled to step in and delete something that was extensively discussed on the discussion page without you bothering to offer any point of view? There's a miscrepancy between the carefully measured way in which you express yourself verbally in your contributions and the way you act. --Opbeith 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I'll give a short answer to your above comments:

1. As I stated above, I support the 7-8000 figure or the estimated 8000 figure because that is what the vast majority of respectable sources say. There is no need for us to make our own analyses and draw our own conclusions in the text.
2. Yes, some people have been quoted as criticising aspects of the NIOD report. However, I'm saying that so has just about every other report, including the ICTY findings in its case against Krstic, but there is not need to denounce all of these. It's analogous to including a comment about Mackenzie being accused of rape, the intention is to tarnish a political oponent. Nationalist Serbs try to do it all the time here on Wikipedia, sayig that the ICTY is just a Nato invention and that the ICTY is biased, etc.
3. The comments you included on Mackenzie which I had removed were all your own analysis and conclusions, ie original research. Wikipedia isn't the place for this type of private analysis, no matter if you 'agreed' to it with some of the other editors.

Regards Osli73 12:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, it's quite easy. We have several respected sources giving figures of around 8,000 or less (CNN, BBC, ICTY, etc.), even after disregarding the NIOD report. Against that, there is one link to a website listing 8373 names without giving any indication where these come from. If that list is generally seen as the best estimate for the number of victims, then it shouldn't be hard to find good references to that. Otherwise, we are bound to go with the majority of sources. This used to be the position of both Fairview and myself, and I haven't seen anything which makes me change my position. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, the figure comes from the Federal Commission for Missing Persons and I know it is hard to find an authoritative English-language source for the updated list of names because I've been trying. However what I'm trying to find out from Osli73 is how he reconciles his argument that anyone in the Tuzla column killed before they were taken prisoner should be treated as a combattant, not a victim, with his view that there were 8000 victims of the Srebrenica massacre, as he does at his Talk page.

He is so insistent that anything anyone else does is sourced and authenticated that it doesn't seem unreasonable to press him on the issue of how he justifies rejecting the findings of the UN and the ICTY on the subject of the civilian element in the column that set out from Susnjari. It seems to me that either he accepts the principles followed by the sources whose figures he accepts or he explains where the principle on which he bases his understanding of the eligibility of deaths for inclusion comes from.

Similarly there's a discrepancy between his determination to maintain Lewis MacKenzie's argument that the figure of 8000 victims is invalid while at the same time he deletes the information that contradicts MacKenzie's assertions.

Osli73 finds it very easy to challenge information that other people find authoritative but is reluctant to acknowledge the inconsistencies in his own views and arguments, let alone control his impulse to engage in arbitrary and uncooperative intervention. --Opbeith 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in the person behind the moniker Osli73. We're not running a chat box but an encyclopaedia and all discussions should be directed on how to improve the article. The question which we need to consider here is which number to mention in the first sentence of the article. If there is no authoritative source (of whatever language), it does not belong in Wikipedia; that's the verifiability policy. If there are many sources, most of which say "approximately 8000", then we should start by giving that number and later elaborate that there is not a full agreement between the different sources; that's the neutral-point-of-view policy. These policies are of the utmost importance for Wikipedia. They say that we are bound by the sources we can find and we cannot just write what we ourselves think is true. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I'm getting the feeling that you like to make things harder than they have to be. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

• I propose "an estimated 8000" since that is what the vast majority of sources say. There is no need for us to make any grand analysis or come up with any new conclusions. I simply suggest using the figure the ICTY and just about everyone else uses.
• I propose including the Federal Commissions reported figure (references to it and the numbers are certainly availble in English, I think Justwatch had a good discussion of it) in a separate section on missing and killed and the attempts to identify them.
• As for Mackenzie, again, the idea is to present his views, not to make som original analysis of them.

Regards Osli73 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, I'm still waiting to see you explain how you are able to accept the figure of 8000 while at the same time insisting that any member of the Tuzla column killed prior to capture was a combattant and so cannot be counted as a victim of the massacre. --Opbeith 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Friends of Osli73

Friends of Osli73. You've been eager in the past to censor comments that draw attention to Osli73's disruptive behaviour, apparently not considering his record of activity to be relevant to the changes he makes to the article. Your eagerness to take action against comments on and analysis of Osli73's status and interventions constrasts very vividly with your inaction now he has resumed his old pattern.

Osli73's most recent hit-and-run attack on the content of the article has now been reverted but it's illustrative of his way of proceeding and the merits of his contributions. What he did was to delete, without warning, the analysis of Lewis MacKenzie's views on genocide and the scope of the massacre at Srebrenica that I had included as being directly relevant to the frequent citation here of MacKenzie's views on Srebrenica. I had very deliberately avoided any reference to the alleged visits to Kod Sonje.

I believe that I summed up the content of MacKenzie's position with regard to Srebrenica fairly, referring to his own published words. MacKenzie offers an interpretation of the Genocide Convention which refutes the careful deliberations of the ICTY on the matter. He is an individual, not a legal expert, arguing that the views of legal authorities should be ignored, with regard to genocide and to the scope of the murders that constitute the Srebrenica massacre. I did not point out that MacKenzie had no official status or responsibility at the time of the massacre that would give his pronouncements on the subject of Srebrenica authority.

I had also noted that his views are frequently cited by commentators who are reluctant to accept the ICTY's findings. This reference I considered justifiable because the section covered the general category of people who either reject the legal finding of genocide or contest the number of murders, or both.

Although I have no hesitation describing these commentators as genocide deniers, revisionists and apologists - not to insult them but to use words with their correct meaning to describe those commentators' position - I have not challenged the bowdlerisation of the section's heading to "Alternative views" or "critical views" (the positions can be understood whatever the words used to describe them). Osli73 swings into action without any thought of consultation to impose his new version of the title, "Non-Serb commentators".

A passing reference in the subject line indicates that Osli73 regards himself as "removing speculation about nature of Mackenzie's ideas." There was no speculation involved here. I had gone through the points raised very carefully and a number of times on the Discussion page, without any input from Osli73.

The way in which Wikipedia allows Osli73 to use the article as his own personal playground while protecting his reputation highlights the inadequacies of the Wikipedia process. Duja, "I should get a skin"? Is that what you think it boils down to? There's a deafening silence here from all the fine-minded defenders of civilised Wikipedia behaviour. Why? --Opbeith 09:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith,

1. Please see my comments above why I removed your analyses and comments on Mackenzie. Basically, the text in question was all your own analysis and your own conclusions.
2. I don't see this article as my own personal playground. However, several of the editors apparently do. I've never asked anyone to leave or called them names.

Regards Osli73 10:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, have you ever been asked to discuss your changes before making them? --Opbeith 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, any answer? --Opbeith 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the reference to Gendercide

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)

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)

The "gendercide" comment is cited, and it seems to be an uncontroversial observation. It should not be directly associated with MacKenzie, as he didn't use the term. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pointless I guess to point out the fact but the comment and link allow for an intelligent understanding of how MacKenzie completely fails to consider the basic principles of the Genocide Convention. But of course to seek understanding would be original research. I have this worrisome suspicion that judged by the criteria being applied here now even MacKenzie's comments themselves would qualify as original research. I hope the great man would be flattered to be deleted by Osli73. --Opbeith 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Major / minor edits

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)" --Opbeith 12:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for all your careful research, El C. We were all trembling with indignation every time that an injustice was committed against Osli73. Reassured to find that the Wikipedia experts are mustering support for him from far and wide. Makes me realise how much we've maligned him in ever accusing him of dissembling and arbitrary and wilful action. --Opbeith 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

No, of course it's not necessary, it just provides some slight solace. You'd grudge me even that? --Opbeith 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Anonymous user in Sarajevo censoring Osli73

The edit wasn't simply removal of that message. It was a reversion of an anonymous user in Sarajevo who has been systematically removing edits by Osli73 over the past few days:

• Special:Contributions/89.146.145.110 [13]
• Special:Contributions/89.146.136.242 [14]
• Special:Contributions/89.146.128.58 [15]
• Special:Contributions/89.146.148.169 [16]

Is Osli73 banned from this article? If not, then those edits are vandalism, and El C was simply reverting ongoing vandalism. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Errm? Excuse me? Surely this isn't the real Jim Douglas? That scrupulous Wikipedian and scourge of vandalism? Someone appears to have usurped his identity in order to delete the subject headline I'd given my message. Thanks so much for asking. Did your Mum and Osli73's Mum go to the same parenting classes? (Strange because the person seems to be agreeing with me that ElC was going in for a bit more than minor editing - this is rather a circus.) Oh well, presumably the archivers / deleters will be moving in shortly so there's no point wasting time on any serious discussion of the issue. --Opbeith 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I tend to agree with you that the edit should have specified the reason for the revert, and it shouldn't have been marked as 'minor', but that's somewhat incidental. The real issue here is that an anonymous user, hiding behind an IP, is systematically vandalizing this talk page. Not just Osli73's comments, but also your responses to him. Have you looked at the diffs, Opbeith? Here's another one, from a few minutes ago:

• Special:Contributions/89.146.133.82 [17]

I have no idea who is doing this, but it's not constructive. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So it wasn't you who changed the subject heading of my message without discussion? --Opbeith 15:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem; if that's what matters to you, I've reinstated your header. Now would you care to address the actual issue -- an anonymous user in Sarajevo systematically vandalizing this talk page -- rather than a side issue of whether someone clicked the "minor edit" box? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No skin off my custard, just that you seemed a little coy about owning up to the matter after all that finger-pointing about vandalism.

The actual issue such as it is vandalism, you're right, and there's a long history of vandalism here, often involving Osli73. Now here you are again, coming along and closing big issues down to a narrow perspective with your concern about this gent in Sarajevo.

As far as I'm concerned I'm not worried about the gentleman in Sarajevo causing problems for my posts, he seems simply to be responding to more arbitrary action on the part of Osli73, who's on parole and not supposed to be making changes without discussion.

Thanks to the glorious free-for-all of Wikipedia all that ever seems to happen to Osli73 is that champions of justice and freedom like yourself come galloping in on white chargers to redress every attempt to restrain him.

Go ahead and have your battle with Sarajevo but if you're just out to rescue Golden Boy I'm happy to be left out of it. A plague on you all. --Opbeith 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this "Golden Boy" stuff is coming from, but do I really need to remind you to comment on content, not contributors? I wasn't aware that I had anything to "own up" to, Opbeith. Every edit is public, and it was obvious that I changed the subject header, from an irrelevant side issue (major/minor edit) to the core issue of talk page vandalism. As my change seems to have distressed you, I've reinstated your original header. You are, of course, free to take yourself out of it; I simply note that you chose to inject yourself into it in the first place by questioning the legitimacy of El C's edit, which was a straightforward vandalism revert. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Opbeith, your comments are also being vandalized. For example, here. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have caused you so much offence, Jim Douglas. Unfortunately I'm probably going to do have the same effect again by pointing out it wasn't quite, as you describe it, "a simple vandalism revert". El C chose to intervene and deal with part of the problem but to ignore the causal factor - like you, once again, and like most of the guardians of procedure. Apologies for my wry use of the expression "Golden Boy" but there does seem to be a certain untouchability about him and his actions. Are you so reluctant to concede me even that small balm to the soul?

El C acted against the person who was calling Osli73's actions into question but chose to do nothing about Osli73's own vandalism. Perhaps this counts as "original research" but I can't help detecting a pattern in which culpability for transgressions is regularly ascribed to anyone other than a certain individual who is not supposed to be making changes without discussion. For some reason all these proceduralists simply fight shy of the matter, or delete or archive any mention of it.

I did notice that although you worry about Mr Sarajevo you don't seem bothered about Psychonaut's wilful deletion of the following valid comment -

"Osli73 was put on parole because of behavior at this article. He violated parole by creating sockpuppet. Where are authorities here at wikipedia? When does Osli73 face consequences for violating parole? If there are consequences for deleting his edits then why are there no consequences for him and his behavior? What kind of circus is ikipedia?89.146.133.82 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)"

Procedural angst here seems to be weighted very heavily in one particular direction. --Opbeith 17:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, Opbeith, I hadn't noticed that Psychonaut reverted an actual comment; all other edits from that anonymous user simply censored comments from Osli73 and responses to him, including your own. You'll have to ask Psychonaut what his rationale was for doing that; I don't know. You just referred to "Osli73's own vandalism"; I'm sorry, but I must have missed it...which of Osli73's edits was vandalism? Is he banned from this article? (That's not a rhetorical question...I'm sincerely asking). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If I removed any comments, it was unintentional. I took a look at the diff of the anonymous IP's edit and it seemed as though he or she was simply removing comments from a registered user and replacing them with the text "So why are these edits overturned and yet Osli73 who has willfully violated wiki rules continues to be allowed to edit?". I therefore reverted those changes. My apologies if I overlooked some legitimate comments which got caught up in the reversion. —Psychonaut 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, problem over as long as Mr Sarajevo feels justice has been served. --Opbeith 18:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim Douglas, you seem to have been more keen to look to the defence of Osli73 than you have been to defend other people's contributions from his wilful interference. I assume that you've never visited the archives to inform yourself about his similar activities in the past and those of his alter ego KarlXII and presumably you'd take Duja and Jitse's charitable line towards his dissembling when he was challenged over his identity and Osli73 and KarlXII were found to be the same person. You obviously have a completely different take from mine as regards the arbitrary and disruptive interventions that have been the subject of my heavy-handed sarcasm. I class them as vandalism in the absence of any meaningful attempt at discussion prior to the attempt but we'll have to differ on that principle.

Osli73's been active elsewhere and his Talk page will tell you that an arbitration of activities at the Kosovo article ruled that "Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page." But he doesn't discuss his reversions, however often he's asked, he goes ahead and does just what he wants.

As you can see the weight of opinion here is that despite all this history we should pay no heed to Osli73's erratic and disruptive conduct. He doesn't seem to be able to do wrong. So obviously you don't appreciate that ironic epithet I gave him. Just ignore me and I'll carry on muttering away to myself in this padded cell. --Opbeith 18:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that censoring his talk page comments pretty much makes it impossible for him to try to discuss his edits, no? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess everyone's being extra nice to him here to help him out. --Opbeith 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some very limited reasons when it is allowed to remove comments from other editors from the talk page (e.g., libel or egregious personal attacks). Absent a good reason founded in the Wikipedia policies, nobody should remove discussion about the subject of the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

89.xx committed simple vandalism which I reverted using rollback, which by default is marked as a minor edit. Novel, vigilante enforcement of Arbitration remedies is not permitted. Other parole-related questions may be directed to WP:AE. El_C 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

El_C, my comment was not directed at you. While it might have been better if you hadn't removed the comment that 89.xx left, that's of lesser importance. My intention was to say that the edits of 89.xx where s/he deleted Osli's comments are unacceptable. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I misindented (now fixed). 89's multiple identical comments were removed automatically, as a function of the rollback feature. El_C 08:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no way that I can not be angry with what is going on here. The final straw is when someone who use Che Guevara's words to imply that they tremble with indignation in the face of injustice respond to the appeal of an individual who disputes the legal fact of genocide to rescue the contributions of someone with a known record of dissembling and malicious interference from the frustrated reaction of people who have been on the receiving end of the reality that ultimately lies behind everything in this article. If I can't speak, I must remain silent and watch - but this is simply obscene. --Opbeith 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to insist that you refrain from personal attacks. I responded to no appeal. I reverted simple vandalism, as I did many tens of times throughout the course of that day. El_C 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When we act, we act in a context. Have no worry, I said I would remain silent and I'm not going to speak again. --Opbeith 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless if you remain silent in this given instance, your conduct will need to change from now on. El_C 09:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Selectivity / equivalency?

Duja, Jitse, Laughing Man, whoever - please break the silence and explain to me the principle by which someone may choose to leave in place the reporting of a non-expert's opinions that disputes established facts and principles (MacKenzie's views on the genocide and the number of victims at Srebrenica) and delete the efforts to provide evidence of the commentator's inconsistency without discussing the matter beforehand? Duja, what counts as "poison in the well" and what doesn't? I'm sorry, I seem to be too thick to understand the subtleties informing action on Wikipedia. --Opbeith 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MacKenzie led the UN forces for some time prior to the massacre, and it is therefore to be expected that he has some grasp of the situation. Now, if MacKenzie were the only one with these opinions, I think they shouldn't be included in the article. However, there are a number of observers which did some substantial research and voiced similar opinions. I'm thinking principally of Ed Herman and "his group", but also Jürgen Elsässer and the ISSA (International Strategic Studies Association). Together, they are a big enough minority that their points probably need to be acknowledged in the article.

In my opinion, the section currently gives too much weight to MacKenzie's views. I'd prefer listing all "non-conformists" with some claim to expertise and briefly summarizing the points made by them, while removing all the quotes of MacKenzie. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MacKenzie chose not to engage with the Appeals Court findings. If you think his opinion has any worth on that basis that's your privilege, but what he has to say about Srebrenica contributes nothing important. On this subject his views carry no more authority than those of the man in the street. Read them, for heaven's sake, and tell me what substantive information they provide beyond his personal opinions.

I'm perfectly happy for MacKenzie's views to be omitted except for the fact that they will inevitably be used again in the relatively near future to challenge the established position on genocide and the number of victims. But hey, as they say, we're in the business of going round in circles here. --Opbeith 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, two comment on your entry above:

• given that Mackenzie has been allowed to communicate his views on the massacre in major media and, I believe, in the US congress, he is certainly someone who should be mentioned in the article (although not too much weight, just as Bosniak says below)
• I don't see why Mackenzie's lack of engagement with the Appeals Court findings should preclude him from commenting on the issue. It's not up to us to analyse the quality of his comments.

Regards Osli73 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Poisoning the well" relates to my removal of sentence alleging that MacKenzie is under rape investigation by Bosnian authorities (therefore implying that he's saying that because he's a rapist lying bastard), which was discussed ad nauseam and hopefully dismissed in previous archives. And that was my sole recent edit. Duja► 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

IOW, either we agree that someone's opinion is relevant enough to the article and include it as such, or exclude it. There should be no "middle way": "he says that, but have in mind that it's probably because he's...". Duja► 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Duja, it was your sole recent edit. And that's what I mean. One particular type of poison only warrants intervention. Nothing much else here is as serious, is it? No worries for example about criticism of MacKenzie's reliability on other counts being deleted? And are you suggesting that it's perfectly OK for you to suggest that the Bosnian legal authorities are - in your own words - "lying bastards"?

Sorry if that sounds a bit confrontational but for some reason there seems to be a distinct lack of concern here generally over the removal of comments that suggest that the views of a rather robust and confrontational character should be challenged. --Opbeith 17:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that does sound more than a bit confrontational, and I'm tired of your accusations of bad faith and selective editing on my part, as well putting words in my mouth, not to mention persistant whining that your comments were edited when in fact no one has changed their substance (except the ones removed per WP:TALK/Keep on topic). But I'm walking away from this article anyway (see WP:COOL, point 8, having better and more pleasant things to do.) Duja► 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear all, I agree that it would be better to give more space to the other 'dissenters' at the expense of Mackenzie (hence my preference for calling the section "Non-Serb commentators" or something similar. It would then be reasonable to give some type of summary of their views/ideas, though. In the case of sensitive/contested issues such as this I think quoting one or two of these would be the best way to avoid discussion about how to present their views (ie to let them speak for themselves). Regards Osli73 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice finesse, Sly. You're good at this. --Opbeith 15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Opbeith, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Could you please explain what you mean. Regards Osli73 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Delighted to, Osli73, once you've done likewise. --Opbeith 17:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Original research"

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)

Enough of MacKenzie, please

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)

Bosniak, Good point! I definately agree that MacKenzie or other like him are not central to the article and that we need to get on with editing the article in a more constructive manner. However, as Jitse pointed out [18], he and some other critics do make up a significant enough minority to deserve to be mentioned in the article. I suggested that the best way to do this is to simply say that there are a number of 'observers' with dissenting views regarding the massacre and to very briefly summarize these views. If we can agree on a text for summarizing these views, great, otherwise I think the easiest would be to simply include one or two (short) quotes from them. However, I see no reason to include the type of speculation and analysis which Opbeith made.

As for getting on with the article, I think it would be good to get some kind of framework/structure for moving on with the article, perhaps even settling on some form of a compromise. Otherwise the editing of this article will continue to be, in your words, "ridicolous, counter-productive, and disruptive". I would be willing to set up such a suggestion for such a framework/structure. However, given that a number of editors seem to have a knee jerk reaction to anything I do, I think it would be much better if you came up with a first draft. You are very welcome to drop a message on my Talk page if you want to discuss a cooperation on this. Sincere regards Osli73 09:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

"killing of at least 8,300 Bosniak males"

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."[19]

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)

Mgunn,

• since a lot of the bodies were reburied (sometimes several times) after the massacre it is unlikely that the exact number of persons killed will ever be known.
• any one or several of the sources I listed (see above) should be good enough sources.
• the attempts to identify the those killed and missing and their numbers definately deserves to be mentioned (as it currently is at the end of the intro) in the article.

Regards Osli73 09:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

A Fresh Start

Bosniak, I would be more than happy to compromise on the Mackenzie/revisionist issue and other issues as well. However, I do feel that it needs to be a 'packade deal', otherwise the article will just get stuck on a new issue. Here is a list of principles and issues which I feel should be included in such a 'package deal':

1. "The article should conform to the commonly held view" - I believe that the findings of the ICTY in its case against Krstic and its subsequent comments best represent this. If it's not in the ICTY material, extreme care should be taken whenever other sources/information are used to ensure acceptance by the parties involved.
2. "Let the facts speak for themselves" - the article should as far as possible avoid labelling (eg "revisionist" or "fundamentalist") and commentary and analysis by the editors.
3. "Reduce the length of the article" - the goal should be to follow Wikiepdia's "strong recommendation" that "articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32 KB in size"[20] (the article is currently 129 kb in size).
4. "A fresh start" - I believe that the article, and the editors, must be given a fresh start. For the article this means that we should start with a blank page, starting with a new structure and adding text to this. Otherwise we will get bogged down in endless discussion as we strive to achieve point no. 3 above. For the editors, this means an end to animosity, name calling, sarcasm, suspicion and other nasty things. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to move on with the article. I almost feel as if editors should sign some kind of compact, promising the above.

Bosniak, and others, take your time to think about the above. If there is something you would like to add, please do. As I said in point 4, I believe there is no possibility to get on with the article if it is not a comprehensive and complete, fresh start. Otherwise we will just get bogged down in the next issue. Regards Osli73 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian or Bosniak?

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)

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)

Agreed. We should refer to the "Bosnian" government. However, are the ARBiH soldiers Bosnians or Bosniaks? Were the inhabitants of Srebrenica and those that were killed Bosnians or Bosniaks? One example, the intro calls those killed Bosnians while the pictures identify the bodies as Bosniaks. Regards Osli73 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree that the wording of the souce/reference should be used. However, in the cases where the text is not a quite or otherwise directly taken from a named source, which are quite many, we should have some kind of consistency. The ICTY in its judgement against Krstic uses "Bosnian Muslim" (as well as "Bosnian Serb") and refers to the "Bosnian Government". So, either we should use "Bosnian Muslim" or, my preference, "Bosniak" when the sources don't say otherwise. Regards Osli73 18:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

The government of Bosnia is by definition Bosnian. —Psychonaut 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The government in question was not the government of Bosnia. Nikola 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut is correct, during the civil war the Bosnian Muslim government in Sarajevo was the internationally recognized government of BH and should therefore be referred to as the "Bosnian government". However, I suggest that the victims of the massacre be referred to as Bosniaks since the ones who committed it are referred to as "Bosnian Serbs", both of which are subsets to "Bosnians" as Psychonaut correctly points out. It would/could be confusing to refer to Bosnian Serbs fighting against Bosnians. Regards Osli73 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Completely irrelevant. The government did not have control of Bosnia nor support of Bosnian population. Nikola 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nikola,

1. the government in Sarajevo was the internationally recognized government of BiH and hence was the "Bosnian government"
2. that the Bosnian government didn't control all of it's territory or have the support of a large minority of its population is not relevant. The internationally recognized governments of Afghanistan or Iraq don't control all of their territory but they are still the only internationally recognized governments.
3. wether or not the Bosnian government was democratically elected or was democratic or had the support of the entire population also isn't relevant to this discussion. Milosevic wasn't a democrat nor democratically elected, his government was still the internationally recognized government of YU/S&M.

My suggestion is that the article refer to the Bosnian government when speaking about the government, the military or other institutions of the government but refer to persons as either Bosnian Serbs or Bosniaks. Cheers Osli73 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

unfair characterization of the NIOD report

In the same spirit as the slander and characterization of MacKenzie the NIOD report is also unfairly characterized as "controversial" in the article:

The government of the Netherlands refused to apologize for their failure to protect Srebrenica civilians and their collaboration with Serb forces. The Netherlands' NIOD Report has remained a matter of controversy and criticism.

Although there has been ciriticism of the report from two sources (if I recall correctly) this is hardly enough to consitute "controvesial". In that case we should call the ICTY's judgement against Krstic and other established facts regarding the massacre (including the finding of genocide) "controversial" as well, given that they have received criticism from some. Of course, we don't and shouldn't. Almost any reports on a sensitive subject such as this is going to be criticised and be "controversial" by some. If a report is not hugely contested, there is no reason to brand it as "controversial" or "biased". Cheers Osli73 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The IWPR article is pretty damning and it seems to be well researched. On the other hand, it's the only reliable source as far as I know. Therefore, I think it should be mentioned, though it's better to link the tag "controversial" to the IWPR.

I'm also not happy with the sentence before ("The government of the Netherlands refused to apologize …"). In fact, the government said that they were partially responsible and for that reason, they resigned. It may be true that they did not apologize (source?), but it should also be mentioned that they conceded partial responsibility.

I rewrote the paragraph with this in mind and I also added some more background. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre is not about compromise

Sadly, this article is not about compromise - it's about politics. We have already discussed use of "revisonist", "alternative", and other terms, at least 1000 times so far (see archives) and we still have not reached compromise. However, whenever I use "revisionist views" terminology, someone comes and engages in revert/edit war. It is clear that the article has become politicized and 'poisoned' with moral equivalency and other sad examples of bias. Srebrenica victims are dead, they are burried like animals, again dugg out and reburried, and again dugg out and placed in bags and sent to Tuzla's morgue for painstakingly complicated DNA identification in which every bone is matched with blood tests and other bones, etc. It will take another decade to DNA-identify and bury all victims properly. The point is - these victims cannot speak for themselves. I am sure they would choose term "revisionist views" rather than "alternative views". Survivors of the genocide are allergic to moral equivalism that goes on the internet and media. Remember: Moral Equivalism Does NOT Equal Objectivity. If we are going to improve the article, then we will call people proper names (that's the first step). Gen. Lewis MacKenzie had nothing to do with Srebrenica, he had his mission in Sarajevo (different city, different region, totally different place in war). He admitted being paid by Serb lobby to hold speeches. He repeatedly minimized Srebrenica massacre tragedy. He is not merely Srebrenica genocide denier - he is also Srebrenica massacre revisionist by profession. He has done a lot of harm to Srebrenica massacre survivors and many of them are deeply offended by his revisionist propaganda and Serb-lobby activism. He is by NO means an 'expert' or even credible individual and he does not deserve to be called a person with "alternative views" (yeah right). He is revisionist with revisionist views - plain and simple, period. If you don't want to acknowledge this simple point, then you are repeatedly continuing to politicize this article and push your damn views onto something that should be objective and non-biased. Thank you. Bosniak 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The section has been restored to "alternative" - partly to respect what seems to be the consensus here, and partly because reading the above message convinced that "revisionist" is the wrong term. Bosniak, don't get me wrong - I think you mean well - but the passion with which you've stated your case above makes me feel that you may be too close to the situation to make an objective call. "Revisionist", to me, sounds as if the encyclopedia is making a judgement call on the value of the text that follows. I'd rather presume that the reader is intelligent enough to read the information presented and come to his or her own conclusions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bosniak and others, I have no wish to 'politicize' this article. My proposals are not about compromising with the truth or pushing some kind of moral equivalency, it is about presenting the generally accepted facts and findings about the massacre. I've suggested a couple of guidelines for this above, to which I belive this is an answer of sorts.

1. I only ask that the article reflect the [commonly accepted view]. As the ICTY judgement against Krstic and, to a certain extent, the NIOD report are generally seen as the most reputable and widely accepted sources, I think it is the information provided in these that we should use first and foremost.
2. The article should strive to present the sources without unfairly labelling or tarnishing them. This means you can't call people "alleged rapists", "muslim fundamentalists", "mujahedeen", "fascists" or "revisionists" since they are all attempts to label sources/persons for political reasons.
3. It is not for the editors of this article to analyse and draw their own conclusions. We should report the widely accepted facts (this is, of course, related to #2 above).
4. As the lenght of the article is about four to five times the ("strongly")recommended maximum lenght I believe we should strive to reduce it in lenght quite drastically. Right now it is suffering from various editors adding their 'pet project' issue.
5. As part of such a drastic reduction in lenght (point #4 above) the revisionist/alternative view/critics section might have to go. But given the present lenght of the article I don't see any reason to exclude/reduce in lenght only this section.

When I refer to 'compromise', this is an attempt to establish some ground rules to enable us to fruitfully progress with the article. This will, however you want to see it, have to entail a certain amount of 'compromise' from the various editors. Everybody can't have things 100% their way since this is a communal/common project, regardless of wether some of us would like it to be or not. Cheers Osli73 08:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply:

Hi. I said I would take a day or two vacation, but let me respond earlier:

1 Ckatz - many people are not intelligent enough to connect the dots (unfortunately). That's why we have to draw facts for them and not try to make them think. Some people don't have ability to think, primarily due to their pro-Serbian bias, hate against the west or muslims, or a set of other factors. The point is: many people won't see the difference between alternative view and credible view, period.

• I don't agree. Again, it is not for the editors to pass their own judgement or make their own conclusions, regardless if you believe certain readers are "not intelligent enough". I am certain that if we first present the ICTY findings and then present that this is the most widely accepted view and then present the 'alternative' views and present them as the view of the 'minority' this will suffice. Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

2 We should not focus only on Krstic judgement, but also on Oric judgement, providing things get placed in proper perspective. For example, Oric did attack Serb villages, but they were found to be militarized, etc. NIOD report is not credible. It contains numerous errors and it was made to clear blood from Dutch hands. NIOD report was also based on some Serb sources, such as Serb extremist Milivoje Ivanisevic, who wrote propaganda material about Serb deaths which ICTY stated had "nothing to do with reality." NIOD Report was morally equivalent, as it certainly did not provide two sides of the story. For example, they analyzed attacks on Serb villages, but they failed to mention that Serbs started first by ethnically cleansing and destrying over 500 Bosniak villages in the eastern Bosnia (where Srebrenica is located). They failed to acknowledge later ICTY's findings that Serb villages were militarized (as stated in Naser Oric judgement), etc. We must not take portions of text from judgements that supports our conclusions, we need to read complete texts of judgements and connect the dots. Serbian army was responsible for the massacre/genocide, not Bosniaks, not Oric, not West.

• I agree. I think the ICTY is a good, widely accepted source. I see no reason why we could not use it's findings from other cases.Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• The NIOD report have apparently been criticized by some persons. But I see noone (outside the Balkans of corse) who has said that the report is "biased". It has indeed been seen as credible enough to be referred to in the ICTY by both the defence and the prosecution, something which they are unlikely to have done if it was widely perceived as biased or inaccurate.Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3 I dont' think it is unfair to label revisionists as revisionists. Historical Revisionism is the fact we have to deal with. The term is not used for political purposes.

I don't agree. Again, see my comment to point 1 above. Saying someone is a 'revisionist' is intended to paint all those who are critical of the ICTY view with the same brush as Holocaust revisionists (ie Holocaust deniers). Pushing this point will result in the article getting bogged down.Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

4 Length of the article can be reduced, but instead of deleting paragraphs, they should be paraphrased. A 10 sentence paragraph can be easily paraphrased into 2 to 3 sentences resulting in 70-80% reduction without loss of information they pertain to.

As long as we are able to reduce the length of the article. It believe that for it to succeed, it will have to mean both reducing existing sections and taking out certain sections alltogether.Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

5 We should report widely accepted facts, but they must be placed into proper perspective so source-abuse does not occur (as it did in the past, with Serbs and pro-Serbs inserting only certain portions of the judgement[s] that support their own conclusioins).

It is just this 'placing into proper perspective' which I don't like. As you say above, "the proper persepctive" will mean different things to differen people and can easily be manipulated. E.g. do you feel it is "placing things into proper perspective" to say that, by the way, Mackenzie is under investigation for rape? This comes back to your point no. 1 above - if we present the widely accepted version, which I believe to be the ICTY findings and the NIOD report, then why not just leave it at that.Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

6 I loan my support for deletion of revisionist/alternative view section.

As I stated before, I would accept this only in a drastically shortened article (where a lot of other things have been taken out as well).Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

7 As I stated in the past, I am definitely pro-compromise. But if I am going to respect and take into consideration other editor's opinions/decisions, they should also respect and take into consideration my opinion/decisions. It's a two-way street, not one way. There is clearly no agreement with respect to revisionist/alternative view terms. The term "alternative view" is imposed by admin.

It's precisely to avoid having to compromise about opinions that I suggested agreeing on using the ICTY, NIOD and IWPR as sources and use what they say while also keeping the article within the 32 kb maximum limit "stongly suggested" by Wikipedia. The shorter and more source based the article is the less room there should be for 'opinions' and, hence, compromising about opinions.Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

8 Editors should focus on Srebrenica massacre, and Srebrenica massacre alone. What some former general who served in Vukovar or Sarajevo said is irrelevant as long as he did not serve in Srebrenica. Irrelevant information from irrelevant sources should not be inserted into the article. Lewis Mackenzie is irrelevant source. He had nothing to do with Srebrenica; he didn't even serve there.

First of all, Mackenzies comments are about the Srebrenica massacre, which is why they have been included in the article. I don't see that we've limited sources to those who actually 'participated' in the massacre? Again, if we are talking about a much shorter article (<32 kb) maybe we shuld consider not elaborating on the views of Mackenzie and other 'critics'. However, at it's present lenght, it certainly belongs there. Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

9 Upcoming rulling on Bosnia vs Serbia should also not be inserted into article (just warning in advance). Bosnia will lose the case against Serbia as Bosnia-Genocide allegation won't be supported. Again - Bosnia-Genocide and Srebrenica-Genocide are two different things. So let's keep this in mind and prevent posssible missuse of terms in the upcoming genocide rulling that has nothing with Srebrenica.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. The ICTY certainly found the massacre to be an Act of Genocide. If another intl. court found that genocide did not take place in Bosnia then that would be weird but not something that should affect the finding of the ICTY (again, we should take care to say that the ICTY found the massacre to be an act of Genocide). As for the Scorpions, if noone finds that they were in fact controlled by Belgrade at the time of the massacre, I see no reason for the article to say or allude to this.Osli73 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

All the best,

Bosniak 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on "Alternative [etc.] views" section

I propose we take a non-binding straw poll for the purposes of gauging opinion on the sole matter of how to title the section which begins, "A range of alternative views of the Srebrenica massacre exist, from those who believe that the massacre did not take place at all to those who believe that far fewer than 8,000 were killed or that most of those killed were the result of combat, not executions." This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it.

I list below the titles which various parties have thus far proposed. For each title, indicate whether you would support or oppose using this title for the section, provide a brief rationale, and sign your vote with ~~~~.

Please respect WP:CANVASS by not encouraging editors to vote a particular way and by not posting announcements of this vote to users who you know or suspect to be sympathetic to your point of view.

Alternative views

• 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)

• Support. This is the most neutral description. I would even propose the section be called "Critics of the generally accepted view" or something like that.Osli73 08:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial views

• 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)

• Oppose. This is judgemental and implies that all criticism is controversial. Osli73 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Critical views

• 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)

• Support. I slightly prefer this to 'Alternative' since most of these views are precisely this, criticism of the ICTY view, rather than entire alternative views. Osli73 09:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Genocide denial

• 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

Revisionist views

• Oppose. While literally speaking "revisionist" may be correct, the term has unfortunate negative connotations, so it should be avoided lest it seem we are passing a value judgment on the views. —Psychonaut 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism

• 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)

There cannot be any consensus between genocide denial and genocide acceptance. The fact of genocide - the actus reus - has been decided by the ICTY. Before the ICTY reached its findings in the Krstic, Blagojevic and Krajisnik cases it engaged in lengthy deliberation on the interpretation of the wording of the Genocide Convention which is the applicable instrument of international law.

It is impossible to believe that there is anyone who accepts that genocide took place, ie accepts the findings of the ICTY, while still arguing that the number of victims is less than 8000. The ICTY figure of 7500-8000 is that found in the original Krstic judgment back in 2001. That figure was restated by the Appeals Chamber in 2004 because the Appeals Chamber was not looking at new evidence concerning the number of victims, it was simply considering whether the Trial Chamber was correct in its findings with respect to the grounds of Krstic's appeal.

A neutral position is not tenable without rejecting the validity of the ICTY as a competent legal forum. Anyone who wishes to challenge the judgments of the ICTY needs to be able to bring a substantial weight of legal argument to bear - not amateur analysts but acknowledged legal authorities. --Opbeith 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)