Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

We should somehow incorporate this...

The prosecutor referred to Srebrenica as an open-air concentration camp... This is interesting part:

14. The facts, however, are inescapable.

15 You will learn during this trial how Srebrenica, from the start of

16 the war, was an open-air concentration camp, how tens of thousands of

17 refugees were squeezed into the enclave, how they had to sleep out in the

18 open in mid-winter because there was no room in the public buildings for

19 all of them, how they were shelled and shot at by the Serbs like fish in a

20 barrel, with people dying every day.

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/oric/trans/en/041006IT.htm (keep reading...) Bosniak (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Be Bold! --Harac (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The danger is that if we simply add prosecutor statements, why not add defense statements, for all sides? The prosecutor's statement should be under as much scrutiny as anyone else's. Boeremoer (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Duely noted, but the prosecutor's statement is backed by the UN Report published by Arria Diego where they describe the Srebrenica ghetto as an open-air prison. Bosniak (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But this is a method used all over this article. Factoids used by ICTY's prosecution and/or consecrated by ICTY's "judgements" are presented as "judicially established reality" despite of their numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and apparent flaws. The article is based exclusively on highly partisan sources and cites repeatedly discredited witnesses and testimonies favourable to "genocide" case while ignoring their shortcomings. There is no trace of reasonable scepticism and not even pretense of impartiality here. It is a good piece of political activism and PR but not good encyclopedian work. 88.101.177.121 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Honza73

"political activism and PR but not good encyclopedian work" - from someone who dismisses the substance of publicly tested evidence and the findings of the highest bodies of international law as "factoids" from "highly partisan sources" (while choosing not to identify themselves). Enough said. There are certainly grounds for considering incorporating this assessment of the practical reality of the enclave's existence. The enclave existed in the context of a strategy of ethnic cleansing implemented by Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs in the Drina Valley. Opbeith (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

declaration of independence?

It says in the article that Bosnia formally declared independence on October 15th 1991 which is incorrect. It declared independence on March 3 1992 and was formally recognized on April 6th 1992. This needs to be changed. Yugo91aesop (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yugo91aesop, go ahead and change it. As long as you state undisputable facts, nobody is going to challenge you. Well... sometimes they will, but as long as you use factual information, there is not much they can do. Bosniak (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On 15 October 1991 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Parliament adopted a declaration of sovereignty. Opbeith (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

What is the source of "25,000-30,000 refugees" claim? According to Amnesty International report and the report of the Dutch government there were 35,632 people registered with the World Health Organization and Bosnian Government as displaced persons from Srebrenica enclave by the first week of August 1995. This number apparently doesn't include at least 3000 ARBiH soldiers reported by the Times as reaching Muslim controlled territory, which was confirmed by ICRC at the time as well as later by ARBiH General Enver Hadzihasanovic who testified at the Hague. There were also other small groups of survivors like Zvornik 7 or those men who fled to Serbia. This indicates that some 39,000 people from Srebrenica survived the fall of Srebrenica and its aftermath. That arises a question - how many people could have been killed there if no reliable source put the number of people in Srebrenica enclave before its fall much over 40,000? 88.101.177.121 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Honza73

The number of killed is off as well. I don't think more than 7000 have been confirmed, the source used cites a preliminary list of 8000 people MISSING, not dead. Also, it is a dead link. Someone should find a better source soon. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that people are still cited as missing reflects the fact that most of those executed were buried in mass graves, which were then dug up when there was a prospect of them being located and mingled remains were reburied in second and third burials in even more remote locations. Graves are still being exhumed and remains identified. At the fifteenth anniversary commemoration 11 July some 700 plus more bodies will be interred in the ceremony at Potocari. These are the remains identified since last year. The precise number of this year's burials is not yet known because further identifications continue to be made by the ICMP's experts.

From the Popovic et al. Judgement IT-05-88-T handed down on 10 June 2010, para 664 "The Trial Chamber is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at least 5,336 identified individuals were killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica. The Trial Chamber also notes that the evidence before it is not all encompassing. Graves continue to be discovered and exhumed to this day, and the number of identified individuals will rise. The Trial Chamber therefore considers that the number could well be as high as 7,826." [1]

This is the number of executions. It does not take into account the number of victims killed in the column, which was mainly composed of unarmed civilians subjected to artillery and other heavy weapon fire, including chemical weapons.

According to the latest information from the International Commission for Missing Persons "Of the 13,000 persons DNA identified in the context of BiH, 6,414 were DNA identifications of persons missing from the 1995 fall of Srebrenica. To make these DNA-based identifications, ICMP has collected 87,931 blood samples from relatives of the victims, which represent 28,964 missing individuals. ICMP has also received 43,729 bone samples from mortal remains of persons recovered from mass graves in the region." [2]

The 8373 names of the missing are consultable at the Srebrenica-Potocari Genocide Memorial Center website, as cited here on numerous occasions: [3].

Trying to work through a list of 8373 names is a sobering experience, particularly thinking how they were all disposed of within a matter of a very few days. It gives an insight into the industrial scale of the undertaking and the importance of the organisational capabilities of Ljubisa Beara. It's also worth looking at the dates of birth and reflecting on the number born after 11 July 1975 (approximately 500), including the children whose killings were filmed at Trtvo. [4] Opbeith (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Change of heading from "Srebrenica massacre" to "Srebrenica genocide"?

Isn't it time to change the heading from "Srebrenica massacre" to "Srebrenica genocide" regarding to the resolutions of U.S. Congress and EU Parliament, the domes in International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International Court of Justice and also the general acceptance of the term in the Balkans, Europe and the World?

Best Regards Dzenan, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.138.80 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dzenan, if you intend to contribute further, why don't you acquire a Wikipedia account and username? [5] Opbeith (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in the past (as evidenced in the talk page archives), and the conclusion has always been to keep the name as is. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Srebrenica massacre refers to the physical act of slaughter. The Srebrenica genocide refers to the physical act and the legal dimensions, implications and consequences of that physical act. The Srebrenica genocide also encompasses the accompanying forcible transfer of thousands of women, children and the elderly, who were not massacred.

So should there be two separate articles, "Srebrenica massacre", which describes the physical aspects of the crime, and "Srebrenica genocide", which describes the legal aspects, or there should be a single article whose title reflects the combination of both and acknowledges events and the changes in understanding that have taken place since the first rumours of massacre were reported in July 1995.

The massacre at Srebrenica cannot be described in isolation from the search for the truth about the massacre and the pursuit of justice for the victims, as well as the concomitant developments in international humanitarian law. "Srebrenica massacre" is simply an inadequate title that divorces the criminality from the crime. The more complex title "Srebrenica genocide" allows all aspects of the massacre and what happened subsequently to be included.

Yes, Ckatz, the discussions in the past have concluded with a decision to keep the original name. But you simplify. Certainly Aervanath's balanced adjudication was that "The result of the move request was not moved." But Aervanath also found that although, in spite of a majority of editors appearing to support the move, there was not yet enough consensus for a move, this did not preclude a future move.

The European Parliament Resolution to which Dzenan refers marked the point at which the different significance of the two terms started to be formally acknowledged.

Another issue that should not be ignored is the misuse of the term "massacre" by individuals and groups who use claims that they accept the fact that a massacre occurred as a means of legitimising their dissent from the substance of genocide. They use the term "massacre" to locate the slaughter in the context of a military engagement and avoid confronting the deliberate murder of civilians and prisoners of war.

However my basic position is simply that "Srebrenica massacre" and "Srebrenica genocide" are not synonymous terms and the compelling argument for a unitary article implies the more comprehensive title. Any problems that may be posed by widespread use of the less accurate title are easily enough dealt with by means of the Wikipedia redirection facility. Opbeith (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I ascribe very little, if any, value to calls for action or change on Wikipedia that are based on rationales claiming ulterior political motives, especially on controversial and politically charged articles such as this one. The rationale to which I'm referring is your statement that the term "massacre" is used by individuals and groups whose purpose is to minimize or deny the historical fact and your claim that such an issue "should not be ignored". To the contrary, such issues must be ignored equally as much as the baseless claims that there exist groups and individuals who attempt to exaggerate the historical fact by using the term "genocide". The issue of naming the event might be judicial and/or political in the outside world but it should not be that way on this project. Consensus can change, yes, but that certainly does not mean that a debate of monumental proportions must be re-hashed each and every time a single individual questions the validity of an article title or another issue. You will find that most discussion sections started on this talk page asking for article name change do not present any new information than what was previously discussed while deciding to keep the title "Srebrenica massacre". The burden of proof is on the editors asking for change rather than the ones who helped reach a consensus. Redirects work both ways, as well. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Bird, you don't appear to have read/understood the comments that I wrote. (1) My support for the change was based on other arguments. I mentioned the misrepresentative use of "massacre" incidentally. It is relevant because it can sometimes be indicative of a less than neutral point of view in a discussion. (2) It is not the judicial and/or political significance of the naming of the event in the outside world that I was referring to, it was firstly the appropriateness of the name to the Wikipedia article and to its content and secondly the impact of changing usage. (3) If you re-read the summary of the last few discussion sessions you'll find new information presented. Check the arguments set out in the discussion leading to Aervanath's assessmment. (4) Redirect certainly works both ways, I'm not completely stupid. I was referring back to the suggestion on previous occasions that use of the title "Srebrenica genocide" might confuse those more familiar with the commonly used "Srebrenica massacre" - the existence of the redirect facility means that does not pose a problem, not that it is an argument in favour of change. Opbeith (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Bird, why have you archived the previous discussion just at the moment when the subject has been raised here? How do you consider that helpful? Are you a neutral actor here? Opbeith (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I archived a year's worth of discussions because the page was getting to be quite large in size. This talk page hasn't been archived since December 2008 and it was me who archived it even then. I tried not to remove any debates that are still open and I apologize if I did that so feel free to restore it. If you're speaking of the last debate about the article name, it can easily be linked for reference - Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_16#Requested_move. I assure you that there is no ulterior motive if that's what you're trying to suggest. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 03:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't one of the basic elements of consensus that one engages in discussion before taking significant action? Opbeith (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think archiving a talk page is considered "significant action". Seriously, please don't read too much into this. I archived the page because it was over 280k in size. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving away the previous discussion of a significant issue, without explanation and accompanied by dismissive comments, just as it becomes current again isn't significant action? Opbeith (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think archiving a talk page is a significant action and no, I don't think it is something that needs to be discussed; I have never witnessed such a thing. As I said, feel free to restore anything you find relevant to current discussion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many times this issue has been brought up here? And it is obvious that you archived the page and brought up the issue of changing massacre to genocide so that it would seem like a fresh issue when in actuality its all in archives. It should remain Srebrenica massacre. There is a huge amount of controversy over naming it genocide and regardless more sources refer to it as a massacre than a genocide. All of this has already been discussed. Yugo91aesop (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yugo91aesop, your version of what happened turns the situation on its head. Dzenan opened the discussion, Ckatz sought to spin the situation, I responded and then Big Bird archived the outcome of the previous arbitration which up to that stage had been available on the page. Opbeith (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Spin"?!? Has this not been discussed repeatedly in the past? Are those discussions not in the talk page archives? Has the outcome each time not been to keep the existing title? Please, why use intentionally misleading (and outright incorrect) terminology when you could have just said "Ckatz responded"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Ckatz, I wasn't being misleading. Your reply to Dzenan was brief and dismissive. It did not adequately represent the situation after Aervanath's (archived) arbitration. You were economical with the information to hand in discussing the situation with someone who was new to the discussion. You did not mention that in the most recent discussion Aervanath accepted that the majority of contributors favoured a change, that there was not yet enough consensus for a move, but that did not preclude a future move if genocide became more commonly used than massacre. (I didn't expect you to mention that Aervanath failed to resolve the important issue of the terms not being synonymous).

"The result of the move request was not moved. The proponents of this move have made an excellent case that the use of the term "Srebrenica genocide" is growing in use, especially with the recent declarations by various national and international organizations. However, the opponents of this move also have made an excellent case that "Srebrenica genocide", while growing in use, has not yet achieved the status of most commonly used name. Therefore, while it seems a majority of editors support the move, there is not yet enough consensus for a move. This does not preclude a future move if genocide does become more commonly used than massacre; it's just not there yet, and we are not permitted to read the future."[6]

Opbeith (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I wouldn't have answered as emphatically as I did if I hadn't considered Ckatz's answer to be less than fully informative. I still think that a change is important, desirable and inevitable but there are other things to be done with my time at the moment. I'm certainly not kicking off another campaign, but equally I'm concerned to be told that an important current issue is done and dusted.Opbeith (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Dutch YPT-765 armoured vehicle

The claim "YPR-765s had to watch out for Serbian tanks in front of them and Bosnian anti-tank missiles" is referenced from the Ducthbat3 site. As the Dutchbat3 armoured vehicles seem to have done little or nothing to prevent the Srebrenica genocide I'm not clear whether this picture justifies its presence. van Renssen's regrettable death may have contributed to Dutch reluctance to commit themselves to the task of defending the inhabitants of the safe haven but is essentially incidental to the slaughter. The reference to the situation of the Dutch armoured vehicles between Serbian tanks which they did nothing to obstruct and Bosnian anti-tank missiles the substantive threat from which has not been demonstrated appears intended primarily to exonerate the Dutch from the criticism that their armoured vehicles were ineffective. I suggest that the inclusion of this photograph is not justified.Opbeith (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been no response. Given the failure of the Dutch armoured vehicles to play an active role in events and the tendentious nature of the caption, I suggest this image contributes no important information to the article and it should be deleted after an adequate period of notice. Opbeith (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the picture should be removed, but the caption is definitely inappropriate, especially since no "Bosnian anti-tank missiles" or incident regarding such is mentioned anywhere in the text. I'd say keep the picture, label it "A Dutch YPR-765", and keep it at that. -- DevSolar (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Involvement of non-Serb Volunteers

Shadowmorph has not engaged in any discussion here of his/her claims of factual inaccuracy and non-neutrality. More factual information has now been added. I see no reason why the tags attached to the reference to the Greek volunteers should not be removed after adequate notice. Opbeith (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

POV

Mackenzie has undertaken paid engagements for Serb propagandists and contributed to Serb propaganda. This sentence appears to peg propaganda on the Serbs as a whole.

Additionally term 'denial' implies there is no legitimate discourse on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.114.73 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Mackenzie has been a significant contributor to the efforts of the principal Serb lobby groups in the US, Serbian Unity Congress and Serbnet. I don't know details of a direct relationship with European counterparts. An alternative wording might be to use the description "US Serb propagandists", or "North American Serb propagandists", perhaps including more specific details, but that's not to pre-empt any information about direct links with Serb/Serbian propaganda in Europe.

2. There is no legitimate discourse on the issue of genocide unless it takes account of the existing jurisprudence, which has confirmed that genocide was perpetrated at Srebrenica by the Bosnian Serb Army in July 1995, that elements in the crime of genocide were the mass murder of Bosniak civilians and prisoners of war and also the forced transfer of the women and children, and that Serbia failed to make use of its undoubted influence over the Bosnian Serbs to prevent the genocide. There is certainly no legitimacy in MacKenzie's lazy, arrogant assertions, made after the ICTY findings had been published, in which he pays not the slightest attention to the careful legal explanation of the finding and advances no new arguments or evidence of his own. He denies the genocide that the ICTY and the ICJ have found was perpetrated. Opbeith (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Opbeith, I'm interested to know what you recommend specifically as reading material vis-a-vis the ICTY's findings. (Mainly the Krstic judgement?) Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.117.60 (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also interested to know what you make of the following article -- if you can be bothered reading it and responding of course. I know we don't see eye to eye on this issue, but believe it or not I have always respected your apparent command of the factual detail.. (it's Jonathan here BTW, I used to edit on this page a while back). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.117.60 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to send the link: http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg_rch_030110.htm (I'm not posting this to annoy you or start an argument, so if it bothers you just forget about it -- like I say I'm just interested to know where and how you think it is mistaken/misleading, as I assume you will). Cheers

Jonathan, a good basic primer is the ICTY Outreach Programme's "Facts About Srebrenica" [7]. As far as the Andy Wilcoxson reference is concerned I have to say it's a bit tedious going over malevolent outdated rubbish of the sort he comes up with but in fact the exercise serves a useful purpose. These "challenges" to the facts provide an opportunity to let people know about sources of genuine information. However this time I hope you won't mind me ignoring him for the moment as I'm having to make a bit of an effort with the demand for Citations. Opbeith (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Opbeith, and I appreciate that you have other things to attend to. If you ever do have the time and inclination, though, I would be interested to hear your rebuttal of Wilcoxson's points. Cheers 122.57.114.200 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence is fairly unwieldy. It might be easier to split it into two. However the way I would propose while keeping all the information would place the event in one sentence and the perpetrators in the next, so I'll put this suggestion up for discussion, rather than simply proceed.

I suggest:

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide,[1][2][3][4][5] refers to the killing of more than 8,000[6] Bosniak men and boys, accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of 25,000-30,000 refugees, that took place in July 1995 in and around Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the Bosnian War. The perpetrators were units of the Bosnian Serb Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS), under the command of General Ratko Mladić. Opbeith (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Appropriateness of retaining the comparison with the expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe

Ckatz, you seem not to understand that what happened at Srebrenica was a single coordinated act which took place within a narrowly defined area. As the text you've restored suggests comparison with a far more extensive and diffuse event, it might be more appropriate as a comparative reference point for discussion of the Bosnian genocide rather than the Srebrenica genocide.

In previous discussions you were very insistent that this article should not be given the wider title of Srebrenica genocide which is the subject but that the more narrowly defined and less accurate title of Srebrenica massacre because that is common usage. Now, when for the reason I've mentioned above Srebrenica is commonly referred to as the worst mass murder in Europe since World War II, you are supporting and reinstating an inappropriate proposal to consider the mass murder as located within a category of events of wider scope that it is not normally considered appropriate to compare it with. Opbeith (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have gone back to the UN Secretary General's address to the tenth anniversary commemoration at Potocari. He was referring to a crime specifically identified as such in judgments handed down by international courts.Opbeith (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And please remember that anything not in the body of the article should not be in the lede.--Charles (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the lede - introduction? I searched but I only get Lede in Belgium. Opbeith (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation. Specific reference to the Secretary-General's Report on the Fall of Srebrenica appeared to have disappeared from the body of the text, also specific reference to the ICTY and indictments. I've done a stop-gap expansion, I'll make it more organised another time. Opbeith (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC).

Opbeith, for some bizarre reason you're focusing this on me... comment on the material, not the editor, please. All I did was make two edits to restore some referenced text and link it to an existing Wikipedia article. Note that several other editors, including Charles, also worked on the text before it was removed. If you don't like it, change it (with appropriate justification), but please don't try to suggest this is anything more than what it actually is. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, as you know I'm intrigued by the pattern of your interventions. And puzzled by this concern to return an emphasis on the wider perspective after you abandoned our previous effort at discussion when you appeared to be championing a narrower perspective. I note that once again you offer a somewhat nuanced description of your intervention. While suggesting that your contribution aligns itself with Charles's work you have in fact reversed it. Opbeith (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed Charles' edit on March 22 (UTC), when he reverted an IP's edit to restore the text:

"The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since the murder of millions of German civilians in Eastern Europe after World War II."

with the edit summary "read before changing". It would be an additional 24 hours or so before he decided to remove the text entirely, Approximately 24 hours later, he tweaked it again but did not remove it and you should note that during that interval Fairview360 also trimmed - but did not remove - the same section of text. One should also note that:

"The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since the murder of millions of German civilians in Eastern Europe after World War II"

is not significantly different from

"The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since the expulsion of Germans from eastern Europe following World War II"

which is what I trimmed the material down to. The "expulsion" event, and the linked article, are the same event referred to by the "murdered" text. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you must have missed Charles's change to "The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since the 1940s." on 23 March. It wasn't your initial contribution that I saw as tendentious, even though I disagreed with it. It was this subsequent reassertion.Opbeith (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Lede is an alternative name for the lead section.--Charles (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles. Opbeith (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re. my edit on 22 March shown above. I was merely keeping the text consistent with the title of the offline reference, which I have not read. I was dubious about "millions" though and I do not know how reliable that source is.--Charles (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood either Charles or CKatz. I took it that Charles's new wording on 23 March was a compromise solution he was suggesting because it was not clear whether the comparison was backed by evidence of a similar crime. I was concerned that the compromise was being removed in favour of returning to a comparison that is understandable but not in fact appropriate, given that the two equally grim events are nevertheless not relevantly comparable and also the original source was the UN Secretary-General's opinion (reported using different wording depending on who's transmitting, reporting or discussing it), which should need pretty authoritative refutation. I thought the best solution was to use his message to the Potocari commemoration as the most direct source of reference. Opbeith (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fairview360, I'm not going to contest your revision/reversion, I would simply say that I don't share your opinion. I think that coming from the source that it did, the quotation in question is both apposite and forceful. But we agree on the substance of the issue. Opbeith (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal proceedings

This section should be rewritten and greatly shortened into one paragraph explaining everything, since there is another detailed article called "List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions", which deals will all such prosecutions, but naturally most of them relate to Srebrenica. Unlike that article, this section is mostly outdated (Kravice has seen an appeals judgment, the Netherlands civil suit has developed further etc.). --Harac (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with unreferenced material

Reading this article in its entirety, I was struck by the sheer number of entire paragraphs, one after another, that are unreferenced and tagged as "". Specifically, examine sections 2.5.2 to 2.5.10 of the present version. These are dated August 2008, meaning they remain unanswered after a year and a half.

Citations and NPOV should be maintained throughout for any topic, much less one so complex and sensitive. I am in no way a deletionist, yet I find this situation troubling. In theory, if the text is not verifiable, it may be challenged and removed. I don't want to lose otherwise valuable information, but how should this material be handled? Should it be deleted at some point? — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land   20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem. A lot of the people who originally contributed to the article were driven away when persistent efforts were made by underhand operators like the banned Osli73 to manipulate the content, apparently in support of the Serbian defence of the case before the ICJ. Some were banned for fighting back, others seem to have given up. The sources are scattered. I agree that validation is important but it's a problem with so much material to be checked through. To remove the material would effectively be to acknowledge the success of those who sought in the past to sabotage the substance of the article. That's maybe not how Wikipedia is supposed to be but that's the reality. Opbeith (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've managed to find a number of alternative sources which I've referenced. However it takes quite a lot of effort and there quite a few more to work through. Opbeith (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it then be appropriate to use citations obtained from other languages? A lot must have been written on this in Dutch and other languages used in countries that participated in the peace keeping missions (thus being neutral). I'm sure helpful editors could be recruited from other language wikis willing to provide translations. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would regard it as legitimate to use citations from other languages as long as they're honestly provided. They offer information as yet unavailable elsewhere and given the global readership of Wikipedia their accuracy can be checked and challenged if necessary. However I'm a little disturbed that you come at the matter with the attitude that material written in Dutch and other languages used in countries that participated in the peace keeping missions is neutral. As you very well know, the role played by the Dutch and other members of the international community in the events leading to the genocide is to controversial say the least and the neutrality of materials should not be taken for granted. The Dutch NIOD report has been criticised for an indiscriminate and unfocused approach that allowed it to include Nevena Bajalica's use of propagandist sources such as Milivoje Ivanisevic. So anyone offering a citation in a non-English language should be prepared to demonstrate their bona fides - honesty, knowledge, awareness of the issues - by having been a participant in discussions here and at the very least have a Wikipedia identity rather than simply use an IP number. Opbeith (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the article to include some of the missing references and adapt the text to the source materials. In the process I've done a certain amount of revision of the text and some moving and combining. I hope that these are uncontroversial. My intention has been to make developments clearer particularly as the front section of the column reached the RS lines and the Zvornik Brigade opened the corridor. Further details concerning Pandurevic's fear that the fighting might threaten Zvornik as so many forces had been reassigned to the task of carrying out executions could be added later. Opbeith (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Article size

I believe that this article has got to the point of being too large in size and could benefit from some Wikipedia:Splitting. WP:SIZERULE states that any article over 100 KB in size should "almost certainly" be divided. As of this version, the article is 411KB in size (including images) and over 17,000 words in length. Per WP:SIZE: "With some web browsers with certain plug-ins running in certain environments, articles over 400 KB may not render properly or at all." In addition to people with older computers, older browsers and some (if not most) wireless devices (cell phones et al) who may be unable to load this page at all, dial-up editors are going to be less willing to help contribute to the article if they spend most of their time waiting for the page to load with each edit. I wanted to get some opinions on what could be split into another article without losing any essence in this one. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and ran into significant difficulties. I suggest that in any case any changes wait until the effort to deal with the "Citations needed" problem is resolved - one issue at a time. Opbeith (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that changes can wait until the citations issue is resolved so I don't plan on pulling the trigger on anything just yet. I simply wanted to discuss some options so that we can move ahead with the split at some point in time. This is the last discussion about the issue which was started on March 19, 2007. The article version as of the last edit on that date was 232 KB in size; it's almost doubled since then.

For example, we could begin with splitting off content related to the massacre that's not about the massacre itself. Sections on "Post-war developments", "Legal proceedings" and "Analyses" could be briefly summarized here and have the rest of the content moved into a separate article or articles. The prior discussion focused more on the individual massacres and locations. That can also be split into a separate article that's more detailed than the main article but I would suggest starting with the post-war issues. Any thoughts on this? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable in theory. The problem is that because of all the conflicts over past and still current issues here, a number of points need to be spelled out or else a lot of time gets consumed in argument and recurrent edit battles. The space given to Post-war developments are an important part of that spelling out, along with the subjects dealt with in the Analyses.

This is one of the reasons why the article is so long-winded, along with the fact that investigations (including mass grave locations and victim identification) and court proceedings are still going on and these are still significant political issues in Bosnia, Serbia and the Netherlands in particular and the EU generally, not to mention the US and Canada.

So, not uniquely, of course, this article exists at the interface with sensitive issues in the real world. Personally my preference would be for sub-articles rather than separate articles, partly to keep relevant information close at hand but also to avoid separate conflicts developing.

There's a fair amount of scope for hopefully uncontentious rewording to make the content more concise. That's not going to make an enormous difference but it's somewhere to start. Opbeith (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Column of Bosniak Men, Departure of Column, Ambush at Kamenica Hill

I've been continuing to try to reference the marked-upunsourced material. I've been using the Republika Srpska Report 2004 which is chronologically reasonably well structured. The source is not exactly unbiased but since this is the version that was accepted by the High Representative after the first version was thrown back it seems reasonable to accept it unless there are specific points on which it can be challenged. On the whole the content is reasonably consistent with the relevant sections' existing content.

In the process of referencing I've had to make some necessary changes, for example the reference to the four disappeared children was completely out of place, with no apparent justification. I've moved it to a place in the general structure which two references supported.

In doing this I became aware of a number of defects in the sequential narrative - not unsurprising given the gradual emergence of information and the number of people who have been involved over time. So I've taken the liberty in the interests of coherence of moving some of the information around, reorganising and in some cases rewriting to make a more comprehensible account that's consistent with more recent sources. Understandably, given the confusion of the circumstances there are still some areas of conflicting narrative so I don't see this as the last word, but hopefully it's progress towards an accurate but understandable account.

My aim has been to try and improve the referencing and the accuracy before we attempt to undertake a more fundamental reorganisation. The referencing issue is complicated by the loss of the original contributors and in some cases the disappearance of previously existing references. My view is that the previous restructuring attempt was premature because the basic information was still fragmentary - there was a difference of opinion over the need to update the existing information when for example old ICTY indictments had been used as source material. But also the denialist lobby were still very active prior to the ICJ decision and in particular one now-banned editor, Osli73, was the cause of considerable distrust. It's probably premature to assume that sort of motivated intervention has ended, particularly as the Karadzic defence team's complex tactics muddy the water but it may be easier eventually this time round.

It's important to be careful not simply to slim down the article by removing what might on the face of it appear unnecessary detail. Often small details play an important role in establishing the overall pattern of how the genocide was organised, they're not simple descriptions of the massacre itself.

As the facts about the organisation of the genocide have become established by the various court hearings, conflicts between different sources should have become easier to resolve, though it's important to remember that important trials are still in progress - Tolimir, Popovic et al, Karadzic and of course eventually, we hope, the kingpin Mladic - and new information emerging from those trials that makes more sense of the narrative may mean further revision.

Anyhow, I've tried my best to improve the situation, I hope other contributors will help too, particularly where I've made life more complciated by finding other points that need referencing. But I should say that I've already found references confirming a lot of the information and I'm pretty confident that though some corrections may be necessary most of the detail is pretty reliable. Opbeith (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your having taken on this hefty task. Being a newcomer to this article, I'm wary of making changes, short of my usual wikignome edits. I also agree with your comment that even small details should be preserved. In my opinion, this topic is one that many (e.g. those of us in the United States) have little knowledge of, and for some, WP may be their first and only exposure to the subject. Those bits and pieces form nuances that are significant in the overall picture. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land   22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Popovic, Beara et al. - verdict 10.6.2010

(Apologies, have been somewhat sidelined from continuing the task of filling in the missing references.)

This morning Judge Carmel Agius read out the summary of the ICTY Trial Chamber II's Judgement in the case against Vujadin Popović, Ljubiša Beara, Drago Nikolić, Ljubomir Borovčanin, Radivoje Miletić, Milan Gvero and Vinko Pandurević.

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/tjug/en/100610summary.pdf

The Court found the following crimes were proven to have been committed by the VRS following the fall of the two enclaves in July 1995: genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; extermination, a crime against humanity; murder, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws or customs of war; murder, cruel and inhumane treatment, terrorising civilians, and forcible transfer, as acts of persecution, a crime against humanity; and forcible transfer as an inhumane act, a crime against humanity. The Trial Chamber found that the elements of the crime of deportation have not been established.

The Chamber found that two Joint Criminal Enterprises (JCE) existed in Eastern Bosnia in July 1995: the JCE to murder the able-bodied Bosnian Muslim men from Srebrenica and the JCE to forcibly remove the Bosnian Muslim population from Srebrenica and Zepa.

Furthermore, in relation to the crimes committed in Srebrenica, the Chamber found that at least 5,336 identified individuals were killed in the executions following the fall of the enclave. However, the Chamber considered that the number of individuals killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica could well be as high as 7,826 given the fact that evidence before it was not encompassing.

The scale and nature of the murder operation, with the staggering number of killings, the systematic and organised manner in which it was carried out, the targeting and relentless pursuit of the victims, and the plain intention - apparent from the evidence - to eliminate every Bosnian Muslim male who was captured or surrendered proved beyond reasonable doubt that this was genocide, the Trial Chamber found.

In the context of the war in the former Yugoslavia, and in the context of human history, the Court found that these events were "arrestive in their scale and brutality".

Popovic, Chief of Security of the Drina Corps of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) and Ljubisa Beara, Chief of Security in the VRS Main staff were found guilty of genocide, extermination, murder and persecution and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Drago Nikolic, the Chief of Security in the Zvornik Brigade, was found guilty of aiding and abetting genocide, extermination, murder and persecution and sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment.

Ljubomir Borovcanin, Deputy Commander of the Special Police Brigade of the police forces was convicted of aiding and abetting extermination, murder, persecution and forcible transfer (Judge Kwon dissenting) under Article 7(1) of the Statute and, as a superior, of murder as a crime against humanity and as a violation of the laws of customs of war under Article (3). He was sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment.

Radivoje Miletic, the Chief of the Administration for Operations and Training at the VRS Main Staff was found guilty of murder by majority, persecution and inhumane acts (forcible transfer). He was sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment.

Milan Gvero, the Assistant Commander for Moral, Legal and Religious Affairs of the VRS Main Staff, was found guilty of persecution and inhumane acts and acquitted of the two counts of murder and that of deportation. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

Vinko Pandurevic, Commander of the Zvornik Brigade, was found guilty of aiding and abetting murder (Judge Kwon dissenting), persecution and inhumane acts. He was acquitted of charges of genocide, extermination and deportation. He was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment.

Popovic was not a marginal participant in the JCE to murder, the Chamber found. Popovic knew that the intent was not just to kill those who had fallen into the hands of the Bosnian Serb Forces, but to kill as many as possible with the aim of destroying the group. Popovic's ensuing robust participation in all aspects of the plan demonstrates that he not only knew of this intent to destroy, he also shared it.

Ljubisa Beara was the driving force behind the murder enterprise. The Trial Chamber found that he had the clearest overall picture of the massive scale and scope of the killing operation. From his presence in Bratunac on the night of 13 July, to his personal visits to the various detention and execution sites and the significant logistical challenges he faced throughout, Beara had a very personal view of the staggering number of victims destined for execution. Furthermore, his vigorous efforts to organise locations and sites, recruit personnel, secure equipment and oversee executions all evidence his grim determination to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible, the Chamber found. Opbeith (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Opbeith. Full judgement can be found here, and ANEX I and II of the judgement are available here and here. MarinaJovljak (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Srebrenica Genocide is the proper title

To whom it may concern,

I believe that the proper title of the article is Srebrenica Genocide, not Srebrenica Massacre. First of all, there were series of different massacres, so we cannot talk about the "Srebrenica massacre" but "Srebrenica massacres" (plural). Since the event has been proven to constitute genocide, the only proper title of the article would be Srebrenica Genocide. Why do we care about the wikipedia concensus on this issue? We're talking about the facts here. We don't need concensus that the Holocaust happened. Do we need the concensus that the Srebrenica Genocide happened? No, we don't. It's a fact. An adjudicated fact. So why administrator refuses to change the title to Srebrenica Genocide? I still don't understand how can "activists" (I am not implying admin to be activist), but I don't understand how can these "activists" vote on the issue and prevent historical fact to be properly called - the Srebrenica genocide. MarinaJovljak (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's wikipedia for you. --Harac (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions about this. Please see this last request for a page move; it should provide some insight into why massacre is preferred over genocide to be used in the article title. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As the article title is "Srebrenica massacre" this should be reflected in the first sentence "Srebrenica massacre" rather than "Srebrenica Massacre", if the majority of reliable sources use "Srebrenica Massacre" then the article should be moved to that name. "Srebrenica Genocide" or "Srebrenica genocide"? Two of the cited sources use "Srebrenica genocide" one uses just "genocide" and the other uses "1995 Genocide". This suggests that "Srebrenica genocide" should be used unless a survey of reliable sources show that the currently selected sources are an anomaly. -- PBS (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the massacre and the genocide are not coterminous. The massacre was simply the actual killings. The genocide encompasses the process by which those killings were strategically planned and implemented and subsequently concealed, and were then prosecuted and adjudicated to have constituted genocide in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

The continued use of the title Srebrenica Massacre is misleading in that the investigation and prosecution of genocide is a significant component of the article. If the title Massacre is retained then the elements relating to the criminal prosecution should be deleted and used to create a separate Srebrenica Genocide article - a pointless exercise but that the only logical response to the determined efforts that are made to confine this article simply to the massacre and deprive the subject of a crucial part of its significance.

Yes, this has has been discussed before and ignorance and prejudice has always won the day. I presume it will again. Opbeith (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who is being ignorant and prejudiced? Big Bird (talk • contribs)

If you go back and read through the arguments which you archived away without any reference to anyone else here, you can quite readily identify the arguments. I'm not saying that every argument in favour of retaining the title is ignorant or prejucided but there are enough, and I'm sure you're quite capable of recognising them without me having to point them out, and the same goes for the arguments rejecting the case for a change. Not all were ignorant and prejudiced, but there was enough ignorance and prejudice on display to deter a number of the people who have argued for change but have given up. To be frank I've given up, I can only come back to the subject when someone else raises it. That's the Wikipedia effect.

Just to repeat the ICTY's finding of two weeks ago in Popovic et al. (from the Judgement Summary, if necessary I'll dig out the wording from the Judgment itself):

"The scale and nature of the murder operation, with the staggering number of killings, the systematic and organised manner in which it was carried out, the targeting and relentless pursuit of the victims, and the plain intention — apparent from the evidence — to eliminate every Bosnian Muslim male who was captured or surrendered proves beyond reasonable doubt that this was genocide." (page 4) - http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/tjug/en/100610summary.pdf

Opbeith (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling other editors and their arguments ignorant and prejudiced is ignorant and prejudiced in itself. The quickest way to derail any intelligent and level-headed discussion that might help improve an article is to insult those who disagree with you. Also, in any single previous discussion I've not been capable of recognizing a single ignorant and prejudiced argument that has helped win the day, as you suggest. Such arguments are ignored by the closing editor and this article's title has nothing to do with ignorance and prejudice. And, for goodness' sake, we've covered the issue of archiving thoroughly enough, haven't we? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the snappiness, Big Bird, but it is legitimate to refer to editors who deny the repeated findings of the International Criminal Tribunal and the International Court of Justice, insist that genocide did not occur, challenging the fact of executions, explaining everything that happened at Srebrenica in terms of revenge for Naser Oric's activities in and around Srebrenica, deny the existence of concentration and rape camps in Bosnia, etc, not only because they have been widely reported but also because they have often been refuted here. One of the problems with arbitrary archiving is that many of the issues are most easily dealt with by referring to previous discussion. That may mean a long page, but it's useful when arguments are inevitably repeated. That's why it's lacking in courtesy to step in and take arbitrary action. You've never accepted that.

I call people ignorant and prejudiced when they don't deal with the authoritative sources of information they've been offered. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I expect a good faith discussion. You may or may not be a newcomer here but Wikipedia articles on Bosnia and Srebrenica and many other public fora have in the past been congested with individuals with claims and assertions that had already been proven inaccurate and often deliberately false. Propagandists have frequently used internet sources to try to confuse the issue concerning the verifiable truth about what happened in Bosnia. This is the real world. Substantive matters out there influence discussions in here.

As the substance of what happened has been determined, with the ICTY's Krstic genocide judgment, the ICJ finding that Serbia breached the Genocide Convention, the ICTY's findings in the Oric case about the scale of what happened at Kravica, the scope for these distractions has diminished but they haven't gone away. Of course not everyone is a propagandist, but there are quite a lot of people who follow the line of General Lewis MacKenzie and consider themselves more expert interpreters of the UN Genocide Convention than the ICTY. Which would not be a reason for calling them ignorant and prejudiced, anyone genuine is entitled to their bite at the bone, but when they refuse to engage with the wording of the Convention or the reasoning of the ICTY when the sources and arguments are given to them without having to search and instead they take the argument off in a different direction without acknowledging the resolution of the specific issue, then it's not unreasonable to consider that they are either being wilfully ignorant or they have an agenda.

But what you fail to acknowledge is that this is a wearing process. I'm afraid I am a pain in the neck because I refuse to give up, but I have certainly been worn down by the effort and gone away from time to time and I have seen a lot of others give up and abandon their contribution to the discussion. A consensus of ignorance allowed Osli73 to tie up a lot of people's time here before he was finally banned. It was clear to some people that he was steering an agenda but he was very successful in exasperating and provoking people who knew something about the subject and engaging the support of people who didn't. I know the central role of the principle of verifiability at Wikipedia, but here at this article I've seen that principle abused often enough for me to consider it legitimate to describe the faux-naif use of misleading published references as prejudiced. I don't think it's ignorant and prejudiced of me to describe that sort of action as prejudiced.

I won't continue as this is simply arguing over old ground. Opbeith (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers - updated

Updated numbers

To follow up the issue of "Numbers" raised in the section above, I've attempted a quick round-up of figures from recent sources. I make no claim to being an authoritative reference and certainly there are some discrepancies. That's not exactly surprising in the chaos and confusion of an enclave under siege with a population largely displaced from elsewhere, a town abandoned in panic and organised efforts to conceal mass murder.

Experts appearing before the ICTY have tested the evidence relating to reported deaths as thoroughly as possible and there is no more authoritative source than ICTY findings that I am aware of, even if details may be open to challenge - because of the principle of "in dubio pro reo", official findings tend to minimise the findings of criminal action.

The defence teams in cases before the ICTY have been able to provide their own expert witnesses to challenge prosecution figures. Any further challenges to the figures endorsed by the conclusions of ICTY judgments need to be dealt with in the first place by examining the process of adjudication between defence and prosecution submissions, which is open to public scrutiny, before any suggestions of political bias and influence are raised.

The evidence of mass murder of civilians and prisoners is overwhelming. The principal half-way legitimate question that remains concerns how many died in the course of the break-out attempt whose criminal murder by execution has not been or cannot be confirmed. I have not found numbers alleged to have "died in conflict" specified in any source that commanded trust. "Deaths in conflict" would be difficult to distinguish from other deaths other than executions during the break-out and however defined would in the circumstances have included many unarmed civilians as well as unarmed and poorly armed soldiers targeted with heavy artillery and chemical weapons.

It's difficult to argue that these "residual" deaths - those not confirmed as executions - should necessarily be regarded as differing greatly in cause from the executions. The civilians and arguably most if not all of the soldiers in the column resorted to the extremely hazardous venture of an attempted break-out across hostile terrain in adverse circumstances because they knew from previous experience of the ethnic cleansing of the rest of the Drina valley what sort of fate was likely to await them once they fell into the hands of the Bosnian Serb Army, whatever the provisions of the Geneva Conventions - precisely the fate that most of those who did not manage to break out suffered.

The population of Srebrenica

The ICTY notes at para. 213 of the Popovic et al. Judgement (10 June 2010) "Just before the attack on Srebrenica the total number of inhabitants of the Srebrenica enclave had increased from 36,000 at the beginning of the year to 42,000 persons, out of which approximately 85% were displaced persons."

The number of the dead

8373 names of the dead and missing are listed at the Srebrenica-Potocari Genocide Memorial Center website, as cited here on numerous occasions [8]. For some reason the memorial stone refers to 8372.

Helge Brunborg and Ewa Tabeau for the ICTY compiled and fleshed out the details of a list of 7661 missing individuals (the "2005 List") drawing on, comparing and testing various lists (Popovic et al. para. 625) During the Popovic et al. trial the Prosecution identified another 165 individuals whose remains were identified by DNA testing who were not on the 2005 List.

The International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) has now identified 6414 of the missing individuals from remains most of which were found in the mass graves located to date - "Of the 13,000 persons DNA identified in the context of BiH, 6,414 were DNA identifications of persons missing from the 1995 fall of Srebrenica." (March 2010) [9]

The latest report on the results of the Office of the Prosecutor 's investigations show the number of identified Srebrenica victims has reached 6557 (April 2010 - submitted to the Tolimir trial). There are still about 1300 names on the list of the International Commission for Missing Persons whose remains have neither been recovered nor identified.[ http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=15822&kat=3]

The overall high matching rate between DNA profiles extracted from bone samples of exhumed remains and them DNA profiles obtained from blood samples donated by relatives of the missing has led ICMP to support an estimate of close to 8,100 individuals missing from the fall of Srebrenica. [10] Unless there is very specific indication otherwise, it is not unreasonable to assume that all those still missing are in fact among the dead.

In his evidence to the Krstic trial Gen. Enver Hadzihasanovic said that the ABiH had established that the number of individuals killed in the column was between 8300 and 9722, an approximate figure based on information acknowledged not to be consistent. [11] It's not clear to me whether this figure is intended to include the men and boys separated out at Potocari (I remember that figure cited as approximately 1500 - I'll have to find the source again).

Milan Kovacevic for the defence in Popovic et al. estimated the number of persons displaced from Srebrenica in 1995 at 34537, subtracting these from population estimates of 36051 to 37255 he arrived at a highest figure of 2988 and a maximum of 3000 killed. However the ICTY judges found his estimate of the number of displaced persons to be lacking in precision and unreliable - he had ignored important sources and gave no explanation why (paras. 631 and 632).

The number of executions

The ICTY's judgment in Popovic et al. is "satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at least 5336 identified individuals were killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica, and as graves continue to be discovered and exhumed and the number of identified individuals rises the number could be as high as 7826". Estimates are given for the numbers executed at each of the individual killings known at para. 794. [12]

This is the number of executions. It does not take into account the number of victims killed in the column, which consisted mainly of unarmed civilians subjected to artillery and other heavy weapon fire, including chemical weapons.

This does not include the individuals killed during attacks on the column, approximately two thirds of whose members were unarmed civilians.

The size of the break-out column

At para. 269 of the Popovic et al. judgment the size of the break-out column is estimated at 10-15,000, approximately two-thirds of whom were unarmed (Note 872 gives other estimates, including 17-18,000). Pandurevic estimated the numbers passing through the corridor opened for the column near Blajkovica, near the final breakthrough, at 5-6000 though some other estimates were higher (Popovic et al. paras. 558/ 1876). Given Hadzihasanovic's estimate of the number of soldiers reaching Tuzla and the disposition of the column with the better armed soldiers concentrated at the front, it seems likely that the majority of those who did not reach Tuzla were civilian members of the column.

The number of soldiers in the break-out column

The majority of AbiH soldiers reached safety. In his evidence to the Krstic trial, Gen. Hadzihasanovic testified that by 4 August or thereabouts, the number of members of the 28th Division who had managed to get through had been accurately established as 3175 and 2628 members of the Division had been killed. That would give a number of 5803 soldiers in the column.[13] (Dutchbat estimated the number of "organised" members of the 28th Division in Srebrenica at 3-4000 - Popovic et al. para. 246).

The number of refugees at Potocari / transferred to Kladanj

At para. 266 of the Popovic et al. judgment the number of refugees inside the Dutchbat compound at Potocari was 4-5000 by around 6 pm on 11 July after which Dutchbat refused entry to any more. By the end of 11 July para. 266 mentions a further 15,000 people outside the compound. Para. 272 refers to approximately 20,000 gathered in or around the compound and paras 309 and 992 to 20-30,000 inside and outside the compound; sources cited at Note 856 suggest up to 25,000.

The unreferenced figure cited above under "Numbers" of 35632 displaced persons from Srebrenica registered by WHO and the Bosnian government seems anomalous. It makes inadequate alloqance for the number of confirmed executions. These may be combined figures for Srebrenica and Zepa. However in the absence of references it's difficult to check. The number of women and children refugees reported by the Bosnian Serb Army to have been transported away from Srebrenica is less than half this figure. The figure of 15,000 is referred to by the Drina Corps of the Bosnian Serb Army as the number transported from Srebrenica to Kladanj (women and children) up to 13 July.

Looking through a list of 8373 names is a sobering experience, particularly thinking how they were all disposed of within the space of a few days in mid-July. It gives an insight into the industrial scale of the undertaking and the importance of the organisational capabilities of Ljubisa Beara. It's also worth looking at the dates of birth and reflecting on the number born after 11 July 1975 (approximately 500), including the children whose killings were filmed at Trnvo. [14]

People who have a stake in not acknowledging that genocide and mass murder was committed will continue to quibble here about facts and circumstances, that's what they do. For years this article has been a place of denial and apologetics. But gradually the incontrovertible evidence accumulates and with the convictions of Popovic and Beara the command structure, engineering and logistics of genocide has begun to be established beyond question.

The denial of the basic facts is the primary issue as far as I'm concerned, the title of the article is a secondary matter, but it's still an issue of substance and there's no reason to expect it to go away. People who want to raise the subject are quite right to. What happened at Srebrenica was more than a massacre, it was a crime of genocide. These numbers tell us the details of the Srebrenica massacre but the subject of this article is the Srebrenica genocide. Opbeith (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)