Talk:Srebrenica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality 2

Hello dearest propagandists. Looks like you still didn't figure out more. Nothing has changed by what I can see, therefore I still dispute the neutrality of this article and it still is about the following part: "In July 1995, the town was occupied by the Bosnian Serb army who deported the population of over 20,000. Srebrenica's surroundings became the site of the Srebrenica massacre, where approximately eight thousand Bosniak men and boys were killed by the Bosnian Serb Army. That was the largest masacre after World War II in Europe.". If you speak of 8000 Bosniak men and boys then I still wonder where you have this number from? CNN or FAZ? Asim Led claimed the "RS government has provided the names of around 8000 that were killed". Is that so? I still was not able to find such document telling me so and still refer to the following document telling otherwise: "ADDENDUM TO THE REPORT OF THE 11TH JUNE 2004 ON THE EVENTS IN AND AROUND SREBRENICA BETWEEN 10th AND 19th JULY 1995". And by the way it is questionable if it was the biggest massacre thinking of the many other massacres that took place in Croatia and Bosnia, but it is possible and therefore I am currently not going to dispute about it since I guess you know just as much they want you to. --Arsenio 00:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're talking to me, but page 9 of "Addendum to the report &c" talks about 7000 to 8000. So, what are you disputing? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

1. It talks about 7000 to 8000, wikipedia talks about approximately 8000

2. It talks about 7000 to 8000 missing persons, wikipedia talks about approximately 8000 killed persons

3. It talks about 7000 to 8000 missing persons, wikipedia talks about approximately 8000 persons killed by the Bosnian Serb Army

--Arsenio 13:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I note that the report does not contradict the statement that "approximately eight thousand Bosniak men and boys were killed by the Bosnian Serb Army," though it does not confirm the statement either.

Ad 1. Any number between 7000 and 8000 is approximately 8000. It seems that 8000 is the number most often quoted.

Ad 2 and 3. If that many people have been missing for over 10 years, and they disappeared in a period of ten days, it is safe to say that they are dead and that they have not died of natural causes. I also think we can safely assumed that they were killed by Serbs (if not by them, by whom else?). Do you have a problem with this reasoning? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I can agree on that it is the general assumed number of executed people in western countries. I cannot agree that is just to write 8000 people were victims of the massacre. Let me ask a question first. Do victims of a massacre need to be executed or not? They have to be helpless and/or unresisting, is that correct? Of how many of those victims do we know they were in such a situation? Hundreds for sure, after all they were tied up. Thousands, probably, very possible (yet speculation). 8000, I don't know, I cannot claim such a thing. But you can, why is that so?

Ad 1. I don't understand why "between 7000 and 8000" is approximately 8000, that defies and tramples down my logic. But you must know better since you are studying Mathematics, so give me a little lesson here. Why is the approximation not 7500 in such a case?

Ad 2 and 3. It isn't safe for me to say that, I can assume, I can guess, but I don't know it because not even half of them is exhumated, or did that change in the meanwhile? Do you know of any new exhumation report? I tried to find one on the internet, so far I didn't. If there aren't any safe indications for such claims then yes I do have a problem with it. --Arsenio 15:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way do you have a copy of the "Report Based on the Debriefing on Srebrenica" by the dutch defence ministry from the 4th October 1995 (page 47-51)? It is supposedly to show that dutch soldiers saw

• "highly probably" 14 executions in Potocari
• several dead ones in the city Srebrenica (min. two in military uniforms)
• on the way between the city and the un headquarter 100 corpses on a tractor
• close by Nova Kasaba and Bratunac "numerous" corpses (witnessed by 35 people) where as two witnesses claim to have seen 500 to 700 corpses who wore "civil or half military clothing

further in the report it should show that the defence minister claimed "several thousands" of victims. Which would be a little intriguing since the whole total of witnessed murders by his soldiers doesn't even reach 1000.

Neutrality

I dispute the neutrality of this article because:

It does not state/give any hint that the conclusion of a massacre is an opinion. Instead it presents the massacre as fact. Jitse_Niesen gives the reason "in the light of the ICTY convictions". However the neutrality of ICTY is questionable. Therefore I ask either to provide concrete facts or change this article appropriately so it conforms the policies of Wikipedia. --Arsenio 15:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what would need to happen for you to accept that the Srebrenica massacre is fact? The International criminal tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and other international organizations all accept it as such. So do foreign governments. So does the government of the Republika Srpska sub-entity itself, which has come out with a detailed list of several thousand specific names. Add to this the mountains of evidence and detailed accounts. Honestly, what more needs to be done for the word "alleged" to stop hoovering around every mention of the well documented murder of thousands of elderly men, children, POWs, and regular civilians? I realize that many would like to think that the massacre is some propaganda or conspiracy, but to say, at this point, that it's just an "opinion" is little better than saying the same about the holocaust. Asim Led 23:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I must tell you that I don't think there is such happening as to prove fundamentally the massacre with the executor solely as the Bosnian Serbs. The reports that are available to the public are simply too vague if it comes to autopsies. Personally I believe there was indeed a massacre, but that is not of importance in this context. The main point is that it is most likely not a massacre solely executed by Bosnian Serbs. So my suggestion is, instead of using the adjective "alleged", to remove for example "by Bosnian Serbs" and let the reader make his own picture reading the article "Srebrenica Massacre". The reliability of the institutions you have stated I am not going to comment now, except with the word "shady". --Arsenio 15:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And if not the Bosnian Serb army, than who did commit the massacre? Asim Led 16:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to the murders done by Naser Orić's forces? If so, that is not the Srebrenica massacre that is meant by this sentence in the text. The sentence refers to the massacre in July after the enclave was occupied. I've clarified both articles to say so. The Orić stuff, while apparently verified, did not happen at the same time (that was January or so) nor did it appear to have the same scope that we could call a "massacre" in the same manner the aforementioned event is called a "massacre" (at least not based on data from our articles). --Joy [shallot] 23:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, it looks like I misread. All of Orić's misdeeds appear to have been done in 1992 and 1993, so just "1995" would have worked fine, too. Do you agree that there is no evidence of any other massacre in 1995? --Joy [shallot] 00:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I was refering mainly to murders with involvement of Naser Orić and therefore, since aside of eyewitness reports (Ljilan, 7.8.1996) I know of no other evidence for any other massacre in 1995, will agree with the solution of specifying explicitly the year. So thanks for that, Asim Led and Joy, and for your willingness in replying to my demurs. Now however I will have to stress your patience and goodwill. This article speaks of "thousands of Bosniaks" as victims of the massacre, but on what is this estimation based? Mr. Dean Manning speaks of 2'541 "individuals" which have been identified from the mass graves [ICTY Transcript]. With the assumption all of those men were executed, yes that would apparently be thousands. But for how many of those victims do we know really they were certainly executed and not deadly wounded in combat? You may have newer numbers from reports and if so please inform me. The last specific ones I have of Manning's report (Nov 01) are as follows: 199 corpses had blindfolds (25 of those 199 were tied up). In 314 other cases there were traces of bonds. Additionally they found 47 blindfolds and 29 bonds, loosely in mass graves. In 2004, at the Tribunal in Den Haag, Mr. Manning mentions already 423 ligatures. Of course ligatures are not needed for executions but what other evidences are there? Now based on these numbers would it be neutral to speak of thousands? No. Thousands of executed people? Maybe but what is the proof to put that statement? --Arsenio 18:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Several thousand Bosniak males are missing, and the RS government has provided the names of around 8000 that were killed . 6000 bodies have been uncovered. I think it's perfectly npov to talk of a "massacre of several thousand Bosniaks" in the region. The word executed itself is never used. I understand what you're saying, but I really see nothing in this article that is POV. Asim Led 21:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly I must correct myself, Mr. Dean Manning doesn't speak of 2'541 "individuals" which have been identified, but have been found in "all of the graves", sorry for that mistake. Can be checked in the ICTY Transcript 040126IT --Arsenio 01:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A massacre does include executions, does it not? Let's have a look on the Merriam-Webster Online for a little help: "1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty". "Helpless or unresisting human", that is the key, is it not? How would the majority of people interpret now the following line: "the site of the Srebrenica Massacre of thousands of Bosniaks by Bosnian Serbs", wouldn't for most this mean thousands of helpless and unresisting Bosniaks were killed? No? What does it mean then? Yes? What does support your statement, is there evidence? In addition please provide me with the source stating 6000 bodies have been uncovered. The report I have read by the Government of Republic Srpska from October 2004 states 1'482 people have been identified and 7'108 persons were reported as missed between the 10th and 19th July 1995 (Republika Srpska The Events in and around Srebrenica Addendum). --Arsenio 01:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assorted news reports... we collected a few links at Talk:Srebrenica Massacre. The report can't include a precise total excavated body count since one can't be sure of how many bodies are in a mass grave after mixing (ugh). --Joy [shallot] 18:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, let's assume, for the sake of progression, for our dispute, those news reports are fair and reliable and any number stated is correct. May it be 6000, 7000, 8000 or 20000. Do we know if thousands of Bosniaks were massacred (as in executed), yes or no? Not "likely", or "probably", also not "most likely", but can we provide facts for it? If not please correct it, if yes leave it as it is and the npov shall be removed. --Arsenio 20:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The DNA analysis shows over a thousand dead Bosniaks (one of the latest reports over there says 1.3K), so let's just work with that. If they weren't killed en-masse, it must have been some sort of a battle or a large series of skirmishes. Where are the hundreds of dead Serb soldiers? Surely the death ratio wasn't a thousand to zero. Do we have any records of the Bosnian Serb army impounding a thousand firearms in the region? If they were all armed, and no arms were found with them in the graves, where did all this weaponry go? Is there a record of similar numbers of PoWs and casualties in the region during this period?

There are undoubtedly many unresolved issues with regard to the mainstream story. However, I fail to see how any other explanations would be sufficiently more plausible to merit the exclusion of this one based on lack of certainty. --Joy [shallot] 22:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to reply to your questions with all honesty since I'm interested in truth and my intentions are not to create new propaganda.

Where are the hundreds of dead Serb soldiers?

Yes. Darko Trifunovic mentions 300-500 dead Bosnian Serb soldiers. The dutch ministry of defence mentions 500, respectively 700 corpses that were seen closeby the main street between Kravica and Nova Kasaba. If I am correct that would be in the "Report Based on the Debriefing on Srebrenica", Assen, 4.10.1995

Do we have any records of the Bosnian Serb army impounding a thousand firearms in the region?

I do not but read below.

If they were all armed, and no arms were found with them in the graves, where did all this weaponry go?

I have no document describing this matter. My answer however does not mean there are none, they are only not known to me.

Now I will quote several sources. I had to translate them myself because I don't have the english versions in front of me, please, you are encouraged to read the originals.

"The combination of fear, lack of food and exhaustion led to a big disorientation and confusion, and a few men became seemingly crazy. Others saw no escape anymore and commited suicide [..] In a few cases people killed one another because they didn't recognize them and took them as dressed up Serbians [..] (Ilijas Pilav, doctor among the fugitives:) Some people in a group started to hallucinate. Anxiety. Stress. Such people were a danger for their comrades: They shouted and screamed and could have betrayed our position. A few armed people got completely into panic and started to shoot randomly. They've shot their own people. We had to subdue them violently." [Jan Willem Honig / Norbert Both, Srebrenica, Record of a War Crime, London 1996 (p.52/53)]

No this does not tell us that the dead bodies found were men killed by Bosnian Muslims, but it gives us already the hint that they possessed weapons.

Further: "Eyewitnesses claim that the people of Naser Oric are behind 19 assassinations" (that have been committed before the invasion of the Serbs) [..] About the murders, even today, one is not allowed to speak of. Some radical adepts of the military and political circumstances in Srebrenica dare to claim, that 'Eyewitnesses' even were liquidated when the main contingent fought out of Srebrenica. During this breakthrough on free territory a chair member of the SDA was killed on the area of Baljkovici Azem Bajramovic. His death is quoted as example how one can silence eyewitnesses." [Ljiljan, 7.8.1996]

Note: Ljiljan is a Bosnian Muslim media.

"Personally I believe, that the majority of the men that surrendered are alive. [..] I heard from people close to the Croatian state security and who have contacts with the Serbs that at several different places there are 5'600 survivors from Srebrenica" [Slobodna Bosna, 14.7.1996]

Note: Slobodna Bosna is a Bosnian Muslim media. Iban Mustafic was the leader of the SDA (leading Muslim party)

"Even the initial indictment from Den Haag acts on the assumption that one third of the 15'000 head counting refugee column was armed. The ex-general chief of staff Sefer Halilovic gloated even over that 6'000 of his soldiers broke through the Serbian lines at Srebrenica and was able to reorganize the 28th division of the Muslim army. [..] Honig and Both mentions heavy fights at the 14th July in the area of Liplje, south-west of Zvornik, between the 28th division of Muslims and 300 Serbian soldiers with flak cannonry. 'After a two hour gun battle the Muslims were able to break away and continue their march.' At the next day the fights became even stronger. 'The contact to the Bosnian(-Muslim) troops on the other side of the Serbian line were established. At the afternoon of 15th July a coordinated break through was attempted. The fight lasted over one day.'" [Jürgen Elsässer, Kriegslügen, 2004, p.58-60, References: Sefer Halilovic, Lukava Strategija, Sarajevo 1997, p.108/109, Honig/Both as mentioned before)

All this information I put here only to try to answer your questions, but they are even irrelevant for my dispute. If you state as fact thousands of Bosnian Muslims were massacred then that is merely an assumption, or do you know? If I can recall correctly, the npov policy doesn't support that too much: "What is the neutral point of view? [..] First, and most important, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view --Arsenio 23:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I finally read all this with care, and I can't tell where exactly is this conflicting view? We know that some of those Bosniaks were armed, and we think that some died as combatants. But that's not in conflict with the fact that there's just too many dead bodies in mass graves there for it to be mere casualties. And certainly not in conflict with Republika Srpska's official apology for the massacre. How do you think the sentence should be rephrased to be neutral in the light of this? --Joy [shallot] 12:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The conflicting view is the people's apathy, the people's ignorance and the people's self justification. I could go on and I could speak of the philosophies of the perspectives of the truths. And it would be almost in vain. Of course it isn't a conflicting view for you, it fits perfectly what you catch up from the press. Unfortunately I didn't have time lately to continue on this and to clear things up. After all it consumes more time than a blink of an eye to tell people differently than what their tvs and newspapers tell them. It's sad but hatred is spread in many ways, at many places. To draw Serbs through the dirt was never that easy, almost everyone will applaud and you can even believe you are right and just. Sadly, also deception writes history books. I might get back to this soon, but for now I have other things to do. --Arsenio 23:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't vouch for every single statement made about Srebrenica, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that establishing the truth about the Yugoslav wars is not some game of dragging the Serbs through the dirt for most people. --Joy [shallot] 09:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view also says that "we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." I deleted the word alleged because there is only one sentence in the article about what happened in the region after the fall of Srebrenica in 1995 and the vast majority of international organizations and media agree that it was a massacre. I think we should not try to say in this one sentence that this view is not accepted by everybody. We can (and do) discuss alternative views in the article Srebrenica Massacre.

Being Dutch, I am intrigued by your (Arsenio's) assertion that "[t]he dutch ministry of defence mentions 500, respectively 700 corpses that were seen closeby the main street between Kravica and Nova Kasaba." Are you implying that these corpses are of Serbian soldiers? Do you have a more precise quote or reference, except that you think that it is in the debriefing report to which I do not have access? I could not find anything in the NIOD report. -- Jitse Niesen 11:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked for an english version of the report on the internet, unfortunately it seems like there is no page showing it completely, only quoting it. Anyway, I found the same quote I stated, however I must admit the report solely does not state which identity those corpses had and therefore I will cross it out. The book I took it from was misleading, I apologize for that. I will dispute further later, unfortunately I don't have more time right now. --Arsenio 13:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Massacre

We need a separate page on the Srebrenica massacre. I know there is some controversy regarding the scale of the massacre, with some claiming that it didn't even happen. I don't agree with this view, but clearly we need an article which expands the circumstances of the massacre. Chadloder 20:19 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I added the more detailed non-Serb accord of events now. It should be reasonably clear now. --Shallot 09:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the meantime, the info about the massacre was moved to its own page. --Shallot 11:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There already is a very extensive Srebrenica massacre page. Trust me, it is very detailed. As for the description of the numbers killed in this article:

"where approximately eight thousand Bosniak men and boys were executed by the Bosnian Serb Army. Some thousands of people remain missing."

It suggest that the "some thousand" missing are in addition to the 8000 killed, when in fact 8000 is the total estimated number killed of which some have been identified and some are missing. Big difference.Osli73 12:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Asim Led's new page

This is a copyvio! Why am I having to fight revert battles over a copyvio?! Everyking 05:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's a copyvio? Copyviolation? Where did user Bosniak get the information? If this is the case I can write a better version by myself. This is not a "Mess" as you say, it is merely doing the same thing as the Jasenovac page. And this was not a "massacre of Bosnian soldiers", it's not as if it was a military battle. There was a good number of soldiers among them, but we're also dealing with boys and old men. Excpect detailed response and changes later.

Asim Led 00:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do a Google search, he took it straight from Encarta. Everyking 06:49, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Women of Srebrenica

Could somebody please add which language this website is in? I think that would be useful. I would do it myself if I could identify the language. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 6 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)

Which website? Their website? They are a Bosnian Muslim organization from Tuzla if I am correct so I guess the answer could be Bosnian. --Arsenio 15:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Massacre" section

In my opinion, there are several things wrong with the current "massacre" section which make it unbalanced:

• no evidence is given for ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Srebrenica
• only agression by Bosniaks prior to the fall is mentioned, while there was fighting and victims on both sides
• it is by no means clear that the Serbs took Srebrenica because of Oric's attacks

Additionally, the second paragraph seems rather superfluous, especially the sentence "11 July 2005 marked the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre". Therefore, I replaced the by a short paragraph (diff). Estavista reverted, arguing that my version is unbalanced because it only mentions the Serb crimes (diff). However, as I explained here I think there are serious problems with the old versions, so I decided to undo the revert and add a sentence to address Estavista's concern. Please address my points above before reverting back. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Made the following changes:

• returned section on ICTY ruling of genocide with corrected link (previous one was to popup that obvioously must be temp file);
• removed reference to controversial - the source provided is one I put in before and only talks about the apology - no mention of controversy. From my reading, the controversy is limited to either Serb sites or the more radical part of the left that split up from the rest of the left wing of politics up over the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia and reference all views through an anti-USA animus (usually couched in anti-imperial terms);
• added Jack Straw comment because it is an important reflection on the international communities role in these tragedies (Rwanda & Darfour are other examples) - thus entirely relevant to the article;
• returned & rewrote section on Ducth government awarding Srebrenica peacekeepers insignia - referenced BBS article. iruka 14:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop the revert war?

I'm going to propose what I think... (probably everyone will shoot it down), but here it goes

• Change title to "Srebrenica Massacre (Srebrenica Genocide)" Either names have repeatedly been using. It was a massacre, it was also a genocide according to most impartial investigators.
• Say "approximately 8000" for the casualties. I will fully endorse a more precise figure if it is published by the Red Cross, the United States, the UN, or some similar reputable body. As it stands, I don't think that level of precision exists. In my opinion, saying "approximately 8000" instead of "8300" in no way reduces or trivializes the magnitude of genocide. It was a gross crime against humanity and the 8000 number makes that abundantly clear. On a sidenote, I think the Srebrenica Massacre article should mention the 8300 somewhere as one of the estimates, including the link to the names (but approximately 8000 should be used in the lead.)

I think it would be fantastic if some rough agreement could be reached among most editors. Constantly reverting 8000 to 8300, 8300 to 8000, changing genocide to massacre etc... is absolutely a waste of everyone's time. Giving a title of Srebrenica Massacre (Srebrenica Genocide) and "approximately 8000" as the casualty figure is both accurate and fair (imho). Mgunn 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Massacre (should the label of "genocide" be described as controversial?)

Julia Gorin: "The 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 7,000 Muslim males was inexcusable, but it wasn't genocide." [1] --Еstavisti 11:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, we live in a big world with 5 billion people... I don't think the existence of one opinion piece supports the designation of "controversial." I was looking more for prestigous groups saying its controversial or something to indicate that a large body of reputable people holds an opposing view. As far as I know, in the U.S. and Europe, there really isn't all that much debate on this... If I'm right, then the "controversial" description should be removed. Does anyone care to comment on this? Mgunn 12:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Julia Gorin is a hack & a Milosevic apologist - here is a critique of her article "A Jewish ALbatross - the Srebs", where is shown up for her factual inaccuracies w.r.t. to muslims in the former Yugoslavia[2]. iruka 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this woman is a well-known commentator whose name gets around 100,000 Google hits. I'm sure I can find more if you're going to insist.--Еstavisti 13:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

From my reading, the controversy is limited to either Serb sites or the marxist left that split off from the rest of the left wing of politics over the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia and reference all views through an anti-USA animus (usually couched in anti-imperial terms). Their literature represents a discredited attempt @ revisionism of the events in the former Yugoslavia. As an example there is the controversy of Nohm Chomsky causing an English paper to censure and online article & response b/c of his support of an author who questioned the numbers and existence of the Srebrenica massacre, which he quickly backed away from. iruka 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sentence "The Srebrenica massacre is also controversially referred to as the Srebrenica genocide", besides being bad English, implies that most people do not agree with the genocide label. This is not the case; most people accept the judgement of the ICTY as the relevant authority in this matter.

Marinka, why did you put the comments of Straw and the Dutch medals back in? I thought the idea is to have a small paragraph on the massacre here and to have the details in Srebrenica massacre. I think these recent developments are of only minor importance, compared to the facts in the previous paragraph. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Marinko, it implies no such thing. As for "most people" - we don't know that. --Еstavisti 16:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also removed a section which is way too detailed for an article on the town. Also, the RS didn't apologise for "genocide", according to the source you've given.--Еstavisti 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the censure regarding the medal assigned to dutch troops... I'm restoring the paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.16.75.189 (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Please read what Estavisti and I say about it. It has nothing to do with censorship. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone saw my comments re: my changes b/c I had them in an earlier talk section on the massacre paragraph. So I have included them below:

Made the following changes:

• returned section on ICTY ruling of genocide with corrected link (previous one was to popup that obvioously must be temp file);
• removed reference to controversial - the source provided is one I put in before and only talks about the apology - no mention of controversy. From my reading, the controversy is limited to either Serb sites or the more radical part of the left that split up from the rest of the left wing of politics up over the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia and reference all views through an anti-USA animus (usually couched in anti-imperial terms);
• added Jack Straw comment because it is an important reflection on the international communities role in these tragedies (Rwanda & Darfour are other examples) - thus entirely relevant to the article;
• returned & rewrote section on Ducth government awarding Srebrenica peacekeepers insignia - referenced BBS article. iruka 14:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, I think the main points that need to be covered in the massacre section are with the rationale for inclusion in brackets:

• a massacre took place (key fact & subject of linked article);
• rule as genocide (landmark decision by ICTY);
• acknowledgement & apology by Republika Srpska (confirmation of key fact & landmark in inter-BiH relations);
• apology by Jack Straw (relevant to the wider issue of international response to humanitarian disasters);
• Awarding of medals to Dutch (recent event; highly controversial; focuses on issue of role of peacekeepers)

I will try to rewrite section to summarise it more & pls advise what you think. However, Estavisti, pls stop removing the part mentioning the genocide ruling & the link to the ICTY source b/c it is a fact citation from a credible source. iruka 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Thanks for pointing out your comments; I indeed missed them, sorry. I agree with the first three points. Regarding Jack Straw, I don't see why specifically his apology is relevant. I'd say that comments from Kofi Annan (UN Secretary-General, I don't quite remember what he said) and Wim Kok (Dutch Prime Minister who resigned over Srebrenica) are more relevant in this context. I think the Dutch medals may seem important now because they were awarded so recently, but it's not a very important event in the long term. The article should not stress the events that happen to be recent when it was written, but the stress should be with those bits that will still be considered important in ten years' time. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right about Jack Straw's comment - I only included it b/c it was representative of the interenational communities' & instituion's role in the event. If there is one by Kofi Annan, then will replace it.

W.r.t to the awardingof the medals, I think it is important b/c it the act captures poignantly the issues of the role of peace-keepers & their mandate. I would want to keep it inthe article.

I think the issues that the Srebrenica massacre highlight include:

• genocide;
• the role of peacekeepers & their mandate;
• the role of international/regional institutions & their efficacy for dispute resolution.

iruka 06:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

1. It is controversial, a source has been posted. If you want more sources, they will be provided.
2. The source that is linked to does not say RS apologised for genocide, but for the massacre.
3. The stuff about Jack Straw and Dutchbat etc is all too much detail for an article about the town of Srebrenica.

--User:Hadžija 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't often find myself in agreement with Estavisti but I 'm puzzled why all this is going on here rather than at Srebrenica Massacre. There are issues that may lie somewhere between both articles but most of this discussion relates to the genocide rather than to the town. --Opbeith 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is all I'm saying. By the way, I'm unaware of having disagreed with you in the past.--Hadžija 19:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Many children

Jitse, you reverted away from the reference to "many children" being among the victims at Srebrenica. In 1997 Amnesty International noted that more than 100 minors were still missing, including Hazim Hasanovic (born 1978), Suad Suljic (born 1978), Edin Ahmetovic (born 1977) and Semir Ahmetovic (born 1979), Jasmin Zukic (born 1978), Senad Zukic (born 1980), Muharem Mujic (born 1980), Sifet Mehanovic (born 1978). (AI Index: EUR 63/026/1997 - 23 October 1997) http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR630261997?open&of=ENG-BIH

The videotape given by Natasa Kandic to the Serbian war crimes investigator and the ICTY provides visual evidence of the murder of chidren at Srebrenica. According to Tim Judah and Daniel Sunter's article in The Observer at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1499516,00.html four of the six Bosniaks taken off the coach at Trnovo and assasinated were under 18.

Three consecutive names among the FCMP's listed 8373 names of the dead and missing are the children

531 ALISPAHIĆ ARMIN AVDIJA 1203979183129 12.03.1979

532 ALISPAHIĆ AZMIR ALIJA 210978183136 02.10.1978

533 ALISPAHIĆ BEHADIL ADIL 19.05.1979

http://www.srebrenica-zepa.ba/srebrenica/spisak.htm

Azmir Alispahic was one of those killed on the Kandic videotape. The horror experienced by Nura Alispahic and her daughter Magbula as they watched the tape of their son and brother Azmir being killed has been widely reported.

I've seen reference to 12- and 13-year-olds being among the victims. The FCMP list names

5217 MUHIĆ NESIB HASAN 00.00.1984

7594 SMAJLOVIĆ FAHRUDIN JUSUF 01.01.1983

2775 HASANOVIĆ REMZUDIN HASIB 101982000000 01.01.1982

4469 MALAGIĆ HARIS IBRAHIM 00/00/1982

and

1188 BOŠNJAKOVIĆ AMER MEHO 1109982000000 11.09.1982

The last named was two months short of his thirteenth birthday. The other four don't have accurate birth dates and presumably for whatever reason their disappearance was reported by someone other than immediate family.

Of course there are plenty of slightly older names on the list. There are 16 dates of birth in 1981 and 53 dates of birth in 1980.

So, there were many children among the victims.

That having been said, this point is perhaps, as previously discussed, a point more appropriate for discussion at the Masssacre article. --Opbeith 10:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To put another human face on the murder of children at Srebrenica, an IWPR report on proceedings in the Krstic case at the ICTY recounts the experience of witness DD, whose 13-year-old son was taken away from her in the separation process at Potacari:

"Witness DD: Struggling to Survive Protected Witness DD was called to the stand by the prosecutor on July 26, 2000. In the course of her testimony, she offered one of the most emotional and compelling testimonies seen at the tribunal.

Forced from her home in the opening days of Operation Krivaja 95, Witness DD fled with her family towards Potocari, where they joined the ever-growing mass of refugees. En route, her husband and eldest son separated, presumably to move towards Susnjari to join the column of men trying to escape to Tuzla, and were never heard from again. Along with her three remaining children, DD stayed in the open at Potocari for two days. When they did try to board the buses, her eldest remaining son, nearly 14 at the time, was singled out by the Serb soldiers, and was forcibly separated. As she recounted this part of her story, DD broke down crying, unable to contain her sadness. She recalled her sons cries of “I was born in 1981, what do you want with me?” as he was taken away. Devastated, DD was eventually helped by her sister-in-law onto a truck, and they were deported to Bosnian-controlled territory." http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=253801&apc_state=henitri2005 --Opbeith 07:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

no controversy about the massacre

there really is no controversy about the srebrenica massacre. Thousands of civilian (unarmed) men including children were slaughtered in a single day and buried in a mass grave. International Warcrimes Tribunal has already issued convitions on the matter, and the notorious Serb war criminals, who gave the order for the massacre, Ratko Mladic and Radovan KAradzic are being sought by the police and authorities in every civilized country in the world. As for the Serbian rightwing fascist propaganda seen on the site...it is a disgrace to Wikipedia.

Lusich 04:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You just keep asking them to cite their sources and they go away. For some reason they are hesitant to admit that their source was a Serbian Unity Congress press release. Becir 10:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)becir

Muslim vs Bosniak

Given that the 1991 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina used the term "Muslim" and not the term "Bosniak", we should do the same here when representing the results of the census. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can, but "Bosnjak/Bosniak" is the correct term to use. "Muslim" is not always the right choice of words because said individuals may have ethnically been Bosnjak but a practicing Hare Krishna, Raelian, or atheist for all we know. "Muslim" is loaded because it has a VERY specific meaning in Arabic--one who submits to the will of Allah. It's the same reason we say Serb and not Orthodox, Croat and not Catholic. Becir 10:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)becir

That's exactly my point. Religion and ethnicity is not the same. The census counted people that were Muslim and not people of Bosniak ethnicity. Bosniaks that adhere to Hare Krishna (for example) may not have ticked the Muslim box on the census. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we should use Muslims by nationality as we do in a plethora of Bosnia-related articles. That states the fact and avoids any controversy. Of course, not all people who were registered as Muslims by nationality were muslims by religion. BTW, in Communist times, you couldn't just tick a box on a census. Nikola 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation

The pronunciation is spelled out in the IPA, but the stress sign is lacking. What is the correct stress in Bosnian? Is it SreBREnica (common with newscasters here) or SrebreNIca (which I suspect to be the case)? Or something else entirely? Junes (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bosnian, but should be SreBREnica, or at least that's what I've heard there. --Dans-eng (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, CBS and the BBC pronounce it approximately ˈʃrɛbrəˌnitsa, though that's probably very much an Anglicized pronunciation. 86.149.33.21 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be rewritten

Hi. I once wrote most of this, when I was an inexperienced editor (years later I'm a b& editor, but I continue writing anyway - see my edits and decide if this is "vandalism", because apparently I'm a notorious vandal somehow). It is now "citation needed". Well, the thing is - I mostly more or less copy/pasted it back then from the 2002 book-sized report for the Dutch governemnt (it's with search if needed). I also did it wrong, because I chose much of relatively unimportant details and skipped much of important stuff. But this sourse is still absolutely awesome (not only for Srebrenica and related personas etc., but for the war in former Yugoslavia and even the history of the region in general). There are several other sources which could be extensively used, such as the Hague Tribunal files (soon also the trial of Karadzic, right?) and the earlier HRW investigations. I also think I'd do it the way of writing a Srebrenica-Bratunac campaign (1992-1995) (I forgot how this region is called) and the fall of Srebrenica and the breakout of the column battle (sub)articles (the fall and the breakout maybe two-in-one), and also mass graves of Srebrenica/Bosnia articles and more. I'd actually do this myself (like what I just did with my old articleelsewhere, tripling it in size on the way despite time limitations), but as I said I'm b& now. That's all, because I've got to go. Oh, and you may OMG BAN this account/ip too, as now I'm finishing this course on Friday and won't use it since. Cheers. --Putinjugend (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and yeah, yes I'm pretty jaded, I did like almost 100,000 edits since 2005 and spent countless workdays (I'd spend a whole fucking weekend on occasions) and all I did receive in return was a GTFO. --Putinjugend (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea of what you refer to. But if you have good sources, your work is welcome. Just set up a sandbox page and add your inputs there, so that anybody can see and review it.--Dans-eng (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does need rewritten and in an NPV format. I notice that there is no mention of the continual sallies from the city to attack Serb villages and communities with many documented cases of murder, rape and cruelty. ALL sides were guilty of atrocities in the area. Also the latest findings as regards to graves previously assigned as murder victims beig reassigned as combatants killed in battle. The article is poorly researched from mainly Western sources, many outdated. Well meant but hardly accurate. Acorn897 (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Skelani Redirect to Srebrenica ?

Why Skelani page redirects to Srebrenica? Skelani is a village in the Srebrenica municipality and should have its own wikipedia page. Why does it redirect to Srebrenica article? This does not make any sense. Bosniak (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Up to now, there's no Skelani page. If you can, please add it, maybe translating the one in local language. Up to that moment, Srebrenica is the closest thing to Skelani one can find in Wikipedia.--Dans-eng (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I did something about it.--Dans (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph removal

I remove from the page the following paragraph, mostly regarding Nasser Oric, and without references.--Dans (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

MISC

• Naser Oric, Bosnian warlord who commanded raids on Serb civilians using Srebrenica as his head quarters, up untill late 1992 worked in Serbian police as a higher ranking officer. Before the war started, he was a bodyguard of Marko Milosevic, son of Slobodan Milosevic, and a personal friend of Slobodan Milosevic
• During the Serbian anti-Milosevic civic riots in 1992 lead by Vuk Draskovic, Vuk Draskovic and his wife Danica Draskovic were arrested by Naser Oric
• General Ratko Mladic is said to have developed a psychiatric disorder after his daughter, Ana Mladic, commited a suicide in March 1994
• In an attempt to kill Naser Oric, some time between 1992 and 1995, his father was killed by mistake in an assasination attempt
• According to the testimony of ICTY Hague prisoners, in prison Naser Oric was always adressing Jovica Stanisic (Milosevic`s Secrete Police chief) with the words `Commander`
• According to numerous testimonies of ICTY Hague prisoners, during Slobodan Milosevic`s prison years in Hague, Naser Oric was ironing and washing Milosevic`s laundry
• Bosnian-muslim liberal activists claim that wartime Bosnian leadership conducted a genocide over Serbs. The head of this movement is Ibren Mustafic, wartime mayor of Srebrenica and a survivor of the genocide. He wrote a book `Srebrenica - controlled chaos`. There was an attempt to kill him and he ended up in hospital

Onyxig edits

Onyxig, your edits are highly contentious. You've had them reverted by two different editors, but you restore them. When I undid your changes I explained that the genocide was not a matter of dispute according to authoritative sources and that the notion that it had taken place as an act of retaliation had been dismissed by the ICTY, ICJ etc. You then reverted back to your previous version, claiming that the genocide was disputed and that it was committed in retaliation.

However in your Edit summary you said that "Nobody's arguing about that." and suggesting that I should be editing your comments rather than Undoing them. As I see it there is one significant edit that seems perfectly legitimate and that involves retitling the picture of the Orthodox Church in Srebrenica as the Serbian Orthodox Church, I suggest you make that change as a specific edit yourself rather than asking me to do it. The other claims you make in your changes are unsubstantiated if not malicious and I see no reason to spend time editing them rather than undoing them. Opbeith (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Massacre / genocide - points of view

Darolew, a massacre is a physical event. Genocide is the legal finding of a crime committed with the intention to bring about the destruction, total or partially, of a group. The designation "genocide" has significant implications. It is not a point of view to suggest that things should be described as what they are and have been confirmed in law to be. You have presumably followed developments in the Western Balkans and are aware that is most notably the representatives of the perpetrators and beneficiaries of the genocide who maintain that what happened at Srebrenica was a massacre but resist the designation "genocide". That is how the point of view configures itself. Opbeith (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is POV to use a disputed term which lacks editor consensus. The Srebrenica massacre article has not been moved for this reason. What is true for there is also true here.

Your own denial of POV confirms you have one: "things should be described as what they are"; thus your POV is that the events of Srebrenica were a genocide. I am sure you see that the 'describe things as they are' line of thought can be used to justify the inclusion of any POV, anywhere.

Though this has no bearing on the issue at hand, that is a strange definition of genocide. If someone exterminates People X, then that is genocide regardless of "legal findings". And the 'or partially' bit is vague—the murder of any person of People X background partially destroys that group. Let us say someone murders one Bosnian Moslem solely because he is Moslem; is that genocide? What if the murder is of four Moslems? Sixteen? Eight thousand? Your definition of genocide provides no boundary. --darolew (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you give a little thought to the Convention's title - the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - you would understand that the form of wording is not so strange. There is a very important reason for including the partial as well as the total destruction of the group, if you think about it. Raphael Lemkin, whose family was destroyed in the Holocaust, saw genocide as a process that had to be prevented from reaching completion not simply a fait accompli, which could only be punished.

Courts have considered what the threshold should be for the extent of the destruction of the group to be sufficient for a finding of genocide. The Krstic trial and appeal judgments examine the criteria which should be applied in considerable depth. There are circumstances in which it could certainly be considered that the death of a small number could be seen as an appropriate point of intervention, where states signatories could not fail to see that an attempt to destroy a protected group was in progress and under the Convention they were under obligation to intervene.

The Krstic trial chamber, however, applying the Convention to a situation in which it was too late to intervene, opted for a test of sufficient scale - "substantiality" - which it was satisfied had been achieved in relation to the Bosnian Muslim population of Eastern Bosnia, whose existence the Bosnian Serbs had intended to destroy by various acts including murder and forcible transfer. I suggest you read the judgments to consider the reasoning.

The point is that the Convention has been applied to a practical situation and the ICTY's interpretation has been confirmed at the level of the highest forum of international law, the International Court of Justice. Among legal scholars and jurists there are arguments (including dissenting opinions) that hold the ICTY and ICJ to have followed too cautious an approach. But the ICTY/ICJ findings represent the accepted consensus to daye, and I think that is what Wikipedia is concerned with. As you say, in the end what a court decides is a sort of point of view. Any judgment is a point of view. But a judgment is nevertheless considered objective if it is carefully argued, tested against the alternatives and found to be logically consistent. This is not my definition of genocide, it is the definition of experts and scholars and good enough for Wikipedia. Opbeith (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The finding of genocide at Srebrenica was made by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 2001, confirmed on appeal in 2004 and supported by the International Court of Justice in 2007. That is why the genocide at Srebrenica can be described as it is. The dispute concerning the naming of the Srebrenica Massacre article is over the conflict between most common usage and accuracy of description. There is no question of "point of view" as far as the substance of the finding of genocide is concerned. It's 2010 and still you and other Wikipedia editors support the ongoing efforts of the perpetrator community to confine the description of what happened at Srebrenica to "massacre". The likes of Milorad Dodik, Tomislav Nikolic, and along with them the Serbian Parliament, insist on using the word "massacre" and not "genocide" because categorising what happened as a brutal incident of war obscures the reality that it was a systematically planned operation that was conducted as part of a strategic programme of demographic transformation. You are promoting a point of view that has been discredited most recently in the ICTY conviction of Popovic, Beara et al. a couple of months ago. Please go and read the ICTY's findings.Opbeith (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A U.N. criminal tribunal has a POV, like any other organization. Its verdicts are not the Absolute Truth to which Wikipedia is bound to adhere. By the way, remember that Wikipedia should not be considered a place to Right Great Wrongs; remember that the policy for creating neutral titles does not take into account the 'right', 'correct', or 'true' name.

For what it is worth, with regard to your second-to-last sentence, my interest here is abstract. To me, this is no different than using Liancourt Rocks as a wikilink rather than Takeshima or Dokdo. --darolew (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about righting great wrongs, we're talking about authoritative formulations. Opbeith (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of the analogy you offer I accept you believe you are discussing neutral terminology. But you fail to examine your analogy in enough depth. The point about the use of "Liancourt Rocks" as the name for the article is that the issue of ownership - and an authoritative name - has not been resolved since the proposal to accept determination by an international tribunal was rejected. The issue of whether what happened at Srebrenica was simply a massacre or a crime of genocide has been arbitrated. And the reference to genocide in the article is perfectly legitimate. The wikilink is secondary, a link should not undo the legitimate wording of an article. There should surely be no problem for you to have a reference to Dokdo which links to the article named for Liancourt Rocks. An article on the vessel Le Liancourt might link to the Liancourt Rocks article via a reference to Liancourt Rocks while an article on Ulleung County might link to the article via a reference to Dokdo - both links arrive at the same article thanks to the Redirects. There is no reason why linkage to the Srebrenica Massacre article should not be made via reference to the genocide in the same way. But even if you were not previously aware, you should still be alert to the different significance of using the terms massacre and genocide in the same way that I presume you are alert to the implications of using the names Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima or Dokdo. Opbeith (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Systematic killing of human beings is what separates genocide from a massacre. A massacre of 2000 Tutsis who sought shelter in a Church has been qualified as genocide http://www.kens5.com/news/world/106446413.html . They were killed systematically based solely on their identity. That's genocide. Same happened in Srebrenica but the number of victims was far greater. Yahalom Kashny (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Some talk from a guy I reverted

This person 109.92.200.242 had done a bunch of edits that I reverted, and I left his quote here for historical purposes but put it at the end of the article. James Michael DuPont (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Bratunac genocide, Muslims killed 3 500 Serbs

Muslims led by Hague's prisoner, Naser Oric had killed 3 500 Serbs in 1993. on Serbian orthodox Christmas. Why we don't speak about the cause!?1?!?!?!!?!!109.92.200.242 (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Complete tosh, inflated from another figure invented by Serb propagandist Milivoje Ivanisevic, author of the notorious "Chronicle of Our Graves", currently one of the Karadzic defence team in The Hague and organiser of the Dutchbat witnesses for Karadzic stunt. Ivanisevic claims Naser Oric massacred 3,500 Serbs around Srebrenica.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) found no evidence of any "massacres" of Serbs around Srebrenica. Instead the Oric Trial Judgment described how Serb villages around Srebrenica were used as fortified military bases from which Serbs launched assaults including artillery attacks, sniper fire and occasional bombing from aircrafts. The ICTY Office of the Prosecutor found that during the attack by the BH army and followers on Kravica and the surrounding villages on the 7th & 8th January 1993 (the Serbian Orthodox Christmas attack), 43 people were killed. 13 of the 43 were civilians.[3] Kravica was a fortified village and a stronghold of Serb/Serbian regular and irregular forces who carried out massacres of civilians in the early days of genocide in the Podrinje at places like Glogova. Refugees from the central Podrinje fled to Srebrenica, where Naser Oric organised the resistance that enabled the enclave of Srebrenica to survive in the face of Serb aggression. On 13 July 1995 after Srebrenica fell, over 1000 prisoners were brought to the Agricultural Cooperative warehouse in Kravica and all except 3 escapees were murdered by the Bosnian Serb forces. The bodies were then buried for the first time in Glogova.

"Why we don't speak about the cause!?1?!?!?!!?!!" Serb apologists have too often tried to use the attack on Kravica to justify Srebrenica, as part of a strategy to avoid responsibility for the planned genocidal slaughter of July 1995.Opbeith (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lies, faking, nonsenses

Emir Kusturica, born as Bosnian Muslim, back to Serbian Orthodoxy in 2005, celebrated director well said, if we follow Muslims story, there are more killed Muslims than their total number in Bosnia. He well described it in French La Figaro. Stop with creating some story! It is known that Muslims first have started when on Serbian Orthodox Christmas, Naser Oric and Muslims had killed 3 500 Serbs in Bratunac and other parts of Srebrenuca in 1993. Then Mladic came to liberate Srebrenica in 1995. and killed several thousands of Muslims, which not ok, but was a revenge. Muslims started. In trial to Milosevic it was proved that many bodies were taken from western Bosnia and put in Srebrenica number. It was not 7 500 killed Muslims, but much less. Stop faking history. It won't help. Kusturica well said! If we follow Muslims lies, there are more killed Muslims than the total number. Be neutral!!109.92.200.242 (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

History

Please excuse my poor English, I'm a poor German;-) The history section says about the first half of the 20th century: In early January 1941, the Chetniks entered Srebrenica and killed around a thousand Muslim civilians in the town and in nearby villages.[9] Probably there is some more information available. Maybe here is somebody who reads German? So lernen wir über Srebrenica, dass serbische Freiwillige 1914 die Provinzstadt einnahmen, „aber bereits kurz darauf wieder von den Österreichern vertrieben“ wurden, „die den Kommandanten töteten und zusammen mit muslimisch-kroatischen Legionären grausame Vergeltung an der Zivilbevölkerung übten“ (S. 72), während dort im Zweiten Weltkrieg „die kroatische Ustascha 1943 ein Massaker unter der serbischen Zivilbevölkerung in Gang gesetzt hatte.“ (S. 204) (from a review of Marie-Janine Calic: Geschichte Jugoslawiens im 20. Jahrhundert. München 2010). --217.191.44.159 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Current Population

As there is no information on the current resident population of Srebrenica municipality, I think this should be pointed out more directly than with a simple question mark. Besides, the 1991 census population does not belong to the main info table, since it is as outdated as it could possibly be: it is even before the Yugoslav War and the subsequent massacre. It is appropriate inside the demographics table that is present in the main text, but should be removed from the main info box (in my opinion). Amschouten (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the 1991 information belongs in the main info box, it is the key to the whole of the genocide process, 1992-1995. Why else do you imagine the genocide took place? Because of the failure of the Republika Srpska authorities adequately to encourage the return process required by the Dayton Agreement, the current "resident" population is not an authoritative census-based equivalent.Opbeith (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Srebrenica - A Town Betrayed

A film by an ex Bosnian soldier and an important reference, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUuhSGnLvv8. It explains how and why Naser Oric, Izetbegovic and co abandoned Srebrenica and its population in 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.161.9 (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Srebrenica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080414045933/http://www.srebrenica-opstina.org/karta/karta.swf to http://www.srebrenica-opstina.org/karta/karta.swf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)