
The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized killing of Bosnians, predominantly Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the war between 1992 and 1995 by authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army. This article is about genocide that took place during the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina#Bosnian War from 1992-1995 while there were other cases of genocide in the same region during the WWII covered in other articles. The Bosnian Genocide has been proven at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) through the court case entitled Prosecutor vs Krstic (see Srebrenica Massacre). Thus far the Srebrenica massacre has been the only case which the UN Hague tribunal has officially defined as genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The presentation of evidence implicating the killing of an estimated 10,000 persons, predominantly Bosniaks has been made. The government of Republika Srpska has admitted to 7,779 deaths at Srebrenica in July 1995. ==Recent Developments== There are several genocide trials and indictments currently at the ICTY including Milosevic trial and Karadzic and Mladic indictments for genocide. ==Background== ''(See Bosnian_War#Bosnian_War)'' Statement by Radovan Karadzic, co-founder of Republika Srpska and its first president, alluded to the origins of this ideology on March 4, 1992 to the Bosnian Parliament: :''..."the road to which you want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina is the same highway of hell which Slovenia and Croatia took. Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and the Muslims into annihilation... Muslims can't defend themselves if there is war here"...'' Statements by Jovan Raskovic, founder of the Serbian Democratic Party of Croatia: :''"I feel responsible because I made the preparations for this war, even if not the military preparations. If I hadn’t created this emotional strain in the Serbian people, nothing would have happened.'' :''"My party and I lit the fuse of Serbian nationalism not only in Croatia but everywhere else in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It’s impossible to imagine an SDP (Serbian Democratic Party) in Bosnia-Herzegovina or a Mr. Karadzic in power without our influence.'' :''"We have driven this people and we have given it an identity. I have repeated again and again to this people that it comes from heaven, not earth."'' ==Killings admitted as evidence at ICTY== Schedule of evidence for killings by city or region The following list represents the evidence admitted at the ICTY in its genocide trials. Bosnian Herzegovinian Commission for Missing Persons claims that the number of killings is much greater than has been currently represented at the tribunal.
Banja Luka * In Manjaca camp, 2 non-Serb men were killed. * At Manjaca camp, approximately 7 non-Serbs were killed after being transported from Hasan Kikic Sports Hall in Sanski Most. * Between Krings camp and Manjaca camp, approximately 20 non-Serb men were killed during transportation between the camps. * At Manjaca camp, at least 8 non-Serb men were killed in front of camp after their transportation from Omarska camp Bileca * In SUP Detention facility, 2 non-Serb detainees killed. Bijeljina * In Bijeljina, at least 48 Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat men, women and children were killed. Bosanska Krupa * In Petar Kocic Elementary School, approximately 11 non-Serb detainees were killed. Bosanski Novi * In Blagaj Japra, 7 Bosnian Muslim men were killed during the expulsion of Bosnian Muslims. * In Alici, 27 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. Bosanski Samac * In Crkvina camp, approximately 17 non-Serb detainees were killed. Bratunac * In Glogova, approximately 65 Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians killed by members of the JNA, acting together with Serb paramilitary forces. * In Vuk Karadzic school, at least 14 non-Serb men were killed. Brcko * In Brcko, approximately 12 Bosnian Muslim males and other non-Serbs were killed at the Hotel Posavina. * In Luka Camp, approximately 30-35 Bosnian Muslim detainees were executed. Cajnice * At Mostina Hunting Lodge, 53 non-Serbs killed. Foca * In Filipovici, at least 5 Bosnian Muslims were killed by Serb soldiers in a military warehouse. * In Jelec, 18 Bosnian Muslims, including elderly people and 8 members of one family, were executed by JNA soldiers. * In Brod, 14 Bosnian Muslim men from Trnovaca were executed by Serb soldiers. * In Livade camp, a number of non-Serb detainees were killed. * At KP Dom prison, at least 266 Bosnian Muslim detainees were killed. Gacko * 2 Muslim males killed by Serbs in a field near Mount Zelengora. * At least 8 Muslims killed by Serb soldiers near Mount Zelengora. * 5 Bosnian men killed in the SUP building in Gacko. Ilijas (Greater Sarajevo) * In Ljesevo, 21 Bosnian Muslims were killed. Kalinovik * Approximately 23 Muslim men and boys from the Gunpowder warehouse shot in a field near Ratine. Kljuc * In Prhovo, 38 Bosnian Muslim villagers, including women and children, were killed by shooting and grenades. * In Biljani, at least 30 elderly Muslim men were killed. * In Velagici, approximately 100 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. Kotor Varos * In Kotor Varos town, approximately 13 non-Serbs were killed in and around the Medical Centre. * In a barn in Dabovici, at least 15 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. * In Grabovice, a large number of Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat detainees were held in the Grabovice School, beaten and never seen again. Nevesinje * At or near Lipovaca and Dubrovaci, at least 34 Bosnian Muslim men, women and children were killed * Near Kiser, approximately 17 Bosnian Muslim civilians were killed by Serb soldiers. Prijedor * In the Brdo region numerous non-Serbs were killed. * In Hambarine and Behlici, at least 3 Bosnian Muslims were killed. * In Kamicani, approximately 8 non-Serbs were killed in Mehmed Sahoric's house. * In Jaskic, at least 19 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. * In Biscani, about 40 non-Serbs were killed. * In Carakovo, at least 19 Bosnian Muslims were killed. * In Brisevo, at least 68 non-Serbs were killed during the attack. * In Kipe iron ore mine (near Ljubija), at least 8 Bosnian Muslim men were executed. * In Ljubija, at least 3 Bosnian Muslim men were executed at the football stadium. * In Tomasica, 4 non-Serbs were killed. * In Trnopolje camp, at least 2 non-Serbs were killed. * In Omarska camp, hundreds of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were killed. * In Keraterm camp, approximately 150 non-Serbs were killed. * On Vlasic mountain in Skender Vakuf municipality, approximately 200 Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat males from Trnopolje camp were killed. Prnjavor * In Lisnja, 4 Bosnian Muslim men were executed. Sanski Most * In Hrustovo, at least 24 Bosnian Muslim women and children were killed. * On or near Vrhpolje bridge, at least 13 Bosnian Muslim men from Begici were killed. * In Sanski Most, a number of non-Serbs were killed near the Partisan cemetery. * In Kenjari, 19 Bosnian Muslim men were killed in Dujo Banovic’s house. * In Budin, 12 members of one family were killed. * In Donji Kruhari near Skrljevita, 5 Bosnian Croat men were killed. * In Trnova near Sanski Most town, approximately 11 non-Serb men were executed by members of Arkan’s Tigers. * In Sasina, at least 65 non-Serb men were executed by members of Arkan's Tigers under the direct command of Arkan. * Near Hrastova Glavica, approximately 100 non-Serb men taken from Keraterm and Omarska camps were killed. * In Sanski Most town, at least 2 non-Serb men were killed in the Hotel Sana by Arkan’s Tigers. * At Sanakeram ceramics factory, at least 10 non-Serb men were killed. Srebrenica (see also Srebrenica Massacre) * Following the take-over of Srebrenica, several thousand Bosnian Muslim men were executed by Bosnian Serb forces, including at the following locations: # Cerska Valley, approximately 150 Bosnian Muslim men; # Kravica warehouse (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 1,000 Bosnian Muslim men; # Orahovac (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 1,000 Bosnian Muslim men; # Petkovci Dam (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 1,500 - 2,000 Bosnian Muslim men; # Branjevo Military Farm (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 1,000 – 1,200 Bosnian Muslim men; # Pilica Cultural Dom (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 500 Bosnian Muslim men; # Kozluk (Zvornik Municipality), at least 340 Bosnian Muslim men. Rogatica * Near Crvenka, at least 10 Bosnian Muslim males from Visegrad were executed. Teslic * In Teslic town, at least 5 non-Serb men were killed at the Territorial Defence building. Visegrad * In Nova Mahala (Visegrad town), over 60 Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat civilians from Koritnik were burnt to death in a house ignited by Serb paramilitaries led by Milan Lukic. * In Bikavac settlement, approximately 70 Bosnian Muslim and other non-Serb civilians were burnt to death in a house ignited by Serb paramilitaries led by Milan Lukic. Vlasenica * In Drum (Vlasenica town), approximately 22 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. * In Zaklopaca, at least 58 Bosnian Muslim men, women and children were executed during the Serb attack on the village. * At Susica camp, at least 6 non-Serb male detainees were killed. Zvornik * In Zvornik town, 15 Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat males were executed by Arkan's soldiers. * In Drinjaca, at least 55 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. * At Ekonomija farm, Karakaj, approximately 6 non-Serb detainees were killed. * At Novi Izvor building, at least 2 non-Serb male detainees were killed. * At Celopek Dom Kulture, at least 30 non-Serb male detainees were killed. * At Karakaj Technical School, approximately 110 Bosnian Muslim males were killed. * At Gero’s slaughter-house, approximately 190 non-Serb detainees were killed. == See also == * Genocide * Genocides in history * History of Bosnia and Herzegovina#Bosnian War * Srebrenica Massacre * Army of Republika Srpska * Bosniaks * Croatia * Republika Srpska * Slovenia * Serbian Democratic Party * International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia * Radovan Karadzic * Jovan Raskovic == External links == * [http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm Genocide Watch - The Eight Stages of Genocide] * [http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VIII-07.htm#III.A.68 The Annexes - Prison camps] * [http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm Mladic Indictment] * [http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm Karadzic Indictment] * [http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm Milosevic Indictment] * [http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/bosnia1210.htm Bosnian Genocide article by HRW] History of Bosnia and Herzegovina Genocides
OK, kids, that was enough. Please stop this stupid edit war and start thinking about what to do with information in this article. Obviously it can't be called "Bosnian genocide" since (1) it's not a name commonly used to refer to the events and (2) it's an open invitation to edit warring. I suggest that we find a better name, like Bosnian war or War in Bosnia and write about its history properly. User:Zocky 13:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC) The reason for the name of this article was based on the Rwandan Genocide article. Just because some cannot personally deal with facts and the thruth is a weak excuse.--User:Dado 15:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :Dado, Rwandan Genocide was actually just one event, so it's known after that name. "Bosnian Genocide" is a vague term, and like Zocky said, it just begs for edit wars. --User:Dcabrilo 03:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Well I have raised this issue of a single event at Talk:Srebrenica Massacre page as a move to rename the article Srebrenica Genocide. Please see that page for more info. It is a bit dual standard if you are willing to name Rwanda Genocide and not name Bosnian Genocide while they were both proven by the same institution International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. So far there has been only one person (who is still stuck in the eigth stage of the genocide see [http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm Genocide Watch - The Eight Stages of Genocide]) has been willing to pursue an edit war on this article and looking at his other activity at Wikipedia it does not surprise me. Others have been constructive on this article. I do agree that this is a bit controversial topic but only because there is a small number of people who are willing to pursue an edit war for whatever personal subjective reasons. I will repeat that just because some cannot deal with facts and the truth it is a weak excuse to question the merits of this article.--User:Dado 16:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ::Dado, I see your point, and I do not wish to undermine any attrocities committed in Bosnia. I am just saying that Rwandan Genocide is something that took place within few days, while it is unclear what would Bosnian Genocide be (there were many instances of massacres, of course... but hardly as a continuing spree that you can define by one name). Srebrenica Massacre is a better concept, for sure. --User:Dcabrilo 01:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC) ::Argh.. that just looks wrong :) What I wanted to say, of course, is that one article for one instance of genocide is a better concept than one article for all of war crimes. --User:Dcabrilo 01:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC) == Genocide == The only case which ICTY declared as a genocide in Bosnia so far (2005.5.) is Srebrenica. If you have links under ICTY which show different, please give them clearly. If you cannot, the only officialy proved genocide in Bosnia were in Srebrenica. --User:oldadamml You are correct. The only Bosnian Genocide that was proven so far in ICTY took place in Srebrenica. So why are you removing the entire page which is pretty much what is said in the judgement Prosecutor vs Krstic. In fact the article talks about what you are saying specifically. --User:Dado 13:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) I'm not removing the entire page, I just considered ICTY facts. You mentioned http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/index.htm. There are no any mentioned Prijedor, Sarajevo, Banja Luka or others victims there. --User:oldadamml I am stating again that you are correct that the only Bosnian Genocide that was proven at ICTY so far took place in Srebrenica. However what you are not saying is what I am exposing in this article and that is there are several other genocide proceedings currently going and few indictments for persons still at large responsible for genocide at the entire teritory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. See http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm Also see Schedule A and C for Milosevic trial. I know that you will say that these cases are not yet finished which is true and article stresses that any increase in numbers will take place only after these cases are complete. However it is critical to say that story is not over yet and that additional circumstances need to be considered as the scope of the genocide in Bosnia may increase. -- Those are indictments and Schedule A and shedule C is irrelevant so far. Let's wait for the judgment. --User:oldadamml Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic have been indicticed for genocide on the entire teritory of BiH (including Banja Luka, Prijedor and other areas) ==Name of the article== Can anybody provide proof that "Bosnian genocide" refers to "The Bosnian Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks)", i.e. that it excludes attrocities by Serbs against Croats, by Croats against Bosniaks and Serbs and by Bosniaks against Croats and Serbs? :It seems to me that this should be dealt in a section in the article Bosnian war or War in Bosnia, (which we still don't have) or in an article called War crimes in the Bosnian war. OTOH, if the point is just to describe what ICTY thinks about it, it should probably be merged to ICTY. User:Zocky 10:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC) ::Even if contributors were to do everything you recommend, one could still re-create the Bosnian Genocide article and start writing \"The Bosnian Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks)\". IMHO, more importantly, contributors here should follow Wikipedia's dispute policies.--User:AI 10:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Sorry, apologies if I'm out of line (literally meant--I'm not sure how to use these discussion boards so I'm just taking a guess). The term "Bosnian Genocide" (and similar expressions) are recognized in the academic spheres of Political Science, History, and Peace Studies. I've just completed a university course centered on genocide. Amongst numerous texts, I would recommend Century of Genocide to anyone who thinks that something as factual as the very title of this article is not neutral. The relevant chapter is entitled "Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina." Sound familiar? --User:Adtrace 07:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Hmmm... == I don't see that a lot of war crimes on this page (other then Srebrenica Massacre) are relevant to the page about genocide. Similar killings (not including Srebrenica) was on other sides, too. It would be usefull to say the sum of other killings, because the sum says the general number of killed people. It would be better to make other page about all victims of the Bosnian War. --User:Millosh 01:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Also, "proven by ICTY", as it is said, is only Srebrenica massacre/genocide, so it should be said in different way. However, statement about authorities of Republica Srpska is truth (I know that from Serbian side.) Also, "wide group of Bosniaks" should be explained. --User:Millosh 01:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC) It should be mentioned that no mass killing of women and children was, too. --User:Millosh 01:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC) First I would ask you to refer to the discussion on the Talk:Srebrenica Massacre where I raised an issue that given article should be renamed Srebrenica Genocide in light of the ICTY judgement which states this cearly and explains why. Some of the rethoric such as "wide group of Bosniaks" was taken directly from the judgement narrative of the Prosecutor vs Krstic case which proved the genocide. The point was raised at the talk page that Srebrenica Massacre can be called a genocide only in a larger context as in case of Rwandan Genocide in a context of a country. Given this and also the parallels between the ICTY and ICTR and their genocide judgements it made only logical to start this article under its given name. Other information noted in this article is clearly marked as being depended on other genocide proceedings (which are relevant). Perhaps noting which proceedings would help. I am not excluding a possiblity the the main definition of this article may evolve to include genocide over Croats as well (as there are Genocide indictments currently at ICTY that claim this) and to include information on the genocide on Serbs if any such indictment ever take place. If you agree with this concept we can resolve details easily (I hope). Also I support the idea that there should be an article about Bosnian War to include all victims of the war --User:Dado 04:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Millosh, there are also some discussions that took place at Talk:Banja Luka that you may find interesting regarding the crediblity of the person that initiated this edit war and lost any NPOV consideration on my part for further discussion. This is not a fair nor a productive way to initiate a discussion on this topic while the same individual still has an open door policy to vandalize both articles as he sees fit. --User:Dado 04:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :I did read both talk pages and I'll explain my position: --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :Genocide is a hard word and it mainly refers to Holocaust: organized killings of millions of human beings because of ideology of supreme nation. During the Bosnian war there were no such ideology and there were no organized killings of ''all'' members of some population. However, there ''were'' ideology of ethnic clean territories, a lot of hate, ordinary killers and people with mental disorders with guns, as well as ''one organized mass killings of the male part of one population''. With those facts, I prefer to call article Srebrenica Genocide, but I prefer to move this article into the name like War crimes during the War in Bosnia, which should intend to describe ''all'' war crimes during that war. --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :I think that it is malicious not to call event in Srebrenica as genocide -- only because there were no killings of women and children. It can be treated as "revenge" or whatever, but it ''was'' organized mass killings of one part of one group of people, based on ethnicity and/or religion. However, it was not general behaviour of authorities of RS during the war, such was in Rwanda, such was in Nazi Germany. However, again, we should carefully research one by one event. Inside of this article I see very different numbers: (1) if one human is killed, it is a crime; (2) if couple of humans are killed, it was a big crime; (3) if 10 or 100 soldiers were killed after their surrendering, it was a big war crime; (4) but, if 10 or 100 people, not soldiers, were killed to make territory "ethnic clean", it was a genocide, too. So, if we find some other such event, we can call it as genocide. But, with a lot of respect to all of victims, we should be ''very conservative'' in naming something as genocide. I think it is better to waste a lot of time in gathering relevant information before we put that name. --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :And to ask here for better organization: May we gather all problematic articles on one place (at the :m:Balkan NPOV page) and start to work on those problems? I would refer to the page of resolving conflict between Polishes and Germans: Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice. Our situation is more complicated, so I am sure that such notice would not be enough. But, we should work on that. Also, I think that we should make NPOV pages here and to implement it on our local Wikipedias. However, I am sure that it is problematic question. In general, I can say that any page about this matter which is NPOV would be implemented in Serbian Wikipedia. --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :And about User:oldadamml: It seems that he is finding some relevant data. It seems that he doesn't know how work on Wikipedia looks like, too. Remember what did say two persons from Bosnian Wikipedia (on Bosnian Wikipedia) to me only because I am from Serbian Wikipedia. Even they ''didn't (and don't) know'' what I am by origin (and we can talk about that a lot). So, we should try to talk. And I am glad to see that you are ready to talk. --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :(The point of the last paragraph is that people who tasted the war are very sensible about their identity. User:oldadamml is from Banja Luka and I think that two persons from bs: lived in Bosnia during the war.) --User:Millosh 06:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC) We can move this to BalkanNPOV but I find it useful to be on this page as well for others to reference. We could copy it to have a record on both pages once we are done. I do agree that genocide is a strong word. This word is not something that should be used easily hence I point to sources that have the credibility to call something genocide (ie. ICTY). If you have issue with the credibility of ICTY that is another discussion. But regardless, let’s take for the sake of discussion that ICTY is a credible source. In that case our personal opinions should not matter (NPOV Wiki policy). Following is an exact official narrative issued by ICTY regarding the Srebrenica massacre: “In Prosecutor v. Krstic, a landmark ruling that put to rest any doubts about the legal character of the massacre, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia unanimously ruled that it was an act of genocide. As the Chamber’s judgment states: By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general.…The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act.” There are clear gradations of crimes that are identified at the ICT ranging from incidents, to murders, war crimes, massacres, genocides and holocausts in such order. There should not be any confusion that genocide is not a holocaust. You cannot relate holocaust of 6 million Jews and 5 million Slavs and Roma in WW II with genocide of 8000 Bosnians in Srebrenica hence the difference in terminology. I could relate them on another level to say that they were both genocides but that WWII crimes went a step further. For all these reasons I think it is fruitless to discuss if the genocide in Srebrenica was really genocide but rather killing in revenge, killing of male only, killing of POV’s etc. etc. The main question is if you are willing to accept ICTY ruling as a credible source. I should also point out that there were and still are those who question the credibility of Nuremberg trials although it was probably most beneficial for German people in the long run. Now if you and others have trouble understanding and accepting what ICTY is and what it means than I will certainly talk about those issues. I will help you find information on how they arrived to their judgments as I am certain that all of those points that you are stating some of which are credible to a certain degree were also raised at the ICTY during the genocide proceedings. I will not however negotiate facts and judgments that were accepted at ICTY just because they don’t feel cozy to some. On the other hand you will find accepting it a much better alternative to get closure on this subject than to allow the situation to escalate where emotions and people who cannot control them take the issue over (on both sides).--User:Dado 15:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Some thoughts: * While ICTY's findings are mostly well researched and proven, the fact remains that it is used for political purposes (e.g. delaying Croatia's EU ascendency talks) and that it refuses to even investigate alleged war crimes committed by foreign powers (e.g. NATO). Even if we all agree here that ICTY is a 100% credible source, there are millions (probably the majority) of people in countries that it directly applies to (Serbia, BH and Croatia) who would disagree with us. Ergo, ICTY is not an undisputed source and it must be treated in the same way, i.e. quoted and attributed (but not necessarily equally prominent) as other sources. * Naming conventions tell us to use the most common name for things, persons and events. For the mass murder in Srebrenica, it's "Srebrenica massacre", not "Srebrenica genocide". "Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide" is a correct sentence. *"Bosnian genocide" ''is'' used by some people to mean what this article assumes that it does, so the name itself could be justified, but I still think that it would work better and cause less edit warring in a wider article. *The article as it is now reads as advocacy, not an encyclopedia article. Dado, I understand that you believe that everything it says is correct, and I also have no reason to doubt the accuracy of presented facts. But the way it is written now, a reader can tell that it was written by somebody who has chosen a side in the Bosnian war. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with chosing sides in real life, it's just not encyclopedic. User:Zocky 16:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Well I don’t think it is scientific either. Regardless of what I personally think and which side I take; hypothetically, on one hand you have a university with an immense body of knowledge, expertise and invested time into proving a theory. On the other hand you have a local coffee shop spewing out legends and conspiracy theories that are used to entertain the masses and keep them blind. Which one would you use to create an encyclopedia? I am willing to state that both exist but there is no doubt in my mind which one is more credible. Otherwise Wikipedia will become just a conglomeration of fancier forum type discussions without a clear layering of facts and without a clear hierarchy of relevance. If we are here to write down coffee house fairy tales than I don’t want to have any part in it as it adds 0 qualities to Wikipedia and as I can do that on any other forum on the internet. Also I am not willing to hide and obscure facts in a different article just so that some people may feel cozier, while there is a clear precedent (Rwandan Genocide) article to follow. I will not be so naïve to deny that politics have their hand in everything but claiming the exact level of their involvement in this is highly subjective. As an example, how do you explain a plea bargain where one of the convicts (I think it was Nikolic case but I may be wrong) gets 5 years in prison for killing 70 people. So can we agree that this article or information provided therein is: # Factually correct # Relevant to be called in its given name # That Srebrenica Massacre article should retain its original name but only if there is a Bosnian Genocide article to put it in a larger context as in the case of Rwandan Genocide article # That it should include information on both completed genocide cases and the cases that may potentially change the nature and the scope of its meaning. If these principles are acceptable than we can move to fine tune the article.--User:Dado 18:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC) #I believe that all of it is correct, but I don't know, as there are no references to sources where I could check. #I still think that this information, if presented out of context of crimes on other sides will be an endless edit war battlefield, so I would prefer to merge it elsewhere, but I agree that the current name is relevant and if other people think that it's good where it is, I have no problem with that. #Srebrenica Massacre article should be called that regardless of where we put this. It's a separate issue. #I'm not sure whether it should include all the cases that may (or may not, that's what "may" means) "change the nature and the scope of its meaning". How do we establish that? These are some of the problems I have with the article as it is now written: *It treats ICTY as the word of god. Even if we accept ICTY as a 100% reliable source, we can't report its findings like we report easily observable natural phenomena. *The purported number of people killed in the genocide (100,000-250,000) is probably larger than the total number of dead in the war, including military and civilian casualties on all sides. *Quotes by Karadžić and especially Rašković are too prominent in the article, presented out of context, and unreferenced. *The data in the breakdown is undated, unreferenced and not all of it looks necessarily relevant - cases of several men killed in a town can arguably be attributed to military or personal matters. User:Zocky 20:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Let's start with some information that we currently have regarding the data in the breakdown which is combined Schedule A and Schedule B lists of Killings not Associated with Detention Facilities and Killings Associated with Detention Facilities from the Milosevic trial Indictment [http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm]. You can also find dates on those schedules but I think that it may be just too much information. It may be usefull to put the date of the Indictment which is April 21, 2004. I would definatelly put the above link in the article for more information including also: http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm I would gladly consider other sources if you can provide links. I do agree with some of your concerns and I will think about the organization of the article further as there may be an ambiguity between what is a judgment and what is an indictment and what may and what may not "change the nature and the scope of its meaning". Around 105,000 people killed is a current estimate but there are two ways to calculate the number of victims (which I am not going to get into now). The larger question is if all 105,000 can be considered as genocide in this article and the answer at this point is probably not. --User:Dado 21:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Good Day, I am curious to know why there is only reportings on Non-Serb murders? Since this is about the "bosnian" genocide; I Demand that you include Croat and Serb murders!!! The NPOV is lost in this article completely. How can you call it the Bosnian genocide if it is only targeted against Bosniaks? Call it the Bosniak Genocide! I would like to find about the other deaths of Croats and Serbs in the "bosnian" genocide. Bosnia doesn't just include Bosniaks you know? It is a rainbow of different people. This article is biased as it does not acknowledge the Genocide of Croats and Serbs (Serbs in particular) in the "bosnian" genocide!!! I suggest you delete the article in it's entirety and start over with an introduction similar to this (watch for the NPOV :P) The Bosnian Genocide took place during the 1990's and involved genocidal attacks and beliefs from the Bosniak, Croat, and Serb parties. The evidence leading to the proof of this genocide can be found below. The Genocide was an extension of the Yugoslavian Genocide (1941-45)... I bid you all a farewell... Auf Wiedersehen, -Gustav- We've been over this. Other than to say that this person should read the article carefully before jumping to conclusions I could say that article may need to reinforce what the genocide is and differentiate it from other victims of war. It also reinforces the notion that there should be an article about victims of Bosnian War on all sides.--User:Dado 00:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Huh... We are at the middle of the talk. I think that this page should be renamed into War crimes during the War in Bosnia or something like that because there were only one sanctionied act of genocide (Srebrenica Massacre) and a lot of war crimes on all sides. However, we are at the beginning of the road. And we would talk about it for a months (maybe years). You (Gustav) are welcome to join our conversation. --User:Millosh 00:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Dado, what do you think about naming article as Genocide acts during the War in Bosnia? --User:Millosh 00:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) I think it sounds silly. It is just a fancier elaboration of the same title. We are not trying to design an article here (including the name). Call it what it is. Just as a thought to give you some insight to the commonality of the name. [http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/bosnia1210.htm Bosnian Genocide] [http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm Bosnia Genocide] The name should not be disputed but the definition may. I do think that there should be a separate article perhaps as you named it above (War crimes during the War in Bosnia) or Victims of the Bosnian War but such article should differentiated between killings, war crimes and the genocide.--User:Dado 18:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) I agree that Millosh name is more descriptive. Bosnian Genocide is term ICTY don't have so Wikipedia should not have either. --User:Oldadamml 15:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Indictment is not the judgment == Indictment is not the judgment, so I think data from Milosevic trial are irrelevant. --User:Oldadamml 07:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) The list of locations and the number of Muslims killed refers to a specific event: Bosnian Genocide. The list of locations and the number of Muslims killed is a list of massacres. Does Bosnian Genocide correctly label "Bosnian List of Massacres specifically aimed at Muslims"? == Mediation or arbitration == In this case we need some of that. Bosniak users still work on the article even it is disputed. And it is seems that there is no solution without Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:Arbitration. --User:Millosh 20:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) According to rules described on the page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, I am asking other parties to agree about asking mediation. --User:Millosh 20:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I don't really see the need. There's no rule that says articles shouldn't be worked on while they're disputed - indeed, it's desired, if it helps improve them. User:Zocky 22:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) The existance of article is disputed and there is no any kind of intention from Dado and Asim to talk about that. (Instead of that, they are working on disputed content.) So, at least we need mediation here. However, I prefer arbitration because arbitration can bring some results even if someone doesn't want to talk. --User:Millosh 11:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :If it's the existance of the artice that's the problem, then it can be put on VfD and potentially deleted. However, the term seems to have some use, so an article at this name could be OK. I'm still not sure about the definition, though. User:Zocky 11:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Please suggest and alternate definition. --User:Dado 17:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'm still not sure what this article is supposed to be about. :*Is it about genocidal acts during the war in Bosnia, as the name suggests? Then it should include acts from all sides against all sides for which some credible or politically important source claims they were genocidal, and ICTY should be just a part of it. Controversial and untrue claims by important sources should be described as such, not omitted. :*Is it about something else? Then it should clearly say that the ''article is about'' whatever it is, not that the ''term means'' that. User:Zocky 17:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Hm. OK. It seems that I don't understand your terms. I am out of this discussion from now. --User:Millosh 18:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) To my knowledge there were indictments that also included genocide of Croats in region of Bosanska Krajina. I am not aware of any indictments of killing of Serb population as genocide (but I could be wrong). Or we can simply call it the killing of Bosnian nationals (without specifying the ethnicities). I think we should be careful not to enter a gray zone here if we decide to introduce all war crimes as genocide. We will have edit wars from all sides speculating on a definition and which war crimes should be considered a genocide. So far ICTY had provided the most extensive reasearch to where genocide occured in Bosnia. I think their work should be used as a basis but other credible sources should be introduced as you described them. I do agree that controversial and untrue claims by important sources should be described as such, not omitted. Let me remind that the genocide is not a single event but a series of systematic and planned actions that are designed to bring a destruction of a certain group or groups. Please see [http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm Eight Stages of genocide] for more info. This also include a denial as one of the stages of the genocide. Data that is currently used is from ICTY. I would ask that you bring to light other sources as I will look for them as well. --User:Dado 18:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Disputed == ::Please don't change these parts of the article while discussing the dispute. I am attempting to avoid a revert war which sparked again yesterday. Wikipedia:Writers_rules_of_engagement#Here_is_a_list_of_tips_on_working_toward_agreement:.--User:AI 01:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) === Disputed contents === The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks). The Bosnian Genocide has been proven... 1. Name of the article is something not reffered in ICTY. 2. ICTY have cases against all three sides in the war So definition in the first two sentences is disputed. --User:Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :The name is not used by ICTY but it is used by HRW and other Human Rights organizations who provide information and material to ICTY, as well as by respectable public outlets. The definition is what ICTY has provided in terms of genocide in Bosnia (Srebrenica). Perhaps we can rephrase it to say. ::''The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnians, predominantly Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the war between 1992 and 1995 by authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army. '' :Also this sentance should be added somewhere: ::''This article is about genocide that took place during the Bosnian War from 1992-1995 while there were other cases of genocide in the same region during the WWII covered in other articles.''--User:Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Also, ICTY does have cases on all three sides but they are not the same. On one hand you have indictments for war crimes while on the other is about the genocide. The whole point of the article is to differentiate the two (or three)--User:Dado 15:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Recent Developments ... There are several genocide trials and indictments currently at the ICTY including Milosevic trial and Karadzic and Mladic indictments for genocide. Evidence have been presented which have prove... Trials and indictments is better name for this part. Evidence have not been presented, some have been presented but some might be presented (see the shedule). Also, AFAIK evidence have also meaning of testimony in English language so itself it don't prove anything. The court judgement might or not prove something. --User:Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It makes more sense to me to call it ''Recent Developments'' especially since the same is used at Srebrenica Massacre article. I think the whole point is to show that these cases are taking place as we present this article and may change the scope of the definition. The evidence that is introduced in these cases were proven. Bodies have been found, identified, cause of death and executioners determined. The only question remains is if the persons indicted for these crimes will bear the responsibility for the executioners.--User:Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Again, these "evidence" are not proven. Some of the witness might be perjure witness. Some of the photos might be fake. Look in the http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence Law: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. So nothing in shedule is not fact. So this should be removed. --User:Oldadamml 09:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree with oldadamm that even though some thing have been entered as evidence, they have not been proven in court. Such information should be take taken off until proven, or a qualifier should be added to the comment stating that it has not been proven but only presented as evidence.--User:AI 02:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) It is not entered as evidence, it is in shedule. Some might be presented, some not. --User:Oldadamml 08:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Background paragraph Are these quotation from Prosecutor vs. Krstic? I don't see them there so why should this be write here? --User:Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :The quotes were not from ICTY proceedings as far as I understand and they will need to be placed in the context but I think they are usefull given the definition of genocide.--User:Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I don't see why these quotes should be censored. They are relevant.--User:AI 03:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Breakdown of confirmed killings by city or region paragraph This is not comfirmed by ICTY. It is part of trial which might or might not be proven. --User:Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :These have been confirmed as killings as otherwise they would not be addmissible in the court. See my comments above--User:Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Again, these "evidence" are not proven. Some of the witness might be perjure witness. Some of the photos might be fake. Look in the http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence Law: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. So nothing in shedule is not fact. So this should be removed. --User:Oldadamml 09:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) === Am I lying? === i have listened to talks and seen evidence that strongly sugests that many of the events in this so called war never hapened. ex; what started it all, the two little musslum kids who said that the serbs pushed their brother into the river, they later admited they had lied but by then it was to late and emense anti-serb sentiment had already spread. please consider the alternate evidence. French media has done a good job of findig the truth, why can't the rest of us? - User:198.166.251.116 16:11, 6 Jun 2005 :You are not correct. Also please sign your postings. Don't give us propaganda, if you want to edit the article, then join in.--User:AI 02:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) === "disclaimer" === The statement "Some of the information presented here has not been established as fact. Currently the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is ongoing." cannot be applied to the entire article but maybe to some parts that are disputed. Can anyone point to portion of the article that needs this disclaimer. Also is there anyone here to discuss the issues above. Otherwise I will make suggested correction and remove POV tag from this article. --User:Dado 00:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Wikipedia's accuracy dispute policy (WP:AD) should be followed. I would suggest taking that disclaimer off (Some of the information presented here has not been established as fact. Currently the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is ongoing.) Instead, use the dubious tag at each disputed statement and disputed tag at each disputed paragraph. Don't remove the POV tag until all disputes have been negotiated (Wikipedia:Negotiation). Try to find objective criteria. Just my suggestion.--User:AI 03:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I have removed the disclaimer as it just did not serve any purpose. As the article appeared before there were more items pasted denouncing the entire article that the actual issues than need to be resolved. I have moved dubious statement to specific sentances that are problematic. If we are going to use that system I would ask anyone if they have objections to paste the dubious tag on a specific sentance or a portion of the text. I have also rephrased the definition as stated above. I think there are still some issues to be resolved here so anyone's input will be welcomed. Thanks --User:Dado 13:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::IMHO, the disclaimer was POV and a little dishonest, of course some will dispute the removal of the disclaimer. However the dubious tag is a disclaimer on it's own. No one should disagree with the use of the dubious tag, if they do, then refer then to Wikipedia policy (WP:AD).--User:AI 19:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) I have added a sentance to "Recent developments" section that I find important to consider and I hope you will agree. Question: If we already have a "dubious" tag at the portion of the article that is disputed i.e. "Killings admitted as evidence at ICTY" does the entire article need to start with the POV tag at the top. I would think that if we resolved a good chunk of disputes at this article that POV tag should be removed and other disputes should be resolved on a case by case basis. Any thoughts? --User:Dado 03:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Disputed contents == Any increase in numbers will only occur after those and other cases (such as the Siege of Sarajevo in which an estimated 12,000 were killed) are ruled to be genocide. This increase in number MIGHT occur after court process, not will. Also "ruled to be genocide" should be explained (provide links). --User:Oldadamml 08:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Removed 23. jun 2005 == Above genocide indictments also include incidents where a significant number of Bosnian Croats were also killed particulary in Bosanska Krajina teritories which were under control of Army of Republika Srpska. The shedule in the indictments is below, so this seems incorrect to me. --User:Oldadamml 07:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Bosnian_Genocide:
Bosnian_Genocide
Bosnian_Genocide
Bosnian Genocide
The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized killing of Bosnians, predominantly Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the war between 1992 and 1995 by authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army. This article is about genocide that took place during the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina#Bosnian War from 1992-1995 while there were other cases of genocide in the same region during the WWII covered in other articles. The Bosnian Genocide has been proven at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) through the court case entitled Prosecutor vs Krstic (see Srebrenica Massacre). Thus far the Srebrenica massacre has been the only case which the UN Hague tribunal has officially defined as genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The presentation of evidence implicating the killing of an estimated 10,000 persons, predominantly Bosniaks has been made. The government of Republika Srpska has admitted to 7,779 deaths at Srebrenica in July 1995. ==Recent Developments== There are several genocide trials and indictments currently at the ICTY including Milosevic trial and Karadzic and Mladic indictments for genocide. ==Background== ''(See Bosnian_War#Bosnian_War)'' Statement by Radovan Karadzic, co-founder of Republika Srpska and its first president, alluded to the origins of this ideology on March 4, 1992 to the Bosnian Parliament: :''..."the road to which you want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina is the same highway of hell which Slovenia and Croatia took. Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and the Muslims into annihilation... Muslims can't defend themselves if there is war here"...'' Statements by Jovan Raskovic, founder of the Serbian Democratic Party of Croatia: :''"I feel responsible because I made the preparations for this war, even if not the military preparations. If I hadn’t created this emotional strain in the Serbian people, nothing would have happened.'' :''"My party and I lit the fuse of Serbian nationalism not only in Croatia but everywhere else in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It’s impossible to imagine an SDP (Serbian Democratic Party) in Bosnia-Herzegovina or a Mr. Karadzic in power without our influence.'' :''"We have driven this people and we have given it an identity. I have repeated again and again to this people that it comes from heaven, not earth."'' ==Killings admitted as evidence at ICTY== Schedule of evidence for killings by city or region The following list represents the evidence admitted at the ICTY in its genocide trials. Bosnian Herzegovinian Commission for Missing Persons claims that the number of killings is much greater than has been currently represented at the tribunal.
Banja Luka * In Manjaca camp, 2 non-Serb men were killed. * At Manjaca camp, approximately 7 non-Serbs were killed after being transported from Hasan Kikic Sports Hall in Sanski Most. * Between Krings camp and Manjaca camp, approximately 20 non-Serb men were killed during transportation between the camps. * At Manjaca camp, at least 8 non-Serb men were killed in front of camp after their transportation from Omarska camp Bileca * In SUP Detention facility, 2 non-Serb detainees killed. Bijeljina * In Bijeljina, at least 48 Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat men, women and children were killed. Bosanska Krupa * In Petar Kocic Elementary School, approximately 11 non-Serb detainees were killed. Bosanski Novi * In Blagaj Japra, 7 Bosnian Muslim men were killed during the expulsion of Bosnian Muslims. * In Alici, 27 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. Bosanski Samac * In Crkvina camp, approximately 17 non-Serb detainees were killed. Bratunac * In Glogova, approximately 65 Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians killed by members of the JNA, acting together with Serb paramilitary forces. * In Vuk Karadzic school, at least 14 non-Serb men were killed. Brcko * In Brcko, approximately 12 Bosnian Muslim males and other non-Serbs were killed at the Hotel Posavina. * In Luka Camp, approximately 30-35 Bosnian Muslim detainees were executed. Cajnice * At Mostina Hunting Lodge, 53 non-Serbs killed. Foca * In Filipovici, at least 5 Bosnian Muslims were killed by Serb soldiers in a military warehouse. * In Jelec, 18 Bosnian Muslims, including elderly people and 8 members of one family, were executed by JNA soldiers. * In Brod, 14 Bosnian Muslim men from Trnovaca were executed by Serb soldiers. * In Livade camp, a number of non-Serb detainees were killed. * At KP Dom prison, at least 266 Bosnian Muslim detainees were killed. Gacko * 2 Muslim males killed by Serbs in a field near Mount Zelengora. * At least 8 Muslims killed by Serb soldiers near Mount Zelengora. * 5 Bosnian men killed in the SUP building in Gacko. Ilijas (Greater Sarajevo) * In Ljesevo, 21 Bosnian Muslims were killed. Kalinovik * Approximately 23 Muslim men and boys from the Gunpowder warehouse shot in a field near Ratine. Kljuc * In Prhovo, 38 Bosnian Muslim villagers, including women and children, were killed by shooting and grenades. * In Biljani, at least 30 elderly Muslim men were killed. * In Velagici, approximately 100 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. Kotor Varos * In Kotor Varos town, approximately 13 non-Serbs were killed in and around the Medical Centre. * In a barn in Dabovici, at least 15 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. * In Grabovice, a large number of Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat detainees were held in the Grabovice School, beaten and never seen again. Nevesinje * At or near Lipovaca and Dubrovaci, at least 34 Bosnian Muslim men, women and children were killed * Near Kiser, approximately 17 Bosnian Muslim civilians were killed by Serb soldiers. Prijedor * In the Brdo region numerous non-Serbs were killed. * In Hambarine and Behlici, at least 3 Bosnian Muslims were killed. * In Kamicani, approximately 8 non-Serbs were killed in Mehmed Sahoric's house. * In Jaskic, at least 19 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. * In Biscani, about 40 non-Serbs were killed. * In Carakovo, at least 19 Bosnian Muslims were killed. * In Brisevo, at least 68 non-Serbs were killed during the attack. * In Kipe iron ore mine (near Ljubija), at least 8 Bosnian Muslim men were executed. * In Ljubija, at least 3 Bosnian Muslim men were executed at the football stadium. * In Tomasica, 4 non-Serbs were killed. * In Trnopolje camp, at least 2 non-Serbs were killed. * In Omarska camp, hundreds of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were killed. * In Keraterm camp, approximately 150 non-Serbs were killed. * On Vlasic mountain in Skender Vakuf municipality, approximately 200 Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat males from Trnopolje camp were killed. Prnjavor * In Lisnja, 4 Bosnian Muslim men were executed. Sanski Most * In Hrustovo, at least 24 Bosnian Muslim women and children were killed. * On or near Vrhpolje bridge, at least 13 Bosnian Muslim men from Begici were killed. * In Sanski Most, a number of non-Serbs were killed near the Partisan cemetery. * In Kenjari, 19 Bosnian Muslim men were killed in Dujo Banovic’s house. * In Budin, 12 members of one family were killed. * In Donji Kruhari near Skrljevita, 5 Bosnian Croat men were killed. * In Trnova near Sanski Most town, approximately 11 non-Serb men were executed by members of Arkan’s Tigers. * In Sasina, at least 65 non-Serb men were executed by members of Arkan's Tigers under the direct command of Arkan. * Near Hrastova Glavica, approximately 100 non-Serb men taken from Keraterm and Omarska camps were killed. * In Sanski Most town, at least 2 non-Serb men were killed in the Hotel Sana by Arkan’s Tigers. * At Sanakeram ceramics factory, at least 10 non-Serb men were killed. Srebrenica (see also Srebrenica Massacre) * Following the take-over of Srebrenica, several thousand Bosnian Muslim men were executed by Bosnian Serb forces, including at the following locations: # Cerska Valley, approximately 150 Bosnian Muslim men; # Kravica warehouse (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 1,000 Bosnian Muslim men; # Orahovac (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 1,000 Bosnian Muslim men; # Petkovci Dam (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 1,500 - 2,000 Bosnian Muslim men; # Branjevo Military Farm (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 1,000 – 1,200 Bosnian Muslim men; # Pilica Cultural Dom (Zvornik Municipality), approximately 500 Bosnian Muslim men; # Kozluk (Zvornik Municipality), at least 340 Bosnian Muslim men. Rogatica * Near Crvenka, at least 10 Bosnian Muslim males from Visegrad were executed. Teslic * In Teslic town, at least 5 non-Serb men were killed at the Territorial Defence building. Visegrad * In Nova Mahala (Visegrad town), over 60 Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat civilians from Koritnik were burnt to death in a house ignited by Serb paramilitaries led by Milan Lukic. * In Bikavac settlement, approximately 70 Bosnian Muslim and other non-Serb civilians were burnt to death in a house ignited by Serb paramilitaries led by Milan Lukic. Vlasenica * In Drum (Vlasenica town), approximately 22 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. * In Zaklopaca, at least 58 Bosnian Muslim men, women and children were executed during the Serb attack on the village. * At Susica camp, at least 6 non-Serb male detainees were killed. Zvornik * In Zvornik town, 15 Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat males were executed by Arkan's soldiers. * In Drinjaca, at least 55 Bosnian Muslim men were killed. * At Ekonomija farm, Karakaj, approximately 6 non-Serb detainees were killed. * At Novi Izvor building, at least 2 non-Serb male detainees were killed. * At Celopek Dom Kulture, at least 30 non-Serb male detainees were killed. * At Karakaj Technical School, approximately 110 Bosnian Muslim males were killed. * At Gero’s slaughter-house, approximately 190 non-Serb detainees were killed. == See also == * Genocide * Genocides in history * History of Bosnia and Herzegovina#Bosnian War * Srebrenica Massacre * Army of Republika Srpska * Bosniaks * Croatia * Republika Srpska * Slovenia * Serbian Democratic Party * International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia * Radovan Karadzic * Jovan Raskovic == External links == * [http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm Genocide Watch - The Eight Stages of Genocide] * [http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VIII-07.htm#III.A.68 The Annexes - Prison camps] * [http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm Mladic Indictment] * [http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm Karadzic Indictment] * [http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm Milosevic Indictment] * [http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/bosnia1210.htm Bosnian Genocide article by HRW] History of Bosnia and Herzegovina Genocides
Bosnian Genocide
OK, kids, that was enough. Please stop this stupid edit war and start thinking about what to do with information in this article. Obviously it can't be called "Bosnian genocide" since (1) it's not a name commonly used to refer to the events and (2) it's an open invitation to edit warring. I suggest that we find a better name, like Bosnian war or War in Bosnia and write about its history properly. User:Zocky 13:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC) The reason for the name of this article was based on the Rwandan Genocide article. Just because some cannot personally deal with facts and the thruth is a weak excuse.--User:Dado 15:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :Dado, Rwandan Genocide was actually just one event, so it's known after that name. "Bosnian Genocide" is a vague term, and like Zocky said, it just begs for edit wars. --User:Dcabrilo 03:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Well I have raised this issue of a single event at Talk:Srebrenica Massacre page as a move to rename the article Srebrenica Genocide. Please see that page for more info. It is a bit dual standard if you are willing to name Rwanda Genocide and not name Bosnian Genocide while they were both proven by the same institution International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. So far there has been only one person (who is still stuck in the eigth stage of the genocide see [http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm Genocide Watch - The Eight Stages of Genocide]) has been willing to pursue an edit war on this article and looking at his other activity at Wikipedia it does not surprise me. Others have been constructive on this article. I do agree that this is a bit controversial topic but only because there is a small number of people who are willing to pursue an edit war for whatever personal subjective reasons. I will repeat that just because some cannot deal with facts and the truth it is a weak excuse to question the merits of this article.--User:Dado 16:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ::Dado, I see your point, and I do not wish to undermine any attrocities committed in Bosnia. I am just saying that Rwandan Genocide is something that took place within few days, while it is unclear what would Bosnian Genocide be (there were many instances of massacres, of course... but hardly as a continuing spree that you can define by one name). Srebrenica Massacre is a better concept, for sure. --User:Dcabrilo 01:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC) ::Argh.. that just looks wrong :) What I wanted to say, of course, is that one article for one instance of genocide is a better concept than one article for all of war crimes. --User:Dcabrilo 01:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC) == Genocide == The only case which ICTY declared as a genocide in Bosnia so far (2005.5.) is Srebrenica. If you have links under ICTY which show different, please give them clearly. If you cannot, the only officialy proved genocide in Bosnia were in Srebrenica. --User:oldadamml You are correct. The only Bosnian Genocide that was proven so far in ICTY took place in Srebrenica. So why are you removing the entire page which is pretty much what is said in the judgement Prosecutor vs Krstic. In fact the article talks about what you are saying specifically. --User:Dado 13:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) I'm not removing the entire page, I just considered ICTY facts. You mentioned http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/index.htm. There are no any mentioned Prijedor, Sarajevo, Banja Luka or others victims there. --User:oldadamml I am stating again that you are correct that the only Bosnian Genocide that was proven at ICTY so far took place in Srebrenica. However what you are not saying is what I am exposing in this article and that is there are several other genocide proceedings currently going and few indictments for persons still at large responsible for genocide at the entire teritory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. See http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm Also see Schedule A and C for Milosevic trial. I know that you will say that these cases are not yet finished which is true and article stresses that any increase in numbers will take place only after these cases are complete. However it is critical to say that story is not over yet and that additional circumstances need to be considered as the scope of the genocide in Bosnia may increase. -- Those are indictments and Schedule A and shedule C is irrelevant so far. Let's wait for the judgment. --User:oldadamml Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic have been indicticed for genocide on the entire teritory of BiH (including Banja Luka, Prijedor and other areas) ==Name of the article== Can anybody provide proof that "Bosnian genocide" refers to "The Bosnian Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks)", i.e. that it excludes attrocities by Serbs against Croats, by Croats against Bosniaks and Serbs and by Bosniaks against Croats and Serbs? :It seems to me that this should be dealt in a section in the article Bosnian war or War in Bosnia, (which we still don't have) or in an article called War crimes in the Bosnian war. OTOH, if the point is just to describe what ICTY thinks about it, it should probably be merged to ICTY. User:Zocky 10:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC) ::Even if contributors were to do everything you recommend, one could still re-create the Bosnian Genocide article and start writing \"The Bosnian Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks)\". IMHO, more importantly, contributors here should follow Wikipedia's dispute policies.--User:AI 10:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Sorry, apologies if I'm out of line (literally meant--I'm not sure how to use these discussion boards so I'm just taking a guess). The term "Bosnian Genocide" (and similar expressions) are recognized in the academic spheres of Political Science, History, and Peace Studies. I've just completed a university course centered on genocide. Amongst numerous texts, I would recommend Century of Genocide to anyone who thinks that something as factual as the very title of this article is not neutral. The relevant chapter is entitled "Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina." Sound familiar? --User:Adtrace 07:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Hmmm... == I don't see that a lot of war crimes on this page (other then Srebrenica Massacre) are relevant to the page about genocide. Similar killings (not including Srebrenica) was on other sides, too. It would be usefull to say the sum of other killings, because the sum says the general number of killed people. It would be better to make other page about all victims of the Bosnian War. --User:Millosh 01:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Also, "proven by ICTY", as it is said, is only Srebrenica massacre/genocide, so it should be said in different way. However, statement about authorities of Republica Srpska is truth (I know that from Serbian side.) Also, "wide group of Bosniaks" should be explained. --User:Millosh 01:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC) It should be mentioned that no mass killing of women and children was, too. --User:Millosh 01:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC) First I would ask you to refer to the discussion on the Talk:Srebrenica Massacre where I raised an issue that given article should be renamed Srebrenica Genocide in light of the ICTY judgement which states this cearly and explains why. Some of the rethoric such as "wide group of Bosniaks" was taken directly from the judgement narrative of the Prosecutor vs Krstic case which proved the genocide. The point was raised at the talk page that Srebrenica Massacre can be called a genocide only in a larger context as in case of Rwandan Genocide in a context of a country. Given this and also the parallels between the ICTY and ICTR and their genocide judgements it made only logical to start this article under its given name. Other information noted in this article is clearly marked as being depended on other genocide proceedings (which are relevant). Perhaps noting which proceedings would help. I am not excluding a possiblity the the main definition of this article may evolve to include genocide over Croats as well (as there are Genocide indictments currently at ICTY that claim this) and to include information on the genocide on Serbs if any such indictment ever take place. If you agree with this concept we can resolve details easily (I hope). Also I support the idea that there should be an article about Bosnian War to include all victims of the war --User:Dado 04:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Millosh, there are also some discussions that took place at Talk:Banja Luka that you may find interesting regarding the crediblity of the person that initiated this edit war and lost any NPOV consideration on my part for further discussion. This is not a fair nor a productive way to initiate a discussion on this topic while the same individual still has an open door policy to vandalize both articles as he sees fit. --User:Dado 04:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :I did read both talk pages and I'll explain my position: --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :Genocide is a hard word and it mainly refers to Holocaust: organized killings of millions of human beings because of ideology of supreme nation. During the Bosnian war there were no such ideology and there were no organized killings of ''all'' members of some population. However, there ''were'' ideology of ethnic clean territories, a lot of hate, ordinary killers and people with mental disorders with guns, as well as ''one organized mass killings of the male part of one population''. With those facts, I prefer to call article Srebrenica Genocide, but I prefer to move this article into the name like War crimes during the War in Bosnia, which should intend to describe ''all'' war crimes during that war. --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :I think that it is malicious not to call event in Srebrenica as genocide -- only because there were no killings of women and children. It can be treated as "revenge" or whatever, but it ''was'' organized mass killings of one part of one group of people, based on ethnicity and/or religion. However, it was not general behaviour of authorities of RS during the war, such was in Rwanda, such was in Nazi Germany. However, again, we should carefully research one by one event. Inside of this article I see very different numbers: (1) if one human is killed, it is a crime; (2) if couple of humans are killed, it was a big crime; (3) if 10 or 100 soldiers were killed after their surrendering, it was a big war crime; (4) but, if 10 or 100 people, not soldiers, were killed to make territory "ethnic clean", it was a genocide, too. So, if we find some other such event, we can call it as genocide. But, with a lot of respect to all of victims, we should be ''very conservative'' in naming something as genocide. I think it is better to waste a lot of time in gathering relevant information before we put that name. --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :And to ask here for better organization: May we gather all problematic articles on one place (at the :m:Balkan NPOV page) and start to work on those problems? I would refer to the page of resolving conflict between Polishes and Germans: Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice. Our situation is more complicated, so I am sure that such notice would not be enough. But, we should work on that. Also, I think that we should make NPOV pages here and to implement it on our local Wikipedias. However, I am sure that it is problematic question. In general, I can say that any page about this matter which is NPOV would be implemented in Serbian Wikipedia. --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :And about User:oldadamml: It seems that he is finding some relevant data. It seems that he doesn't know how work on Wikipedia looks like, too. Remember what did say two persons from Bosnian Wikipedia (on Bosnian Wikipedia) to me only because I am from Serbian Wikipedia. Even they ''didn't (and don't) know'' what I am by origin (and we can talk about that a lot). So, we should try to talk. And I am glad to see that you are ready to talk. --User:Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :(The point of the last paragraph is that people who tasted the war are very sensible about their identity. User:oldadamml is from Banja Luka and I think that two persons from bs: lived in Bosnia during the war.) --User:Millosh 06:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC) We can move this to BalkanNPOV but I find it useful to be on this page as well for others to reference. We could copy it to have a record on both pages once we are done. I do agree that genocide is a strong word. This word is not something that should be used easily hence I point to sources that have the credibility to call something genocide (ie. ICTY). If you have issue with the credibility of ICTY that is another discussion. But regardless, let’s take for the sake of discussion that ICTY is a credible source. In that case our personal opinions should not matter (NPOV Wiki policy). Following is an exact official narrative issued by ICTY regarding the Srebrenica massacre: “In Prosecutor v. Krstic, a landmark ruling that put to rest any doubts about the legal character of the massacre, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia unanimously ruled that it was an act of genocide. As the Chamber’s judgment states: By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general.…The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act.” There are clear gradations of crimes that are identified at the ICT ranging from incidents, to murders, war crimes, massacres, genocides and holocausts in such order. There should not be any confusion that genocide is not a holocaust. You cannot relate holocaust of 6 million Jews and 5 million Slavs and Roma in WW II with genocide of 8000 Bosnians in Srebrenica hence the difference in terminology. I could relate them on another level to say that they were both genocides but that WWII crimes went a step further. For all these reasons I think it is fruitless to discuss if the genocide in Srebrenica was really genocide but rather killing in revenge, killing of male only, killing of POV’s etc. etc. The main question is if you are willing to accept ICTY ruling as a credible source. I should also point out that there were and still are those who question the credibility of Nuremberg trials although it was probably most beneficial for German people in the long run. Now if you and others have trouble understanding and accepting what ICTY is and what it means than I will certainly talk about those issues. I will help you find information on how they arrived to their judgments as I am certain that all of those points that you are stating some of which are credible to a certain degree were also raised at the ICTY during the genocide proceedings. I will not however negotiate facts and judgments that were accepted at ICTY just because they don’t feel cozy to some. On the other hand you will find accepting it a much better alternative to get closure on this subject than to allow the situation to escalate where emotions and people who cannot control them take the issue over (on both sides).--User:Dado 15:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Some thoughts: * While ICTY's findings are mostly well researched and proven, the fact remains that it is used for political purposes (e.g. delaying Croatia's EU ascendency talks) and that it refuses to even investigate alleged war crimes committed by foreign powers (e.g. NATO). Even if we all agree here that ICTY is a 100% credible source, there are millions (probably the majority) of people in countries that it directly applies to (Serbia, BH and Croatia) who would disagree with us. Ergo, ICTY is not an undisputed source and it must be treated in the same way, i.e. quoted and attributed (but not necessarily equally prominent) as other sources. * Naming conventions tell us to use the most common name for things, persons and events. For the mass murder in Srebrenica, it's "Srebrenica massacre", not "Srebrenica genocide". "Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide" is a correct sentence. *"Bosnian genocide" ''is'' used by some people to mean what this article assumes that it does, so the name itself could be justified, but I still think that it would work better and cause less edit warring in a wider article. *The article as it is now reads as advocacy, not an encyclopedia article. Dado, I understand that you believe that everything it says is correct, and I also have no reason to doubt the accuracy of presented facts. But the way it is written now, a reader can tell that it was written by somebody who has chosen a side in the Bosnian war. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with chosing sides in real life, it's just not encyclopedic. User:Zocky 16:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Well I don’t think it is scientific either. Regardless of what I personally think and which side I take; hypothetically, on one hand you have a university with an immense body of knowledge, expertise and invested time into proving a theory. On the other hand you have a local coffee shop spewing out legends and conspiracy theories that are used to entertain the masses and keep them blind. Which one would you use to create an encyclopedia? I am willing to state that both exist but there is no doubt in my mind which one is more credible. Otherwise Wikipedia will become just a conglomeration of fancier forum type discussions without a clear layering of facts and without a clear hierarchy of relevance. If we are here to write down coffee house fairy tales than I don’t want to have any part in it as it adds 0 qualities to Wikipedia and as I can do that on any other forum on the internet. Also I am not willing to hide and obscure facts in a different article just so that some people may feel cozier, while there is a clear precedent (Rwandan Genocide) article to follow. I will not be so naïve to deny that politics have their hand in everything but claiming the exact level of their involvement in this is highly subjective. As an example, how do you explain a plea bargain where one of the convicts (I think it was Nikolic case but I may be wrong) gets 5 years in prison for killing 70 people. So can we agree that this article or information provided therein is: # Factually correct # Relevant to be called in its given name # That Srebrenica Massacre article should retain its original name but only if there is a Bosnian Genocide article to put it in a larger context as in the case of Rwandan Genocide article # That it should include information on both completed genocide cases and the cases that may potentially change the nature and the scope of its meaning. If these principles are acceptable than we can move to fine tune the article.--User:Dado 18:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC) #I believe that all of it is correct, but I don't know, as there are no references to sources where I could check. #I still think that this information, if presented out of context of crimes on other sides will be an endless edit war battlefield, so I would prefer to merge it elsewhere, but I agree that the current name is relevant and if other people think that it's good where it is, I have no problem with that. #Srebrenica Massacre article should be called that regardless of where we put this. It's a separate issue. #I'm not sure whether it should include all the cases that may (or may not, that's what "may" means) "change the nature and the scope of its meaning". How do we establish that? These are some of the problems I have with the article as it is now written: *It treats ICTY as the word of god. Even if we accept ICTY as a 100% reliable source, we can't report its findings like we report easily observable natural phenomena. *The purported number of people killed in the genocide (100,000-250,000) is probably larger than the total number of dead in the war, including military and civilian casualties on all sides. *Quotes by Karadžić and especially Rašković are too prominent in the article, presented out of context, and unreferenced. *The data in the breakdown is undated, unreferenced and not all of it looks necessarily relevant - cases of several men killed in a town can arguably be attributed to military or personal matters. User:Zocky 20:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Let's start with some information that we currently have regarding the data in the breakdown which is combined Schedule A and Schedule B lists of Killings not Associated with Detention Facilities and Killings Associated with Detention Facilities from the Milosevic trial Indictment [http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm]. You can also find dates on those schedules but I think that it may be just too much information. It may be usefull to put the date of the Indictment which is April 21, 2004. I would definatelly put the above link in the article for more information including also: http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e.htm http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ai040421-e.htm I would gladly consider other sources if you can provide links. I do agree with some of your concerns and I will think about the organization of the article further as there may be an ambiguity between what is a judgment and what is an indictment and what may and what may not "change the nature and the scope of its meaning". Around 105,000 people killed is a current estimate but there are two ways to calculate the number of victims (which I am not going to get into now). The larger question is if all 105,000 can be considered as genocide in this article and the answer at this point is probably not. --User:Dado 21:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Good Day, I am curious to know why there is only reportings on Non-Serb murders? Since this is about the "bosnian" genocide; I Demand that you include Croat and Serb murders!!! The NPOV is lost in this article completely. How can you call it the Bosnian genocide if it is only targeted against Bosniaks? Call it the Bosniak Genocide! I would like to find about the other deaths of Croats and Serbs in the "bosnian" genocide. Bosnia doesn't just include Bosniaks you know? It is a rainbow of different people. This article is biased as it does not acknowledge the Genocide of Croats and Serbs (Serbs in particular) in the "bosnian" genocide!!! I suggest you delete the article in it's entirety and start over with an introduction similar to this (watch for the NPOV :P) The Bosnian Genocide took place during the 1990's and involved genocidal attacks and beliefs from the Bosniak, Croat, and Serb parties. The evidence leading to the proof of this genocide can be found below. The Genocide was an extension of the Yugoslavian Genocide (1941-45)... I bid you all a farewell... Auf Wiedersehen, -Gustav- We've been over this. Other than to say that this person should read the article carefully before jumping to conclusions I could say that article may need to reinforce what the genocide is and differentiate it from other victims of war. It also reinforces the notion that there should be an article about victims of Bosnian War on all sides.--User:Dado 00:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Huh... We are at the middle of the talk. I think that this page should be renamed into War crimes during the War in Bosnia or something like that because there were only one sanctionied act of genocide (Srebrenica Massacre) and a lot of war crimes on all sides. However, we are at the beginning of the road. And we would talk about it for a months (maybe years). You (Gustav) are welcome to join our conversation. --User:Millosh 00:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Dado, what do you think about naming article as Genocide acts during the War in Bosnia? --User:Millosh 00:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) I think it sounds silly. It is just a fancier elaboration of the same title. We are not trying to design an article here (including the name). Call it what it is. Just as a thought to give you some insight to the commonality of the name. [http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/bosnia1210.htm Bosnian Genocide] [http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm Bosnia Genocide] The name should not be disputed but the definition may. I do think that there should be a separate article perhaps as you named it above (War crimes during the War in Bosnia) or Victims of the Bosnian War but such article should differentiated between killings, war crimes and the genocide.--User:Dado 18:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) I agree that Millosh name is more descriptive. Bosnian Genocide is term ICTY don't have so Wikipedia should not have either. --User:Oldadamml 15:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Indictment is not the judgment == Indictment is not the judgment, so I think data from Milosevic trial are irrelevant. --User:Oldadamml 07:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) The list of locations and the number of Muslims killed refers to a specific event: Bosnian Genocide. The list of locations and the number of Muslims killed is a list of massacres. Does Bosnian Genocide correctly label "Bosnian List of Massacres specifically aimed at Muslims"? == Mediation or arbitration == In this case we need some of that. Bosniak users still work on the article even it is disputed. And it is seems that there is no solution without Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:Arbitration. --User:Millosh 20:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) According to rules described on the page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, I am asking other parties to agree about asking mediation. --User:Millosh 20:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I don't really see the need. There's no rule that says articles shouldn't be worked on while they're disputed - indeed, it's desired, if it helps improve them. User:Zocky 22:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) The existance of article is disputed and there is no any kind of intention from Dado and Asim to talk about that. (Instead of that, they are working on disputed content.) So, at least we need mediation here. However, I prefer arbitration because arbitration can bring some results even if someone doesn't want to talk. --User:Millosh 11:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :If it's the existance of the artice that's the problem, then it can be put on VfD and potentially deleted. However, the term seems to have some use, so an article at this name could be OK. I'm still not sure about the definition, though. User:Zocky 11:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Please suggest and alternate definition. --User:Dado 17:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'm still not sure what this article is supposed to be about. :*Is it about genocidal acts during the war in Bosnia, as the name suggests? Then it should include acts from all sides against all sides for which some credible or politically important source claims they were genocidal, and ICTY should be just a part of it. Controversial and untrue claims by important sources should be described as such, not omitted. :*Is it about something else? Then it should clearly say that the ''article is about'' whatever it is, not that the ''term means'' that. User:Zocky 17:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Hm. OK. It seems that I don't understand your terms. I am out of this discussion from now. --User:Millosh 18:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) To my knowledge there were indictments that also included genocide of Croats in region of Bosanska Krajina. I am not aware of any indictments of killing of Serb population as genocide (but I could be wrong). Or we can simply call it the killing of Bosnian nationals (without specifying the ethnicities). I think we should be careful not to enter a gray zone here if we decide to introduce all war crimes as genocide. We will have edit wars from all sides speculating on a definition and which war crimes should be considered a genocide. So far ICTY had provided the most extensive reasearch to where genocide occured in Bosnia. I think their work should be used as a basis but other credible sources should be introduced as you described them. I do agree that controversial and untrue claims by important sources should be described as such, not omitted. Let me remind that the genocide is not a single event but a series of systematic and planned actions that are designed to bring a destruction of a certain group or groups. Please see [http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm Eight Stages of genocide] for more info. This also include a denial as one of the stages of the genocide. Data that is currently used is from ICTY. I would ask that you bring to light other sources as I will look for them as well. --User:Dado 18:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Disputed == ::Please don't change these parts of the article while discussing the dispute. I am attempting to avoid a revert war which sparked again yesterday. Wikipedia:Writers_rules_of_engagement#Here_is_a_list_of_tips_on_working_toward_agreement:.--User:AI 01:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) === Disputed contents === The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks). The Bosnian Genocide has been proven... 1. Name of the article is something not reffered in ICTY. 2. ICTY have cases against all three sides in the war So definition in the first two sentences is disputed. --User:Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :The name is not used by ICTY but it is used by HRW and other Human Rights organizations who provide information and material to ICTY, as well as by respectable public outlets. The definition is what ICTY has provided in terms of genocide in Bosnia (Srebrenica). Perhaps we can rephrase it to say. ::''The Bosnian Genocide or Bosnia Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnians, predominantly Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) during the war between 1992 and 1995 by authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army. '' :Also this sentance should be added somewhere: ::''This article is about genocide that took place during the Bosnian War from 1992-1995 while there were other cases of genocide in the same region during the WWII covered in other articles.''--User:Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Also, ICTY does have cases on all three sides but they are not the same. On one hand you have indictments for war crimes while on the other is about the genocide. The whole point of the article is to differentiate the two (or three)--User:Dado 15:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Recent Developments ... There are several genocide trials and indictments currently at the ICTY including Milosevic trial and Karadzic and Mladic indictments for genocide. Evidence have been presented which have prove... Trials and indictments is better name for this part. Evidence have not been presented, some have been presented but some might be presented (see the shedule). Also, AFAIK evidence have also meaning of testimony in English language so itself it don't prove anything. The court judgement might or not prove something. --User:Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It makes more sense to me to call it ''Recent Developments'' especially since the same is used at Srebrenica Massacre article. I think the whole point is to show that these cases are taking place as we present this article and may change the scope of the definition. The evidence that is introduced in these cases were proven. Bodies have been found, identified, cause of death and executioners determined. The only question remains is if the persons indicted for these crimes will bear the responsibility for the executioners.--User:Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Again, these "evidence" are not proven. Some of the witness might be perjure witness. Some of the photos might be fake. Look in the http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence Law: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. So nothing in shedule is not fact. So this should be removed. --User:Oldadamml 09:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree with oldadamm that even though some thing have been entered as evidence, they have not been proven in court. Such information should be take taken off until proven, or a qualifier should be added to the comment stating that it has not been proven but only presented as evidence.--User:AI 02:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) It is not entered as evidence, it is in shedule. Some might be presented, some not. --User:Oldadamml 08:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Background paragraph Are these quotation from Prosecutor vs. Krstic? I don't see them there so why should this be write here? --User:Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :The quotes were not from ICTY proceedings as far as I understand and they will need to be placed in the context but I think they are usefull given the definition of genocide.--User:Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I don't see why these quotes should be censored. They are relevant.--User:AI 03:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Breakdown of confirmed killings by city or region paragraph This is not comfirmed by ICTY. It is part of trial which might or might not be proven. --User:Oldadamml 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :These have been confirmed as killings as otherwise they would not be addmissible in the court. See my comments above--User:Dado 15:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Again, these "evidence" are not proven. Some of the witness might be perjure witness. Some of the photos might be fake. Look in the http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence Law: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. So nothing in shedule is not fact. So this should be removed. --User:Oldadamml 09:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) === Am I lying? === i have listened to talks and seen evidence that strongly sugests that many of the events in this so called war never hapened. ex; what started it all, the two little musslum kids who said that the serbs pushed their brother into the river, they later admited they had lied but by then it was to late and emense anti-serb sentiment had already spread. please consider the alternate evidence. French media has done a good job of findig the truth, why can't the rest of us? - User:198.166.251.116 16:11, 6 Jun 2005 :You are not correct. Also please sign your postings. Don't give us propaganda, if you want to edit the article, then join in.--User:AI 02:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) === "disclaimer" === The statement "Some of the information presented here has not been established as fact. Currently the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is ongoing." cannot be applied to the entire article but maybe to some parts that are disputed. Can anyone point to portion of the article that needs this disclaimer. Also is there anyone here to discuss the issues above. Otherwise I will make suggested correction and remove POV tag from this article. --User:Dado 00:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Wikipedia's accuracy dispute policy (WP:AD) should be followed. I would suggest taking that disclaimer off (Some of the information presented here has not been established as fact. Currently the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is ongoing.) Instead, use the dubious tag at each disputed statement and disputed tag at each disputed paragraph. Don't remove the POV tag until all disputes have been negotiated (Wikipedia:Negotiation). Try to find objective criteria. Just my suggestion.--User:AI 03:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I have removed the disclaimer as it just did not serve any purpose. As the article appeared before there were more items pasted denouncing the entire article that the actual issues than need to be resolved. I have moved dubious statement to specific sentances that are problematic. If we are going to use that system I would ask anyone if they have objections to paste the dubious tag on a specific sentance or a portion of the text. I have also rephrased the definition as stated above. I think there are still some issues to be resolved here so anyone's input will be welcomed. Thanks --User:Dado 13:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::IMHO, the disclaimer was POV and a little dishonest, of course some will dispute the removal of the disclaimer. However the dubious tag is a disclaimer on it's own. No one should disagree with the use of the dubious tag, if they do, then refer then to Wikipedia policy (WP:AD).--User:AI 19:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) I have added a sentance to "Recent developments" section that I find important to consider and I hope you will agree. Question: If we already have a "dubious" tag at the portion of the article that is disputed i.e. "Killings admitted as evidence at ICTY" does the entire article need to start with the POV tag at the top. I would think that if we resolved a good chunk of disputes at this article that POV tag should be removed and other disputes should be resolved on a case by case basis. Any thoughts? --User:Dado 03:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Disputed contents == Any increase in numbers will only occur after those and other cases (such as the Siege of Sarajevo in which an estimated 12,000 were killed) are ruled to be genocide. This increase in number MIGHT occur after court process, not will. Also "ruled to be genocide" should be explained (provide links). --User:Oldadamml 08:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Removed 23. jun 2005 == Above genocide indictments also include incidents where a significant number of Bosnian Croats were also killed particulary in Bosanska Krajina teritories which were under control of Army of Republika Srpska. The shedule in the indictments is below, so this seems incorrect to me. --User:Oldadamml 07:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
B
BA | BC | BD | BE | BF | BG | BH | BI | BJ | BK | BL | BM | BN | BO | BP | BR | BS | BT | BU | BW | BX | BY | BZ |Words begining with Bosnian_Genocide:
Bosnian_Genocide
Bosnian_Genocide
Sponsored links: praca.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
