text:
Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 4

facts: 7,800+ inviduals killed in Genocide, Serbs admit
The Associated Press November 8, 2004 Report finds massacre planned

Samir Krilic

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nov 8 (AP) -- A Serb commission's final report on the 1995 Srebrenica massacre acknowledged that the mass murder of more than 7,800 Muslim men and boys was planned, an international official said today. The report on the worst massacre of civilians since World War II was presented to the Bosnian Serb Government last month, but has not yet been made public.

"The report itself admits and provides details of the plan and deliberate liquidation of thousands of Bosniaks by the Bosnian Serb forces," said Bernard Fassier, the deputy to Bosnia's top international administrator, Paddy Ashdown.

Although Bosnian Serbs have long been blamed for the massacre, it was not until June - following the Srebrenica commission's preliminary report - that Serb officials acknowledged that their security forces carried out the slaughter.

The number of victims has long been disputed, with Bosnian Muslim officials claiming up to 8,000 men and boys were killed in Srebrenica.

Mr Fassier said the commission found that more than 7,800 were killed after it compiled 34 lists of victims.

He said the report "is naming names of persons that could be perpetrators" of the massacre, but declined to give any details.

Several Bosnian Serb troops and commanders have been convicted by the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, for their roles in the Srebrenica killings.

Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, his top general, are wanted for genocide and crimes against humanity in Srebrenica and elsewhere during the 1992-1995 war.

Mr Fassier said the commission of judges and lawyers formed by the Bosnian Serb government last year accomplished a historic task that would "without any doubt contribute to the reconciliation in the future".

He praised the Bosnian Serb government for its "official recognition of the responsibility for the deliberate large-scale atrocities that took place in Srebrenica".

The final report included information on the location of 34 mass graves where some of the victims were presumed to have been buried, he said.

Exhumations from the sites had to be carried out, and the victims had to be identified, Mr Fassier said.

So far, the remains of about 18,000 victims from different ethnic groups who died in the war have been exhumed from more than 300 mass graves across the country.

Nearly 1200 Srebrenica victims have been identified through DNA analysis. --bosniak

81.1.71.69's comments
I find this page highly offensive. It's a long apology for war criminals and mass murderers. The more I look, the more see wikipedia being used by those who defend hate crime.

 * I think the opposite, this article has as fundament bad researching, most facts are based on press reports and it is strongly under the influence of western propaganda. --Arsenio 20:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Numbers
The intent of the latest addition from an anonymous user (212.205.246.127) is rather dubious, as it expounds on what seem to be really useless statistics. Over 20,000 civilians moved towards the Dutch base in Potočari, and near 5,000 entered the base. Around 23,000 women and children were deported; an estimated up to 15,000 men never surrendered. You quoted the number of those who successfully escaped prior to and after the events, up to 7,000 reached the western Bosniak areas, and up to a thousand (generously rounding) were in camps. The missing people's count is over 5,500, usually quoted at 7,000 as there may well be unregistered ones, and 4,500 bodies have been exhumed to date, with more places to dig in -- where exactly is the dispute about the math? --Shallot 20:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't know - I for one don't understand a word of what you've written. Nikola 06:26, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The user from 212.205.246.127 is saying that the number 5,500 is disputed because of random other numbers. I'm saying that the numbers add up. --Shallot 18:22, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Look, Shallot, I for one think that some things shouldn't even be up for a debate. An international institution was formed with a single goal of finding the truth. It's called ICTY. It found that the massacre did occur and convicted a Serb general for genocide. For the first time in history. And nothing else matters.

 * Are you so certain that that is it's only goal? Nikola

 * We should copy that verdict here verbatim (hope that isn't against GPL). --Vedran 16:38, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * No primary source material, though there should definitely be a link to it. Along with mentitoning that it is result of a deal of indicted with the court... Nikola 20:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Or are you one of those who question that anything ever happened? Perhaps the UN folks are now accidentally digging up peacetime graveyards, in the middle of a forest? Or maybe the exhumed are random people that just happen to collectively dig a hole, shoot themselves and die in there, and somehow bury themselves post mortem? --Shallot 20:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re your figures Shallot - if you take the figure for the garrison as approx 7,500, as was reported in the press at the time & the number of those who reached moslem lines as zero, as moslem President Izetbegovic then claimed your figures still add up. If however you accept the original garrison size & that 7,000 of them reached moslem lines (ie that Izetbegovic lied when he said they didn't) then the "massacre" disappears.

 * Um, I wrote above that estimated 15,000 men never surrendered, not 7,500. I can't say I remember my exact references, but I recall it being simple Googling. Can you offer a source saying there weren't 15K but 7.5K men in Srebrenica? --Joy [shallot]   23:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The current figure for the garrison seems to be achieved by adding those known to have survived & those claimed to have been killed which is taking the conclusion as proof of the postulates. I have also deleted the "ultra" from "ultra-radicals" which is clearly pejorative & would be out of place even if this was not the section trying to put the alternate view. Neil Craig

 * I'll restore that bit given that it's actually explained. --Joy [shallot]

Edits by User:Neil Craig
In his edit today he wrote :“This event happened shortly after the Krajina Holocaust in which virtually the entire population of the Krajina Republic (250,000) in Serb populated territory claimed by Croatia was ethnically cleansed & 10s of thousands killed - this has not been generally regarded as being as controversial as Srebrinica, perhaps because of German, American & NATO involvement.”

Well, this is an amazing error filled distortion of history; first of all, Srebrenica happened in early July 1995, while Operation Storm began on August 5, 1995, a full month after Srebrenica. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of Serbs left a day or two before the Croatian army came in an effort organized by Serb leadership, probably to populate the ethnically cleansed areas of Bosnia and improve the number of Serbs in Kosovo and Vojvodina were many were settled (this kind of ethnic engineering was done by all sides), they were not expelled, and there is countless evidence and documents that attest to this. Third, not even the most radical of Serb nationalists claim that there were "10s of thousands of Serbs killed during Operation Storm", the number given by them are around 1000-1500, while Croatian authorities put it between 150-300. ICTY puts it around 500-600.

GeneralPatton 12:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

''This was re-posted at User talk:Neil Craig and answered there. --Joy [shallot]  ''

On which I posted a link to Emperor's Clothes where there is a very specific charge that 14,000 murdered which thus disproves Patton's 1000-1500 assurance. I also pointed out that since the Croatian nazis also deny the Jewish Holocaust their word is not to be trusted. No response yet apart from censorship. Neil

 * Just for the record, it is a very specific charge by some person named Greg Elich who wrote "14,000 Serbian civilians lost them lives" and provided no backing for this claim whatsoever. This may be "specific" but it's not credible at all. --Joy [shallot]   12:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

section name phrasing
GeneralPatton wrote: Alternate view of the events - It is Revisionist because the mainstream story is overwhelmingly accepted and has been proven inn a court of law.

 * Well, that's all true, but this was a concurrent interpretation over the last decade, so there's little or no revision being done if someone insists on it today, it's just an old flawed theory... --Joy [shallot]   19:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I completely agree with Joy. It is misleading to call the views of Serbs who denied the massacre "revisionist". Also, it is not commonly used expression for this. The second thing is that the view in that section that the bodies found there were of Serbs was not believed by anyone, it is simply a stupid argument. I have for the first time seen it here - are there any references. The argument of the Serbs who denied massacre was that those are bodies of the muslims killed in combat. This argument was widespread. <<bane

Move to rename this article "Srebrenica Genocide"
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.

Due to above ruling and more recent addmition of genocide by RS it becomes clear and due that name of this article needs to be updated. Comments?--Dado 23:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The title should still be "Srebrenica massacre" because that's still the right word. The term "genocide" describes the massacre, but "Srebrenica genocide" itself doesn't sound proper to me. --Joy [shallot]

 * I agree that it's a fact that it was genocide but, like Joy, I think "Srebrenica Massacre" is a better overall title for the subject. Tell me, do you think that instead of moving the article we could just clearly state in the introduction that it was "an act of genocide in which..."? Asim Led 01:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have added the intro from this discussion topic to the article so as to explain that it was ruled a genocide. I would still recommend that you reconsider in light of Rwanda genocide article. I recognize that numbers of people killed in Rwanda and Srebrenica are widely different but the definition still stands the same.--Dado 03:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Nah, Srebrenica was an instance of genocide - we could not in English properly call it 'a genocide' - we might talk about a Bosnian genocide on the lines of the Rwanda genocide, but it is a genocide composed of many acts, of which this massacre was one.--XmarkX 04:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legally genocide is an attempt to get rid of people purely because of their ethnicity thus the massacre of men, women & children by Oric, which nobody denies happened though Nato supporters refuse to say where the bodies are, was genocide but the alleged killing of militia would not be because there is no dispute that the Serbs did not try to kill women. The Dragodan Massacre in Kosovo under Nato was an example of genocide. If decisions of the Nato funded "court" are to be treated as definitive this establishes a precident whereby courts controlled by Hitler & Stalin must also automatically be treated as definitive. Neil

 * Now, now. The word "militia" implies that we are not dealing with a group trying to avoid combat and escape to safety and including a large number of old men and adolescent boys. Asim Led 04:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Bosnian Genocide: --Millosh 09:17, 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. --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. --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. --Millosh 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Retreating soldiers are always trying to "avoid combat" - if anybody is seriously saying that any soldier who shoots at a retreating foe is engaged in genocide they are misusing the English language.

Oric's extermination of villages (which perhaps surprisingly all sides here accept as genuine even though it does not get widely reported) perfectly fits the definition of genocide so if there was to be a "Srebrenica Genocide" article, which is not a bad idea, it would have to be purely about that. Neil

195.93.21.6 comments moved from the article
The DNA identification of these bodies, however delayed, does cause problems for the pro-Serb view, but the fact that the HQ of the body set up to carry out the identification is in Sarajevo & that one of it's commissioners is the Dutch PM Wim Kok who commanded the Dutch troops who let Oric through their lines to commit genocide in the first place, suggests that when western leaders set it up the problems of maintaining impartiality & truth were never important.

 * This kind of commentary doesn't belong to the article. Without anyone actually claiming that the DNA identification process is partial and untrue, it's just a (baseless) opinion. --Joy [shallot]   22:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

locations of mass graves

 * CIA satellite photographs were used during the war to publicize suspected locations of the mass graves near Srebrenica. Several mass graves from which the bodies were exhumed were not found there; instead, they were found near the sites of Orić's raids. -- elaboration necessary - where exactly is all this? --

A map would be useful. At least a map of the Srebrenica region with the safe area colored, and the fifty-odd Serbian villages named in the 1994 FRY report. Something like http://www.kakarigi.net/maps/081s.jpg but with tagging. --Joy [shallot]   12:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Should this page be moved from its current name "Srebrenica Massacre" to "Srebrenica massacre"? -- Eleassar777 my talk 20:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dutch Peacekeepers
Didn't the Dutch government resign after the massacre over their soldiers' failure to protect the village? Wouter Lievens 09:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * No. As Politics of the Netherlands shows, the Dutch goverment of that time (the first cabinet Kok) served out its term. However, the second cabinet Kok resigned in 2002 after publication of the NIOD report, as stated in the article. -- Jitse Niesen 23:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ambiguous
The article states "The video has caused a public outrage in Serbia."

Are they outraged that Serbs committed such acts or are they outraged that someone alleges Serbs committed such acts. . . or a bit of both?

Can someone please edit the article to confirm?

I think that the sentance was taken directly as media outlets reported the story without much consideration to what it refers to as you pointed out. I agree that it is ambiguous but I would be inclined to say that it is a first thing. Can someone confirm. Otherwise this sentence may need to be taken out as it also may be relative and subjective.--Dado 21:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

serbianna link

 * The release of a video by the [ICTY] appears as a deliberate decission of that Court to exonerate Bosnian Muslims of their atrocities by virtue of vilifying Serbs [...]

With a logical fallacy the size of a smaller African country in the first sentence, I wonder how these people expect to get taken seriously. Sadly, that does most harm to the cause to recognize the actual deaths of Serbs in Srebrenica. --Joy [shallot]   21:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If you actually watch the video on that page you'll hear at the end a mujjahadeen announce that "nema vise ustasa". They stole it from a Croat site. Asim Led 23:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I was already very skeptical about the link before the above comments were made and I almost removed it. After the above comments, I feel sufficiently bold to remove it. External links says that external links should be useful, and the serbianna site contains enough disinformation that I doubt its usefulness to our readers. -- Jitse Niesen, 20 June 2005, forgot to sign.

Bosnian Muslims masacred more than 2000 Serbian civilians around Srebrenica and if You consider this as usefuless than we have problem with NPOV on this article. Why did You belive in lies mentioted above as "stolen video from croatina site". Which "croatian" site ?

Non Serbian autors about crimes against Serbs in Srebrenica:

Serbs, Lies, and Videotape By Julia Gorin and Lev Gorin Originally published on Front Page Magazine.com, June 17, 2005

The widely cited 2002 official Dutch report on Srebrenica seems to confirm the use of such tactics. As BBC.com reported that year, the Dutch Government “pins part of the blame on the Bosnian Muslims themselves, saying the Bosnian army had provoked attacks.”

Srebrenica Muslims “ravaged and ransacked neighbouring ethnic Serb villages,” continues Kliphuis, “killing and maiming the residents, who were often too old to offer any resistance….The Serb villages were then set on fire.” After his role in killing up to 2,000 Serbs, Oric himself fled Srebrenica just before it was stormed by the Bosnian Serb army.

The Serbs separated women and children from the men before executing the 7,000 that we hear about--the men killed without being distinguished as civilians or POWs, making Srebrenica a massacre, something the Serbs admit.

After this I think You should to restore deleted external link: http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/

Thanks. User Marjan

 * None of us is disputing that Oric c.s. murdered Serbs in the surrounding villages. The problem with the website is that it contains enough errors and fallacies that it is unthrustworthy. I would be very grateful if you could find a better site documenting the savageries committed by the Srebrenica Muslims and such a site should certainly be included. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 3 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

Reference to the 28th regiment of the "Bosnian Muslim Army"
User Asim Led said that he : found no reference to the 28th regiment of the "Bosnian Muslim Army"

Of course you "can not find" it becouse you deleted (2 times) the link/reference to this article from ZNet:

"When the Bosnian Serbs captured Srebrenica in July 1995, it was reported that the 28th regiment of the Bosnian Muslim Army (BMA), comprising several thousand men, had just fled the town. [33] The media failed to ask how such a large force could have been present in a disarmed "safe area." (Politics of War Crimes, chaps 2-3. The UN estimated that there had been 3-4,000 Bosnian Muslim soldiers in Srebrenica just before its fall.)

So please STOP with your vandalism! (Marjan)

 * In fact, the edit summary of Asim Led was:
 * Revert. I've found no reference to the 28th regiment of the "Bosnian Muslim Army" or "BMA" anywhere except on "Zmag".
 * Everything around the fall of Srebrenica is very well documented, and if there was a regiment in that town, then it must be possible to find some more references. I'm afraid that Mr Henman's article is not that credible on its own, as his opinions are not quite mainstream, and in the footnote, he is referencing to his own book to support the statement. By the way, could you please sign your comments on the talk page by typing ~ (four tildes)? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Will someone restore external links and text  deleted by user Asim Led becouse I reverted it tree times. Thanks.

Deleted links:

 * Julia Gorin and Lev Gorin: Serbs, Lies, and Videotape (Article from Front Page Magazin)
 * Edward S. Herman: The Politics of the Srebrenica Massacre (ZNet)
 * Was Srebrenica a Hoax? Eye-Witness Account of a Former United Nations Military Observer in Bosnia by Carlos Martins Branco
 * "Official" Story of Srebrenica Casualty Number is Challenged by Experts Released by: The International Strategic Studies Association Balkan & Eastern Mediterranean Policy Council
 * Could you please give some reasons why these links should be included? If I agree, I'll put them back in. It is more fruitful to discuss then to go into a edit war (this also goes for Asim Led, of course). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The above external links are useful because they provide useful information and help the reader to understand the Serb side of the discussing regarding these events. Just like the links in the "Websites supporting the genocide theses" are worth including because they help the reader to understand the Bosnian/NATO point of view. To include only "pro massacre theses" links is simply not neutral. -- Another anon.

 * Fair enough. However, I don't think dividing the sites in "supporting genocide theses" and "opposing genocide theses" is helpful. What you call the Bosnian/NATO point of view, is in fact also the point of view of the UN (including the ICTY), Japan, Indonesia, Red Cross, and pretty much the whole world. Furthermore, it is extremely helpful to describe the websites. I tried to reorganize the list, retaining the Republika Srpska's report and the articles of Branco and Herman to present the Serb side. I have no idea why the NIOD report (which is already listed under References) is listed as "opposing genocide theses". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The reason that I am deleting the link to Vera Vratuša's commentary at http://www.nspm.org.yu/Debate/2005_exyu_vratusa.htm is that it is not relevant to this article. It is a vigorous critique of a text by Jan Willem Honig, which makes little sense without the original text. There are very many texts on Srebrenica, including many from the Serbian point of view, so we can't include everything but we must select those that are relevant and give extra information. Please explain why you want it before you insert it again. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC) (signature added later)

10th Anniversary
The 11 July is now commonly being taken as the date for the anniversary of this event, marking the day that Serb forces entered the town of Srebrenica and overran the defending UN troops. And we currently have the massacre as an event in the 11 July article. However, at the moment, the article doesn't make this clear, highlighting 7 July as the date that Ratko Mladić's forces entered the enclave (and from memory, took up positions in the hills surrounding the town).

I think this is an anniversary that should be remembered on the front page today, but at the moment only the Srebrenica article mentions the 11th. The date really ought to be mentioned explicitly somewhere in the article. -- Solipsist 10:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Whichever it is, the final should be linked from Selected anniversaries/July 11 or from Selected anniversaries/July 7. --Joy [shallot]

UN general, commander of Bosnia and Hercegovina UN troops about muslims crimes against Serbs in the area of Srebrenica
0 Q. General, your statement details attacks by Naser Oric,

11 particularly the Orthodox Christmas Eve attack. Did there come a time

12 when you had a conversation with Naser Oric with which -- during which you

13 confronted him with respect to what his policy was or what he did respect

14 to the prisoners that he obtained during his operations?

15 A. I met Naser Oric much later, in March, when I intervened directly

16 on the ground. The actions that you are referring to were one of the

17 reasons for the deterioration of the situation in the area, especially in

18 the month of January.

19 Naser Oric engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and

20 destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree

21 of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region, and this prompted

22 the region of Bratunac in particular - that is the entire Serb population

23 - to rebel against the very idea that through humanitarian aid one might

24 help the population that was present there.

25 Q. General --

Page 31966

1 A. Naser Oric, and I repeat, I met him only in March.

2 Q. If I could ask you, what if anything did Mr. Oric himself say to

3 you with respect to what he had been doing with prisoners during this time

4 period?

5 A. I think you will find this in other testimony, not just mine.

6 Naser Oric was a warlord who reigned by terror in his area and over the

7 population itself. I think that he realised that those were the rules of

8 this horrific war, that he could not allow himself to take prisoners.

9 According to my recollection, he didn't even look for an excuse. It was

10 simply a statement: One can't be bothered with prisoners.

Taken from officially ICTY transcript : http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/040212ED.htm

I think that some of these SHOULD really be included in Srebrenica massacre document. UN general claim that Srebrenica massacre was the revenge for prior Muslims crimes in the area. --Oldadamml 07:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have several points to make. Firstly and most importantly, I hope we can discuss the arguments about the article in a civil manner. I know that the subject stirs up strong emotions, which is all the more reason to be courteous at all times.
 * Secondly, I don't quite see Gen. Morillon claiming in the above extract that the "Srebrenica massacre was the revenge for prior Muslims crimes in the area." He says that Oric's attacks generated hatred in the region. I agree that this is relevant and should be in the article. However, it is mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the Background section. So, I can only assume that you disagree with the formulation there, which is quite understandable as the article is a mess after the constant inserting and removing of text with little consideration of the coherence of the article.
 * Finally, I'd like to ask you to be explicit in what you want to have changed in the article. Draft some sentences making the point you wish to make and tell us where they should be inserted, and what else to amend to embed it in the rest of the text. My experience is that that is much more fruitful then reasoning in abstracto. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Globe and Mail article about Srebrenica
The real story behind Srebrenica By LEWIS MacKENZIE Thursday, July 14, 2005, Page A17 (need subscription) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

posted at: http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/jul05/hed7098.shtml

" As the Bosnian Muslim fighters became better equipped and trained, they started to venture outside Srebrenica, burning Serb villages and killing their occupants before quickly withdrawing to the security provided by the UN's safe haven. "

 * Lewis McKenzie has nothing to do with the Srebrenica massacre, or the Srebrenica region at all. He was never in the area, nor was he even in the Balkans at the time. Mr.McKenzie actually left Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993. It is also worth mentioning that long before he started political commentary for various Serb radical media, McKenzie was accused by numerous Bosniak detainees in Serb camps of war crimes (rape) during his visit to the site. Asim Led 19:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any court process for General McKenzie. I think that you want to compromise the UN commander as the part of Bosniaks propaganda. He was the UN peacekeeping commander who got the information from the battle field by UN forces. So, he just speak about information he had from UN soldiers. It is indicative that two UN peacecommanding generals (in the different time) have simmilar information. --Oldadamml 08:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
I have added the NPOV tag to this article as requested on my talk page by Oldadamml. I have not read the article nor the talk page and am not going to participate in the discussion or make changes to the article. If you want the protection removed then request it at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 09:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Revealing the truth - double standards for genocide
It's really hard to talk about what happened in Srebrenica but what we know today is result of politics and lobbying if I may say that. The fact is that there is no fact, nor solid evidence for the claims of the Bosniak side. The number of more than 7,800 victims has never been approved! In fact, it's imaginary. Let's take a look at the real facts for a second. By the end of the August, 1995, World Health Organization registered 35,632 persons as survivors from Srebrenica (Bosniaks). Okay. Red Cross organization noticed about 3,000 Bosniak men that fled from Srebrenica with 28th Division of Bosniak Army. Red Cross also stated that these men were moved to the other fronts without noticing their families. Also, the Dutch Peacekeepers witnessed the conflict between Bosniak forces in Srebrenica, between those who wanted to stay and defend the town and those who obeyed orders about retreat. A hundreds of them have been killed and the bodies were left to lie on the ground, when Bosnian Serbs army has entered the town. In the movie I recently saw on independent Serbian television B92 ("Scream from the grave" or something like that) the Dutch soldier spoke about the death of his mate. He said that the Bosniak dropped the bomb in the vehicle and killed one of their soldiers. He also said that they expected Serbs to do something like that but not Bosniaks. Do you notice contradiction between his testimony and the official version that in Srebrenica were only civilians? In my opinion it is much more like that this soldier has been killed in the clash between two Bosniak sides. Anyway, how could "unarmed civilian" get the bomb? But let’s focus on the main story. Patricia Wald one of the Tribunal judges who trialed General Radoslav Krstic wrote 2003. an article about that case where stated that Srebrenica was a "village with about 37,000 people before Serbian attack". Well it simply can't be. According to the data from the WHO and Red Cross it just can't be because 35,632 + 3,000 makes roughly more than 38,000 people. If Serbs have killed more than 7,800 Bosniaks, it means that in Srebrenica should have been more that 46,000 people what is impossible according to any number of citizens from that time. Also, there are more controversial details in the official version of “genocide”. The fact that nobody’s denying is that number of Bosniak refuges safely moved to territories controlled by Bosniak army. But in official version we are dealing with number much less than 35, 632 given by WHO and nobody’s mentioning that the Bosnian Serbs army supported and secured pass of Bosniak refuges. It isn’t quite a way to perform etnic cleansing. On the other hand all of the Serbian villages were burned to the ground in that area: Bratunac, Sikirici, Konjevic Polje, Glogova, Zalazje, Fakovici, Loznica, Orlice, Biljaca, Crni Vrh, Mislici, Kamenica and Kravica. Masaccre in Kravica happened on Ortodox Christmas and there were no soldiers in that village. There are many video footages that testify brutal killings performed by Bosniak forces and more and more are discovered every day. Bodies were mutilated, often found in bizarre positions, decapitated and castrated. The victims were often women and children. There’s a list of 3,287 names of the Serbian civilian victim, with their names, year of birth and year of death. But that’s not the topic, right? Theodosias

 * Our purpose here is to write an encyclopaedic article on the fall of Srebrenica and related issues. Do you have specific suggestions on how we can improve the article? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I removed Branco's article entitled Was Srebrenica a Hoax?, which can be found at . People wishing to read the article can read it there.
 * Please make proposals for changing the article, saying which sentences you wish to add where and which you wish deleted, and especially why. For instance, I think that the last paragraph of the Background section ("On 4 June 1995 ... peacekeeping principles.") should be removed, because it is not intelligible in the context of the article: What hostages are being discussed? What does this have to do with the fall of the enclave? (I happen to know the answers, but somebody who has read only this article does not). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I made a proposal on your talk page. Even in the "Alternative views..." section on "Srebrenica genocide" page you couldn't hide cinism when talking about facts according to Serbian resources. Write a completely new, neutral article if you want to write an encyclopedia article and stay neutral. Everything else is politics. I have told you I can show you the proves, just give me some more time. Regards Theodosias

 * Look, I didn't write the article, and I won't rewrite it all by myself; it is a lot of work to locate and evaluate all the sources and distill a good article out of them. Writing here is a collaborative process. I only stepped in when the process degenerated to try and get all the contributors to cooperate again. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I see... Who wrote that article then? I can help in writing a new one, only if there's a will to do that. You should divide article in two parts: Pro-Bosniak and Pro-Serbian, and probably it's the best way to stay neutral.Theodosias 00:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Click on the history tab on the top of the article, and you get the list of all the edits with contributors. I'm reluctant about splitting the articles in a pro-Bosniak and a pro-Serbian part, since it makes it much harder to read, there are parts of the story that everybody agrees about (for instance, that the UN was supposed to demilitarize Srebrenica but did not manage to, or that the Serbs attacked and conquered the town), and it is not just a question of pro-Bosniak or pro-Serbian, but there is a whole spectrum of opinions. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Jitse you are displaying your bias even when attempting to show what "everybody agrees". To say that the Dutch did not "manage to" carry out their demilitarization agreement means that they did make a sincere attempt to do so - this is something which "everybody" most certainly does not agree with. Without "manage to" the sentence sticks to the facts. Neil

 * You should just protect the article from vandalism. It is redicilous to devide the article. You can do that, but not as pro-Bosniak and pro-Serb part of the article. Thera are ICTY facts, and there is Serbina propaganda (as Carla del Ponte said). It is redicilous to descuss with Serbs. Just look at Milosevic trial. When prosecutors show the evidence, Milosevic (like Theodosias) tells: "Well, Ottoman empire in 1389. defeated Serbs in Kosovo, so Serbs took vengeance in 1998.". I will not participate in the discussion where the genocide is denied. History will condemn those people, as ICTY already did.Emir Arven 06:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * History will condemn ICTY and those who created and supported it, like it condemned Inquisition and its methods of false "witnesses" and "confession" extortion, if humanity survives at all worldwide genocidal policy of ICTY financiers.

 * CHECK THE HAGUE PRISONER – GENOCIDE IN BOSNIA....Casandra 09:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course it’s ridiculous discussing with Serbs when they offer you the facts you can’t deny, right? It’s easier to shut them up. Milosevic's trial is getting a farce! There are no solid evidences against him. But it’s not the topic right now. And it’s not just Serbs who deny Bosniak side of story but more and more intellectuals all over the world doubt in it. Then, why not include their opinion in the “Alternative views and rejection of the massacre theses” section on "Srebrenica massacre page"? Tell me just one good reason. Theodosias 11:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Here we go. Chek this out: http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/jul05/hed7098.shtml

And here's the report I've mentioned. You can read some parts from the report here: http://www.srebrenica-report.com/ Theodosias 12:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think we should include the following report in this article. Let me know your opinions, pro et contra.

http://www.srebrenica-report.com/press.htm so as this one http://www.srebrenica-report.com/conclusions.htm Also we should include some of the relevant articles from the same page. Theodosias

I've removed pictures from here as Jitse Niesen sugested but you can still find it at my talk page. Theodosias 22:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Quote: “He said that the Bosniak dropped the bomb in the vehicle and killed one of their soldiers. He also said that they expected Serbs to do something like that but not Bosniaks”

There were two reports on this incident. First report went as a fax to UN headquarters to New York about Dutch being shelled by Bosnian side. Second report went only 5 minutes later stating the opposite that the Dutch were being shelled by Serb side. It is unfortunate that UN based almost entirely their policy on the first report, a mistake which they admitted. It is safe to say that on July 11 UN did not know their head from their ass in Srebrenica. When Dutch asked for air support on the night on July 10 the response from the headquarters was that they did not fill out a correct form when requesting the air strikes. Whoever worked closely with UN will know what I am talking about.

It is a fact that Serbs shelled the city before its fall and many died before July 11. There were no credible reports that Bosniaks fought between themselves but this is a popular way to explain things lately as if “Bosniaks usually killed themselves”. Srebrenica was demilitarized zone. Even if some were in Bosnian Army before Srebrenica was declared a Safe Zone the army units were disarmed. Hence it fell with no resistance

These are just pitiful attempts to justify a mistake. It is a cowardliness to take the responsibility if you screwed up. It took Jews 20 years to prove that there was a holocaust. The rhetoric on the opposing side was the same: “there were no concentration camps” “Jews were just as guilty”, “they were also killing themselves”. There were also cases of hiding evidence undigging and reburying victims in secondary graves etc. All of this is happening again. On July 9 this year there was a secondary grave found near Srebrenica containing about 100 victims.

All those who are denying that these atrocities it their full account took place are just denying the genocide and heaving their burden of credibility.

I don’t want to go in any more details on this because frankly I am tired.

To place this article under POV scrutiny is doing a lot of harm to Wikipedia’s credibility--Dado 14:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Theodosias, what do you mean when you say that you think we should include the report by Herman's group in the article? It is not a good idea to quote it verbatim (word by word) and in its entirety, because that would be against the law and because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of reports. However, if you are saying that some material from the report should be used in the article, then I would not be a priori against it since it seems a scholarly and well-referenced report (which of course does not mean that I fully agree with it), but in that case you need to say exactly what you want to do.
 * Dado, the NPOV dispute tag was placed when the article was protected from editing to avert an escalating conflict from destroying the article. I assume it is temporary (just as the protection), so I am not worried about it. Generally, it is good to be patient, especially with emotional topics.
 * In my opinion, the aspect in which the article is lacking the most is coherence. For this reason, I am against splitting the article in one part treating one point of view and another part treating another point of view. This will have the effect that most of the contributors will restrict themselves to the part treating their point of view and the article will grow even more incoherent. Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

''Srebrenica was demilitarized zone. Even if some were in Bosnian Army before Srebrenica was declared a Safe Zone the army units were disarmed. Hence it fell with no resistance'' Srebrenica should had been demilitarized but that didn't happen. Why? Don't ask me, but there are many proves indicating that there were about 5,500 havily armed soldiers and that they left Srebrenica obeying the order about retreat that came from Sarajevo. There are eyewitnesses to this. There were also cases of hiding evidence undigging and reburying victims in secondary graves etc. Satelites pictures has never discovered any of that graves. When this happen, then we can say we have the proves, until that we can't talk of the exsistence of the secondary graves. As I mentioned before, more then 250,000 Serbs from Krajina were expelled from Croatia or killed but noone cals that a genocide.

 * Eh, it would help if you didn't pass wrong and propagandist remarks like this one in a fairly unrelated discussion. The relevant (and actually correct) information about this can be found in the article about Operation Storm. --Joy [shallot]   01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Get me to the point Joy, what's wrong in what I wrote about Operation Storm? Some Serbian sources cite a total of 250,000. The ICTY prosecution estimates 150,000 - 200,000. So? We have evidencies about that people in Serbia, and ITCY just "estimates". Croatian Gouvernment as usually speaks about minor number as expected... So what's wrong and propagandist remark? And these people are now in Serbia, very small number of them have returned in Croatia... And I'm not talking about soldiers, I'm talking about civilians.
 * You said that they were all "expelled" ... "or killed", both of which is plain old untrue in combination with that number, making the statement an insulting insinuation. --Joy [shallot]   19:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay then, tell me what's true and what's not insinuation? Perhaps numbers given by Croatian Government? Theodosias 21:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * ''(Continued at User talk:Theodosias --Joy [shallot]   11:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC))

Jitse, I'm saying that some of the material I have collected might help in creating an encyclopedic article and all I wanted to do is to present it to you and the other people who would contribute. But as I proposed at my talk page, I'll try to write it all by myself in next few days and before we include it in Wikipedia, I'd like to hear some opinions from people here and I don't want to spread "Serbian propaganda", I just want to write things down exactly as the others, who doubt in "official version" see them. Theodosias

No one denies that there was ethnic cleansing in Serbian regions of Croatia in 1995. No one should also deny that there were nearly 1 million Bosniak and Croat refugees (including internally displaced and those who permanently left the country) and at least 145,000 killed Bosnians during the war. I do support you if you want to specifically write about ethnic cleansing in Serb Krajina region but that and everything else has very little to do with what specifically happened in Srebrenica in 1995.

At least half of the all discovered graves near Srebrenica were secondary graves. Add to that world’s top forensics teams, DNA analysis and supporting technology there should be no doubt to nearly perfect account of what has happened. In fact Republika Srpska government has admitted to 7,779 killings in the Srebrenica Massacre. Historical revisionism that was presented here does not help and it helps least to uncover what has happened to Serbs killed in and around Srebrenica until 1993. I recommend you find alternate sources before writing an article that is doomed for edit wars. Otherwise you will become just another conspiracy theorist whose arguments are based on weak facts and poor judgment.--Dado 19:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * DNA analysis and supporting technology there should be no doubt to nearly perfect account of what has happened. DNA analysys can help to identify the victims, they can't tell us what happened there, they can't tell us the cause of death, whether the victim died in the combat or was executed. As I said, I'll write the article and show it to you and the others who want to contribute before we include it in Wikipedia. Okay? In fact Republika Srpska government has admitted to 7,779 killings in the Srebrenica Massacre. And what if it was forced confession? What if there's no proves for that? Croatinan goverment now speaks of 35,000 Serbs killed in Jasenovac during the WW2 but the fact is that number of them was much near to 700,000 including about 20,000 children. It's all politics. The fact is that many of the Serbs killed in villages around Srebrenica were executed by ther Muslim neibghours so that the Naser Oric troops were attacking villages from the demilitarised zone and that Bosnian Serbs Army attacked Srebrenica to stop that attacks and not to "clean" that region of Muslims. No one denies that there was ethnic cleansing in Serbian regions of Croatia in 1995 But noone is being prosecuted for that. No one should also deny that there were nearly 1 million Bosniak and Croat refugees (including internally displaced and those who permanently left the country) and at least 145,000 killed Bosnians during the war. Number of 1 milion is high over-estimated... Croatian refuges from where? From Bosnia or Serbia? You can leave message at my talk page if you like because it isn't topic here. Theodosias 19:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dado, you should read the Final Report of the Commission for investigation of the events in and around Srebrenica between 10th and 19th July 1995. According to those who had access to the original source, there is no mention of the figure of 7,800 killed – it is the list of missing!!! No mention at all that »the massacre was planned«, meaning GENOCIDE!! To the contrary, the Commission recommended: »The end of the work of the Commission for Investigation of the Events in and around Srebrenica between 10th and 19th July 1995 is not the end but the beginning of a story about this and other crimes committed in the area of Bosnia and Herzegovina... available lists and other sources are significantly different in its content and quality of data, requirenig an extra effort in order to establish the identity of the missing persons... »The available data were not verified in the field by the Commission, but by comparative method and analyses of all relevant data. Therefore this list cannot be taken as definite... »The Commission recommends that this work on analyses should be carried on by other appropriate institutions.... The AP reported also: »The Bosnian Serb Government issued an apology Wednesday for the 1995 massacre of 7,800 Muslim civilians in Srebrenica«. Again, in RS Governement apology no mention of 7,800 killed persons! The Commission »recommended to the leadership of the Republic Srpska to bow to the victims of Srebrenica and apologize to their families« But at the same time the Commission expressed hopes »That the same example will be followed by the representativers of authorities of the other nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina in relations to all other war crimes and innocent victims -  ie. Serbs -  killed during the war« in Srebrenica region itself, Sarajevo and other towns and villages. Casandra 21:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

''»The Bosnian Serb Government issued an apology Wednesday for the 1995 massacre of 7,800 Muslim civilians in Srebrenica«. Again, in RS Governement apology no mention of 7,800 killed persons!'' Thanks Casandra, I was just about to say that. Anyway, Alija Izetbegovic has never apologized to Serbs, neither Stjepan Mesic did that even when he came to visit Belgrade and it is well known that he was Prime Minister of Croatian government during the war against Serbs. Theodosias 22:56, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Scotsman.com: Serbs 'in denial' over Srebrenica killings

Reuters: Serbs struggle with denial, remorse for Srebrenica

CNN:Serbs struggle with denial, remorse for Srebrenica

NY Times: The Wages of Denial

Guardian:A nation in denial

And finally

The Eighth Stage of Genocide

'nough said. --Dado 23:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Seen that before... A typical example of propaganda and brain washing to me, but if it makes you happy to believe, go on! Even if the massacre did hapen in Srebrenica, we at least do not celebrate that day as Croats celebrate "Flash" and "Storm". And not to forget that NATO supported that actions as latter supported Albanians at Kosovo... What actually are you trying to do? To prove me that it was genocide using the articles from the western newspapers? Even ITCY prosecutors don't have solid evidences, at least that's obvious to all who want to see. Have you read the SRG report? Honestly?Theodosias

 * Dado, do you read even the sources you are recomending to us? If you did you would notice that CNN did not follow to the letter Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels’ rule: “Repeat something often enough, no matter how egregiously untrue it is, and enough people will believe it.” Check it and you will see for yourself that CNN did not repeat even the names properly from the Reuter’s text.
 * Guardian on its part reveals the Achilles’ heel of its own propaganda: “For this, the court needs to be even-handed above all suspicion. Carla del Ponte has investigated acts committed by members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, and some prosecutions are expected (!!!). The prosecutors also looked at Nato bombings of civilians, but concluded these did not qualify as war crimes(!!!). Yet while there are just two international tribunals, on former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the suspicion of bias will always remain. So we need the UN's new International Criminal Court, and we need the most powerful country in the world, the US, to join it and submit to its jurisdiction (!!!).”
 * NY Times article is not accessible to me and I do not want to register for reading Goebbelsian propaganda, judging from the available article summary.
 * Applying the “eight stages of genocide” to known facts “in and around Srebrenica” demonstrates contrary to your intention Dado that there is more reason to label “genocide” the indiscriminate and mass killing of Serbs by Naser Oric’s troops. Scotsman and you choose not to believe in the list of 3,287 Serbs identified as being massacred by Oric’s troops from spring 1992 to fall 1995, but to believe in the list of 7800 missing Muslims, out of which for last ten years much less than one fourth is reburied in confessionally clean Potocari memorial, without mention when, where and under what circumstances they died. Casandra

Casandra, if you'd like to help me in writting the new article, please leave a message at my talk page. Theodosias 12:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * I am trying to help by exposing double standard bias and untruth of sources on which the authors of the disputed version of the article on Srebrenica massacre attempt to base it. More objective article should thus include beside questioning the universality and neutrality of ICTY (even Guardian is doing it), also the fact that ICTY convicted a Serb general for genocide on the basis of false “confession” by Momir Nikolic and unacceptible misuse of the word “genocide”.

Key Srebrenica Witness Apologizes for Lies.Casandra

 * This article is not about the ICTY. If its neutrality is disputed, then that should be described at the article International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. May I remind you that you need to say specifically what is wrong with this article if you want to retain the disputed tag? You have talked a lot about what happened in Croatia and Kosovo, you have included links to 200-page reports, you have called labelled many reports you did not like "propaganda", but I cannot find any mention of a single specific fact in the article which you want to have changed. Before writing a new article, how about writing one single sentence? I am getting a bit exasperated as a lot of heat is generated but it does not seem to lead to improvements in the article, and I think we all agree that there is a lot that can be improved. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * How can you say that the present version of the article on “Srebrenica massacre” is not in fact about ICTY, when the mention of it and quote from its preposterous genocide ruling takes three fourths in the article’s introduction, the remaining fourth mentioning controversial allegations, “considerations” and “estimates” by the same controversial institution as proven fact?!
 * The Debacle At The Hague: When one needs to focus attention on a particular issue, those running the show just cry genocide. Casandra

As Jitse Niesen pointed out, if you cannot suggest a specific change that you want to see in the article than you should spare us the time and vent your frustrations with ICTY elswhere or move this discussion to the article about ICTY. If you can prove the lack of credibility of ICTY at its given article than we can return to the issue of how is this article written. There are probably about 50 people who contributed to this article and you cannot possibly discredit all of them and consider the entire article biased. Unless in your next response (either from Theodosias or from Cassandra) you specify a particular change that you want to see in this article than this discussion should be considered frivolous and POV tag should be removed.--Dado 14:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Dado, let me remind you that you first brought into the discussion ICTY as supreme authority.
 * Verry specifically, starting from the first paragraph, I would suggest following changes:
 * Srebrenica massacre is sintagma the most often used in the mainstream press of NATO member states and Muslim_Croat Federation within Bosnia and Herzegovina. There it is described as the July 1995 killing of a large number of Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica by a Bosnian Serb army under general Ratko Mladić, and a Serb army from Serbia including special forces "Scorpions" along with police troops. Considered to be one of the largest mass murders in Europe since World War II, it is estimated there were around 8,000 victims in the massacre. It is generally regarded to be one of the most horrific and controversial events in recent European history.
 * In the oppositon press of NATO member states, of countries victimised by NATO agression and of Bosnia and Herzegovina itself, it is pointed out that the word “massacre” is proparly used in the case of indisriminate butchering of 3287 Serbs of all ages and both gender by the so called eight tactical group of Naser Orić that operated in Srebrenica region from spring 1992 to fall 1995. Condemning the war crime of killing war prisoners including some civilians in July 1995, these sources also point out that great majority of less than 2000 Bosniak males of fighting age that are reburied in the confesionally pure Potocari memorial were killed in battle, that disputed list of 7800 missing must not be equated with 7800 killed and that NATO countries’ secret services armed terrorists and implanted paid killers to induce civil wars and stage massacres in former Yugoslavia, Congo and other countries were they have economic and geostrategic interests. Casandra

 * Thanks. Now we can try and find a formulation with which everybody can agree. My main concern is that the first opinion you mention is in fact spread much wider. I have also seen it in the Japanese and Indonesian press, and it is the opinion of UN, ICTY, Red Cross and Amnesty International. The second paragraph should be a bit more precise. I do not know what you mean by opposition press, but it is not the case that the whole press outside the main stream agrees with the second opinion, only part of it does. Forthermore, which are the "countries victimised by NATO aggression"? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are right, to the press in NATO member states and Muslim_Croat Federation within Bosnia and Herzegovina in perticular, should be added the press, institutions and organization like UN, ICTY, Red Cross and Amnesty International, in great part financed by and thus under the control of transnational corporate and financial capital in all countries in general, especially in industrially advanced countries with histories of colonial powers and countries with Muslim majority having at present governments to the likeng of the USA administration. Libia’s Gadaphy for instance, urged Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina to remain in Yugoslavia.
 * You are again right that in the second paragraph opposition press should be reduced to one opposing recolonization agression of transnational corporate and financial capital militarily organized in NATO and similar organizations, attemting to (re)occupy former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afganistan, Congo…the list is long and is still getting longer. Casandra

...in great part financed by and thus under the control of transnational corporate and financial capital in all countries in general, especially in industrially advanced countries

How do you prove this supposition

... one opposing recolonization agression of transnational corporate and financial capital militarily organized in NATO and similar organizations, attemting to (re)occupy former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afganistan, Congo…the list is long and is still getting longer.

and how do you prove this supposition. Try it in one short readable paragraph instead of a run-on sentances that you are writing here. --Dado 18:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You are describing here Press polemics, hardly a source of factual scientific information. You are completely eliminating sources and institutions with relevant credibility that have conducted on-site research of these events: ICTY, HRW, RS commission for Srebrenica massacre, Commission for missing persons of the Federation of BiH. You are denying or trivializing the number of killed Bosniaks while 6000 bodies have been found (1705 identified and reburied). You are generalizing them as killed in action while there are numerous accounts and testaments including forensic analysis on both sides that most of these men were executed. You are stating a number of 3287 missing Serbs (where do you get this number and what is an accreditation of the source) while about 50 or so were found and identified (the number maybe wrong but it is certainly not 3287) and while on one hand you dismiss that 7800 missing Bosniaks as killed you are convinced that 3287 missing Serbs were killed. And finally (my favorite) : that NATO countries’ secret services armed terrorists and implanted paid killers to induce civil wars and stage massacres in former Yugoslavia, Congo and other countries were they have economic and geostrategic interests = sounds like a ramblings of a psychopath. And this is NPOV how?? I don’t even want to get into details about selection of words and improper phrasing (ie. Muslim Croat Federation, killing of a large number of Bosniak VS indisriminate butchering of 3287 Serbs) It will not last 2 minutes on the article.--Dado 18:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Dado, the fact is that it is from the mainstream press that the sintagma “srebrenica massacre” came into the reports of your favorite institutions and organizations headed by ICTY, financed and thus largely controled by transnational corporate and financial capital. You see, it is you again who bring back ICTY into the discussion on Srebrenica article.

 * Well if you want to use a word institutionalized by ICTY than a proper name would have to be “Srebrenica Genocide”. What I am curious about and what you keep avoiding in your responses is to justify a logic “financed and thus largely controled”.  Unless you can prove this relationship it is a mere supposition and therefore has no place in Wikipedia.  However if you plan on proving it you should do so on ICTY discussion page --Dado 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You obviously did not read in the meantime RS commission for events in and around Srebrenica report, where it is stated that the list of 7800 missing still has to be checked in the field. Did not Commission for missing persons of the Federation of BiH originally receive less than 2000 applications by the family members of the missing? ICTY phorensic experts, some of disputed expertness and without presence of Serb experts, found in exhavated graves up to the time of genocide ICTY ruling below 300 ligatures indicating execution – not enough for allegation that majority of exhavated persons were executed.
 * Were and when 6000 bodies have been found (the last number I heard is around 4000)? How do you know before identification whose bodies are they and before phorensic examination how they died?

 * I think your data is obsolete. 6000 is what I have but this can be easily verified if that is your only concern.--Dado 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The list of 3287 killed not missing Serbs published in daily “Novosti” is gathered by the Center for investigation of crimes commited against Serbs and organization of Serb refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina. They have financial problems to put their findings in electronic form and translate them, in contrast to “near governmental organizations” of Muslims. Around 50 Serbs you are mentioning were killed and identified in just one village. The number of 3287 includes victims in villages and towns within municipalities Bratunac, Srebrenica Milici, Skelane and parts of municipalities Zvornik, Vlasenica, Olovo, Kladanj and Zivinice, that were under the control and in the zone of operation of the so called eight tactical group of Naser Oric.

 * Your source is equal to more than 100 Bosnian NGO’s worldwide (who are btw hardly taken in consideration in the article) who claim that 10,000 Bosniaks were executed and who also have lists of people killed by Serb forces, which you are disputing. Don’t you see how much edit warring this will cause. Presence of Naser Oric in those areas does not constitute a sufficient proof.  Although I don’t want to excuse Oric’s actions some of which have been proven it is as strong argument as saying that 3287 people were killed by wolfs because wolfs live in the woods surrounding those villages. Also there is no mention of what part of that number were actually soldiers as Serbs were on the military offensive in Srebrenica and in Drina valley in general as part of the wider plan.--Dado 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Like NYT journalist you are ad hominem labeling those who challenge the mainstream views as psychopaths. This is NPOV! For a start, read about  NATO countries’ secret services that armed separatists and terrorists and implanted paid killers to induce civil wars and stage massacres in former Yugoslavia, Congo and other countries were they have economic and geostrategic interests, in Bodansky, Yossef, 1995: Offensive in the Balkans: The Potential for a Wider War as a Result of Foreign Intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina, ISSA, Virginia, US I urge you to search for yourself for your favorite book on mass media monopolies and oligopolies, as well as on the influencing of the UN and many other international and national organizations’ decisions by the US Federal Reserves.

 * Again what proofs do you present other than op-ed pieces by conspiracy theorists whose income is based (and I am using your logic here if you don’t mind) on writing these suppositions. In plain words: who the f... is Yossef Bodansky or for that matter who the f... is Edward Herman. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Institutions and individuals.  I have brought to light NYT article not because I think it should be included in the article but to give a bit of the wider perspective in this discussion. --Dado 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You should go into details in the selection of words like you and those who agree with you did in the disputed article, where one can read that Muslims are ethnically cleansed, while Serbs just went away. Massacre according to Webster dictionary means “the killing of a number of human beings under circumstances of atrocity and cruelty”, like impoling, skinning, baking, as it was done by Oric’s troops. Your favourite video depicts war crime of shutting six prisoners in the cold blood in the back 150km away from Srebrenica, without above mentioned butchering atrocities performed and sometimes also videotaped by Oric's troops while exterminating entire villages in Srebrenica region.

 * Honestly, I wish I never saw that film. I am going from a position that ICTY is relatively objective and comprehensive source along with few others and the fact that film was addmisible into a court as evidence. If other material that you are mentioning has not found its way to the court there may be a good reason for it and I recommend you to find those reasons other than making logically questionaable suppositions.  I am not the enemy here.  I simply rely on generally aknowledged credible sources which is what wikipedia's policy of neutrality is based on.  Everything else that you are trying to introduce in this article will certainly cause edit wars and it will waste both yours and my time.  Perhaps we can add a link about the Herman's polemics about this topic in the External Links section of the article but even that may be offensive to some --Dado 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I completely agree with you Dado that my writing style should be improved. As long as we agree on the content, please be my guest in lectoring "run-on sentances".Casandra
 * Dado, ICTY is just attempting to institutionalize genocide interpretation, and why do you want to help it? For substantiation of the thesis on its financial dependence see for instance The Hague: who judges what? ICTY is financed by multinationals…
 * The list of 7800 that ICTY attempts to institutionalize seams to be the middle between 5000 that Clinton demanded from Izetbegovic for intervention against Serbs in front of 8 Muslim vitnesses, and 10,000 of “more than 100 Bosnian NGO’s worldwide” as you say Dado. The problem with your thesis that wolfs might have been responsible for killing Serbs is that they are not able to impole, cut, bake people, as the forensic reports document. Concerning the number of armed men among Serb victims, just remember that at the occasion of an anniversary, SDA braged that already in april 1992 thay had 120000 people under armes organised in 9 headquarters. Republica Srpska army was established in November of that year and became operational in the february next year.
 * Am I to understand that you are an “organization man”, erasing individual in front of institution? Your use of f… word does not help in convincing me. “Bringing into light” NYT article can not give “wider perspective” for it just parrots what other mainstream media that you also brought to light like Reuters, CNN, Scotsman, keep on repeating. Look at the result of scolarly research on concentration in mass media Media Ownership Chart
 * It is obvious that you are going from a position that ICTY is “objective”, “generally aknowledged credible” source. If it was, there would be no edit war and disputed neutrality of the article on Srebrenica. If you followed the ICTY proseedings you would have noticed that pictures and videos depicting massacres against Serbs were not shown with explanation not to shock the public, but the video with Serbs shutting prisoners (its authenticity is chalanged by montage experts and laiks wondering were is sound and bllod of victims) was presented publicly exactly with the aim to shock the public.
 * Investigate sources of ICTY sources Propaganda War against Yugoslavia
 * Why do you insist so much to reduce Wikipedia Srebrenica article to just one point of view, allowing only one external link to Ed Herman, for whome you swareingly ask who he was (in contrast to most of us, there is an article on him in Wikipedia) when you underline yourself DADO that Wikipedia policy is to be objective? ".Casandra16:20, July 22. 2005 (UTC)

It serves your purpose to bring press and blog articles to light when you find it convenient stating the credibility of the editors as educated scholars, but when I present an alternate view with another article you are calling it close to a ramblings of the parrot.

Furthermore, you are trying to justify your logic “financed and thus” by stating that someone else believes in the same logic (isn’t that the same as saying “if you repeated long enough it will become true”). Unfortunately that is not enough. You cannot make a logically clear implication that if ICTY is financed by the west hence they are corrupted and under influence of the same. You will need much more proof than stating someone’s single opinion in the interview. Hence ICTY is relevant and relatively credible source

My position here is that press and blogs should not be used as a guide to write this controversial article as you will find opposing views on both ends of the propaganda specter.

To conclude, your edits, as you are planning them, will not be viewed as NPOV and hence should not be included in the article. If there are any statistical mistakes in the article those should be raised at this point and corrected. The scope of your grievance with the article is beyond the purpose of the article, in other words you will need to dispute the credibility of sources used to write this article i.e. ICTY at its discussion page. If there are no more issues here POV tag should be removed--Dado 16:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything Dado has said so far. I wish merely to comment on the dubiousness of some of the "facts" brought up by those contesting this article's NPOV; specifically the oft-used figure of "3287" Serb victims. First of all it's just plain ridiculous that crisis-time sensationalist stories of a Serbian newspaper are being taken seriously and without question while the findings of the ICTY are unreasonably brushed aside based on some 2nd rate conspiracy theory of a few renegaede intellectuals. Second of all (unlike the 7,800 figure of Bosniak victims) this number comes in a long line of varying inconsistent approximations from Serb radicals. In the early 1990s the government of "Yugoslavia" itself issued a report to the United Nations that named only a few hundred Serb victims. Even Republika Srpska today claims that there were less than 1000 Serb victims killed in the region, and this is an institution known for grossly inflating victim counts. If this list of 3287 Serbs is legitimate, then the large majority are military victims killed in combat, as an international official dealing with the Srebrenica genocide recently stated to Bosnian media. Third, and perhaps most important, what does this even have to do with this article, or the allegations of POV? If we're going to say that the killing of Serbs in the surrounding area provided a motive for revenge and that the Srebrenica Genocide was just the culminating expression of that, then we could go around in circles about how the killing of Serbs in the surrounding area was an act of revenge for the many refugees of Serb ethnic cleansing that found themselves in Srebrenica by then. Even if what happened in Srebrenica was an act of revenge against previous Bosniak crimes, that in no was justifies or makes the genocide that occured reasonable (as the people who keep pushing the "brutally killed" Serbs to the forefront seem to imply). And as for the POV, how exactly does this article not fairly adress the issue? It directly adresses the Serbs killed in the surrounding area and does it in a good and fair way. What's the problem? There shouldn't be one, except that some people are trying desperately to expose their skewed version of "the truth" to "the world". By entertaining their arguements, built around conspiracy theories and logical fallacies, wikipedia is just embarassing itself. The NPOV tag should be removed, and the edit-lock should stay in place. Asim Led 18:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Any good dictionary article must contain all the meanings atributed to a respective concept. In social sciences the interpretations are more often than not diametrically oposed, due to opposed social itnerests of the interpretors.
 * The list of 3287 Serbs killed in the region of Srebrenica is well documented, according to all the rules of scientific method. For each victim there is the last name, middle name and first name, year of birth, place of death, name(s) of individuals and/or organizations responsible for the crime, witnesses, forensic and foto/video documentation. This year was pablished a book Zlocini nad Srbima B-H 1992-1995, Cigoja Stampa, ISBN 86/7558/342/7 containing documentation on Serbs killed beside Srebrenica region also in other regions of B&H. Director of the Center, Milivoje Ivanisevic is probably right when he concludes that if each people in B&H had earlier made the tragic balance sheet of their victims during the First and Second World War in an objective manner, the modus of co-existence might have been constructed that would have prevented that disaster of mutual killing be repeated once more. ICTY bias, noticed even by Guardian that you quoted Dado, erecting confesionallz clean memorials and the present biased wording of the Srebrenica article based on ICTY bias, is only preparing the ground for new tragedies. Casandra 22:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Asim, I doubt the edit lock will stay in place, as most administrators do not like to keep pages locked; it runs counter to the philosophy of Wikipedia. It seems logical to me that the Serb victims should also be mentioned in the article (as indeed they are). In fact, I would prefer a title like "Srebrenica during the Bosnian war". The whole history, especially the fact that Srebrenica was declared a safe haven, partly explains in my opinion why it got so much attention when it was overrun.
 * Casandra, you say that any good dictionary article must contain all the meanings. Notwithstanding, the policy here is: "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." (quoted from WP:NPOV). In your reaction immediately under my comment of 17:29, 21 July 2005, you say that indeed most media and international organization agree that "Srebrenica massacre" refers to the killing of Bosniaks with about 8000 victims. You prefer to give more weight to the individuals that have another opinion, which is your good right, but most people believe that organizations like Amnesty, Red Cross, and particularly the ICTY is the closest thing we have to an impartial arbiter. This is also the opinion of Girton Ash in the article in the Guardian you are talking about. He says "Does this mean the [Milosevic] trial is a mistake? Certainly not." He only says that "the suspicion of bias will remain", and he does not mean bias of the ICTY, but bias of international justice, which becomes clear when he says that the problem is that we only have tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, and the solution is to strengthen the ICC.
 * So, let me also propose a text for the lead section (the text above the table of contents and the first section heading) in order to see whether we can agree on something:
 * "The Srebrenica massacre generally refers to the July 1995 killing of thousands of Bosniak males in the region of Srebrenica by Serbs. Many regard it as one of the most horrific events in recent European history."
 * I tried to cut out all the nonessential and controversial bits (of course, these should find a place somewhere else). What do you all think of this? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Casandra, you are not answering the question that I asked and that Asim Led asked. How many of those 3287 Serbs were soldiers and how many were killed in action. Do your sources differentiate that. I could not agree more that there was supposed to be a "balance sheet of their victims during the First and Second World War in an objective manner, the modus of co-existence might have been constructed that would have prevented that disaster of mutual killing be repeated once more". We want to have a clear account here for same reasons.

In fact once you present a clear undeniable evidence supported by credible institutions which prove that 1. The list is credible and confirmed and 2. all 3287 were in fact civilians killed in a systematic fashion as what happened with Bosniaks in Srebrenica in only 4 days after July 11, 1995 than we have a compatible data to introduce in the article that can be described in line with the massacre. This is at least fourth or fifth time in last 2 to 3 years that inconclusive data was thrown into public by Serbian officials, NGOs and media only later to be found that data was fundamentally ridden with fallacies and mistakes. It served only for political purposes to enflamed the public. Data so far introduced by ICTY has been most consistant and acurate to date and that's why it is used in this article. Your further attempts to discredit ICTY hold no merit.

I hope your last words were not a threat.--Dado 21:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you Niesen on your cunstructive effort. However in my oppinion, your proposed wording is just shortening the present biased formulation. Instead of “generally refered to”, it shuld be stated exactly what part of interested local and international social actors refer to events in and arround Srebrenica in July 2005 as “killing of thousands of Bosniak males in the region of Srebrenica by Serbs”. Practically it would mean to provide the selection of the most representative references for such interpretation and the one disputing it, enabling readers to make up their own mind what sources are more truthworthy for them.

 * I answered your question indirectly Dado and Asim by citing the dates of army formations of Muslims and Serbs – in 1992 and beginning of 1993 majority of killed were civilians. When you make the analysis of the gender and age composition of the killed Serbs, you will get the most precise possible answer to your question. Among the so far identified Muslims, there was one woman, and great majority of males were of fighting age and fighting their way through to Muslim held territory, but that does not prevent you to claim that they were “civilians killed in a systematic fashion”!?. Cite one example where documentation on Serbs killed was later found (by whom?) as “fundamentally ridden with fallacies and mistakes”. The documentation is only necesserily incomplete and cumulative, excavations of Serbs in Federation being the most difficult to make.
 * My last words are by no means a threat but fear aroused in me by the words engraved in the Potocari uniconfessional memorial, that only revange can bring forgiveness.

 * I will be away for several weaks starting this morning and will not be able to participate in the article reformulation. I am already looking forward to catch up when I return.

Casandra 02:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

At the first glance of the list provided on your dubious web site http://www.srebrenica-report.com and the list provided on http://www.srebrenica-report.com/docs/UN-1993-2.pdf which btw does not state exact number so I don't know if that is the list you are refering to (one would have to count the names spread over 19 pages) at the first glance I noticed maybe 50 names (woman or elderly) who were not military ready. But that is just only at my glance and it should not be taken conclusevly as data is inconclusive and it is not supported by additional facts which would make me convinced that the names are civilian. I hope you understand my scepticism only because there were lists issued before. Example: List of Serbs killed in Sarajevo by allegedly muslim forces containing about 2500 names released by Serbian NGO on a day when a political decision to unify police forces in BiH was to be made. The list was later discredited as it contained large account of fallacies: some names were repeated several times, some died of natural causes after the war, some were still alive, some were soldiers and most of them killed alongside muslim and croat civilians of Sarajevo during Serbian shelling of the city during the siege. And that was only a preliminary analisys. Again if there are no specific changes for the article suggested that are supported by credible facts than this is just becoming an absurd discussion. Literary appeasement cannot be justified.--Dado 14:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Herman replies to his critics on Srebrenica
Herman has actually bothered to reply to some of his critics (Herman wrote on Srebrenica). You will enjoy reading his replies :)

http://www.zmag.org/hermanserbdebate.htm

What are the NPOV objections
A request was made on my talk page to remove the NPOV tag from the article because there was no justification made on this page for it. I cannot make any conclusions from this page as it is frankly a complete mess. To try and move the situation forward I ask everyone who has an objection to content in the article as it exists at the moment to note it below in the format

 * What I object to
 * Why I object to it
 * What I think would be better

If you disagree with what someone else has written explain why, don't remove or revert it. Keep all objections/comments as concise as possible I will edit comments to remove personal attacks, and keep them short. Please read and be aware of No personal attacks, Civility and Three revert rule, I will block people who don't abide by them - this is your warning. Thryduulf 21:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Other than comments stated bellow which can be easily fixed and hardly justify POV tag what other issues are here. Why is this article still locked and why is there a POV tag still on it? I would kindly ask administrators to unclock this article so that corrections can be made and POV tag removed as there are no viable proposals on how to clean up the mess.--Dado 15:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the protection should be lifted and the POV tag removed. It was I who requested that the page be protected and I think it has been for long enough now. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Dutch were not taken hostage
The article says that the article were taken hostage. I didn't read all the references, I have to admit, but this is formally incorrect and at best inaccurate, I believe. They were very much aware that the Serbs had superior forces and probably felt threatened but were not formally taken hostage. Andries 14:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The article is indeed confusing, to say the least. It seems to claim that all Dutch soldiers were taken hostage, which is definitely not true. However, a few of them were taken hostage by the Serbs. I'm thinking specifically of a group of six led by Sergeant J.A.J. van Eck who were manning Observation Post U and taken hostage on the evening of 8 July. Groetjes, Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

mess
I agree with User:Jitse_Niesen that the article is mess, and I agree with User:Thryduulf that talk page is the mess. I suggest that opinions from UN peacekeeping commanders should be clearly stated in the article without Bosniaks or Serbian added propaganda : I mean at prior cited part from [] and [] I will left to others to write the proposal. --Oldadamml 10:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

unprotection
I have unprotected this article as I agree that it has been protected long enough. I have also removed the NPOV tag because nobody has actually bothered to explain what their problems with the article are. Note though that edit waring will lead to the page being protected again. All parties should also be aware of the Three revert rule - violations of this will result in you being blocked. Thryduulf 22:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am aware that my English is far from perfect but I'm sure you can understand me. Read carefuly every line I wrote, check the links I included and I guess you might see what's the problem with this article. I started to write a new article based on this new facts days ago but I was intterupted and hope to finish it in next week. And, again, whole article is a nothing more than Bosniak/ITCY propaganda, even that part about alternative views.Theodosias 22:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 4


text:
User talk:Gstevens99

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Gstevens99, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:29

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Gstevens99


text:
User talk:Hrnghl

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Hrnghl, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:29

title: User talk:Hrnghl


text: User talk:82.154.121.196

title: User talk:82.154.121.196


text:
Category:Furnariidae

Furnariidae is the family of ovenbirds and woodcreepers in the order Passeriformes.

title: Category:Furnariidae


text:
User talk:Msteri

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Msteri, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:29

Migraine External links
You wrote: "I would appreciate understanding your reasoning for removing some of the links you removed before I do anything more to the page."

 * The link you readded about triptans is to an About.com page, a commercial encyclopedia. Please read WP:EL. Links should only be added if they have valuable information that does not belong in the article itself and if they are not trying to sell something. If the information in the link does belong it the article, it should be re-written (to avoid copyright issues) and added to the article. In general, articles should have very few links, because very few links fit these criteria; the migraine article has 37 links, at present-- way too many. The idea is that we want our articles to be the best possible source of information on a topic, not a short article followed by a long list of links to other articles-- one might as well just google the subject and read the first dozen sites if we are going to assemble long external link lists.

 * Note, too, that since we have an article on triptans, an external link to an article about it, if it's going to appear anywhere, should be in the triptans article itself, not in the migraine article.

 * I hope these external links guidelines make sense to you. Since this area is your specialty, please feel free to join in the spam cleanup!  Wikipedia is drowning in external links.  Thanks, -- Mwanner | Talk 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

About.com is not a commercial encyclopedia. In fact, as an expert in my field I contract with the New York Times to write the headache and Migraine Disease content on About.com. About.com health sites are HON accredited. I added that link because it contained information beyond what was available in the Migraine article. I fully understood why you removed the link to the main page of the About site. It was all too general, but deleting the link to the article that provided an overview of all of the triptan drugs and a comprehensive profile of each one is, IMO, inappropriate. Your point is well taken that there is a triptans article on Wikipedia, but many Migraineurs do not feel up to surfing, so a link on the Migraine article page itself is also appropriate.

As I have time, I'll be glad to contribute and help with the cleanup. Spam only servers to hurt the credibility of Wikipedia and make the articles less valuable.

Thanks!

--TeriRobert 04:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 * On what basis do you assert that About.com is not a commercial encyclopedia? And how does "In fact, as an expert in my field..." relate to that claim?

 * Please read Wikipedia's external link policy, and perhaps How not to be a spammer.

 * Again, "Links should only be added if they have valuable information that does not belong in the article itself and if they are not trying to sell something." You say that you "added that link because it contained information beyond what was available in the Migraine article".  What information from that link does not belong in our article?

 * And your assertion that a link to the triptans article on the Migraine page is appropriate because "many because Migraineurs do not feel up to surfing" is entirely beside the point-- we are an encyclopedia, not an information service or a link farm.

 * I'm going to leave the issue alone for the moment, in part because you are now making worthwhile contributions to the article itself. But rest assured that at some point, someone is going to have to do some major trimming of the external links, and at that point, the About links are pretty likely to be removed.

 * Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first article looked great! I hope you enjoy editing and using Wikipedia. —Brim 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Brim! --TeriRobert 21:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed user box
Hi there,

Just wondered about the change you made to the user box on my talk page. Could you tell me why you made the change? That way, if I did something the wrong way, I'll know not to do it again.

Thanks!

--TeriRobert 06:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't worry, it's not your fault. If you're not aware, there has been much debate and even controversy about whether userboxes are acceptable as part of Wikipedia (see Userboxes for a starting overview of them and links to more info). While userboxes that highlight people's skills and ways that they can help out (starting with languages and Babel) mostly are and probably will always be accepted, there has been much objection over other types of userboxes, like ones that express people's points of view, especially controversial views.

 * One of the methods that has been proposed to provide a compromise is Userbox migration (formerly the German userbox solution as the idea came from the method that takes place on the German Wikipedia). Basically this migration involves the moving of userboxes from the template namespace (where Wikipedia's strict content policies apply) to the user namepsace (where the rules aren't as strict). This process involves replacing the template transclusion on each page to the new version in the userspace. Just one of these userboxes that was under the process was Template:User mom2 (now deleted), which you have on your userpage. It was moved to User:Springeragh/Templates/Userboxes/mom2. Before I changed the userbox for you, you would have seen something like this:

 * I changed to  so that you have the original box back again. Hope this helps clear things for you and if you want more information, feel free to contact me at my talk page Harryboyles 07:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Msteri