Talk:Bosnian genocide/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Introduction

Here is an alternative version for the introduction of this article.

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.[1]

The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000–30,000 Bosnians Muslims, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, committed by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić.

The ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army targeted Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. The ethnic cleansing campaign included unlawful confinement, murder, rape, sexual assault, torture, beating, robbery and inhumane treatment of civilians; the targeting of political leaders, intellectuals and professionals; the unlawful deportation and transfer of civilians; the unlawful shelling of civilians; the unlawful appropriation and plunder of real and personal property; the destruction of homes and businesses; and the destruction of places of worship.

In the 1990s, several authorities, in line with a minority of legal scholars, asserted that ethnic cleansing as carried out by elements of the Bosnian Serb army was genocide. These assertions included a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly and three convictions for genocide in German courts. The convictions were based upon a wider interpretation of genocide than that used by international courts. [2] In 2005, the United States Congress passed a resolution declaring that "the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide".[3]

However, in line with a majority of legal scholars, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have ruled that, in order for actions to be deemed genocide, there must be physical or biological destruction of a protected group and a specific intent to commit such destruction. According to this narrower interpretation of genocide, to date, only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be a genocide by the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ.[4]

While PBS' resistance to this version is predictable, Opbeith may be supportive of these suggested edits. However, Opbeith apparently feels his precious time is better spent editing articles on the study of ice flows in 1967. Perhaps when Opbeith considers this article worthy of his attention, he can, after months of being invited to do so, make constructive specific proposals on what exact wording could be introduced to this article. Or, perhaps, he will continue to limit himself to endless verbose arguing on discussion pages and save his actual suggested edits for things like... well... ice. Fairview360 (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360, the difference between ice and ethnic cleansing is that no-one is trying to impose a complex framework of argument about the subject's disputed meaning on the article you're referring to. Because the subject matter there is containable I find it satisfying to be able to accomplish something concrete while I'm trying to work out how to cope with the challenge of the very important but complex and frustrating issue here. You may not understand that, but that's the way I do things. It's not your business to decide how I should best proceed and I'm not going to ask you to give an account of yourself either. I apologise for my verbosity, that's a fair criticism. But that's the way I am, it's the handicap I have to bear. You only need to bear the burden with me if you so choose.

I know that whatever suggested wording I may come up with, PBS is going to seek to divert/contain discussion of it within the framework of juridical usage and pronouncements by official bodies. As you may have noticed, I find it frustrating getting into that impasse. So I am not going to make my suggestion until I am confident with it. The crux of the matter is the distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing. Norman Naimark has provided a useful indication in his Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence Article on Ethnic Cleansing at http://massviolence.org/Ethnic-Cleansing. However I am still looking for supportive sourced references of the kind that PBS might find it difficult to dismiss/ignore.

That there is a formal distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing is clear from the wording of Security Council Resolution 1674[1]. This is the Responsibility to Protect Resolution. It refers to the wording of Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document at http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/398-general-assembly-r2p-excerpt-from-outcome-document. I'm trying to find out on what basis that wording was decided. When I've done that, I'll proceed, and whenever I find it useful to take a break with ice, or any other subject I find helpful, I'll do that. I'm confident your perspective is fundamentally in harmony with my own, however difficult I find it to cope with the way you express it. So you do whatever you choose. I'm perfectly happy to continue engaging with the subject in my own way and I won't stand in the way of anything you decide to do. Opbeith (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In August of 2010, Opbeith complains that "Fairview360 has gone to ground somewhere". Fairview engages and invites Opbeith to actually propose specific text to be included in the article, something substantive that can be discussed. Half a year later, not one iota of text has been suggested by Opbeith. In his three paragraphs of commentary here, not one shread of feedback on the suggested text presented above. At this rate, there will be a verdict on Karadzic before Opbeith actual produces something. If Opbeith expects other editors to engage him in discussion, he is going to have to actually produce results and not waste people's time. Fairview360 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

When I used the expression "Fairview360 has gone to ground somewhere" back then, I was simply noting that PBS and myself were at a point where we were not communicating constructively and there was no third party. I'm grateful to you for your intervention. I wasn't ready yet to offer my feedback, that doesn't mean I was ignoring you, in favour of ice or whatever. I'll make any suggestion when I'm hopeful it's going to be useful rather than incomplete. I'm still mindful of the summary way in which you dismissed my efforts after I'd spent a lot of time and effort trying to bring up to date the information about the sequence of killings at Srebrenica. In the meanwhile I'm sorry to have wasted your time. I don't think there's anything constructive I can say in response to your anger at my perceived inadequacies. Opbeith (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview 360, I'm not satisfied with the following but since you want something now, it offers an alternative that focuses more attention on the general usage of the term, whereas the current formula seems to me to put too much emphasisis on defining the legitimacy of the term's use. It also tries to highlight why the term is used deliberately rather than loosely referred to refer to genocide elsewhere than at Srebrenica. My disagreement with the version you've offered concerns primarily the first paragraph, with its bald and contentious definitions which I've discussed previously. I confess that I've expanded the quantity of text. I prefer to establish the basic general structure and content first and then come back to refine it afterward, so only limited apologies for that.

"The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer to the body of crimes committed during the Bosnian War 1992-1995 that are alleged to have been committed with the aim of creating ethnically homogeneous areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under enduring Serb control. It is used specifically to refer to crimes that were committed with a view to the destruction of non-Serb groups, and in particular the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It is also used more generally to describe the body of crimes committed during the forced transfer and expulsion of those groups that has often been referred to as ethnic cleansing.

The killings and mass expulsions of the Bosniak inhabitants of the enclave of Srebrenica by the Bosnian Serb Army in July 1995 have been confirmed by international courts at the highest level - the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) - as a crime of genocide. As this is the only instance of genocide confirmed at that level, the expression "the Bosnian genocide" is understood by some to be applicable only to the instance of the crime perpetrated at Srebrenica.

Others consider that the term should be understood in a more general sense to apply also to the body of crimes committed elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995 which:

- have been found by other jurisdictions to constitute genocide in a wider sense than that adopted by the ICJ and ICTY;

- have been found to constitute underlying acts of genocide in the absence of an individual conviction for the crime of genocide itself;

- have been considered as contributing to a pattern which should be interpreted as confirmation of the intent to commit genocide;

- are or were the subject of ongoing or otherwise unresolved criminal proceedings before the ICTY.

[summary details of above to be added]

The term "Bosnian Genocide" has also been used loosely as synonymous with the "ethnic cleansing" of 1992 by which the non-Serb population, in particular the Bosniak population, was expelled from the Bosnian Krajina, Posavina and Podrinja areas in order to create a homogeneously Serb territory.

The definition of genocide is codified in the provisions of the UN Genocide Convention and as confirmed by the International Tribunals trying crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, describes the crimes specified in Article II of the Convention [specified], "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". Although for example UN General Assembly Resolution 47/121 used the wording 'the abhorrent policy of 'ethnic cleansing', which is a form of genocide' to describe what had been taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ICTY observed in the Krstic trial judgment that despite "obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as 'ethnic cleansing'" a clear distinction had to be made between "physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group". Although international texts such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674 on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict refer to 'genocide' and 'ethnic cleansing' as distinct crimes, 'ethnic cleansing' has yet to be defined as a crime by any treaty or convention. It is considered to encompass acts intended to bring about the forced displacement or removal of a population from a particular territory." Opbeith (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer to the body of crimes committed during the Bosnian War 1992-1995 that are alleged to have been committed with the aim of creating ethnically homogeneous areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under enduring Serb control.

What is the difference between "ethnic cleansing" and "crimes committed with the aim of creating ethnically homogeneous areas"?

It is used specifically to refer to crimes that were committed with a view to the destruction of non-Serb groups, and in particular the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It is also used more generally to describe the body of crimes committed during the forced transfer and expulsion of those groups that has often been referred to as ethnic cleansing.

How are "crimes committed during the forced transfer and expulsion of those groups that has often been referred to as ethnic cleansing" distinct from "crimes committed with the aim of creating ethnically homogeneous areas"? Fairview360 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this introductory sentence creates the desired distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing:

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to the body of crimes committed against non-Serbs as part of the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. Fairview360 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your wording concerning the first meaning, concerning Srebrenica, is not a problem. However your wording of the alternative still defines what happened in Bosnia as ethnic cleansing - "the ethnic cleansing campaign". Ethnic cleansing may be part of a crime of genocide (the transfer of the population) but is not necessarily genocidal. It depends on the intent. The crime of ethnic cleansing is not defined in any international legal treaty but e.g. the Responsibility to Protect Resolution refers to it as a crime distinct from genocide. The key element of genocide is the intent to destroy the group, partially or totally. I was trying to phrase the second version of the definition in a way that would allow the allegation of genocide to be included. Whereas describing happened in Bosnia as a campaign of ethnic cleansing defines it in a narrower sense that excludes crimes that were part of an attempt to destroy non-Serb groups. I've tried to make the distinction clear - between crimes committed as part of the attempt to move the group out of the area (deliberate or incidental) and crimes intended to ensure that the group could never move back into the area because it had ceased to exist as such. So what I'm trying to say is that the definition needs to avoid the alternatives of a geographically and temporally limited crime of genocide on the one hand and a geographically wider and temporally different crime of "not-genocide". That's what I've been hammering on about all this time - that the existing definition of the article's subject rules out a priori the possibility of genocide in Bosnia elsewhere than at Srebrenica. Opbeith (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the ICJ judgement there were organisations such as the American Congress who specifically made the link that Fairview is making "(2) the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide;" That the German courts found that there were men guilty of genocide outside of Srebrenica is documented in our article. My disagreements with Fairview360 are two. The first is that the definitions clutter up the lead and say things that source does not (so creates syn). We could include something like he suggests in the body of the article if we can find sources that state for example what the US congress meant by ethnic cleansing, but my preferred option is an additional article that goes into these different definitions to which we put in a link. Opbeith it seems to me that what you are suggesting is OR unless you link it to a Joint Criminal Enterprise to commit genocide (something that to date the courts have not found to be so for a wider genocide). -- PBS (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the point is that as it stands, for the reasons I have set out, the term "ethnic cleansing" does not include genocide, so it is important to make it clear that usage has been intended to encompass genocide. I'm perfectly happy to have my suggestion amended to streamline it and align it more closely with the sources, but the essential point is that the introduction should make it clear that "the Bosnian genocide" refers to genocide in Bosnia, not just ethnic cleansing as it is now understood. PBS, the ICTY Krajisnik finding confirmed the underlying acts of genocide and a wide range of respected jurists, scholars and others have criticised the ICJ's failure to reach a finding of genocide. You are determined not to allow anything other than a court finding of genocide and look away from the evidence of any other usage. So - not my Original Research but your Point of View. Opbeith (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a specific comment concerning your reference to the US Congress resolution: the wording of the resolution is itself informative - Congress considered it necessary to add the explanatory observation that "the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide", the reference to "aggression and ethnic cleansing" was presumably not deemed explicit. Opbeith (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There exists current source material that describes the body of crimes committed throughout the territory controlled by the BSA as genocide. It is in the indictment against Karadzic:

18. Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians were persecuted on national, political and religious

grounds throughout the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thousands of them were interned in detention facilities where they were subjected to widespread acts of physical and psychological abuse and to inhumane conditions. Detention facility personnel who ran and operated the Omarska, Keraterm and Luka detention facilities, among others, including, but not limited to Zeljko Meakic (Omarska), Dusko Sikirica (Keraterm) and Goran Jelisic (Luka), intended to destroy Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat people as national, ethnic, or religious groups and killed, seriously injured and deliberately inflicted upon them conditions intended to bring about their physical destruction. The conditions in the detention facilities, which are described in paragraphs 20-22 hereunder, are incorporated in full herein.

Courts have convicted persons for genocide outside of Srebrenica based upon the wider definition of genocide and appeals courts have affirmed that the wider definition of genocide is consistent with the the Genocide Convention of 1948.

There is plenty of source material to support the assertion that the term Bosnian Genocide refers to the crimes committed throughout the territory controlled by the BSA.

There is also plenty of source material to describe what the term ethnic cleansing refers to. It is not a mystery what the US Congress was referring to when they used the term ethnic cleansing.

Opbeith is arguing that ethnic cleansing and genocide are not synonymous. All editors here are most probably in agreement on that point. The suggested wording above does not equate genocide and ethnic cleansing. It describes the genocidal body of crimes as being part of the ethnic cleansing campaign. How is that not true? The Srebrenica massacre which has been confirmed in court as an act of genocide was part of the ethnic cleansing campaign. Is someone going to argue otherwise? Fairview360 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a new introduction / first part of the body of the article

Rather than continue pursuing a combination of findings (eg ICTY Krajisnik Trial Chamber judgment) and other sources (eg Al-Khawasneh ICJ Dissenting Opinion), I've followed Fairview360's advice and based the following proposal very largely on the Karadzic Marked-Up Indictment of 19.10.2009, the latest version of the indictment at the ICTY site. While these are charges rather than findings they are an example of a reliable source setting out the reasons why other reliable sources, as well as ordinary usage, refer to the Bosnian genocide as such and consider that the events that made it up were part of a campaign to remove non-Serb population groups permanently from the strategic areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina that were claimed as Serb territory by the Bosnian Serb authorities.

Introduction

The Bosnian Genocide refers generally to the campaign of widespread, co-ordinated, criminal actions carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina from at least October 1991 until 30 November 1995 with the aim of permanently removing Bosnian Muslims ("Bosniaks") and Bosnian Croats from territory claimed by the political representatives of the Bosnian Serbs, including alleged crimes of genocide, persecution, extermination, murder, deportation, and inhumane acts. International outrage against these crimes campaign led to the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to try charges against the principal perpetrators of alleged crimes of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina and other countries of the former Yugoslavia including Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. The campaign was also the subject of a legal action brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its successor, Serbia and Montenegro.

Despite other judgments by national courts in specific cases, the only findings of genocide at the highest levels of international law to date (March 2011), by the ICTY and the ICJ, have concerned the mass executions and forced transfers of the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) by the Bosnian Serb army and civilian authorities assisted by units of Serbian forces at Srebrenica in July 1995. Accordingly this specific instance is also sometimes referred to as the Bosnian Genocide.

/Explanatory note concerning the designation Bosnian Muslims / Bosniaks/

(Start of the body of the article follows:)

The nature of the Bosnian Genocide

According to the indictment charging Radovan Karadzic before the ICTY with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war [the "marked-up" indictment of 19.10.2010 - Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, Date: 19 October 2009, "The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic", Prosecution’s Marked-Up Indictment - PMUI 19.10.2009], the campaign to remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from the territory claimed by the Bosnian Serbs involved the actions of a joint criminal enterprise including individual politicians and political, governmental and military institutions[PMUI 19.10.2009, paras 6, 7 and 8]. Political and governmental policies were developed and implemented by the Bosnian Serbs that were intended to advance the objective; political and administrative bodies were established and military, security, paramilitary and volunteer forces created to implement the programme; accompanying propaganda was disseminated to engender fear and hatred of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats and the participation of Yugoslav People's Army (JNA/VJ) forces and Serbian paramilitary forces was enrolled. [PMUI 19.10.2009 paras 11 and 12; para 14]

As the campaign proceeded the necessary steps to prevent and investigate crimes or arrest and punish the perpetrators were not taken and efforts were made to deny crimes against Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats and the role played by Serb forces in those crimes or provide misleading information about them to representatives of the international community, non-governmental organizations, the media and the public, facilitating the commission of crimes. The delivery of humanitarian aid to Bosniak and Bosnian Croat enclaves was restricted in an effort to create unbearable living conditions for their inhabitants.[PMUI 19.10.2009 para 14]

The campaign of ethnic cleansing intended to remove Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats permanently from the areas of BiH claimed as Bosnian Serb territory involved a campaign of crimes of persecution that demonstrated the intent to destroy in part the Bosniaks and/or Bosnian Croats as national, ethnical and/or religious groups, in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This was manifested in the targeting of the leaderships of these groups and a substantial number of their members for destruction, most extremely in Bratunac, Foca, Kljuc, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica and Zvornik, and Srebrenica, as well as in Brcko, Kotor Varos and Visegrad. [PMUI 19.10.2009 para 38]. An associated joint criminal enterprise targeted the Bosnian Muslim population of the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo. [PMUI 19.10.2009 para 15].

Participants in the joint criminal enterprise that carried out the campaign were allegedly aware that genocide was a possible consequence of implementing the objective and willingly took that risk. [PMUI 19.10.2009 para 39].

The following specific acts are alleged to have been part of the genocide: killings during and after takeovers of territory and killings related to detention facilities and the causing of serious bodily and mental harm, through cruel or inhumane treatment and conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, including torture, physical and psychological abuse, rape, other acts of sexual violence and beatings; inhumane living conditions, forced labour and the failure to provide adequate accommodation, shelter, food, water, medical care or hygienic sanitation in detention facilities. [PMUI 19.10.2009 para 40]

When applied to the crime of genocide at Srebrenica the term refers to the attempt by individuals and by a joint criminal enterprise to destroy the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica as part of the Bosnian Muslim national, ethnical and/or religious groupby killing the men and boys and forcibly removing the women, young children and elderly men from Srebrenica. This took the form initially of a plan allegedly implemented in March 1995 by Radovan Karadzic and others to take over the Srebrenica enclave and forcibly transfer and/or deport its Bosnian Muslim population, as part of the objective to remove the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats permanently from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory. Following the attack on the Srebrenica enclave on about 6 July 1995, Radovan Karadzic and others formed and implemented a shared objective of eliminating the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica by killing the men and boys and forcibly removing the women, young children and some elderly men. [PMUI 19.10.2009 paras 42 to 47]

The Legal status of the description "genocide"

[etc. - pick up from existing content]

Opbeith (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

1) "The Bosnian Genocide refers generally to the campaign of widespread," you have a reliable source for that statement?
2) One can not base it on the incitement with such wording as you suggest. One has to qualify it with "it is alleged by the prosecution" or some such qualification, because in an adversarial system of justice one could just as easily present the defence argument (to present one side is to present a POV and the most extreme POV possible -- that how adversarial court systems work).

--PBS (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PBS, "generally (a) and more specifically (b)" is a standard way of referring to a wider meaning and then a narrower meaning. I think you mistake my use of the word "generally". And are you saying that it is a majority viewpoint that the Bosnian genocide does not refer to genocide in Bosnia? I think the majority you're so keen to give weight to are the majority of scholars (perhaps dated) rather /minority refers to opinions about legal findings. Are you sure that it's really the majority view that the use of the expression Bosnian genocide is emphatically linked to the legal threshold for a judgment of genocide, which is where the weight of the article lies and which is what I've been asking you to reconsider for quite a long time now? I suspect that the majority viewpoint lies considerably closer to Fairview360's observation that the term "Bosnian Genocide" refers to what the Serb nationalists actually did rather than to legal judgments. I hope you don't mind me turning your question back - "Why do you want to have the article give more prominence to a minority view that the majority view?" Opbeith (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The majority of reliable English language sources take their lead from the judgements of the international courts (which is what one would expect when there is no direct national interests involved), the ethnic cleansing is usually called that, it is not called genocide, and when genocide is used it is used to refer to what the international courts have judged to be genocide. For example do a search on the BBC website, or that of any of the heavyweight London newspapers or the Washington post of the NYT, and see how many articles in the last year refer to the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia rather than describing it as a widespread genocide. Then see that in almost all the same articles it will be mention that massacre at Srebrenica was a genocide.

However we do not document that common usage the current article because as far as I know no one has stated it, and for us to do so would be OR instead the article says:

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.

with a reliable source to back it up. Such wording is a simple statement fact without any weighting and comment on which is the most common usage.

I think you need to consider carefully if generally would be understood any differently from my understanding of that sentence otherwise why write:

"The Bosnian Genocide refers generally to the campaign of widespread,..."

instead of

"The Bosnian Genocide refers to the campaign of widespread, ..."

if all the generally is doing is referring to widespread? -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(i)PBS, you appear to be making the case for yourself writing an article "Bosnian ethnic cleansing" explaining what that expression should be understood to mean as used by reliable sources while this article gets on with describing its own subject, the expression "Bosnian genocide", as used by reliable sources.

(ii) PBS, you're right to show concern for linguistic good-housekeeping, but you've misidentified the redundant element. It's "widespread" that can be deleted, to leave "refers generally". I don't think you're clear about the difference in meaning between "generally refers" and "refers generally". "Generally refers" indicates "is generally taken to mean ". "Refers generally" indicates "has the broad meaning" (contrasted further on with the reference to the narrower sense in which you believe Srebrenica is referred to as the Bosnian genocide". Incidentally, have you got many specific references to Srebrenica as "the Bosnian genocide", as opposed to this being your logical deduction? Opbeith (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360 stands behind the current introductory sentence keeping its current structure which states that Bosnian Genocide refers to either (a) or (b). Given that PBS considers (b) to be a minority point of view, he is allowing in the current introductory sentence more weight to (b) than he might if he were writing the article himself. Therefore, it would probably be best for Opbeith to accept this structure and focus instead on the issue of how the second part of the sentence is constructed. Is the second part going to include the term ethnic cleansing? If so, then how is ethnic cleansing described in the article? If not, what text goes in its place and how does that effect the rest of the introduction? Fairview360 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith above I suggested that you had a look at some major English language news sources. Below is a table of the main newspapers in the UK and the US as well as the BBC over the last 12 months. I have included "Royal Wedding" to give some perspective to how much the phrases ["Bosnian genocide"] and ["ethnic cleansing" Bosnia] is currently used compared to a frothy subject. The two articles that mentioned the phrase "Bosnian genocide" are listed below the table both are referring to the Srebrenica. the first is explicit in a news item and the second is implicit in an opinion piece (as it is implicit it is also possible to read it in other ways). But either which way it shows that the term "Bosnian Genocide" is currently not often used and is (also) used to describe the Srebrenica genocide.

Site	"Bosnian genocide"	"ethnic cleansing" Bosnia	"royal wedding"
site:bbc.co.uk	2 (both in blog comments)	51	42,200
site:guardian.co.uk	6 (all in blog comments)	78	38,700
site:independent.co.uk	1	37	958
site:telegraph.co.uk	zero	7	467,000
site:timesonline.co.uk	zero	1	25
site:www.nytimes.com	zero	17	54
site:washingtonpost.com	2 (one in a blog)	17	33,000

Ed O'Keefe (18 March 2010). "Ex-general links gay troops to Bosnian genocide". The Washington Post.

A retired Marine general told senators on Thursday that the Dutch Army failed to protect the city of Srebrenica during the Bosnian war ...

Diana Jenkins (4 August 2010). "My support for a fellow Bosnian". The Independent.

...the allegations represent a broader campaign by ultra-nationalist groups within Serbia to excuse, explain and outright deny Bosnian genocide.
Dr Ganic's case wasted time and money and distracted from legitimate international efforts to bring true war criminals to justice – men like Ratko Mladic, the Serbian general who oversaw the systematic murder of more than 8,000 unarmed civilians at Srebrenica. Fifteen years later, he still remains free. ...

--PBS (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that PBS is arguing here that the term "Bosnian Genocide" is "not often used", one would think that he would support using the title "Genocide in Bosnia", a descriptive clear title that is consistent with common vernacular. Fairview360 (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this is an appropriate move. Opbeith (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Round and round and round and round and round in circles. PBS, you are utterly determined to ensure this article is constrained within the corset of the expression "Bosnian genocide" - which you now tell me doesn't exist, or hardly exists. What someone coming here wants to know about is the genocide that took place in Bosnia: genocide in Bosnia, allegations of genocide in Bosnia, Bosnian genocide, campaign of genocidal crimes across Bosnia, allegations of genocide against Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and the Bosnian Serb Presidency, genocide in territory claimed by the Bosnian Serbs, whatever. You stand the whole thing on its head by pretending that the subject is "Bosnian genocide" and "Bosnian genocide" only in those words. And in the background you quietly work to head off the possibility of an article about genocide in Bosnia. Diana Jenkins's references to time wasting and distraction in the Ganic episode seem quite apposite to the situation here. Opbeith (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And to insist on a point of accuracy - the reference in the first article (Ed O'Keefe) is to Srebrenica. But there is no evidence in the second that Diana Jenkins is talking about something other than genocide in Bosnia when she refers to the wider campaign of denial of Bosnian genocide. She's not completely specific but a careful reading indicates that the reference to Mladic at Srebrenica is illustrative rather than limitative. Jenkins refers to a visit to Srebrenica but equally she describes how her family were also victims of the attack on the civilian population of Sarajevo. Opbeith (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just remember PBS, it was on 12 May 1992, more than three years before Srebrenica, when the Bosnian Serb parliament adopted the six strategic objectives of the Serb people, the first of them - to separate Serb people from the other two national communities - being the subject of a warning to Karadzic and Krajisnik from Mladic: "People are not little stones, or keys in someone’s pocket, that can be moved from one place to another just like that ... Therefore, we cannot precisely arrange for only Serbs to stay in one part of the country while removing others painlessly. I do not know how Mr Krajisnik and Mr Karadzic will explain that to the world. That is genocide". Opbeith (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Methinks thou dost protest too much". As I said the usage in the second example is implicit and open to other interpretations, "But either which way it shows that the term 'Bosnian Genocide; is currently not often used and is (also) used to describe the Srebrenica genocide".

Offensive, but it was my fault. The first para was sufficient but I was too irritated not to add the second and third, which are perfectly valid. Opbeith (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If were were writing this shortly after the United Nations General Assembly resolution 47/121 and the German court cases, then the reliable sources would have followed their lead and if Wikipedia had existed in 1997 an article written then, if based on those sources would have been the sort of article you would like it to be, but since the more recent ICTY and the ICJ rulings, reliable sources tend to follow their lead.

I am sure given you obvious bias in this area if someone was to was to attempt to white wash the Srebrenica genocide article you would argue correctly (and I would be there along side) to say whatever the personal opinions of the person who wished to modify the article in that way that the majority of reliable sources based on the ICTY rulings consider the Srebrenica massacre to be a genocide.

No, it's not bias, it's a point of view which is adequately supported, and while I express my point of view forcefully in the discussion I have not sought to impose it on the article in the way you have yours. I have argued that the article is imbalanced and the way it is structured is counterproductive to the communication of essential information. I am not trying to force the article to say that what happened in Bosnia was genocide. I simply want the article to give adequate consideration to the question of whether genocide may have been perpetrated in Bosnia and examining whether it has been disproved or simply has not been proved. I dislike your practice of distorting my views, which at times verges on the manipulatively deceitful. Opbeith (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that you would, I presume, argue that way for the Srebrenica massacre, why do you insist that we do not write this article so that ir reflects the opinions of the majority of sources? If the judges find against Karadzic in Prosecutor v. Karadzic and rule that "The most extreme manifestations of an intent to partially destroy these groups took place in Bratunac, etc." was indeed genocide, then it is likely that majority the reliable sources will change to give due weight to that majority view. But until that happens this article should reflect the opinions as expressed in the majority of reliable sources.

I think it's reasonable to insist that the article should not simply reflect the opinions of the majority of sources. The article should adequately reflect the overall *balance* of informed opinions, giving more but not undue emphasis to majorities and adequate representation to minorities. (Where coherent and substantiated arguments exist - for example those arguments which challenge the adequacy of the ICJ's examination of the evidence - due weight should be given to them, in the same way that due consideration certainly has been given at the Srebrenica article to those who insist on retaining the primary subject title as the massacre rather than the genocide.) The article should also offer insight into the analysis of basic information on which those opinions are based. Is it so hard to understand that?

I still fail to understand, given you obvious passion for this topic, why you do not write an article on ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. -- PBS (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the issues of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, genocide in Bosnia and the legal findings and opinions of courts and scholars could be adequately covered in a single article on Genocide in Bosnia. Opbeith (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It does seem that PBS could be considered to be engaging in some kind of squeeze play. He is insisting that there can be only one article that refers to genocide in Bosnia, the title of which is "Bosnian Genocide". He then argues that the term is rarely used while at the same time if Opbeith wants to describe what happened in Bosnia that has been considered genocide, he can do it in another article about ethnic cleansing. While PBS has served the article well in insisting one remain true to sources and showing quite convincingly that the majority of legal scholars believe that the ethnic cleansing campaign was not genocide, he seems to be consciously trying to prevent an article that includes what Opbeith has described: "genocide that took place in Bosnia: genocide in Bosnia, allegations of genocide in Bosnia, campaign of genocidal crimes across Bosnia, allegations of genocide against Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and the Bosnian Serb Presidency, genocide in territory claimed by the Bosnian Serbs". One would hope that PBS would agree that if there is to be one article and only one article concerning genocide in Bosnia and if that is this article titled "Bosnian Genocide" that what Opbeith describes would be included in it. As an aside, Fairview360 is of the opinion that the article would be better served by the title "Genocide in Bosnia" as the term "Bosnian Genocide" does feel a bit forced. Moving forward, it would be helpful if PBS would not resist content relevant to genocide in Bosnia. It would also help if Opbeith acknowledges that a majority of legal scholars believe that the ethnic cleansing campaign did not amount to genocide and that the opinion of legal scholars has more weight than what Fairview360 and Opbeith think. While not a priority, would PBS and Opbeith consider changing the title of this article to "Genocide in Bosnia"? Fairview360 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360, my answer is unhesitatingly. All I want is an article that covers the ground adequately - what happened and why it is alleged that happened was genocide, what the legal findings have been and unresolved issues. It seems to me that the title Genocide in Bosnia allows the article the scope that PBS is determined to refuse it (and not the "bias" which he seems to impute as my objective). It would also allow adequate scope for a subsidiary discussion of the spectrum of ethnic cleansing. I have no desire to force the article into conclusions, as PBS misrepresents me wanting to do, simply to have it open enough and balanced enough to reflect the different points of view. Opbeith (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not answered before because I wanted to give the proposal some thought. I do not think that the move away from a name to a descriptive title is desirable, and so for the time being I oppose the move, and would like a more detailed debate with contributions from more editors. So I am reverting the bold move and the change to the introduction, and suggest that the WP:RM mechanism is used to advertise the move and an independent administrator can decide after a week if there is a consensus for the move. -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

Fairview360, I have no disagreement with you at all as far as your first three points are concerned in your last post under "Introduction" above. But the fact is that there is a distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide that enabled the Krajisnik trial chamber to accept as proven a joint criminal enterprise to carry out ethnic cleansing (which is understood as signifying deportation and forced transfer) but not a joint criminal enterprise to carry out genocide. Genocide is only "part of" an ethnic cleansing campaign if it is incidental to it. Ethnic cleansing does not "require" genocide. You are arguing for "occasional genocides", not - as the Krajisnik judges suggested may have happened but did not find proven on the evidence brought before them - an initial campaign of removal that consolidated itself as a campaign of destruction.

It seems to me - simply a personal impression - that you and Philip Baird Shearer have achieved a truce where genocide means what he wants it to mean and ethnic cleansing means what you want it to mean. Both of you are apparently content with the focus of the article remaining the issue of whether genocide can be said to have been proven and there is still no article describing the process alleged to have been genocide in Bosnia.

I would be quite willing to leave the definitions, proofs and incidental references in this article to real events to the two of you in order to help create an article describing the process which has led reliable sources to describe what happened in large areas as genocide in Bosnia. But I can't because Philip Baird Shearer has put a block on "genocide in Bosnia" as an alternative to "Bosnian genocide" and I can't write an article about genocide and the destruction of the non-Serb population under the title "ethnic cleansing in Bosnia", for the reasons I have repeated ad infinitum.

I am not interested in arguing with the pair of you over and over again simply for the sake of it, my interest is to see an article that offers a reasonably intelligent description of the process rather than the present logic-constrained account of the jurisprudence that has so often caused consternation in those like myself who came here expecting something else.

Just before you returned to the scene with your criticisms of my inadequacy, Fairview360, I had suggested to Philip Baird Shearer that he and I had reached the limit of our ability to communicate meaningfully on the subject with one another and I suggested that we needed the intervention of a dispassionate third party. I think you and I are at the same point. I'm not clear how we go about calling in some three-way arbitration but I believe that's what's now needed. Perhaps you or Philip Baird Shearer have some suggestions. I can only think of Jitse Nielsen who even though I didn't always agree with him certainly had my respect as an informed and fair arbiter in Srebrenica genocide/massacre discussions and Aervanath who in spite of making no claim to specific knowledge made what I considered a very fair adjudication over the main title of that article despite my disagreement with his decision. I don't know whether either would be prepared to take on the task but we can but ask. It might even be shared. Do you and Philip Baird Shearer have any comments/suggestions? Opbeith (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith you write "help create an article describing the process which has led reliable sources to describe what happened in large areas as genocide in Bosnia." What are the reliable sources published post the ICJ ruling that "describe what happened in large areas as genocide in Bosnia"? -- PBS (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Go away, PBS. The last time I listed them at your demand, the only notice you took was to ask me whether I'd read them all. You pay no attention to anything that doesn't suit you. I've had more than enough of you. Opbeith (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360's experience with PBS is that he will ignore evidence presented to him, feign confusion where there is none, argue speciously, but if one persists, he will acquiesce. The problem here is that Opbeith throws up his hands and quits in the midst of extensive ranting which makes it difficult to distinguish what exactly his objections are. Case in point, he continues to strenuously argue that there is a distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide while PBS and Fairview360 both presumably agree. So why the rant? Rather than ranting about something that is not in dispute, why doesn't Opbeith simply offer suggested text that can make that distinction. Or use his time actually focusing on the suggested text and demonstrate how allegedly the suggested text does not make or allow for that distinction? Changing "ethnic cleansing campaign" to "the body of crimes committed as part of the ethnic cleansing campaign" allows for that distinction. So, what is Opbeith's objection? Maybe, rather than accusing people around him of conspiring against him, he should simply focus on the text provided and offer alternatives. If he is incapable of doing so, then maybe he ought to quit altogether and stop wasting people's time. Fairview360 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360, I wasn't "accusing people of conspiring", I simply said that you and PBS had achieved a compromise solution that satisfied you both so neither of you were likely to want to change. Just stop being gratuitously unpleasant, it grates just as much as anything you consider me responsible for. I hadn't realised that you were actually agreeing to the change from "ethnic cleansing campaign" to "the body of crimes". You rather lost me in what you were agreeing to and what not. If I was wrong about your position, I apologise and my comments were simply wrong. I felt we were at an impasse because you seemed to be saying you were unwilling to concede the wording "part of the ethnic cleansing campaign" and as a result I felt that we had gone as far in the discussion as we could. But it's getting difficult to talk sensibly to one another. My understanding was that the idea is to try and achieve consensus and when that can't be achieved amicably then someone else needs to be called in to resolve the issue. I don't know about "persisting until people acquiesce". But I don't think there's much scope left for amicable exchange. Opbeith (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith starting a comment with "Go away, PBS" and then complaining about a lack of amicable exchange could be seen as a bit hypocritical. In any case, a focus on actual text to be proposed rather than complaints about tone would be helpful. Fairview360 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for that exasperated response, impatience got the better of me when PBS made the same point that I had answered in a previous exchange, when he was distorting my words and his response to my provision of the information he had required was to ignore it and imply my lack of good faith. However you misinterpret me. I wasn't complaining about the lack of amicable exchange, I was simply acknowledging the reality of the situation. An attempt to focus on what I've actually been saying rather than interpretations guided by your personal animus would likewise be helpful. Opbeith (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's late. I misunderstood the point you were making, Fairview 360. On re-examination it seems that we do disagree. I accept that genocide can be part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. That means that it can be argued that Srebrenica was part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. But that is not what I am saying. Srebrenica was the culmination of a campaign of something that was more than ethnic cleansing, it was genocide. Srebrenica was not a genocidal incident in a campaign of population relocation. The campaign had become one of genocide, not ethnic cleansing, before Srebrenica. The individual crimes of genocide were part of a campaign of genocide, not a campaign of ethnic cleansing. I don't want to put words in your mouth again, but you seem to see genocide/destruction being committed as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing/removal whereas I see ethnic cleansing as being a campaign that may initially have been aimed at removal, with destruction incidental, that at some point turned into a campaign of deliberate destruction to ensure the *permanent* removal of the non-Serb groups from the areas concerned. So we do disagree, as far as I can see. I'm not picking a fight, just saying that there is a substantive difference that separates us. Opbeith (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The ultra-nationalist Serbs committed a particular body of crimes throughout the entire area of their control. That particular body of crimes is referred to by some people and organizations as constituting genocide according to a wider definition of genocide (wider than that chosen by the ICTY) which has been affirmed in a court of law (ECHR) as being consistent with the Genocide Convention of 1948. How does one identify that body of crimes? How does one distinguish that body of crimes from, for example, bank robberies? How does one indicate which body of crimes are being referred to in the term Bosnian Genocide without making a tautology (Bosnian Genocide refers to crimes that were considered genocide.)? One available mechanism for referring to such crimes is the concept of ethnic cleansing. All the body of crimes to which this article refers were committed as part of, or in association with, or in conjunction with, or as evolving from... ethnic cleansing. Opbeith argues that the "individual crimes of genocide were part of a campaign of genocide, not a campaign of ethnic cleansing" and then writes: "a campaign of deliberate destruction to ensure the *permanent* removal of the non-Serb groups from the areas concerned." Hmmmmm... "campaign of deliberate destruction" equals genocide. "permanent removal of the non-Serb groups from the areas concerned" equals what? Ethnic cleansing. So Opbeith argues that genocide is not part of ethnic cleansing and then states in effect that genocide was a means of ethnic cleansing. Rather than getting himself all twisted up in a pretzel over the appropriate distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide, why doesn't Opbeith get on with his stated goal of describing what actually happened which is considered by some to be genocide committed throughout the territory controlled by the BSA? As far as the introductory sentence, if Opbeith wants to say a body of crimes associated with ethnic cleansing, so be it.

If Opbeith wants to achieve his stated goal, cut all the ranting, and actually create concise text that can be added to the article, Fairview360 will support him, but Fairview360 is not going to do the work for him.

Until there is concise text, a viable clear alternative to the current article, there is nothing to present for arbitration except these unfocused rants. Fairview360 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith: "The individual crimes of genocide were part of a campaign of genocide, not a campaign of ethnic cleansing." It seems to have eluded Opbeith that a particular crime could be part of both. The mass murder at Srebrenica was both part of an ethnic cleansing campaign and an act of genocide. One would think that that is such an obvious truth that PBS, Fairview360, and Opbeith could agree on such. Is anyone involved in this exchange going to disagree with this statement: The mass murder at Srebrenica was both part of an ethnic cleansing campaign and an act of genocide. Fairview360 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360, you once again miss the point I'm trying to make. You don't try to see the point I'm getting at, all you see is me apparently contradicting you or being obtuse. Nevertheless, I still hope we can eventually reconcile our points of view. Where we appear to disagree - again I don't want to put words in your mouth, this is my interpretation - is in the relationship of the genocidal crimes, eg the mass murders, to the ethnic cleansing. If these were incidental, then ethnic cleansing is an inadequate description. If you and I can agree, as I still hope we can, that they were a *systematic* rather than an incidental component of the ethnic cleansing campaign then I believe we should eventually be able to reach agreement on the wording. That means that we agree that the ethnic cleansing campaign was by nature genocidal rather than it included occasional individual events that were crimes of genocide like Srebrenica. So the mass murder at Srebrenica was more than just part of an ethnic cleansing campaign and it was more than an individual act of genocide, it characterised the ethnic cleansing campaign, it was not just one episode that was uncharacteristic in being confirmed as a crime of genocide. Do you see what I'm getting at? Can we agree that the ethnic cleansing campaign was characterised by acts of genocide rather than simply included them and that one way or another the wording will reflect that? If we still can't agree on that fundamental issue there isn't any point trying to find a specific form of words. Opbeith (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

One further clarification. The references to "permanent removal" and areas that were homogeneous "under enduring Serb control" were intended to point to the intention to do more than simply remove the population, but to remove them in a way that made sure they would never return. I was trying to distinguish this from the notion of ethnic cleansing limited to deportation / forced transfer. Opbeith (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"You don't try to see the point I'm getting at"... statements like that amount to presumptuous inaccurate whining.

(The following may be incidental for those not interested in misunderstandings between Fairview360 and myself. It may be redundant as Fairview360's latest edit while I was wrfiting this appears to come a lot closer to reconciling our positions. )

Fairview360, deportation and forcible transfer are the essence of ethnic cleansing in its unqualified sense - ie "reversible" ethnic cleansing. Permanent removal is destruction, genocide - ethnic cleansing that has been made "irreversible". The mass murder at Srebrenica was an act of genocide in itself, in relation to the enclave and to the group of the Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks of Eastern Bosnia/the Podrinja, but it was not "part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing" as far as the enclave was concerned, and it was only part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing as far as Bosnia generally was concerned if you are explicit and say that it was part of a campaign of systematic, irreversible ethnic cleansing, not "common or garden" ethnic cleansing involving reversible deportations and forced transfers. Your latest edit suggests we are closer to a mutually compatible interpretation. Opbeith (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The current intro in the current article is in agreement with Opbeith that Bosnian Genocide can refer to the entire campaign carried out within the entire territory controlled by the BSA. The current article states "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer ... to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War.[1]" It does not say random incidental acts of genocide that happened to take place during the ethnic cleansing campaign. It states that the campaign itself amounted to genocide according to a number of authorities and a minority of legal scholars. That means the article is inherently stating that the ethnic cleansing campaign according to some amounted to a campaign of genocidal destruction. Is that not what Opbeith is arguing? That the campaign carried out by ultra-nationalist Serbs against non-Serbs was inherently genocidal? In 1992, in reference to the hostilities in Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly declared ethnic cleansing to be “a form of genocide”. Along those lines, the article states that the term Bosnian Genocide refers to the ethnic cleansing campaign (or the Srebrenica Massacre). The article also does not equate all ethnic cleansing campaigns with genocide. If one says that a particular killing amounted to murder, it is not equating killing with murder. It still allows for alternative interpretations of some killings (manslaughter, self-defense). It is understood that ethnic cleansing and genocide are not synonymous. It is understood that all ethnic cleansing campaigns do not necessarily amount to genocide. However, in the case of Bosnia 1992-1995, according to some, it did. For the record, Opbeith and Fairview360 do agree that there was a systematic body of crimes throughout BiH that amounted to genocide and that the acts of genocide were not incidental but an inherent part of an overall campaign committed against non-Serbs. What matters is the source material. The source material supports what the current intro states. It would also support an expansion of the description of what happened in Srebrenica and what happened throughout Bosnia. It also would support Opbeith's alternative introduction offered below. However, rather than starting from scratch, it would probably be more practical and acceptable to amend the existing introduction.

It remains a bit strange that the article has an existing statement "Bosnian Genocide...refers...to the ethnic cleansing campaign" and Opbeith is wondering if an editor who supports that statement would agree that acts of genocide were characteristic of the campaign. How could the term Bosnian Genocide refer to an ethnic cleansing campaign if acts of genocide were not characteristic of the campaign??? The article is clearly stating that, according to some, the entire campaign is considered to be genocide. How much thought does it take to then conclude that the article is supporting the notion that the acts inherent in the campaign were of a genocidal nature??? Fairview360 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to restate what I have added above: Fairview360, deportation and forcible transfer are the essence of ethnic cleansing in its unqualified sense - ie "reversible" ethnic cleansing. What happened in Bosnia was intended to be more than reversible ethnic cleansing. The permanent removal that the Karadzic indictment refers to means destruction, ie genocide - ethnic cleansing that has been made "irreversible". The mass murder at Srebrenica was an act of genocide in itself, in relation to the enclave and to the group of the Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks of Eastern Bosnia/the Podrinja, but it was not "part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing" as far as the enclave was concerned, and it was only part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing as far as Bosnia generally was concerned if you are explicit and say that it was part of a campaign of systematic, irreversible ethnic cleansing, not "common or garden" ethnic cleansing involving reversible deportations and forced transfers. 1992 was before the meaning of the expression was being discussed in relation to genocide in a legal context. Of course I have no argument with the idea that the UN GA was advancing, that the ethnic cleansing taking place in Bosnia was a form of genocide, but there has been further discussion of the term in the intervening years, particular since crimes of genocide in Bosnia have actually been prosecuted. Murder is a form of killing. Genocide is a form of ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing can be genocide but is not necessarily genocide. Individual local episodes of genocide may be part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing that is not overall genocidal. That all said, of course, while ethnic cleansing in Bosnia might have been simply a matter of persecution, deportation and forced transfer, it was genocide, as numerous reliable sources claim, and it was genocide because it was carried out systematically with the intention that it would not be reversible. I still believe that with regard to the meaning of ethnic cleansing it's important to be unequivocal. We are still talking about the genocide that is argued by reliable sources to have happened but which has not been finally resolved beyond all argument by a specific conviction at the highest level. The bulk of the article in its present form is essentially about why Bosnian Genocide refers to an ethnic cleansing campaign that has not been proven to be genocidal. That is at the origin of all my dissatisfaction with it and the reference to ethnic cleansing unqualified is what leads into that. That's why in my view it is important that it should be absolutely clear that the reason why the expression Bosnian *genocide* is used by the reliable sources and others is because the people using that expression have good reason to believe that the legal requirements for a crime of genocide are met. they are not simply using a loose synonym for lots of killings and deportations that may express a belief but are inadequate to a robust legal challenge.

My querying of the article as a whole had to do with the general balance of the content. I thought the introduction framed the subject in a way that made it more about the legal seal of approval than the narrative of genocide. Simply changing the wording of the introduction does not change the balance of the article. That's why I suggested also inserting the additional text ahead of the discussion of legal status. Opbeith (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith and Fairview360 both agree that the article should include text that describes what exactly happened at Srebrenica and what happened throughout BiH territory which is referred to by the term Bosnian Genocide. PBS has objected, however, such an objection would not survive arbitration as it is inherently absurd. An article that mentions a campaign obviously is worthy of a description of that campaign. Fairview360 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"I still believe that with regard to the meaning of ethnic cleansing it's important to be unequivocal." It is difficult to be unequivocal when using a term that has a range of interpretations. Still Opbeith could propose concise text to be included in the article that defines ethnic cleansing. Fairview360 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360, the reason I prefer to not to include "ethnic cleansing" in the definition is precisely because it is difficult to be unequivocal and concise without coming up with one's own wording, as I have by making the distinction between "reversible" and "irreversible" (for the purposes of the discussion, not in order to introduce that definition into the article - I know the dangers of offering hostages to PBS's strictures against original research). Unfortunately there is no authoritative legal definition of ethnic cleansing. The Norman Naimark text on Ethnic Cleansing I cited before is an informative approach to the issueNorman Naimark, Ethnic Cleansing, Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, [online, published on 4 November 2007, accessed 15 March 2011, URL : http://www.massviolence.org/Ethnic-Cleansing, ISSN 1961-9898]. Naimark notes that "the term ethnic cleansing ... continues to be applied in useful ways to distinguish this “crime against humanity” and “war crime” from genocide, “the crime of crimes.” The definition of genocide, codified in the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948, and upheld in the International Courts formed for the purposes of trying criminals from the wars in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, focuses on the intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group (Schabas, 2000:ch.2). The purpose of ethnic cleansing is the forced removal of a population from a designated piece of territory. Although campaigns of ethnic cleansing can lead to genocide or have genocidal effects, they constitute a fundamentally different kind of criminal action against an ethnic, religious, or national group. The transcripts of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) frequently mention ethnic cleansing, but subsume it under the category of forced deportation, a crime against humanity that was widespread particularly in Bosnia. The courts have not clearly established ethnic cleansing as a category of criminal offense, leaving room for ambiguity about its precise judicial meaning."

But Naimark then goes on to contradict himself. "The Yugoslav cases demonstrate, as do the others, that ethnic cleansing is not just about driving people from their homes. The eradication of their culture, architectural monuments, even burial places is part of the process. Ethnic cleansing is about eliminating entire civilizations from target territories, along with the peoples who represent them. The peoples are forced to leave, and everything is done to make it impossible for them to return."

And in between he describes the spectrum of ethnic cleansing and how "At the other extreme, ethnic cleansing and genocide are distinguishable only by the ultimate intent. ... ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people"". ("Genocide and ethnic cleansing occupy adjacent positions on a spectrum of attacks on nations or on religious and ethnic groups (Naimark, 2001:3; Semelin, 2005:81). At one extreme, ethnic cleansing is closer to forced deportation and what has been called “population transfer.” The idea is to get people to move, and the means used to this end range from the legal to the semi-legal. At the other extreme, ethnic cleansing and genocide are distinguishable only by the ultimate intent. Here, both literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people. Michael Mann, in fact, thinks of genocide as a subcategory of “murderous ethnic cleansing” (Mann, 2005:11). Further complicating the distinctions between ethnic cleansing and genocide is the fact that forced deportation often takes place in the violent context of war, civil war, or aggression. Only in the rarest cases do people leave their homes peacefully."

That's why I said earlier that I was still looking for an appropriate source. I'll get back to the matter as soon as I find an adequate authority. Opbeith (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith is in a very difficult position. He believes it is important that the meaning of ethnic cleansing is unequivocal and yet he knows that the meaning of ethnic cleansing is not unequivocal and that one can not make it unequivocal without being arbitrary. Fairview360 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, if it makes it any easier for you to understand me. If the expression "ethnic cleansing" is used, it's important that the scope and limitations of the term and the problems associated with its use need to be made clear. Is that OK with you? Opbeith (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the introduction, but the body of the article would benefit from one or two well-written, well-sourced paragraphs on ethnic cleansing as it directly relates to the article. Fairview360 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith, for ease of reference I have put in a hidden section heading #List of Sources: Opbeith August 2010 of those sources which source, post 2007, do you think best supports your wish to "create an article describing the process which has led reliable sources to describe what happened in large areas as genocide in Bosnia."? Or if you have another reliable source which better fits you position please produce it. It is very difficult for anyone to agree to changes to the article when you do not produce articles that specifically support the position you are advancing. If it is a common view and not a minor view then there should be lots of sources to pick from. All I am asking you to do initially is show us what you think is the best source. We can then read it and see it it supports your position. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The current indictment against Karadzic supports the point of view that the campaign conducted by the joint criminal enterprise throughout the territory of BIH was genocide. Opbeith does not need to provide any more sources to substantiate that point of view as being fully sourced and not OR.

18. Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians were persecuted on national, political and religious grounds throughout the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thousands of them were interned in detention facilities where they were subjected to widespread acts of physical and psychological abuse and to inhumane conditions. Detention facility personnel who ran and operated the Omarska, Keraterm and Luka detention facilities, among others, including, but not limited to Zeljko Meakic (Omarska), Dusko Sikirica (Keraterm) and Goran Jelisic (Luka), intended to destroy Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat people as national, ethnic, or religious groups and killed, seriously injured and deliberately inflicted upon them conditions intended to bring about their physical destruction. Fairview360 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairview360 can you please provide a convenience link to that page, both for myself and (hopefully) for others who are lurking about. -- PBS (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PBS constantly asks editors to provide him with sources when he has already been provided those sources time and again. The indictment link has already been provided to PBS in an 17:37, 27 February 2011 entry. Fairview360 (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, I'm not clear what you mean by which source best supports my position. It's not a question of ranking. I have told you several times before that the Vice President of the International Court of Justice's dissenting opinion to the ICJ's 2007 Judgment makes the position clear that reliable sources consider what happened in large areas of Bosnia to be genocide. That's a starting point for you. Various other authors, scholars and others support that position, some of them included in the list I provided you with. You've already raised the point that it's a dissenting opinion rather than the judgment itself. That doesn't alter the fact that Al-Khasawneh is a reliable source who says that he believes that the charge that genocide took place also in other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina than at Srebrenica would "in all probability" have been proven if the Court had adopted a different methodology, most notably if it had pursued its right to insist that the unredacted version of the Supreme Defence Council minutes be produced before it. (And he had the support of other ICJ judges.) Opbeith (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But this is a minority view not the majority view, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views (WP:UNDUE)" Why do you want to have the article give more prominence to a minority view that the majority view? -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If PBS wants to shift the topic to whether a point of view is a minority point of view or majority, so be it. However, it is now established that he has been provided with sources and, therefore, if he continues to ask Opbeith for these sources which PBS has already been provided, it would be difficult to describe PBS as acting in good faith. Fairview360 (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)