Talk:Bosnian genocide/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Leading Holocaust Scholar Termed Bosnian Genocide

The leading scholar of the Holocaust and an internationally renowned author of several books, including "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide" and "The Genocidal Mentality: Nazi Holocaust and the Nuclear Threat", agrees that what happened to the Bosnian Muslims "merits the use of the word genocide." He is a recipient of a Nobel Lectureship, the Holocaust Memorial Award, and the Gandhi Peace Award. Since the 1960s, Dr. Lifton has been recognized internationally for his research on genocide. According to Dr. Lifton,

"What's happening there [in Bosnia] merits the use of the word genocide. There is an effort to systematically destroy an entire group. It's even been conceptualized by Serbian nationalists as so-called 'ethnic cleansing.' That term signifies mass killing, mass relocation, and that does constitute genocide." Source: Toledo Blade, "Slavic Horror Termed Genocide" 28 February 1993.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahalom Kashny (talk • contribs) 08:19, 4 December 2010

Opinions expressed before the ICTY and the ICJ judgements are just opinions. We now have legal judgements of what was and was not genocide. Putting in view expressed before those court cases gives undue weight to minority points of views, just as much as putting in views afterwards that the court decisions were wrong because xyz is giving undue weight to minority point of views. The vast majority of reliable sources follow the lead given by the international and local national courts when describing the events as genocides. -- PBS (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Numbers

According to the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo, 97.000 people were killed during the entire War in Bosnia - including Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. 25.000 Bosniak civilians were killed during the war. This much is clear to anyone who has read the article about the Bosnian war. Haris Silajdžić's quote makes no difference because even the ICTY admits that no more than 104.000 people - including Bosniak, Serb and Croats soldiers and civilians - were killed during the entire war. 23 editor (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

However according to the Research and Documentation Center approximately 110,000 died in Bosnia during the war? 30,000 were Serb troops...How are Bosniak combatants excluded from the genocide victims number, which would number then 65,000-75,000 deaths. Simply fighting back, doesnt negate your status as a victim, paticularly when large countries (united States) recognize the "Serbian policies of aaggression" as constituting genocide. To simply say 25,000 would be the lowest estimate possibly concieved, considering 34,000 "civilians" are said to have died according to Wikipedia's own Bosnian War page. When you include Srebrenica, which in the Tolimir judgement, has been connected to the other periods of mass murder. This page merrits a death toll range, because depending on country and definition of combatant changes the death toll which no one has yet to confirm. There are many missing, and the lowest estimate found being presented as fact is VERY misleading, cause if being killed fighting against (what's been stated by a major nation to be genocide), even Jewish combatants in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising wouldn't be considered genocide victims, simply based on their defensive status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.135.135 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is most appropriate, in order to avoid inacurate presumptious information, and the wide range of sources citing different numbers. A range of deaths be established. When we include missing, it is WELL over 25,000, especially if you include those registered as soldiers (who were often civilians registered of benefits). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.135.135 (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the ICTY demographic unit, a maximum of 104,000 people were killed in the war, military and civilian. Military deaths include 16,000 for Bosnian Serbs and 42,000 for Bosniaks, with about 5,000 for Bosnian Croats. Civilian deaths are estimated to be a maximum of 25,500 for Bosniaks, 7,500 for Bosnian Serbs, and 1,990 for Bosnian Croats. I refer you to page 17 of the link provided. http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/War_Demographics/en/bih_casualty_undercount_conf_paper_100201.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

eponymous category

I'm not sure what the topic of the category Category:Bosnian Genocide really is. Is it supposed to hold only the cases covered by the court case or not? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

POV template

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

(For the record, though marked as dating to July of this year, the template appears to go back to November of last year, but was bot-corrected after being vandalized by an IP [1].)

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional source?

This edit added exceptional claim supported by source written by one journalist in 1993. Two years before Srebrenica massacre. Work of this author met both significant criticism and praises. I think that this source does not meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL request. If this important claim remains unsupported "by multiple mainstream sources" within reasonable period of time, say a week, it is better to be removed from the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. No consensus has been shown for moving the article to the proposed target, or to any other target proposed in the discussion. Obviously, there is some contention over whether this event should be termed a "genocide", but there is material in the article which supports the use of that term. It is not an impermissible title, and there is no clear consensus to change it at this time. bd2412 T 15:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide → Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:WEIGHT Երևանցի talk 20:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) The term Bosnian Genocide is not a widely accepted term in academia. The term "Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia" is used almost 10 times more than the term "Bosnian Genocide".

Google Books results

However, this does not mean that the term Bosnian Genocide should be omitted from the article. The ICTY and many experts described the Srebrenica massacre as a genocidal act. As you can see above, the three best known genocides of the 20th century (the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide and the Rwandan Genocide) are used in academia, because a large portion of the Jews, Armenians and Tutsis were exterminated compared to the small minority of Bosniaks that were massacred in the 1990s. Wikipedia should NOT go with the minority view. Many massacres and cases of ethnic cleansing are also called genocides, but the articles go with the most accepted titles: Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia, Ethnic cleansing of Circassians, Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50), etc. --Երևանցի talk 20:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Genocide in Bosnia" rings up 113,000 results so the claim that this is a "minority view" is nonsense. Genocide is not limited to Srebrenica and as the article points out, aside from Srebrenica, Radovan Karadžić is currently on reinstated charges for genocide in several other municipalities. Regarding your assertion that genocide is determined in simply quantitative terms and that a "large portion" of a population must be killed before being considered genocide, the Genocide article notes "what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars" to which the ICTY has stated "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Consider moving this page to "Genocide in Bosnia" then. The numbers talk for themselves (3,590 vs 113,000). --Երևանցի talk 21:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Why opt for a more wordy title and sacrifice conciseness? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME ? --Երևանցի talk 22:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Commonality isn't the only thing to be considered. I note "Genocide in Rwanda" outnumbers "Rwandan Genocide", but again there's no reason to unnecessarily complicate the title. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"Genocide in Rwanda" 55,000 vs. "Rwandan Genocide" 51,400. This is too small of a difference compared to 3,590 vs 113,000. "Genocide in Bosnia" outnumbers "Bosnian Genocide" 31 times!! --Երևանցի talk 23:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"Too small of difference", but not for your second proposal nor for your first proposal? What is the magic ratio? For one, "Genocide in Bosnia" doesn't include the entire country's name (English publications oftentimes simply use "Bosnia" for shorthand, but Wikipedia will require it in full) and I'd argue that "Bosnian Genocide" (Bosnian meaning relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina in English) is more natural than "Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina" to English speakers. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I have to agree that the current title is problematic. The ICTY has only found that genocide occurred in Srebrenica and its environs. There is no consensus among experts that genocide occurred outside that area. This article title effectively chooses one side in this debate and it therefore raises NPOV problems. Neljack (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose apart from anything else there is already an article called Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War to which Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia links. This article is about those who have stated that a genocide took place (eg United Nations General Assembly resolution 47/121). Most (all?) of those statements were made before the ICJ judgement and that is justification enough for this article. -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have not been active in editing this page for some time and I think it is seriously out of balance, but rather than moving it editors should work towards presenting the current information in a similar way to as it was on 11 February 2011 (to take one date as an example). As one example of what I mean: The ICJ made a ruling in 2007 it was covered in Feb 2007 by 2 paragraphs those two paragraphs are still there but an additional 12 paragraphs have been added saying why the ICJ were wrong (with huge quotes of primary sources). This is clearly giving undue weight to a minority POV as the majority of sources in English follow the ICJ's judgement and do not qualify it with these criticisms. So rather than moving this article what it needs is the removal of the craft like those 12 paragraphs (if the 12 paragraphs belong anywhere then they should be moved to the detailed article about the case called the Bosnian Genocide Case). -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the two topics aren't identical and don't deal with the same aspects of the Yugoslav Wars.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This was a genocide. Strong oppose any move removing the word "genocide" 172.56.21.69 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I certainly think the proposed name is more common, and it's clear from the nomination that the nominator isn't engaging in any sort of denialism here. When I hear "Ethnic cleansing" I think Bosnia. The Ethnic cleansing article is pretty wishy-washy about what distinguishes it from genocide, but it is clear that it's most associated with various 1990s conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose No valid reason given in nomination. Google hits is not an accepted reason per WP:GHITS. KonveyorBelt 19:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a misleading shortcut in this case. While Google hits may be a poor argument in deletion discussions, it's a valuable tool (though certainly not the only one) for determining a topic's WP:COMMONNAME, which is entirely appropriate here. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. "Ethnic cleansing" seems to be the terminology that is most widely associated with what happened during the Bosnian War. Also, as another editor pointed out, only the July 1995 massacre of 8,000 Bosniak males in Srebrenica has been officially ruled an act of genocide (by the ICTY in 2004). The title of this article implies that the entire 1992-1995 war was a genocide against the Bosniak ethnic group. --1ST7 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the academic notion is completely independent from "official rulings". If it weren't, I'd be pretty sure we were living in a non-democratic society which would have to bow down to "official authorities". Invoking the 2004 ICTY ruling is also flawed considering additional proceedings investigating genocide in wider Bosnia are ongoing. What is more, in 2005, the United States Congress passed a resolution which declared, as a whole, the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing to correspond to genocide. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The case is clearly made that the proposed title is far more common than the current one, and there's no other real policy reason to avoid it.--Cúchullain t/c 18:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
    There is a very strong policy reason to avoid it. An article called Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War to which Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia links. Therefore a move request is inappropriate, if anything is appropriate it is a merge request. I would oppose that because I deliberately started the Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War so that those incidents during the war which the courts found to be ethnic cleansing but not genocide could be removed from this article, as mixing the two concepts is confusing for those who do not know the difference.-- PBS (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not a policy reason, that's the definition of a personal preference.--Cúchullain t/c 15:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The requester is an obvious POV-pusher judging by his earlier posts in relation to the Bosnian War and atrocities associated therewith, such as this comment made above on the talk page by him/her: Plus, there is no actual evidence that the Bosnian Serb élite systematically exterminated Muslim Bosniaks during the war. There is the Srebrenica massacre, which is a horrible act, however, a massacre in NOT a genocide. I do think that the Western powers, especially the US, are intentionally driving an anti-Serbian policy in order to continue their expansion in Eastern Europe at expense of absorbing the countries around Serbia (Croatia, Albania, Croat-Muslim Bosnia, etc). The ICTY activities don't seem to be very impartial either. Among other things, the requester is ranting about an anti-Serbian (read: Orthodox) conspiracy and refuses to recognize Srebrenica as a genocide (because it is a conspiracy?). I would like to suggest a topic ban for the requester in question with regard to his incessant POV-pushing which is now culminating with a move request (actually an attempt to bury the notion of Genocide ever having been committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Moreover, ethnic cleansing is a general event that occured throughout the war and affected all ethnic groups (already covered in a specific alrticle). Genocide, which ("academically" and "legally" speaking) only Bosniaks are acknowledged to have encountered is an entirely different crime (purely judicially) and indeed represents a certain academic notion which is very prevalent. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 14:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Please stay focused on the subject - the proposed renaming of the article - and not on the editor who initiated the discussion. --1ST7 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice try (: Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would support the title being altered to "Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina" for two reasons: 1) WP:COMMONNAME (discussed above), and 2) it would address the previous concern I mentioned - that the title "Bosnian Genocide" implies that the entire war was an act of genocide. "Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina", on the other hand, can refer to one incident or various incidents. --1ST7 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. "Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina" is a descriptive term only reflecting that the genocide took place in a country called Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereas "Bosnian Genocide" is a distinct noun specifically referring to events occurring in the 90's war. Compare it with renaming the "Bosnian War" article into "War in Bosnia and Herzegovina". Which war? Middle Ages? WWII? Or perhaps 1990s? Also, the ratio between the two on Google books is only roughly 2:1. Opposed. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
What is more, genocide has so far been ruled to have occurred in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia if I'm not mistaken, so either way one looks at it the genocide was clearly comprised of more than just one incident (not least with regard to the 1995 victims being drawn from all over Eastern Bosnia due to their internal refugee status). Or would someone like to advocate the title "Eastern Bosnian Genocide"? Anyway, the name "Bosnian Genocide" is itself already used variably in relation to Srebrenica or the notion of wider genocide. The distinctions are clearly hashed out in the lead as well. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move has been reached. (non-admin closure) — — Music1201 talk 05:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


Bosnian Genocide → Bosniak Genocide – WP:PRECISE – Article editor (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Article editor: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GVG in the Infobox of the Bosnian Genocide

It came to my notice that the Greek Volunteer Guard (GVG), a paramilitary organization which was present in the area where the Bosnian Genocide occurred, was listed in the Infobox of the article as "Participator" into activities such as atrocities and killings, ethnic cleansing, deportations, or even work at concentration camps, but the source do not even mention anything about GVG committing such actions. More precisely, the journalist in the source mentions the presence of this group in the region its notable actions including the raising of the Greek flag, telecommunication support, but nothing about actual atrocities and deportations or even camp concentrations. Am I missing something here? -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bosnian genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bosnian genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate article

Looks like Srebrenica massacre is duplicate article on the same subject Soarwakes (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a duplicate, since this is about the broader time-period, but it may duplicate info unnecessarily. I also noticed that some info is out of date (trials for example). Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bosnian genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bosnian genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

POV?

Here's just one thing I want to present to you. I've searched the best-known genocides on Google Books and look what we have:

And now let's search "Bosnian Genocide" [2], only 3,080 results.

I think that it's simply not accurate to describe the events, during which up to the highest estimates 30,000 civilians were killed, as genocide. For comparison, 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, 1.5 million Armenians during WWI and 1 million Tutsis in 1994.

Plus, there is no actual evidence that the Bosnian Serb élite systematically exterminated Muslim Bosniaks during the war. There is the Srebrenica massacre, which is a horrible act, however, a massacre in NOT a genocide. I do think that the Western powers, especially the US, are intentionally driving an anti-Serbian policy in order to continue their expansion in Eastern Europe at expense of absorbing the countries around Serbia (Croatia, Albania, Croat-Muslim Bosnia, etc). The ICTY activities don't seem to be very impartial either. --Երևանցի talk 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a comment more than two years ago (diff) about this article being a content fork and maybe even WP:POVFORK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The only absurd phenomenon around here are the two comments above, I believe its called genocide denial: genocide is not solely a quantitative matter but also a qualitative one. Anyways the comment is completely POV, coming from an Armenian user, who I suspect, sympathizes with the Serb cause through religious bonds and their own conflict with the Muslim Turks. If only genocide cases were settled by the number of hits on "Goggle Books" the imperialistic anti-Orthodox ICTY would have a much simpler task ahead of them. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, I'm an atheist and don't have any "religious bonds" with the Serbs. I'm simply interested in the history of the Balkans. And before making accusations of genocide denial, you should read Armenian Genocide denial first. The fact that the killings of hundreds of thousands of Serbs during WWII is entitled World War II persecution of Serbs, while the killing of some 10,000 Bosniaks is entitled Bosnian Genocide, makes me think how biased this article and its title is. --Երևանցի talk 06:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Re World War II persecution of Serbs, I recently found an article (link) which explains this position of the Croatian history curriculum. It is disseminated trough the history text books and systematically embodied in the articles on wikipedia. Chetniks and their crimes are depicted in an especially cruel and detailed manner while far more systematic actions of the Ustasha are, on the contrary, described simply as the "persecution of Serbs". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
That was a very interesting article. I mean, every country does history revisionism and it's normal to expect that from countries that have been involved in a major conflict just 20 years ago. My point is that Wikipedia should stick to WP:NPOV.
Also, I'd like to point out that nobody here (at least not me) denies the massacre of innocent Bosniaks. One should be mentally ill to deny the facts. --Երևանցի talk 20:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@Yerevantsi: I'm very curious about your current thoughts.
What do you think about the murder of more than 10 million Congolese ("Atrocities in the Congo Free State") under the Kingdom of Belgium colonialism? Is there a bias such as naming of "World War II persecution of Serbs"? --Esc2003 (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposals for revision

The genocides taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina is becoming an important chapter in the canon of genocides. The present article does not provide a coherent narrative on this topic, and is mostly a recitation of legal findings made by the various international court and tribunals.

Any persistent effort to improve this article faces two issues:

1) there are debates on whether the violence against the Bosnians can indeed be considered genocide, as opposed to ethnic cleansing, or even armed conflict. While the massacre at Srebrenica has been found to constitute genocide, such legal findings have not been made for parallel conflicts taking place in other regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

2) There is an overlap in this topic, and some of the subject matter covered in this article as been covered somewhat by the articles on Srebrenica massacre, Bosnian genocide, Bosnian war and Yugoslav Wars.

However, I do see that there is lack of precise treatment on this topic in all of the other articles, which is not unreasonable as those articles deal with a broader subject matter.

Given the above observations, I make the following suggestions, and invite input from fellow editors on this suggestion:

A. Rename the article from "Bosnian Genocide" to "Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina"

B. Commence a thorough overhaul of this article. The article should be updated, and given a coherent yet neutral perspective and narrative, that is consistent with the newly proposed title

I'd also like to know if there is any other editor out there who support my suggestions and is interested in working on this together with me.

Let me know, thanks all. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_genocide/Archive_9&oldid=1163135404"