Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Denial (and scepticism?)

Could people stop edit-warring about what that section should be titled. Speaking for myself, I agree that the content is about more than "outright denial", there are shades and nuances, such as people who do not deny mass-murder and war crimes, but who believe that 'genocide' is not the apt name for one reason or another, through to people who deny that anything 'wrong' or illegal occurred at all. It is particularly absurd to label people 'deniers' who held an opinion before international trials reached conclusions, but even after such trials, disagreeing with a court's conclusion is a normal part of democratic discussion and such opinions should be presented neutrally. Court decisions are not handed down from Mount Sinai. HOWEVER, I also think for wholly stylistic reasons "Denial and scepticism" is 'clunky' and doesn't make clear the nature of much of the scepticism - which is often about legal or common definitions of 'genocide', rather than about the material facts concerning the mass-murder.

Therefore, on balance I'm quite happy that the section have the simpler - generic - title (Denial) - or some other - AS LONG AS the text within is explicit about what each person's opinion is, and as long as we are not labelling these people 'genocide deniers' in WP:VOICE. As long as that condition is met, I don't see it as a PoV matter either way. Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

What may be of interest is that there is a very extensive history on this matter, and the title has changed countless times. Here is what I have found:

The subject was introduced on 29 October 2004. This is the earliest incarnation of the subsection, when the article was barely three months old at the time.

The details were moved onto their own section on the same day which the editor titled "Alternative views".

After 11 years of changing the title constantly to include "controversy", "Serb nationalist version" and "revisionism" among others - though never I should add "denialism" by itself - The version J.O picked was formed as such on 14 July 2015 and made to replace "controversy".

Sans consensus or even rudimentary concertation, Santasa brazenly removes "sceptisism" so as to present the entire spectrum as "outright denialism" with a sarcastic summary. Welcome to the latest batch of problems where everyone else is being branded a "POV pusher".

From my perspective, I do not resolutely stand by the version I have restored so many times. I am happy for any one of a wide range of options to make the final cut, but not "denialism" by itself, and similarly not daft trashtalk "Serb nationalist views" or the equally loaded "denialism and revisionism". But for how it has stood 99% of the time, "alternative views", "controversy" etc, I am more than happy. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to 'Denial", but "alternative views" is uncomfortably reminiscent of "alternative facts" - ie falsehoods. Any title has to recognise that genocide in Srebrenica has been ruled to have occurred and it is pretty much accepted by all WP:RS that mass murder occurred - even by many of those that dispute that genocide is the apt legal label. Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Well by all means keep "denialism" in the title, but I'm just saying it doesn't need to stop there and so abruptly at that. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Section title is appropriate to its content. There are no "alternative view(s)" as part of "democratic debate(s)" - one who tries that argument with the Holocaust denial, or the Armenian genocide denial, etc, would find out that there is no legitimate "sceptics" among deniers. There are those who accept massacre as it happened is genocide, and those who do not, there are no "skepticism". Attempt to water down and whitewash existence of the phenomenon by sneaking in ambiguous and misleading wording like "skepticism", "alternative views" and so on, into our project - whether be it Bosnian, Armenian, Greek, Rwandan genocide (denial) article, it doesn't really matter - is to imply that there is genuine and democratic debate on genocide which is exactly part of the problem. This kind of bizarre rationalization and justification would never be possible if we hadn't suffered significant departure outpour of editors from this topic(s). Now, I wonder, what else should we expect after Juicy Oranges openly addressed to Coldtrack and announced in their edit-summary Coldtrack, please leave the article in this very condition and trust me, I know what I am doing. I will message you shortly. Really!? Not that I am surprised, but next time when I say that you are tag-teaming to avoid scrutiny and 3RR, and assert your POV, don't to deny it. Meatpuppetry can get equally disruptive as socking, if and when it gets in the way of reaching consensus and NPOV. And latest Coldtrack edit is followed by another personal attack in edit-summary, labeling me and my edit as "Troll, vandalism".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

With regards TAGTEAM. Utter bullshit. He did indeed message me seconds after making the edit in question. I gather he didn't want me to revert him so his action is legit. Second of all, you have given your flawed opinion on what the title should be, and to date you are the one and only editor who has pushed for such a name despite a good dozen titles since its inception in 2004. With regards Rwana, Armenian etc. To each their own. Yes there are deniers to each, and yes there are sceptics regarding the official narratices to each. Now where you're concerned, Mladen Grujičić , William Schabas and Efraim Zuroff do not deny the massacre, and neither did many others who were removed from the list down the years, and on that note, if I find that any wre removed improperly and are supported by so-called "reliable sources" and the links are not dead, I resolve to restore them. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You say you would restore inappropriate removal of deniers if so-called "reliable sources" support the claims, even though you label reliable sources "so-called" and put them in italic. Such a way of labeling sources provided in the article does not offer any confidence. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Well now you're just whimpering. Your statement is a departure from your claim, and I've already explained my position to you on why I frame my wording in certain ways. --Coldtrack (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

PS. "As far as I know, what happened [in Srebrenica] does not [fit] the description or the definition of genocide. I think the decision to call it genocide was made for political reasons. Obviously a tragedy occurred, innocent people lost their lives and their memory should be preserved." -Zuroff. That is not denialism. I agree with J.O that WP:CIR is an issue where you're concerned. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Santasa99, your Holocaust/Armenia analogies are nonsense. The 'dust has settled' and there is almost zero disagreement about broadly what happened or why in the case of those two events. Even so, legitimate sources disagree between about 5.25 and 6.2-ish million deaths for the holocaust (if I remember the figures correctly) and disagreee about whose deaths should be included. They also disagree about substantive details iro Armenia. Because the Bosnian court rulings were quite novel interpretations of international law (localised adult-male-only 'genocide' in the case of Srebrenica) - then there has been legitimate debate about what to call some of these events - especially debate that occurred prior to the various court rulings! Just as importantly WP:RS do not accuse some of these named persons of being 'genocide deniers', only of questioning the definitions employed, not the events that occurred. Others clearly, and rightly, are called 'deniers'. I know of no person who has ever said that over 5.25 million people were killed in the holocaust, but, for some reason, it isn't legally appropriate to call the holocaust 'genocide'. If they did, it would be up to the bulk of WP:RS, not WP or single sources to label them 'genocide deniers'. The consequence of making everyone who has ever disagreed with the definitions employed equally 'guilty', is that the article becomes less informative about exactly what people have disagreed about - there are simply 'goodies' and 'baddies' and WP editors take it upon themselves to decide which is which.

WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not optional and have not always been adhered to by you, so you're on shaky ground when accusing others. Pincrete (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about denial, not discussion if there were this or that number or are victims' hands were tied with wire or given tap on the shoulder, that kind of discussion is not denial nor skepticism about the genocide, you are stretching - to repeat, debates on numbers, means of killing, and such, are not skepticism about the genocide, there is no skepticism in any of the examples, and there is nothing nonsensical in comparing genocide with another genocide, or genocide denial with other genocide denial. Yes, I agree, we decide if RS are relevant and legitimate, if they are sufficient, and then we explain denial and include deniers per those RS.

If you are referring to me, I am not on shaky ground, I was labeled troll and my edit vandalism in edit-summary, and that's where WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not optional should be directed. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Try addressing the issue at hand which is three of us have now told you that the section deals with more than plain denialism. Either explain why you believe Zuroff is a "denier" and which source says he is, or redress the title to reflect the contents. --Coldtrack (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Coldtrack, I haven't been saying quite the same thing actually and am not opposed to the denial heading - as long as the text within is clear and accurate and neutral. Santasa99 you manage to miss the point entirely. Various different things are disputed in many 'genocidal events'. In the Pol Pot killings in Cambodia, the label genocide is disputed since the target group were mainly a social class, not an ethnic group. With the Uighurs in China, the term genocide is disputed since the mass incarceration affects the birth-rate and viability of the group, but mass-killing isn't involved. With Srebrenica/Bosnia, as well as some people who claim no mass killing took place, there are others who acknowledge massacre/war crimes, but believe, or did believe that 'genocide' is not the apt label, since only military age men from a specific locale were targeted. Comparing those who dispute legal definitions iro Bosnia, (or Cambodia or China) to people who willfully disregard the historical events of the holocaust (or even Srebrenica) IS ridiculous. Pincrete (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No I fully grasp your entire point and didn't misrepresent you. Note also that there is a difference between "denial" and "denialism", the latter being flagrantly loaded. Thankfully, nobody to date has advocated the latter though one certain individual would jump at it if not for his CIR affliction, because that is exactly what he means when he claims "denial", and bestows this label upon anybody who does not swallow the mainstream narrative unconditionally detail by detail, word for word. What you are saying, and what I have meant regarding you up to this stage, is that you identify the current list of items as denial + additional. That is however you dice it up. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Where we stand

@Pincrete:, do you actually agree with my latest rv - first simple yes or no; and do you agree, just from logical standpoint, that denial and skepticism don't live in the same universe because they are simply a contradiction. It is separate but maybe even more important fact that we don't use examples without clear distinction in sources, we simply don't list here those where expression of uncertainty or reluctance exists, which some people could equate to skepticism. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My position is a bit more nuanced than that and I refuse to respond to your opening sentence. But, as stated above, I don't object to the section being called 'denial', as long as the content accurately reflects each person's views - including that there's no point in calling people 'deniers' if the bulk of sources don't. In fact there's not much point in calling people 'deniers' anyway, but that's a stylistic concern, not a content one. Two of my objections to the 'denial & scepticism' is that it doesn't make clear what people are doubting and 'genocide scepticism' isn't really a thing. IMO being sceptical about whether genocide is the apt term, but not denying that a massacre occurred is a legitimate position, and was even more so before the court rulings, but the section title you reverted from is simply unclear IMO. Pincrete (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

In other words, yes, you agree that skepticism has no place along denial in title, but you, either believe that questioning term "genocide" is legitimate because you think it doesn't fit, or because you believe it is a simple matter of free speech for researchers and public to question if term is applicable or not, or both, or something in-between - I am not sure so I leave it at that, because ultimately it doesn't matter. In "denial and skepticism", skepticism part can't ever be clarified in terms you are looking for simply because, in context of evidence and logic, it is an oxymoron, or better yet, an euphemism used to promote fallacy that "skepticism" can be legitimate way of questioning genocide and Holocaust (or just like you noticed here at some point about "Alternative views" being extension of "Alternative facts") "Skepticism" in applicability of term is rare and legitimate kind is usually traced back to genocide scholars debating about very specific topic, namely that of genocide definition and convention, not specific cases, especially cases that two international courts were ruled upon - but we don't dwell on those examples kind of debates anyway, and that kind of skepticism debate usually does not attach itself to a specific cases unless it is deeply ideological (like "reports" ordered and people paid to write them by Republic of Srpska). Anyway, thanks for the reply and please, don't take my first "yes or no" disposition personally, I just wanted to know if you agree or object my rv as an editor. Thanks, and see you around. (Some reads:Science and the Public: Debate, Denial, and Skepticism; When a sceptic isn’t a sceptic) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Scepticism ??

I've just reverted to a (fairly) stable version that precedes recent edits. As made clear above, on balance I think that adding 'scepticism' to the title does more to confuse than clarify, BUT I find the removal of it in the opening para to be wrong. This opening para is a good summary of the section and the word 'scepticism' apt and the change to 'denial' here grammatically and logically wrong. (Denial about the massacre has ranged from … … to the denial of a massacre ?)

Scepticism about the massacre has ranged from challenging the judicial recognition of the killings as an act of genocide to the denial of a massacre having taken place. The finding of genocide by the ICJ and the ICTY, has been disputed on evidential and theoretical grounds. The number of the dead has been questioned as has the nature of their deaths. It has been alleged that considerably fewer than 8,000 were killed and/or that most of those killed died in battle rather than by execution. It has been claimed that the interpretation of "genocide" is refuted by the survival of the women and children.

Also while I understand the logic of removing the various 'examples' at the end of that para, doing so leaves the whole para unreffed. Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Pincrete, I don't mind you make these additions as long as it's done properly: 1) if we stop using term "skepticism" (sowing "doubt" and "skepticism", is proven method in forming revisionist narrative - it is transparent euphemism used to legitimise denialist discourse and keep discussion going). Thus, we can choose from wide array of terms to start that sentence or to finish it: "Denial about the massacre has ranged from …bla,bla,bla … to even negating that massacre ever happened.", would be apt way to start and finish that sentence without using a term which sources do not mention. 2) If you really think that mentioned examples are good addition, then why they are not placed in their proper sub-section "Examples" and is left outside in a section's intro conflated with summary explanation of denial; in addition, they are refed with a source which denying established facts and is Serbian regime's main media outlet. This makes that reference incompatible with WP:RS anyway, so para is still poorly refed to say it mildly. After all, if we can't provide better RS describing that event in Belgrade, than we should avoid mentioning it, and if we can, than we should place event as an example under the "Examples" sub-section. Is this sound reasonable? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Not denial. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Juicy Oranges, I agree that the Zuroff example isn't (genocide) denial (denial that the event occured), but it isn't (genocide) scepticism either - whatever (genocide) scepticism is. I'm inclined to agree with Santasa99, that without qualification, as a section title, it doesn't really communicate anything and comes across as euphemistic. In the para, it makes sense, covering a range of 'doubting', from doubt about the apt term through to use to outright denial that anything 'bad' happened at all, which is the range of doubting to denial that the section covers.

Santasa99, it's a good intro to the subject IMO, a summary. How to ref it is another matter, I'm not going to 'ban' a word in a sentence in which it is used rationally and replace it one which makes little sense (and is ungrammatica btw 'denial of' not 'denial about') just because the word can be misused to legitimise denialist discourse, because it doesn't have that effect HERE. It could be said to do so in the section title, where its meaning is unclear. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete. How do you propose we augment the title to include the two or so cases where "denial" does not suffice? I'm open to new thoughts. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this denial. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not a denial that a crime occurred, I believe he makes that explicit elsewhere that a massacre - mass murder- occurred in pursuit of 'ethnic cleansing'. But it is based on a traditional definition of 'genocide', which he thinks is an attempt to wipe out a whole race. So you tell me? What's the yes/no answer? I have never understood the logic that cruelly and systematically, seperating, then humiliating and terrifying, then murdering around 8 thousands civilian men, then doing your best to hide your lousy deeds is somehow downplaying or 'whitewashing', but if you give that crime a different 'label', the 'whitewashing' goes away. Pincrete (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if I get this part after the question mark, so I will stick with a first part before the first question mark: the problem of semantics (and definition) should be avoided as we are encouraged to let the sources speak for themselves, so when we encounter a scholar, even if he's Jewish expert on Holocaust, who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept, agree, acknowledge that International consensus of on the application of a label "genocide" exist among governments, judiciaries, academics, we should listen what sources say. It's not that by acknowledging "crimes" and refusing to label them genocide he does nothing of especially bad - consequences of such denial are profound. The best replies to him on this issue are those made by Rosensaft and Brezar - when he denies labelling it genocide, he refuses to acknowledge existence of intent, ideological and political premeditation. That's not some innocuous academic dilema, it is denial that one party planned in advance and executed that plan of destruction of another. Not to mention how "ethnic cleansing" is also euphemism coined or at least popularized during and after Bosnian slaughter, so it is quite a cynical to hear it from him. Gideon Grief is much nastier character, but that's another story. I encourage you to check articles in Haaretz with queries "bosnian genocide", "srebrenica", "srebrenica massacre", "srebrenica genocide". Most of discussion are tagged under "holocaust denial" so I can't give you link with a list of articles, you will need to search these queries if you are interested. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That's an argument for another kind of section - in which only those people who are specifically and generally described as genocide deniers are included, or in which accusations are attributed. Some of the minor figures would go because there would be insufficient coverage. We would be cast in the roles of judges as to who/what was genocide denial, rather than simply record what people have said.

That's a possible way to go, but would have disadvantages IMO. We would necessarily have stricter criteria for inclusion.

Most genocides and most similar events have areas of controversy - there are plenty of people who acknowledge what Pol Pot did in Cambodia, but don't think 'genocide' is the apt term, since the target group were a social, not an ethnic group. Half the discussion on the Uyghur genocide article is about whether the term is apt and is supported by the majority of sources, since no one has been murdered AFA we know. There is both legitimate and very dubious dissent in all these incidents. As long as we are accurately representing people's views, and where apt those who disagree, I don't see the problem. We are a depository of knowledge, not a campaign or research group. It is unrealistic to think that anyone who disagrees with a court's verdict (especially on technical grounds) is automatically committing a heinous sin IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Juicy, I don't have a name that properly covers the range, but since it isn't called 'genocide denial', I've always felt I could live with any 'error' as long as the text within the section is very clear and explicit about what each person questioned or 'doubted' or denied. Pincrete (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Denial and Alternative Analysis? --Juicy Oranges (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You mean like, let's describe and give legitimacy and a wikivoice to those spreading "Alternative Analysis" against the facts established by at least three international courts of law (ICTY, ICJ, German court) plus one domestic, most world governments and vast majority of international academia? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean "like, let's describe" how there are 13 entries and not every one is a case of denial. Try addressing your challenges instead of recoiling every time. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Which case is not, in your opinion? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My "opinion" doesn't come into play. The opinions of Carlos Martins Branco & Efraim Zuroff however don't meet the description of denial. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Juicy, they are all denying something. Some are denying that any massacre occurred, some are denying that the number killed was any greater than the number of Serb civilians killed in surrounding areas, some are denying that those killed were (mostly) unarmed Bosniak civilians. Finally some (largely} accept almost everything about the numbers and manner of killing, but don't accept that the term 'genocide' is apt for legal/historical reasons. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Put it like that, you could say they are all affirming something, albeit something different each time, therefore everybody who stands by the full narration could be said to be the deniers. The list of names do not constitute a nexus. Each one speaks his own mind based on his own circumstances. Therefore, to summarise them collectively, they are sceptics except for one or two who deny the article's key narrative jedan kroz jedan. I can't say that last bit in English. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this whole furore a bit overblown? There's the more important topic of Bosnian genocide denial, but here, some of what we have is just bickering over terminology. A single massacre is not normally called a genocide, and you don't normally have a genocide within a genocide, or at least certainly not divided up geographically. The genocide that this massacre pertains to is the Bosnian genocide. It's completely appropriate for experts to raise their eyebrows at this use of the terminology for a specific massacre within a genocide. A genocide is a systematic extermination of a population as an applied policy, and this was a discrete event. So that element is less denial, more debate. Wikipedia uses massacre ... is Wikipedia in denial? The section on denial should be reserved for those examples of denial of the facts of the massacre, not purely terminological disputes. Now obviously, in the mix, we also have Serbian politicians saying there was no genocide, and they are often making those statements in a pointy way that denies not just the terminology but the realities of the massacre. The massacre is still 'an act of genocide', whichever way you slice it - here the main act of this genocide, and Serbian politicians often seem to deny just the terminology but the very notion that it was 'an act of genocide' on any level (as well as any sort of sense of Serbian culpability). But we shouldn't be rolling up experts and uninvolved individuals simply debating terminology with this. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, that's an argument for limiting the scope, which I am not necessarily opposed to, though it does have disadvantages IMO. Apart from the outright 'deniers' and the legal 'quibblers', you also have fairly substantial numbers of people who 'downplayed' the event before or when the word 'genocide' was first introduced into discussion, and when facts/numbers were still not fully established, certainly before court verdicts. Can you 'deny' something before either scholastic/world opinion has settled, or courts have ruled on an event? Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think either a tweak of the scope or a split of the section by subsection is required. At the moment we have terminology quibblers mixed in with those that use terms such as 'hoax' and 'pseudo-massacre' - these terms are pretty obnoxious to use in the context of human tragedy, and this type of comment clearly falls into a more malign and vociferous category of skepticism. But as it stands, as a reader, it's hard to make much sense of any of it. The example are too long, and the list format isn't helping. The entire section could do with moving towards more encyclopedic and digestible prose. Surely a natural sub-section here would be 'Serbian skepticism/denialism' versus other types? There are basically two kinds of voice here, Serbian ones and international ones. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323. Thanks for coming along and thanks for your input. It's refreshing to hear more voices at long last after the "same four" (me included) have all been at each other's throats for months now. Just one thing to get out of the way, you say verbatim Surely a natural sub-section here would be 'Serbian skepticism/denialism' versus other types?. I have no idea whether Pincrete and Santasa99 speak English as a first language, and if you heard my voice, I don't either. I'm told I sound like Sergey Lavrov with the tone of Ivan Drago. Anyhow, nobody to date have ever: inserted onto the article in edit wars, or advocated on talk otherwise, the concept of denialism. Denial is one thing, e.g. I deny the world is flat. Others do not have to. The concept of "denialism" carries the loaded presupposition that the "denialist" is delusional since he is in denial of something that is demonstrably empirical, e.g. "I deny November having 30 days" (which I don't). Now Pincrete I cannot comment on as it would be unfair, but I get the feeling that Santasa99 if knowing this would actually prefer denialism because of how he has cultivated "academia", etc. Now that's a debate for which I have a stockpile of rebuttals, but it would shift the tectonic plates of this purely microcosmic element, because you also rightly aver, the Bosnian Genocide is the key macrocosm here. Unfortunately, that article is also a mess. First, there are terminology deniers there as well. Second, the clamouring of multiple editors to add their own voices has inadvertently (perhaps) blurred the distinction between Srebrenica (microcosm) and Bosnian Genocide (macrocosm). Then on top of that, there wasn't one genocide but three, because the trusted international agencies have reported all three main ethnic groups systematically killed by all opponent factions over three years across the wider area. There is also one outlier: people forgot that Muslims fought one two opposing fronts. So where loyalists of Izetbegović and Abdić traded fire, the civilian victims in both cases, while still constituting a Holy Mess, aren't instances of "genocide". Regarding the other two, it is more accurate to refer to genocides (plural). So back to the issue at hand. As long as you realise that 1) it is denial without -ism, and 2) it is not confined to Serbs (i.e. Serbian denial), then I give full support to your proposal of splitting the sections and rewriting the overtures, using denial for the bulk and scepticism for the remainder. I agree also that the word "Debate" serves as a good header with denial and scepticism forming sub-headers. Any thoughts? --Juicy Oranges (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

there wasn't one genocide but three, because the trusted international agencies have reported all three main ethnic groups systematically killed by all opponent factions. What you are arguing for is the wholly WP:OR position, that WP:RS and international courts have concluded that there is equivalence, either in number or in manner, between killings, actions or results between the three groups. Nor in subsequent trials. Certainly individually large numbers from all ethnic groups suffered, and all groups 'behaved badly' and there may be many 'forgotten victims' but only one 'genocide' has been recognised legally. Pincrete (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't got time now to scour the web for sources that acknowledged that Croats and Serbs were also victims of genocide at the hands of the Muslims in the Bosnian War, but that's a subject for the sister article. The Genocide Convention has a very low bar by the way. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit that it is not easy to come up with appropriate section headers to embrace this very disparate collection of examples. Debate is not so good, because it implies two sides. That's not what we have here. I'm also inclined to push back on the notion that there isn't a distinct Serbian voice - five of the 12 examples are Serbian denials (and Serbian denial on this is well-known I think), but I'm not going to insist on a subhead along those lines. Might I suggest a header something more along the lines of "Points of contention" or "Ongoing contentions" - under this, the current intro on skepticism would still work relatively well as an intro (or under a "Skepticism" subhead). Beneath this could go the subhead "Denial", for the outright denials, and then "Other perspectives", for the likes of Lewis MacKenzie, who is offering a largely military perspective and assessment of events, and William Schabas, who is offering an expert and strictly legal opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

All that you suggested is POV and OR. Unless we can get damned strong RS per WP:EXTRAORDINRY which describing any of the individual examples or phenomenon of denial, negation, revision and whitewashing as a whole in terms and categories such as "skepticism", "contention(s)", "other perspectives", "alternative perspectives", "alternative facts" and such, then we could re-think entire affair of shaping this article, and any other case of denial described by the English Wikipedia project. The international consensus is well established among governments, judiciaries, vast majority(!) of academics on two main things: 1) on application of the label genocide, based on judiciously established facts, which implies intent and premeditated planing and preparations and subsequent attempts to hide all traces; 2) on what happened, why it happened, how and to which extent, who is perpetrator, and so on. All subsequent attempts to describe it somewhat differently from established facts is also regarded by governments, judiciaries, and academics, that is, we have vast bibliography on who denies, how, why, etc.; we have governments' declarations and academic papers written in condemnation of denial and criticism of denialist and revisionists arguments. What we don't have is anyone interested in accepting denialist and revisionists arguments. Henceforth, we should not give a wikivoiice to any of the "alternative perspective" because it is absolutely WP:UNDUE, and even more importantly, we, as far as I know, simply don't do such a thing in this project. Here's now one concrete example - Lewis MacKenzie - we have lots of strong RS describing him as denier but non describing him as a figure "offering a largely military perspective and assessment of events", just a benign analyst giving benign analysis, indeed. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

However, there is one other thing which Iskandar and Pincrete noticed - the scope of this section. It could be problematic because we have this article and Bosnian Genocide article, and we have conflation of two events not only in wikipedia but outside of it as well. Maybe we should consider filtering out inclusion into this section on this ground. But we should be extremely careful, because in revisionist discourse, we rarely encounter distinction between Srebrenica and broader genocide Bosnian genocide as established at ICJ.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

On a brief note of clarification, I did not suggest "alternative facts/perspectives" as headers. On the subject of generating non-judgmental titles that cover a broad range of examples, there is an element of WP:COMMONSENSE, which is also policy. That section title, as it stands is both inaccurate and POV. William Schabas is not a genocide denier; he is a genocide subject-matter expert. In fact, he has been described as "the world expert on the law of genocide and international law." His voice alone is testament to the notion that opinions can vary on the matter without incurring automatic censure as a genocide denier. I would suggest that if you don't like any of the changes I suggested regarding an alternative arrangement of headers and section divisions, you are welcome to suggest other alternatives. The idea of filtering out some of the entries based on them applying more broadly to the Bosnian genocide is not a bad one though. I note that at present, neither the example beginning "Serbian politicians..." nor the Lewis MacKenzie one mention Srebrenica in their current wording - both are worth double-checking. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal not to use judgemental title and subtitle should be raised with a wider English Wikipedia community, say at Village Pump maybe, because it concerns our project's common practice, which is reflected in articles concerning Bosnian genocide - this can be scrutinized by checking any of the examples under Category:Genocide denial. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, and certainly as others have pointed out, this is not the Bosnian genocide article, this is the Srebrenica massacre page, so what exactly constitutes denial in this context? Denial of separately calling the Srebrenica massacre a genocide, when sources clearly disagree on that and our page here is not called that? Denial of the numbers involved? Or denial of a massacre entirely? There is no way in which you can have a title of 'denial' here and not have unreasonable ambiguity. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Look, I am not sure that RS make much or any distinction. If they do, we should certainly take it into careful consideration. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about Schabas - I had no problem removing him already once from the list of characters on the suggestion of Calthinus, however not because Calthinus described him as "genocide subject-matter expert", but because Calthinuse arguments were persuasive enough and grounded in sources. There are few other mostly Israeli genocide experts who openly denied this genocide, and for that they were described by the majority of their peers as deniers, for which we use RS for confirmation, of course, as we always should let RS talking. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323. I fully support this proposal. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, I'm not quite sure what you are saying about Mackenzie - this is what he had to say in 2009: "Canadians went in first, replaced by the Dutch. By this time,there were inadequate resources to do what they supposed to do in Srebrenica. The Bosniangovernment infiltrated fighters. They went out of Srebrenica and started raping andmurdering their way through local Serb villages. The Serb commander who was a bully,Radco Miladvic,said ‚Enough of this‛and went in and created a massacre.Probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2000 men and boys were slaughtered –the initial figure was 8000 but an awful lot showed up and voted in the next election.Nevertheless, it was a war crime,it was a massacre. I don’t consider it a genocide which is controversialbecause if you are committing genocide,you don’t put all the women and children on buses and send them off to a safe have ontheir side of the borderwhich is what the Serbsdid.You kill the women first when you’re committing genocide because you are trying to removea section of that particular culture." I knew that he said much the same shortly after the war, but not that he still maintained the same thing in 2009. Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't saying a lot. I just noted that it didn't specify Srebrenica in the text currently present on the page, and needed doubled checking (from my perspective, but, you know, hours in the day), which you seem to have done for me. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, I'm not sure what is being proposed at present. I don't see any advantage in 'highlighting' Serb denial, unless that is being covered as a distinct topic in text, which is possible. BTW I suspect you mean Serb (the ethnic group) rather than Serbian (the nationality), since many of the most intransigent 'deniers' are actually from the Serb entity in Bosnia. Having a quick look, I can only see two cases (Schabas and Zuroff) of the 'quibblers' - people who broadly accept a massacre, don't dispute numbers significantly, but dispute the aptness of the 'genocide' rulings. I've no objection to separating people of that kind, so long as the text within is clear about what is disputed and as long as the section heading is reasonably clear. There are also people - such as the Srebrenica mayor - who say there was no genocide, but avoid saying what they think DID happen. Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I meant ethnically Serbian. As I said above, I'm not that fussed about highlighting that. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This one is dead simple:

• Official narrative: over 8,000 were killed in act of genocide.
• Claim 1: "the massacre never occurred" (thereby no genocide) = denial
• Claim 2: "a genocide occurred but the number falls short of the 8,000+ claimed" = scepticism
• Claim 3: "Yes 8,000+ were killed, but it doesn't amount to a 'genocide' because..." = scepticism

That's about it. --Vrhunski (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Claim 2 would almost certainly be called 'denial' by any serious commentator - if they claim that the number is significantly lower than 8,000 and they offer no evidence to back up their claim. Claim 3 is denial that the usual definition of genocide is met, but not denial that a massacre and mass murder occurred, Simply labelling something scepticism without making clear what is disputed is meaningless at best. The path of claiming numbers or manner of death has been exaggerated is a tediously well-worn path i.r.o. deniers of other genocides. Pincrete (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Claims 2 + 3 are partial acceptance, therefore sceptical. Furthermore, you've made two errors. The first is your belief that they offer "no evidence". First they do, but the burden of proof is with the claimant of the GREATER figure, and a great many commentators challenge the claim. Second, editor opinions about subject matter (how people arrived at their standpoints) is not a reason to mess about the title of the section. The fact is that even Claim 1 has never been debunked before, which is indeed a case of denial, because proponents of Claim 1 have numerous times put forward arguments as to how multiple reported events were conflated to arrive at this selling point for western intervention. To swallow unconditionally the mainstream narrative is to place blind trust in anecdotal testimony, and in the reported "findings" of agencies who receive the bulk of their funding from the countries from outside of Yugoslavia who have had the most involvement there in the 1990s and who also work hand over fist to drive home the narrative in question. Though not to go off-topic: there are examples that are not cases of denial, and we are not going to redefine a word to accommodate the ambitions of editors pushing POVs. --Vrhunski (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In which RS is term "skepticism" used? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is far from "extraordinary". Corwin denies, but is well placed to adduce his objections. Zuroff on the other hand produces an alternative view while no source in the world refers to him as a denier. --Vrhunski (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What I meant is, do you have sources, such as widely accepted peer-reviewd research within Genocide scholarship community, which use affirmatively term "skepticism" to describe other people work and/or written or verbally expressed opinion? It is not up to us, editors, to make analysis, descriptions, labeling, etc. We can only convey what RS say. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't, not that the absence of one is clinching proof that all else is a matter of denial. I re-added "scepticism" because two other editors this past three months have favoured this variation, and many more over the past years have tried to give this section a name other than plain "denial" - which over-emphasises the narrative. Remember, the article title is "Srebrenica massacre" and the term "Srebrenica genocide" is secondary in importance to "massacre". Clearly one cannot be a denier if he acknowledges a massacre took place, whether he is at odds with the figure or whether he feels that the term "genocide" doesn't fit the bill. So if it's sources people want, then they need one for Zuroff (at least) that accuses him of "denying". Otherwise, Alternative Views I think is the best choice of words. --Vrhunski (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, you have in good faith tried to add Skepticism, and I rv.ed because you have misjudged discussion for consensus. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The Corwin material is a bit sketchy - it's not clear to me that the webpage it comes from is a reliable source. It sits on an IP url connected to the ISSA, an alleged strategic studies association that was itself created by some Balkans think tank-type thing. It is headered with "Balkan Strategic Studies" as if that is a journal or something, but the main hit on google for that phrase is this article. I have zero confidence it is editorially controlled in any transparent and clearly independent way, let alone anything more substantial or peer-reviewed. It just reads like a dodgy news write-up shot out by an intern. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That's correct, but it must be that page (body, thing, whatever it is) is used as a primary source- ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's a primary source then it's lacking a secondary source supporting it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but if I remember correctly it should have "Confronting Srebrenica Genocide Denial" report written by Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323. I live in Serbia and we still have free interne there. If you happen to live in the west, you will likely find now that many sites which opened a year ago have succumbed to the blackout on reporting which doesn't fall into lockstep with the mainstream narrative. We experience a part of it here, namely where a Google search delivered hundreds if not thousands of results on topics, I find now that the figure is often down to about 12. For what it's worth, a dark web browser can often he helpful. But if there are any doubts about the Corwin example, then by all means remove it entirely. --Vrhunski (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I am saddened that you may not agree, but English Wikipedia is a "mainstream narrative" - life of our project literally depends on it. Flat-earthers, genocide and Holocaust deniers, Russian, North Korean and Chinese propagandists, and such, are fortunately all doomed to roam a "dark web" realm. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There is no connection between what I am noting and being a flat-earther. (also have no idea what you're talking about when discussing "Russian" or "Chinese" or "North Korean" propaganda. If you claim that any of them are wrong about what they say, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it ). Meanwhile if you know a difference between a mainstream narrative and western propaganda, and care to name a source that is blacklisted for being too close to western narratives, then please share it. The significance of the dark web, or living somewhere like here in Serbia is that there used to be free internet in the west, but it has now become an era of censorship and blocking while still prating "free speech", "freedom of press" and so forth. --Vrhunski (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Vrhunski, re we are not going to redefine a word to accommodate the ambitions of editors pushing POVs. we don't need to. It is largely understood that significantly 'downplaying' the scale or manner of a genocidal incident, or seeking to do so, constitutes 'genocide denial'. There may be querying of minor or technical details, as there are with all historical events, but "genocide scepticism' simply isn't a thing - it's a euphemism. Ask David Irving, who lost a ruinous libel case over exactly this issue. Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

""To query minor/technical details" already destroys your argument that the section should be called "denial". However, they do significantly more than that. This article is called Srebrenica Massacre. Many of the entries part-accept this and therefore "denial" doesn't suffice. --Vrhunski (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'genocide scepticism' nor 'massacre scepticism'. Someone who says that significantly less than 8,000+ Bosnian men were murdered at Srebrenica is denying the accepted historical record. I have no idea what you are talking about iro Serbian and Western narratives. All historical events are continuously 'nuanced' and details are questioned and clarified. The broad outline of events rarely change however. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct. But there is such thing as scepticism of an official narrative forced down people's throats, and this scepticism in turn need not be denial. To claim you don't know what a western narrative is is disingenuous. The claim is peddled exclusively among bodies falling into four categories: western regimes (including western-dependent regimes, so Maia Sandu's Moldova yes, Igor Dodon's no; western media (both state- and corporate- owned); and agencies who receive the bulk of their funding from the key western regimes. The information spewed forth by this champagne bubble (which in the wider world is smaller than you think), plays to no fanfare beyond its own scope. --Vrhunski (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving on. I am happy to go along with "==Denial of or challenges to the above account==", and am happy to hear other people's ideas, but three editors now to have edited since around December all oppose "denial" by itself, as do a multitude of editors who contributed this past two decades. If someone is concerned about consensus, that's a substantial grouping as opposed to purely two who push the "denial and nothing more" POV. --Vrhunski (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

PS and for what it's worth, even I don't like "denial & scepticism" that much, and would rather my above proposal, but I prefer to to just "denial" so by choosing this, I feel it comes a step closer to a wider consensus. --Vrhunski (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This thread is ridiculously long and frankly TLDR. You haven’t got consensus until you have most editors agreeing. You don’t have that. So don’t just make a comment here then change the article. Get actual consensus, here, first. Any more edit warring, I’m happy to block whomever is responsible. 3RR isn't a bright line, my assessment is that there are editors here who are not really trying to achieve consensus, and pushing their POV through reverts and persistent changes isn’t going to work. There is no deadline, work through it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You're an admin I see. There is no consensus either way. Three on this thread favour this edit I have made (me & two others), and two favour the other. Our one involves the inclusion. Ordinarily I gather that is an ONUS situation (though this has been said by someone before me from other threads). I believe we have met that burden. I'm happy to go ahead with a request for comment but the truth is, I am not somebody able to get down to editing Wikipedia 24/7 like others. I've been here nine years and have made a mere handful of edits. Busy busy busy! :)))))))) If someone wishes to create an RfC, I'm all for it. --Vrhunski (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

One of those three in favour of the edit is I believe banned from the topic area now for disruptive behaviour. You and others offer no reason except WP:OR and generalised negative comments about the unreliability of Western sources and scepticism about an official narrative forced down people's throats, which is what most people in the world would call the recognised historical account. There are disagreements about details, but the basic facts of an act of mass murder are not seriously disputed by anyone. I have no wish to force any narrative down people's throats, but I will defend this article against anyone seeking to downplay or negate that basic historical account - which seems to be the only objective here AFAI can see. You are welcome to start an RfC if you wish, but I suspect no regular editor here is going to help you in any such attempt. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You idea that one of the three is banned is mere wishful thinking. He cannot edit the article but he has revealed that he is able to edit the talk page, so his opinion - unfortunately you and Santasa99 - remains valid. Secondly, you are free to expound your opinions on any RfC that gets created - but you may not provoke or criticise others. The indications I am getting about you personally is that you invest excessive faith in those western sources to the point you think it is a licence to sell a point, and be critical of the dissenting voices. So let me remind you of the order of the events: the first paragraphs of this article sell the official narrative per those sources. The final section, and that what we are talking about, concerns a batch of people who have looked at the official narrative, studied its "findings" and have reported back problems with those findings. It's that simple. Our concern is whether "denial" by itself cuts the mustard. Three of us have said it doesn't, and have shown why with varying arguments, so if this mild outnumbering is not a consensus - and I make no comment as to whether it is or not - then we need other views. I'm not personally interested in your opinion as to what other editors will decide. You are supported by one person across two decades despite the number of times the title has changed. --Vrhunski (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

He cannot edit the article = he is banned. I am not interested in discussing generalities, especially about my supposed faith in "official narratives" or "Western sources". If you have something specific to add to the article, any sources to offer, please name them. I have seen nothing yet which would be likely to "pass muster" as a WP:RS which offers any opinion significantly different from the "official narrative". You are simply going round in circles saying "the official narrative got it wrong". Why or how? I have no idea. What sources or evidence? I have no idea. Nor it seems do you - but the courts, journalists, historians, eye-witnesses all got it wrong, no evidence, nothing, simply a handful of people, almost entirely from the 'accused nation' who magically know the real truth. Not all viewpoints are equally valid, some accord with what you dismiss as "official narratives", but the rest of us call accepted historical fact. Others don't and have no place in WP - accept as examples of 'denial'.

If you want to take this to RfC, I cannot stop you, but so far I don't even know what exactly you want to change or any sources that would justify significant changes. I don't intend to reply further, it's up to you if you want to take this to an RfC. Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Most editors are here to build the English Wikipedia, but sometimes some of the participants are not here to do that as they just succumb to the urge to promote an agenda. If editor is here to build the Wikipedia, then one can tell by their inclination to adhere to the spirit of the project and to follow its policies and guidelines. It is as simple as that.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Now you're just whimpering. There is one very clear connection between the you and Pincrete which is that you are so hell bent to push a POV that you are both taking every opportunity to sidetrack the discussion, from remarks about WP:RS right down to technical red tape such as who is and who isn't allowed to edit the article, which is clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel. The talk is about what a heading title should be, and nothing else. Two of you claim "denial", and three have stated that this does not suffice, and you & Pincrete have been stamping up and down ever since and looking for angles on which to eliminate your opposition, not because you've run out of arguments, but because you never had a valid reason in the first place. I refer you to my first ever post on this thread. If the meanings are not clear, seek an interpreter. --Vrhunski (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What you lack is sources, not arguments, of which you have used many variants on a single theme, all based on WP:RS don't know what they are talking about - or at least don't know the 'whole picture' . The dark web knows, or Serbian internet knows, or three editors all know the truth! There is no such thing as genocide scepticism, nor massacre scepticism both ideas are WP:OR euphemisms. What is difficult to understand about that? But take it to an RfC if you think you have a valid case based on WP:RS … or to WP:ANI if you wish to criticise editor behaviour. I stopped reading your characterisations of me some time ago. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not "just whimpering", and certainly neither is Pincrete. I am stating the fact about processes of both discussion and inclusion. What @Peacemaker67 meant when he said "work it out, and establish consensus" is not go find a greater number of likeminded editors who don't like the content and are eager to fix it, He actually meant, make as much of a compelling argument, based on as much compelling reliable sources, if you want to persuade community that your extraordinary claim that you wish to include makes sense. @Pincrete too is trying really hard to explain this in variety of ways, however, it seems that none of it gets through. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99. You're not just whimpering, but you're attacking the straw man - because nobody here has sought to amend the main text whereby reliable sources would come into play. As far as you're concerned, the only avenue required for reliablse sources is one for every entry on the scepticism list, each time calling the commenator a denier. Good luck finding a reliable source that calls Zuroff a denier, be that Srebrenica genocide, or massacre, or even Bosnian genocide. Find one, and I will back off. --Vrhunski (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me get this right. Are we talking about sources to say that some of the list don't deny the massacre? Those sources are there next to every entry. Some deny, and some question the story. I have read only the first and the last couple of posts here. I agree it is TLDR. --Il riparatore (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No, each of these entries is sourced to what they claim to have happened - mostly secondary sources discussing their beliefs, writings, statements etc. Some are very vague about what they do believe. We are talking about sources that say the beliefs shown here constitute "genocide scepticism". Clue, they don't exist because the term is an invention and a euphemism for saying the massacre (maybe) didn't happen, or probably didn't happen as recorded in history books, trials, reports etc. etc. etc. ! Pincrete (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

STOP trying to gaslight editors who don't buy your POV. This thread shows that you've ALREADY been told that scepticism does not mean "genocide" scepticism, but scepticism of the narrative. It's only you who is inflating the term "genocide" over massacre, and the inerrancy of the first paragraphs over those to challenge it. --Vrhunski (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What is scepticism of the narrative? What narrative? If people listed here are denying that the genocide occured, they are 'denying genocide'. A very small number fully acknowledge the scale and manner of the killings, but think that 'massacre' rather than 'genocide' is the apt legal term. Some, especially some local politicians, are very vague about what happened, but simply say no genocide occurred. Those who accept what happened but dispute the legal term can be seperated out if editors want, but they don't AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete. Scepticism of the narrative was explained on my very first post. You know the narrative - the one billed in the article from the lede up to the scepticism section. --Vrhunski (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much skin in this discussion, but this repetition of the strawman that "genocide skepticism" does not exist as a term is getting tiresome; no one is claiming it does. Skepticism towards facts is just skepticism, and whether that skepticism constitutes genocide denial, if this is indeed the supposition here, that is what needs to be sourced here - indeed, if we do not have sources very specifically calling each of these examples genocide denial then not only is the header inappropriate, but each such entry is a BLP violation, which is a very serious concern from the perspective of this platform. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe all are sourced as you wish. I agree sources should be explicit on that issue. We recently removed at least one that wasn't explicit. Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You are free to get rest, nobody is forcing you to participate. It is the fact that "skepticism" in genocide context is just another way in attempt of legitimizing revisionism and denial in ambiguous and less aggressive terms - even genocide researchers recognize it as used revisionists' method. It is also the fact that editor is asking for inclusion of the term, which gives Pincrete every reason to tackle the flawed arguments and lack of sources for the contested "skepticism" every time they are raised. The title we use is the only correct description of the phenomenon - content is another matter: like all content sources are the one to tell the story, distinguished facts from fiction and describe reality. Your casual remark about BLP violation - as if to imply that we could be or as if we have already shown a worrying level of carelessness in that regard - is as good and (ir)relevant as the best example in the form of a complaint on included individual(s) you can provide in this discussion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I do see a worrying level or carelessness actually, as I'll elaborate. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that, since I told you about Schabas. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99, you claim "It is the fact that "skepticism" in genocide context is just another way in attempt of legitimizing revisionism and denial in ambiguous and less aggressive terms". No it's not. It is a case of some people having looked at the very same sources you trust, and have detected problems with them which you are personally scared to explore for yourself. --Vrhunski (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Vrhunski, who are these other people who you think should be included. It all sounds a lot like Alternative views in which another editor wanted to give 'equal billing' to wholly discredited, and mostly out of date, analysis of what happened. AFAIK nobody here is scared of anything. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

G'day people, this is a TLDR issue for me, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Perhaps a new and different heading could be used, or some material covered under another heading? "Challenges to genocide verdict" or something like that? It seems to me we are getting very fixated on denial and skepticism, when they are hard to define, when a more general and wider heading might allow scope for including reliable sources who do have considered positions that challenge the genocide label for the massacre. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

An advantage to staying at 'denial' IMO is that it is a clearer criteria for inclusion. 'Scepticism' is too vague and scepticism about what would be the inclusion criteria? Are we going to give every 'alternative theory' equal footing with the main narrative, even if such 'theory' has been treated as not remotely credible by WP:RS. Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Not only that it's clearer, but any other variant would re-open on-wiki Pandora's box, something we already experienced. The way we are trying to maintain it, if I am not mistaken, is a standard approach on the project (articles on other such events). Outside of Wikipedia things are pretty much straightforward too, both in discourse and, in relation to us, in sources: on one side are judgements by ICTY, ICJ, national courts in Germany and Bosnia, numerous declarations and statements signed by historians and genocide scholars' organizations, individual and joint governments and parliaments declarations; on the other side is denial. A few individuals, and after being immersed into this issue for two years I can count three such persons that are really significant, where sources exist to describe them as honest brokers in good faith and who stay within the bounds of genuine debate, are too rare for us to play with designation on our own - the only way for us is to either exclude them or describe them more appropriately, which really depends on existence of sources. Here' some insight into this problematic: 1 and 2. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

William Schabas

If this 'denial' header is going to stay, the William Schabas entry, as one example, either needs moving or removing entirely. The Reuters story it references actually goes to some length to explain his position and how it is not genocide denial. There is even the subhead "NO GENOCIDE DENIALIST", under which it says: Schabas said he has accepted that Srebrenica was genocide. “I am not arguing with anybody about whether genocide took place in Srebrenica. That has been decided.” This is a very simple case. He is a genocide lawyer and he thinks it does not technically qualify. However, now that the courts have ruled he accepts the verdict. Listing him in a section entitled 'denial' is inappropriate and exactly the sort of potential BLP violation that I have cautioned against immediately above. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The subheading has no bearing on the text- which is largely about Myanmar anyhow - and the Reuters source is simply in our article to endorse that Schabas later changed his mind about Srebrenica. Why is that a problem? The section is about a range of 'denial' - not simply a 'list of guilty men'. Schabas accepted that mass murder had taken place but initially thought it was a "crime against humanity", but not genocide. After the court issued vedicts he accepted those verdict. As long as our text is accurate both about what people did believe and write and also that they changed their mind, how is that a BLP problem? There are articles on WP about people who were Islamists - which is a lot worse than disagreeing about a legal definition, but we don't leave out former beliefs as though they had never been held, simply because someone changes their mind. The section describes a range of objections, mostly about the facts, but also about definitions. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is, you can't have a subhead called 'denial' that includes references to individuals who have not verifiably denied anything. And what is a 'range of denial' meant to mean? Individuals can either be established as deniers in reliable sources or they cannot. A section entitled 'denial' should only be about verifiable instances of denial, or very credible accusations of denial, not synth-like aspersions of denial. In the case of Schabas, you can only deny a designation of genocide after it has been designated, and Schabas has not done that; he just said, prior to the designation, that from his expert legal perspective it was a crime against humanity; afterwards he unequivocally accepted the ruling. At no point has he 'denied' anything in the sense of disagreeing with established fact, and no source currently presented establishes that he has. If the section is about a 'range of objections' then maybe it should be called something that better reflects that, not 'denial' (though again, Schabas hasn't really objected to anything concrete, only a certain legal designation, in principle, ahead of a ruling). As for the other points, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, WP analogies are fruitless whataboutism, and the Islam pages are generally a mess. NB: I'm not sure what you think an 'Islamist' is, but it is not a 'jihadist', politically violent militant or anything else particularly pejorative or opprobrious. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a basic difference between 'has' and 'does'. A 'range of denial' means some people questioned many things in the early days, when evidence was less conclusive, some people have questioned the legal definition, but not the basic facts. Most ongoing current 'deniers', particularly local ones, aren't explicit about what they say did happen, but are sure western accounts/legal judgements are exaggerated. The opening sentence of the section is: "Scepticism about the massacre has ranged from challenging the judicial recognition of the killings as an act of genocide to the denial of a massacre having taken place. The finding of genocide by the ICJ and the ICTY, has been disputed on evidential and theoretical grounds. The number of the dead has been questioned as has the nature of their deaths. It has been alleged that considerably fewer than 8,000 were killed and/or that most of those killed died in battle rather than by execution. It has been claimed that the interpretation of "genocide" is refuted by the survival of the women and children" That's a pretty good summary of what I mean by 'range of denial'.

Schabas didn't quite "unequivocally accept the ruling" - some 7 or 8 years after the verdicts he accepted "That train has left the station and the fact that I had an opinion about it before the decisions were reached seems to me to be quite normal and understandable". I agree with him about that, but as long as WP:RS describe his prior position as 'denial', I see no BLP problem. We don't need to argue about what is/isn't 'denial' - that's what sources are for, but you seem to think we should litigate here about who is/isn't 'denying' based on our own definition!

Of course I understand what an Islamist is. I've edited many articles about both Islamists and Islamist terrorist incidents and those accused of being/being involved with both. I've spent much of my time on WP trying to keep such articles neutral - but 'Islamist' is rarely a compliment in the West and being a 'former Islamist' doesn't usually look good on one's CV ! I've been accused too often of being an "apologist for Islamists" not to know what the term means and - what the usual subtext to it is! Pincrete (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

But the WP:RSP ref we currently have doesn't say his prior position was denial, it says: His distinct interpretation of the crime of genocide has led some people to call him a genocide denialist, a criticism he rebuffed. “If you discuss genocide and you suggest that this probably doesn’t fit the definition of international law, very quickly some people say you are denying, [...] Schabas said.” So the accusers here are "some people", which from an outlet such as Reuters is about as vague and sketchy as you can get; it either means 'no-one willing to go on record' or 'no-one notable enough to be worth writing home about'. So this is an essentially unattributed claim, along the lines of 'reportedly', and, in Wikipedia terms, is basically just full on WP:WEASEL-y. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

People find sources, editor(s) change their minds and consensus changes. Today Schabas inclusion can be supported by secondary and tertiary sources - even Martin Shaw in the Economist admits that after his book "Genocide in International Law: the Crime of Crimes" Schabas was shunned and denounced by many in the scholarship of genocide as "genocide denier" for his view on Srebrenica. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am very happy to drop the stick if someone produces a more definitive source. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

With all the caution that should be taken in this case, the sources do exist: Bosnia-Herzegovina social briefing: Bosnian genocide denial in Weekly Briefing, Vol. 17, No. 3 (BH), April 2019; Martin Shaw It seems like a handy word in The Economist; ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know what to make of the first of these sources. What is the China-ECC Institute? Seems somewhat dredged from the depths of obscurity. The Economist explains the context quite well and then states: "For his troubles, he has found himself denounced as a "genocide denier", which is clearly silly." (my bolding) ... so, combining that with what we already have from Reuters, that gives us: "Some 'clearly silly' people have accused William Schabas of ..." Right? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, he says silly, but admits that he is denounced as a "genocide denier", so it is a reality for other scholars if not for him - I doubt that Shaw has concerned himself with silly peoples' opinion, he certainly never says "some 'clearly silly' people", that's for sure. I would rather assume he's talking about his and Schabas peers; it's your qualification and your alone. The first source is what its impresum says it is. I don't share your view that it's "dredged from the depths of obscurity"; I am not sure on what grounds you offer such qualification, really. It has it's "International Academic Commitee" with bio information and picture for every member, it reveals its structure, Google is not stingy with information either, etc. I am not particular eager for Schabas inclusion at any cost into the article, as I explained earlier, I already removed him from this list once, but someone obviously thought he should be here, however, I have no intention of accepting superficial opinion in order to agree to a consensus at this point. Also, I respect and support Pincrete on lots of stuff in this topic. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah ha, well I didn't want to presume that it was a Beijing-backed think tank of obviously questionable independence and reliability, but I guess that's exactly what it is. On the scale of think tanks that are vaguely reliable, those that can be mentioned with attribution, and those that are just garbage, China (or any ) Ministry of Foreign Affairs-backed stuff qualifies as the latter. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me tell you, that would make perfect sense, it really would, if one could imagine that kind of writing we see in report sitting on their website is in perfect line with Chinese official stance on the issue. However, I personally strongly believe, actually I know, that Chinese official governmental position is much closer to Schabas' than to Bosnian Muslims, actually it is far worse, because it is supportive to the Serbian view on Bosnian genocide. So, can you see my predicament with your kinda rigid take on the source. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I should have said Serbian most radical view on Bosnian genocide. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I had little time and checked few publications for further verification - here like previous set, secondary than tertiary:

• History textbooks in post-conflict societies: Education for reconciliation?; in Forum for Transitional Justice Vol. 1, No. 1 page 85 (Apr. 2007), Humanitarian Law Center, Beograd;
• THE ACT OF KILLING Part 2; by Jelena Milić; on pink.rs.

౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The former gets to the heart of it: "Schabas, who is perhaps the leading legal expert on genocide and who has published a number of books and articles on the subject, believes that only the mass crimes against Armenians in the Ottoman Turkey in 1915, against Jews and Roma during the Second World war and against Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 can be called genocides." That's about the sum of it. As a genocide expert, he has a very restrictive academic position on what genocide should be. This is not the same thing as someone with an obviously POV-ish disposition on the topic making the same arguments with the obvious intent to downplay or diminish atrocities, which is the sense of "denial" is such contexts. And Schabas is nothing if not consistent. He rails against all instances of what he sees as mis-applied terminology. To your point about the Chinese, he has also demurred on the terminology of the Uyghur situation in China. Here, he neither denies anything factual about the massacre that would typically be construed as a form or denial, nor says anything about the massacre here that he would not say about any other massacre that does not meet his very strict professional criteria. If his entry is to be kept, it needs to be heavily modified to reflect all of this nuance. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

He's also taken a role of a defense attorney for the Myanmar genocidal regime, which reveal a very unpleasant pattern which might raise quite a few eyebrows on its own, because the victims of genocide are all Muslims. However, he's not like Grief, who is devoted to his ant-Muslim animus to the point that he does not shy away from openly expressing it - Schabas is much subtle. Yes, he denies "only" to qualify the crimes genocide, and went on to assert, contradictory, one may feel, in many of his responses to criticism that this should not be seen as a big deal and asked why people would be so immersed in this issue as if "crime against humanity" is not enough (which is quite hypocritical and even insulting to the victims, to question what is enough or not, as if he's saying that the victims are trying to unnecessarily auction their pain), and deny them that kind of resolution, while exempting the perpetrators of the gravity of such qualification of the crime. And to get to important point of this discussion, this is exactly what the first source is talking about on pp.85-86., along with confirming that he denies genocide qualification. This is also what, in my opinion, Pincrete nicely summarized in Schabas' para and sufficiently distinguishing between the points Schabas has made on this topic. (I chose not to look for Bosnian scholarly research papers on this topic simply to avoid any questions of potential bias, despite the fact that on our project we fully endorse all serious genocide researchers and authors from genocide victim groups - we never consider them biased, but just in case I chose to ignore them at this point.) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, he's a defense attorney on lots of cases, because somebody has to be, and on cases like these, there are not so very many people that actually want to be. However, without legal representation of the defense, there wouldn't be any substance to the proceedings and it wouldn't be the rule of law. The pattern is: highly experienced defense attorney and genocide expert. And yes, precisely the reason why more legal experts don't want to put themselves in Schabas' shoes is that as soon as anyone tries them on, people start accusing them of denial and insulting the victims. But it is the job of lawyers and experts to argue these points, and they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Joining this late, but I broadly agree with you Iskandar323. What we have are good sources to say that Schabas has been accused of denial, but fairly poor ones - if any - to say that he has engaged in denial. I tend to see this section as characterising the 'degrees' of denial, rather than just a 'list of the guilty', but it should probably be even clearer than it now is that he isn't generally looked on as being a denier. I apologise Iskandar323, I'd always thought the sourcing on his initial position was stronger. Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like a conspiracy - honest people of knowledge and experience are reluctant to deny genocide qualifications fearing being ostracized by loud and angry majority who accepted when two international and two national courts say it was exactly that, along with a number of national and international declarations, and whatnot. I can imagine the feeling, who would want that. Surely something means when your peers are publicly asking you to step down, regardless of how many cases he had and regardless of the fact that accused perpetrators must also have lawyers too..

@Pincrete now that's a bit contrarian to say that we have poor or no sources at all confirming that he's engaged in denial. Of the last four presented three say he did exactly that, and even if we ignore China-CEE Institute, for whatever reason, the last two are absolutely in line with our policy on RS and verifiability. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant we can atribute accusation to specific individuals with names. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with my internet, but meant The Economist was fairly poor - I didn't know there were others, but I'll look when I can. Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, The Economist is just a hint that accusations exist, which alone is not enough. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved Schabas out of the list to the end of the section in line with the broad agreement here that Schabas, while accused of denial, is not a definitive example of one who has engaged in denial. I've expanded on the explanation. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think that our previous text 'accused' Schabas in any direct way - but the amended text is even clearer about his position IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, and it looks fine. Actually, as far as I am concerned, you can rewrite it to sounds even more favorable to Schabas, because he certainly doesn't deserve same treatment, say, as Gideon Grief. My only objection is that we don't elaborate on personal credentials in such a short paragraphs when person has its own article - after all, the more you dwell on him, the more attention you draw. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"Srebrenica genocide." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Srebrenica genocide. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 4 § Srebrenica genocide. until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Dutch involvement

Hi,

I was trying to educate myself on this Genocide from a Dutch perspective. I would like more information on the Dutch involvement. I'm Dutch and I didn't learn about this genocide in detail, just a small mention in the history book. I still don't know why we're in the wrong, only that we are. TreinRSN (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You might try reading the article. The Dutch forces which were supposedly protecting Srebrenica either retreated or surrendered. During the massacre, the "Dutchbat troops witnessed definite signs that the Serb soldiers were murdering some of the Bosniak men" but failed to react. Dimadick (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about added words in quote

In the section "Starvation in Srebrenica 1992–1993," a Red Beret is quoted as saying

"The local people became quite indignant, so sometimes we would keep someone alive to hand over to them [to kill] just to keep them happy."

Why are the words "to kill" added in brackets? I could find no evidence in the original article that back up this clarification. Evanf32 (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It is implied that the 'kept' prisoners are solely to satisfy the locals' blood lust " Because it was these same raiding parties out of Srebrenica that occasionally killed Serb civilians, Nenad and his comrades had a simple policy: “No prisoners. … … In fact, there was the occasional exception to this rule. With the Srpska soldiers’ no-prisoners policy, local Serbs who wanted revenge for the Bosnian soldiers’ raiding parties were being denied the opportunity. “The local people became quite indignant,” Nenad explained, “so sometimes we would keep someone alive to hand over to them just to keep them happy.”

I agree though that the quote isn't clearly summarised.Pincrete (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Are the locals in question Bosniaks or Serbs? Evanf32 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

local Serbs who wanted revenge for the Bosnian soldiers’ raiding parties were being denied the opportunity. “Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)