Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Purported IDC/RDC discovery of 500 missing from Srebrenica

Mirsad Tokaca has pointed out that his reference at the launch of the IDC/RDC "Bosnian Atlas of the Dead" project in Banja Luka, to 500 persons from Srebrenica who were considered dead and have been discovered alive has been taken out of context. The IDC/RDC considers the misrepresentation of what he said a "classic abuse of the media". Tokaca was not referring to victims of the genocide, he was referring to IDC/RDC's work on human losses 1991-1995 in the municipality of Srebrenica. IDC/RDC have pointed out that this distortion of what he actually said was the responsibility of the Serb news agency SRNA. http://www.idc.org.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=243%3Ademanti-povodom-citiranja-gosp-mirsada-tokae-o-rtvama-genocida-u-srebrenici&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=50&lang=bs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opbeith (talk • contribs) 27 July 2010

File:Srebrenica exhumed.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Srebrenica exhumed.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Srebrenica exhumed.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Genocide denial

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to change from Opposition to the description "genocide".

---

I read through the various linked discussions, including the noted arbcom case.

I'll pass on commenting about the seeming snark and sarcasm (and heavy POV pushing) as most examples weren't quite exactly violating WP:CIVIL, except to suggest that these "discussions" did not appear welcoming to uninvolved commenters, as was the presumed listed wish (per the arbcom case noted). Instead, it seemed to me that the "regulars" here were attempting chase away any other commenters. One can disagree and even present evidence to the contrary without the tone that is preset here. In my experience, being rude to others isn't likely to persuade them of your assertion, but merely persuading them that trying to discuss with a rude person is pointless. Just something to consider in future discussions. - jc37 01:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Why the wordy title "Opposition to the description "genocide""? If you are stating that the events do not fit the "description of genocide" then you are denying that genocide took place. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly. (Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 18#Section heading - Opposition to the term "genocide") --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't a participant in any of those previous discussions. The fact that it's been discussed previously does not indefinitely suspend it from being brought up in the future by users who did not get to have a say. The point made in your linked section is that it's "loaded language". Both the suggestions "Opposition to the description "genocide"" and "Genocide denial" state the same thing: the claim that genocide had not occurred. How could one be claimed to be more neutral than the other? When I look into the topic of genocide and genocide denial reliable sources (newspapers, books, etc.) are much more likely to say something along lines of "[individual/organization/government] denies genocide occured" rather than "[individual/organization/government] is opposed to the description/term of genocide being applied". I'd also love to see this claim try to be argued at the Armenian Genocide denial talkpage... -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with prod, those two are two different terms, with two slightly different meanings. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You're gonna have to elaborate and be more specific on your position, unless you're just opposing for opposition's sake. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Given the massacre has been determined to be genocide in two international courts, and the 'opposition' has been fulsomely discredited, 'denial' is an accurate representation of their position. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Opposition to the description "genocide" means that someone is opposing that exact term, while Genocide denial means that some is denying that genocide it self ever happened there. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Words fail me. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would put it a different way. Denial is strongly associated with denialism therefore can be seen as perjorative, we even have an article Genocide denial. The current subject heading avoids that risk. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can have an entire article titled "Genocide denial" then why object to a section titled "Genocide denial"? As Peacemaker67 pointed out: it's "been determined to be genocide in two international courts, and the 'opposition' has been fulsomely discredited". Again reliable sources themselves use the terms "denier", "denies", or "denial". Indeed "denial" is recognized as a stage of genocide. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hell, here's an article just from today by the Guardian titled "Serbian president denies Srebrenica genocide" -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not interested in discussing whether or not to use the term in this article and in particular for the subject heading. (I think it's clear the current subject heading avoids the controversy caused by the term. However I acknowledge some who feel denial is the more accurate term are likely to find the current subject heading controversial.) However unless and until you understand why the term is problematic and quite different from the current subject, I don't think any meaningful discussion is going to take place. It seems clear from your early responses you were confused hence why I got involved but your latest responses are unclear to me. Now that I've explained it to you, do you finally understand? I don't see how it can be explained any more clearly then the articles I pointed out which indicate the terms mean something beyond the simple English meaning. Note that Peacemaker67 seemed to understand the difference. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually editors join to actually debate the matter at hand not simply to make one remark and run off. You can't blame me for arguing my point. I realize that "genocide denial" may be controversial that's why I'm pointing out that the term is widely used by reliable sources and its use here is warranted. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Some more reliable and prominent sources using the term "denial" in the most recent incident involving Nikolic:

• Washington Post: "Serbia’s new president revives Balkan tensions by denying Srebrenica massacre was genocide"
• Al-Jazeera: "Serb president denies Srebrenica 'genocide'"

-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Producer, your change has again been removed per the long-standing use in this article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Long standing use" means nothing. Nothing on Wikipedia is set in stone and time simply passing does not give something more credibility. Either respond to the above or stop reverting. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's you who is reverting your text into the article. The discussion above has not established a clear consensus to replace the more neutral wording. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Of the five editors: two consisting of myself and Peacemaker67 have found the new title appropriate, the third (WhiteWriter) has followed and opposed my edits and of another editor out of spite (a report was made on the matter), the fourth (NilEinne) made it clear he's "not interested in discussing", and the fifth (You) has opposed it and given vague responses to his preferred "neutral wording". It's a bit difficult to achieve a consensus when some participants arbitrarily oppose whatever you're doing, some do not care to discuss, and some simple stonewall you. Also please stop repeatedly simply stating my edits go against consensus as that is a incredibly poor reason and does not address the proposal. WP:CCC-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I have set my reasoning out below in response to Homunculus in the following section, but I'm adding my name here as another editor finding the new title appropriate. Opbeith (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I will reiterate my arguments again, in a clearer manner, for the use of "Genocide denial" as the section name:

• Two international courts have deemed the massacre a genocide, the ICTY and the ICJ.
• "Denial" is recognized as the final stage of genocide by scholars.
• Numerous reliable and prominent sources use the term "denial". This is illustrated by the most recent incident involving Serbian president Tomislav Nikolic for example:
  • Guardian "Serbian president denies Srebrenica genocide"
  • Washington Post: "Serbia’s new president revives Balkan tensions by denying Srebrenica massacre was genocide"
  • Al-Jazeera: "Serb president denies Srebrenica 'genocide'"
  • AFP: "US deplores Serbia leader's genocide denial"
• Numerous Wikipedia articles including Holocaust denial, Denial of the Holodomor, Armenian Genocide denial, Rwandan Genocide denial and Genocide denial already use it in their article titles and not merely as a section name as is being suggested.

Ckatz as the main editor in opposition please address these points. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

for the record, as an occasional editor of this article, it is clear to me that the sources linked by PRODUCER support the use of the term 'genocide denial' here. Using weasel words for something such as this when major news organisation's of all stripes call it denial fails the NPOV test. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"attempts to reduce the seriousness of the crimes during the Balkan wars are unacceptable"

http://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/2977-norway-protests-serbian-presidents-srebrenica-denial

The Nordic Page, 08.06.2012

"Norway Protests Serbian President's Srebrenica Denial

OSLO, June 8 -- As a rection to the newly elected Serbian president's statements, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said that attempts to reduce the seriousness of the crimes during the Balkan wars are unacceptable.

Serbia's newly elected president, Tomislav Nikolic, said on 31 May that the crimes in Srebrenica was a genocide, but a serious war crime. The UN Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has ruled that the killing of 8000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995 was genocide.

"Political leaders have a special responsibility not to undermine the international courts and full support of the international criminal settlement is important for the reconciliation process and regional cooperation," said the Norwegian Foreign Minister.

Since narrowly winning a presidential run-off last month, some of Tomislav Nikolic's remarks have raised fears that the former ultra-nationalist, who now portrays himself as a pro-EU conservative, may not have abandoned the views of his past.

During an interview just hours after he was sworn in, Nikolic has rattled the Balkans by denying that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was a genocide, sparking fears of a return to wartime rhetoric in the volatile region."

Opbeith (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed typo in quote - what Støre was obviously condemning was Nikolic's opinion that what Nikolic accepted was a massacre at Srebrenica was however "not genocide". I do wish Ckatz would stop representing the outcome of past discussions as confirming his own opinion that this article should emphasise the massacre rather than the genocide. For example in the link to the archive above he failed to note that I accepted Opposition etc. as the outcome of a compromise following a dispiriting battle with the revisionists seeking to inflict the ludicrous "Alternative Views" instead.

As I've commented numerous times previously, "massacre" was an adequate description at the time of the events when it was an uninvestigated and untried crime. Since then courts at the highest level of international law have found it to be a crime of genocide, not just a mass killing that can be explained, excused and mitigated away by describing it as something less significant. The Serb nationalists who used to try and impose their denial here have gone away and left the task of undermining the substance of the general acknowledgment of what happened to people who have no wish to engage with the purpose and the meaning of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide but want it to have simply abstract significance. The application of the Genocide Convention does not signify that other crimes of genocide are considered the equivalent of the Holocaust. When the Convention is applied - in many cases only too cautiously and half-heartedly - it brings into play the force of a law intended to interrupt and prevent the achievement of genocide on the scale of the Holocaust. That is what the framers of the Convention were seeking to achieve, not to create the instrument that was not in place in time to punish the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Opbeith (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC - wording of section title (Opposition to the description "genocide") RELISTED

(relisted July 2012 for additional input) --Ckatz^chat_spy 15:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC) The heading for the section covering opposing viewpoints has been the subject of much discussion and reversion over the past few years. Over the years, there have been three basic concepts presented (with minor variations in wording from time to time): "Alternative views", "Genocide denial", and the current "Opposition to the term 'genocide'". The latter was instituted and maintained as a middle ground, although it has not been without its share of repeated challenges and reverts. Per the principles outlined in the ArbCom ruling regarding topics related to the Balkans, it seems best to invite as many uninvolved perspectives as possible to help resolve this matter. The challenge, therefore, is to determine a consensus as to the best wording for this section heading. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• OPINION Having read across the whole page it would seem that the present title is valid. That is not to say that the it is correct - only that it provides a valid balance against what is written else where.
  
  I did consider reading the ArbCom before looking at the page in general. I'm glad I did not waste my time. I have very grave reservations about the rest of the page and language used - the way information is presented - and the fact that the Lede provides figures which are contested, and yet there is no balancing figures to show that reality. The number of WP:WEASELs is high - as a passing example " The vast majority of those killed were ..." - "Though the vast majority were women, children, elderly or disabled,..." - "The vast amount of planning and high-level coordination invested in killing..." - "American spy planes overflew the area of Srebrenica, and took photos showing the ground in vast areas..." and that is just looking at the use of the word "vast". Those are not quotes meeting WP:V they are indications of Editor Views and so have no place. They should be replaced with either more balanced and neutral language of relevant numbers and percentages from WP:V sources. What is a vast area? It implies more than 50% and nearly 100%. A Vast Majority is a gilded lilly and is misleading!
  
  I believe that this Rfc is of little value and can't be productive until the rest of the article is Wikified - removes language that really has no place - Balance and WP:NPOV is made explicitly evident - and the Lede needs to be totally re-written to provide a balanced oversight of the rest of the page, and presently I do not see that. The Lede is overly long - too detailed and does not provide balance, or even note that some dispute the events and figures quoted, even if the dispute is over the use of semantics and definitions. Exactly what is the internationally recognised definition under international law of Genocide? If there is sufficient WP:V + WP:NOTE to raise questions about the overall subject, they need to feature in the Lede in rational ways - and that is not occurring. Verifiability, not truth does apply. It has been pointed out that In Genocide "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." the most rationally targeted are women and children. If you wish to exterminate, woman are the most likely targeted. Targeting men is a known war tactic, and not a genocidal one. You remove the men as potential agents of armed opposition. As the victims were not subject to either patrilineal or matrilineal issues, there is a valid question as to why one sex was targeted over the other. That is in no way a denial of events, simply an observation on military practices and warfare going as far back as The Art of War - Sun Tzu.
  
  This Rfc has no value as it looks at one subtitle on the page, and until the major and massive (Very deliberate Weasels) content issues across the rest of the page are resolved, there really is no value just tinkering with one line of text. Any change to that one line of text are unlikely to survive the detailed and substantive re-rewrite that the whole page needs to be Wikified.
  
  In my opinion, the Rfc is putting the cart before the horse.
  
  Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You may believe that you are a sufficiently competent arbiter of international humanitarian law to overthrow the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice but I suggest you examine their reasoning and their conclusions before you set off ploughing a radical new furrow in the field of jurisprudence. Opbeith (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "The number of WP:WEASELs is high ... Those are not quotes meeting WP:V they are indications of Editor Views and so have no place. They should be replaced with either more balanced and neutral language of relevant numbers and percentages from WP:V sources. ... A Vast Majority is a gilded lilly and is misleading!": "The vast majority of those killed were ..." - the wording of the Krstic judgment is "Virtually all of those killed" (para 504)- the expression "splitting hairs" comes to mind, if the editor's version is not in fact a "watering down" of the original. Instead of checking the source the complainant appears to haver offered their own view. The ICTY judges are clearly not averse to using the word "vast" as a qualifier when they consider the evidence submitted supports the conclusion. Opbeith (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Straws in the wind, but, if past history is anything to go by, calling for "as many uninvolved perspectives as possible to help resolve this matter" means yet another battle of uninformed points of view ensuring another tedious rerun of all the old arguments. Opbeith (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not find this long rant helpful. If we need to fix the articles content, we should start with this title and then change the lede to reflect those changes. To address your concern for the use of the term "vast", in most of the quotes you pasted the sources cited specifically use that term themselves, the sole exception being the spy plane quote which lacks a source. Wikipedia is absolutely disinterested in hearing another user's personal theories on what should constitute genocide and, disturbingly, how it should have been carried out. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's the ICJ and ICTY who 'ploughed a radical new furrow in the field of jurisprudence' with their absurdly tortuous reasoning defining the massacre as an act of genocide. And you don't have to be a legal scholar to see that, just a reasonably intelligent and sceptical person with some independence of thought (ie, the ability to recognise that a court of judges, however high and powerful, *can* come to ludicrous legal conclusions). Actually, coming from a family of lawyers, I'd have to say that it sometimes seems that good legal minds often go for an appallingly shonky argument, as long as it's wordy and sophisticated enough ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.163 (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Point of RfC is exactly hearing another user's personal idea and opinion on subject. How many times should you receive the same or similar opinion? There is nothing wrong with current title, and you are pushing your POV on several articles. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It would better for everyone if editors working in WikiProject Yugoslavia articles could stick to content and resist expressing their opinions about the neutrality of other editors. I'm sick to death of it. As soon as someone disagrees with your edits, you are assessed as pushing a POV. How about editors bring WP:RS to back their 'personal idea and opinion' instead of just stating what they think? There is a bad case of 'WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT' on this talkpage and that of many other articles in this WikiProject. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am here at the behest of the RfC robot, but see there hasn't been much movement on this issue in over a week. I do not want to offer a perfunctory opinion, so would appreciate clarification on one issue. When we speak of the denialists, are these people who a) dispute the application of the term genocide, but accept the empirical historical evidence of what occurred, or b) deny that specific acts took place, suggest a vastly lower death toll, dispute the existence of a policy with genocidal intent (not sure this one is relevant in this case), etc. I suspect the answer is a little of both, but this differentiation seems important. Homunculus (duihua) 13:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The differentiation that Homunculus refers to is not relevant to this discussion because in fact none of the individuals or groups mentioned has advanced any argument that has been found to pose any substantial challenge to the legal finding of genocide and the arguments substantiating that finding. The facts have not been successfully challenged in any forum of law. Although some academics have discussed theoretically aspects of the ICTY and ICJ findings, their arguments have not prevailed in any of the cases heard at the various levels of international humanitarian law or in academically reputed forum. Any reference to those academic intellectual analyses might legitimately be differentiated from the uninformed / politically informed opinions brought together under this heading; none are in fact mentioned in the section. The collection identified here have all one way or another denied that genocide took place at Srebrenica without any judicial validation of their arguments. Their expressed opinions all fall within the category of denial rather than discussion, consequently Genocide Denial is the appropriate heading for the section.Opbeith (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, we should call it as it is: Genocide. Those who deny it should be properly described as 'genocide deniers' (this is not a label, but a proper description of those who are involved in denial). Srebrenica was repeatedly proven as genocide. Either you accept it, or continue denying it. For me, those who deny Srebrenica genocide can only be called: genocide deniers, and nothing else. The reason why some of you here oppose the term "genocide denial" is because you are involved in the same type of denial. Thank you. 50.98.106.29 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ckatz, you need to re-timestamp the RfC so the bot puts it on the lists instead of rm the template. It just checked and removed it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The article describes an event of one faction killing males of military age within a Civil War - this action is as old as time itself, even Alaxander the Great did this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great and as such, the term "Massacre" is sufficient and genocide is not appropriate in this case. If this "massacre" included women, girls, old/young - everyone then that would be "genocide"Patriot1010 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is straight out WP:OR. So you are suggesting that it is not a compelling argument that two separate international courts have concluded that genocide (according to international law, not Alexander the Great) is exactly what it was? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Patriot1010, Alexander the Great's era was some time before Raphael Lemkin came up with the concept of genocide, based originally on his experience of the Armenian Genocide, before the UN adopted the Genocide Convention, based on experience of the Holocaust, before the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda came into being as a result of the genocides in those countries, and before the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted with a view to preventing and punishing future genocides. We have moved on.

A massacre is a mass killing. It's a fact but not in itself a crime. The Genocide Convention was enacted to punish but also to prevent the accomplishment of genocide, which is why it explicitly brings the destruction of part of the group within its scope. The investigation of the massacre, the finding that the "underlying acts" were committed and the conclusion that there was an intent to destroy the group led to the legal finding that the massacre at Srebrenica was part of an attempt to wipe out a specific group. That's why it's important that people commenting here should have some awareness of the issues involved, otherwise we're just wasting everybody's time - yet again.

Patriot1010, you disregard the findings of the ICTY, the ICJ, the European Court of Human Rights with assertions/arguments that the courts have carefully examined and then discarded as inapplicable. This was not a "civil war" - it has been established several times that it was an international war of aggression, part of the plan to establish a transnational ethnically homogeneous Greater Serbia. The Krstic Trial saw the transfer and the massacre as combining to constitute one single act of genocide - the transfer completed the removal of all Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica, eliminating "even the residual possibility that the Muslim community in the area could reconstitute itself." As Judge Shahabudeen observed in his Dissenting Opinion (he considered Krstic guilty of genocide, not just aiding and abetting) "Thus, standing alone, forcible transfer is not genocide. But in this case the transfer did not stand alone, and that indeed is the basis on which the Appeals Chamber rejected the defence argument that it showed that there was no genocide. It was part – an integral part – of one single scheme to commit genocide, involving killings, forcible transfer and destruction of homes. In particular, it showed that the intent with which the killings were done was indeed to destroy the Srebrenica part of the Bosnian Muslim group."

The Krstic Trial Chamber found that because the military aged Bosnian Muslim men of Srebrenica constituted a substantial part of the Bosnian Muslim group, since their killing would inevitably mean the annihilation of the Bosnian Muslim community at Srebrenica, the intent to kill the men amounted to an intent to destroy a substantial part of the Bosnian Muslim group - a genocidal intent to destroy the group "in part", as indicated in the wording of the notorious Directive 7 - to create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica." The military-aged men were not the "part" itself.

The substance of whether or not the massacre was genocide is not open to review by amateur commenters who show a complete lack of understanding of the basic issues and the authoritative legal findings. I haven't seen the initial wording of the initial Request for comments but the wording of the updated RfC gives no warning to the uninformed that if they don't understand what the discussion is about their comments are essentially irrelevant. Ckatz is experienced enough to know what he's doing. This RfC is a complete waste of time in its present form.Opbeith (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You have seen the wording; it is the same (all I did was relist). As for your assertion above, this RfC is not about debating the nature of the event; as stated at the top, it is about determining the best title for the subheading. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ckatz, I went to All current RfC's and all it said there was "Talk:Srebrenica massacre - (relisted July 2012 for additional input)". I hadn't realised that the heading of this section was the text of the original listing. In which case, that confirms what I said, that the announcement simply invites comments without suggesting that this is an important oissue whose ramifications are3 not immediately obvious to the person who has no familiarity with the basics of the Genocide Convention and the legal findings. This article is about a massacre which was determined to be a crime of genocide. That's the baseline. The appropriateness of the label "genocide" is not a matter of personal inclination. If that isn't clear, then discussion of the appropriateness of the title options for the subsection have no footingn.

The individuals and groups mentioned in the Genocide Denial section simply deny the substance of the definition without adequately challenging with the existing authoritative interpretation of the basic principles and the established facts. The only reason to have a different title would be if it included opinions that posed as yet unresolved challenges to the legal conclusions. In which case it would probably be clearer for the reader for there to be two distinct sub-sections distinguishing the two types of challenge and making it less easy to fudge the issue. Anybody who has any familiarity with the subject knows that the refusal of Serb nationalist politicians to go beyond acknowledging the fact of an (often minimised) massacre and accept the ruling of genocide is a significant influence in discussions of the subject. Obscuring public understanding of the issue is a tactic that has been widely deployed by associates of indictees.

Informed questioning is one thing, but an invitation to the "uninvolved" that doesn't mark out the terrain of the discussion is simply an invitation to express Point of View on all the old resolved arguments. That's why I restated the baseline situation at length, because the importance of an understanding of this should have been made clear in the invitation for there to be any real hope of initiating an adequate discussion.Opbeith (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favor of keeping the current heading of the section. United States Man (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but why? On what basis are you in favour of it? What is your rationale? With respect, this is not a request for an opinion without explanation, it is a request for comment, which brings with it an obligation to adduce an argument supporting your opinion. Opinions, unsupported by argument, are in this context completely worthless. And I agree with Opbeith, the RfC in its current form is also worthless. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Massacre: genocide is a very vague term, and along with "terrorist" should be regarded as contentious label and never be used in article and section titles. FWIW genocide is an act of extinguishing the [nearly] whole ethnic or religious group on territory. 0.4% (if we count in favor of alleged "genocide") is nowhere close to whole or nearly whole. That is as much genocide as atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (0.6%) or Bombing of Dresden in World War II (0.5%). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any detailed knowledge of the subject at issue. Genocide is not a ""very" vague term". You haven't read or don't understand the wording of the 1948 Genocide Convention. You haven't read the relevant judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia or the International Court of Justice. Opbeith (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I possess the knowledge of the subject, including self-contradictory finding of ICTY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We are concerned with what reliable sources have to say on the matter not our own little interpretations. The above users who have opposed the new section title have engaged in original research and personally do not believe it to be genocide which is irrelevant and has no standing on Wikipedia. The reliable sources show that the use of the term "genocide denial" is supported while the current weasel words are not. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The arguments advanced in opposition have resembled Lewis MacKenzie's bald announcement of his opinion that the survival of the women and children meant that it was not genocide, completely disregarding the Tribunal's careful explanation why it had found the Krstic Defence's argument on that point inadequate. There's been plenty of time allowed for canvassing of informed opinion on the subject without any coherent refutation backed by reliable sources, so I suggest that we now proceed to rename the section "Denial of the crime of genocide" or "Denial of genocide at Srebrenica". Opbeith (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response to RfC closure comments

Response:I guess that I'm a target of jc37's comments/criticisms. I know that I'm not the most patient of contributors. But that lack of patience is to a large extent due to the experience of spending a lot of time at this article responding to commentators who repeatedly chose to disregard the outcome of regular discussions and the facts established by reliable sources. And however irrelevant it may be claimed the real world is within the Wikipedia bubble, when the importance of a real world issue is clear from the reliable sources cited, constant refusal to acknowledge the issue is also frustrating.

As I noted over two months ago, calling for "as many uninvolved perspectives as possible to help resolve this matter" without offering guidance as to what sort of comments would be helpful and what would not was likely to ensure another rerun of all the old arguments based on ignoring the consensus established through long discussion. That was predictable when CKatz responded to the discussion by making a Request for Comments which failed to provide invitees with an adequate introductory framework.

So those of us who consider the issue important (the "regulars") have read through the contributions of contributors who may sometimes have been innocently uninformed but have often seemed more concerned to comment on their own point of view about the appropriateness of the term "genocide" than to examine the substantive issue of whether to use the term "opposition" or the term "denial". (The uninvolved contributors have simply ignored the question of a second category of what we might call "non-denial opposition" that I suggested in the discussion might have merited its own section. This description refers to expert views questioning the principles applied by the ICTY and ICJ in determining the substance of the crime of genocide, and perhaps also discussing the practical difficulties of applying the Genocide Convention, rather than personal opinions challenging multiply confirmed facts.) We have had to cover the ground covered on many times previously here and in some cases they seemed clearly aware that that was what they were doing, hence my impatience with the process (exacerbated by the absence of User:CKatz, the process's initiator, who appeared simply to have opted out of further involvement).

Reliable sources acknowledge the importance of understanding the issue of denial in the real world context. Key points are noted in an IWPR report on Milorad Dodik's comments at [1]: Muhamed Mesic - "When the (genocide) denial comes from a president of a country, or a prime minister, then it becomes a big problem because people trust these figures. As a consequence, their words are accepted by their compatriots as a truth, and not pure nonsense."; Miroslav Mikes - "The ICJ ... has ruled that genocide did take place, so any statements to the contrary are irrelevant, even when they are made by the political leaders in this country. The denial of genocide only serves political purposes."; Branko Todorovic - "... those who continuously prevent this (Bosnian) law on (genocide) denial from being adopted are the same politicians who hope to see Republika Srpska gain full independence." Deploring the Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic's statement denying genocide in Srebrenica, the US State Department's spokesperson pointed out that "Genocide in Srebrenica is not a subjective determination - it is a defined criminal act which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has confirmed in final and binding verdicts in multiple cases. The International Court of Justice also has concluded that genocide occurred in Srebrenica. It cannot be denied. ... (S)uch unfounded statements about Srebrenica and other war crimes are counterproductive to promoting stability and reconciliation in the region."[2]

The decisions of thoughtful arbitrators here such as User:Jitse Nielsen and User:Aervanath command respect, but those of others such as CKatz and User:jc37 who disregard the substance of the issues simply generate the frustration that gives rise to a lack of patience dismissed as "snark and sarcasm (and heavy POV pushing)" and "attempting to chase away other commenters". Opbeith (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Victims identification - 2012

The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,372 names, of whom some 500 were under 18 ( 33 under 15), and includes several dozen women and girls. As of June 2011, 6594 victims have been identified through DNA analysis and more than 5600 victims have been buried at the Memorial Centre of Potocari.

Srebrenica victims are subsequently buried in Srebrenica - Potocari Memorial and Cemetery.

Memorial Center of Potocari ( July 2012): 5657 victims already buried, of them 343 boys under 18 and 11 women.

The summary of victims of Srebrenic massacre buried at memorial place in Potocari according to their birthdate:

       1984:   1       note 1
       1982:   1       note 2
       1981:  12
 
       1980:  41
       1979:  83
       1978: 137
       1977: 195

       1976 - 1955: 2802
       1954 - 1935: 1910
       1934 - 1925:  410
       1924 - 1915:   59
       1914 - 1899:    6

       Total      : 5657

note 1: Together with his 15 yo. brother killed with grenate explosion during shelling of Srebrenica

note 2: Died in woods after 19.7.1995 77.240.177.27 (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Kutil

Article title - Srebrenica Genocide

As discussed previously, usage by "reliable sources" continues to move in the direction of acknowledging the overall significance of the event that is the subject of this article to replace use of a partial description.

Recently the White House issued a release of President Obama's statement to honour the 17th anniversary, under the title "Statement by the President on the 17th Anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide". http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/10/statement-president-17th-anniversary-srebrenica-genocide Opbeith (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

good point. I would support a move to Srebrenica Genocide. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree - not much for Obama, but rather for international bodies such as the ICTY and the ICJ. --Dans (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Any development on this? Shall we proceed with moving the page?--Dans (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No. If you want to move this page, you will definitely have to follow procedure described on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers.--В и к и T 07:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Dans, the argument at Wikipedia tends to resolve into one of two positions - is the move right? or does the move have consensus? Here for various reasons the "consensus" position prevails, as per the recent discussion over the "genocide denial" section. So although I certainly think a move would be right, experience tells me that proposing it would take time and effort that at the moment may not achieve a result. Nevertheless, even in the anticipation of failure, each time the issue is raised the compelling arguments in favour of the move receive the exposure that should eventually lead to a change in the consensus, so it's really a question of having the time and resolve to go through the process and make the case yet again. Opbeith (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

SYNTH and misuse of SPS

I have removed the Geller content again here because it violates WP:SYNTH. Also, Geller's blog has zero weight in this article unless what is says is covered by reliable secondary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to be familiar with the content of WP:Identifying reliable sources regarding the citation of blogs.Opbeith (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why her opinion is notable?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Pamela Geller is representative of something rather significant and relevant to the Srebrenica Massacre and the international community's response to it, namely that while the ICTY has reached a verdict establishing what happened at Srebrenica as genocide, there remains a vocal element within the American political realm actively denying that genocide or a massacre took place. Therefore, it is appropriate that she is mentioned in this article. It informs the reader of something quite relevant. The question is why Shrike is implying that Geller is insignificant. And since her significance has been established using a reliable source, on what grounds is Shrike questioning her significance?

The first reference cites an article by the Guardian establishing the significance of Pamela Geller: :The flamboyant New Yorker, who appears on her own website pictured in a tight fitting Superman uniform, has emerged as a leading force in a growing and ever more alarmist campaign against the supposed threat of an Islamic takeover at home and global jihad abroad... ...But while Geller has inserted herself into mainstream politics in America, she has also aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals.

The text accurately summarizes what Geller is stating in the two referenced blogs.

She is a significant figure who is, as the section title states, opposing the description of the Srebrenica Massacre as genocide. Why would she not be included in the article?

Where is the violation of WP:SYNTH? The text states: A) She is a significant figure. (full stop.) B) She denies the genocide that took place in Srebrenica. Where is the synthesized "C"? Fairview360 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need reliable secondary sources affirming that her views specifically on the massacre are notable. So far we don't have them. RashersTierney (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Why its relevant to the article.Did her significance discussed in context of the massacre?You also didn't explain why its not WP:UNDUE to use this primary source(her blog)?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, as I very clearly indicated to Sean.Hoyland before you arbitrarily took down the Geller section, WP:Identifying reliable sources is quite clear regarding the citation of blogs (self-published sources) as a source of information on their own content. It would have been courteous for you to have read that first.

Fairview360, thank you for explaining very clearly what the references showed. I'm surprised that Shrike is unfamiliar with Geller, given her high profile as a member of the vocal anti-Islamic US right-wing commentariat. Chris McGreal's Guardian article notes her influential role in political campaigning to exploit anti-Islamic sentiment in the US. He notes her association with prominent conservatives such as Newt Gingrich and John Bolton. Bolton in fact wrote the foreword to the book Geller co-authored with fellow Counterjihad group member Robert Spencer, titled "The Post-American Presidency" per Bolton's comment on Obama's foreign policy. Geller's views have been widely publicised on (at least formerly) influential platforms such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity's Fox News show.

Geller circulates the views of other Islamophobic rightwingers such as Julia Gorin and Counterjihadis such as Srdja Trifkovic challenging the established facts about the genocidal crime at Srebrenica to a politically aware audience. When she claims that the US/NATO intervention against Radovan Karadzic's Bosnian Serb forces was based on a "big fat lie", her views, critical of US foreign policy in the Balkans, have the potential to reach a wide audience. Her views are obviously notable enough to have a place in the round-up of genocide denial.

Elsewhere at Wikipedia figures associated with the Counterjihad come in for a degree of protection when attention is drawn to some of their activities. So Fairview360 I would counsel you to be careful about being drawn into arguments that may be less than straightforward. Once bitten second time careful, though not daunted - at least now I know the lie of the land.Opbeith (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If people are unsure about whether this is a reliable source, I encourage them to take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which is specifically for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. (Hohum ^@) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not about WP:RS of course her blog is reliable for her own view but its primary source its about WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrike has also claimed that there is a violation of WP:SYNTH. At this point, it would behoove Shrike if he/she would explain his/her position(s). After all, it is Shrike who is deleting other editors contributions here. What is the unwarranted synthesis that Shrike has claimed? What is undue about citing an example of opposition to the description of genocide in a section titled Opposition to the description "genocide"?Fairview360 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article estblishes the notability of Geller's views on the subject - her political notability, her role as a leading Islamophobe in Counterjihadi campaigning, her contrarian championing of individuals alleged to be responsible for key war crimes during the Bosnian War. The genocide at Srebrenica which is the subject of this article was the worst of the crimes for which those criminals have been indicted (not my opinion, the Secretary-General of the United Nations's) and a focus of Geller's allegations of Bosnian Muslim deceit and political manipulation. So her denial of the genocide is obviously relevant to this section of the article. Is her denial notable? Her blog Atlas Shrugs is the main vehicle or one of the main vehicles for her views. When the author gives the subject of the article prominence as a vehicle for the views whose notability has been established, what more do you want? It was hardly appropriate to try to remove the reference that confirms Geller's notability and justifies the inclusion of views whose inclusion you challenge without discussion. Opbeith (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Shrike's logic expressed in his/her persistent revisions, unless a reference explicitly mentions the topic of an article, it is inadmissible as a reference. Where might one find that rule in wikipedia? The reference that Shrike wants to delete clearly establishes the significance of Pamela Geller and her relevance to the topic. Perhaps Shrike could make a review of all the references he/she has supported and see if all the references explicitly mention the topic of the article, or, perhaps Shrike could choose an article that he/she considers well referenced and see if each and every reference explicitly mentions the topic of the article. The fact is that the reference in question serves its purpose. It establishes the significance and relevance of Pamela Geller. Fairview360 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This is really about whether her opinion is relevant and notable. Doubtful. I'm sure I can find many commentators who are complete nutjobs who have been reported in a reliable source as having an opinion. I think her opinion is WP:UNDUE. For instance - flat earthers might get coverage in a reliable source, but they aren't going to get included in the article about Earth. (Hohum ^@) 00:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Hohum could most probably find a reliable source that reports a complete nutjob as having an opinion, but so what? Why does Hohum think that his or her finding such is relevant to this discussion? The reliable source explicitly states that Geller is NOT "consigned to the margins" but is rather "a leading force in a growing and ever more alarmist campaign against the supposed threat of an Islamic takeover at home and global jihad abroad." Fairview360 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hohum, I really don't think you'll find too many flat-earthers with enough real-world clout to get hardened old political cynics like John Bolton writing a foreword to their nutjob book. I don't think flat earthism is a politically significant movement on both sides of the Atlantic in quite the same way right-wing Islamophobic nationalism is.

It's early to say whether Geller's influence will survive the Romney candidature and its outcome, but anti-Muslim sentiment has been a potent political force in the US over the past decade and likewise in Europe, and Geller has played a significant role in promoting it. Geller's and Robert Spencer's Stop the Islamization of Nations organisation along with allies such as Gates of Vienna has been influential in bringing together the "Counterjihad" groups on both sides of the Atlantic. Support for the Serb (a.k.a. "Orthodox Christian") side in the Balkan wars, including denial of the substance/scope/causes of the Srebrenica genocide, is a common theme uniting the transatlantic Islamophobic groups. I wish I could feel as sanguine as you in dismissing the significance of Counterjihadis and Islamophobes.Opbeith (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't clear enough: I don't doubt that she is "a leading force in a growing and ever more alarmist campaign against the supposed threat of an Islamic takeover at home and global jihad abroad." However, that seems to be a marginal group itself. (Hohum ^@) 17:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps words from the Southern Poverty Law Center are the best response to Hohum's unreferenced claim that Geller is about as relevant and notable as people who claim the earth is flat: "Geller's incendiary rhetoric and readiness to deny civil freedoms and the presumption of innocence to Muslims hasn't prevented her from gaining a measure of mainstream acceptability. In late March 2011, she was even invited by the Alaska House of Representatives to testify on a proposed anti-Shariah bill." While Hohum would like to think that Geller is seen as nothing but an irrelevant marginal nutjob, she is not. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-25/local/28647400_1_islamic-center-anti-islamic-pamela-geller Fairview360 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the New York Times either reckoned she was "marginal". Potty and poisonous she may be but prominent and influential as well, that's why her throwing her weight behind the Srebrenica denial campaign is significant.:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10geller.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

"Ms. Geller has been writing since 2005, but this summer she skyrocketed to national prominence as the firebrand in chief opposing Park51, the planned Muslim community center she denounces as "the ground zero mega-mosque."

Operating largely outside traditional Washington power centers — and, for better or worse, without traditional academic, public-policy or journalism credentials — Ms. Geller, with a coterie of allies, has helped set the tone and shape the narrative for a divisive national debate over Park51 (she calls the developer a “thug” and a “lowlife”). In the process, she has helped bring into the mainstream a concept that after 9/11 percolated mainly on the fringes of American politics: that terrorism by Muslims springs not from perversions of Islam but from the religion itself. Her writings, rallies and television appearances have both offended and inspired, transforming Ms. Geller from an Internet obscurity, who once videotaped herself in a bikini as she denounced "Islamofascism", into a media commodity who has been profiled on "60 Minutes"” and whose phraseology has been adopted by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin.

FOR Ms. Geller, the battle against Park51 is only part of a much larger crusade in which she is joined by an influential if decentralized coalition that includes former generals, new-media polemicists, researchers and evangelicals who view Islam as a politically driven religion, barbaric at its core and expansionist by nature." ...

... "It remains unclear how much Ms. Geller is driving opposition to the Islamic center and how much she reflects it — polls suggest most Americans oppose the project — but her involvement can hardly be ignored. Atlas Shrugs, which gets about 200,000 unique visitors a month, helped draw thousands to protests against Park51 on June 6 and Sept. 11. Ms. Geller, supported by a divorce settlement and blog advertisements, also played an important role in winning the resignation in 2007 of Debbie Almontaser, a Muslim principal who started an Arabic-language public school in Brooklyn; brought 200 people to Ohio last year to support Rifqa Bary, a Muslim girl who accused her parents of abuse; and helped draw vociferous objectors to a hearing this summer on a since-scrapped proposal for a mosque on Staten Island." ...

..."She inspires laughs at sites like Loonwatch, but critics say her influence is serious: a spreading fear of Islam and a dehumanization of Muslims comparable to the sometimes-violent anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism of earlier eras."...

..."The next turning point for Ms. Geller, a few months later, was a “counter-jihad” conference in Brussels. It threw her — and Mr. Spencer of Jihad Watch — together with anti-Islamic Europeans whom even some allies considered too extreme, like Filip Dewinter of Vlaams Belang, an offshoot of a Belgian party that was banned for racism and was allegedly founded by Nazi sympathizers. ...

...Ms. Geller went on to champion as patriotic the English Defense League, which opposes the building of mosques in Britain and whose members have been photographed wearing swastikas. (In the interview, Ms. Geller said the swastika-wearers must have been “infiltrators” trying to discredit the group.) ..."

This woman may be on the margins of coherence and logic, but she and her views are not marginal, as the NY Times article (like McGreal in the Guardian) amply indicates. Geller's former mentor Charles Johnson and various other commentators have described how she herself has sought to distance herself from accusations of her influence on and encouragement of Anders Behring Breivik - [3]

[4] [5]

Elsewhere on Wikipedia, as I mentioned before, there have been attempts to play down the influence of the "counterjihadis". It's hard to see why Hohum is also pushing the idea of Geller's and their insignificance in the face of widespread evidence quoted to him/her of the political influence of Geller's and the counterjihadis' racist bigotry. Undesirable, yes, but insignificant? Hardly. Opbeith (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As a postscript to [User:Shrike]'s apparent reluctance to sustain the dialogue, the following may be relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Does_User:Shrike_have_sufficient_competence_in_the_English_language_to_be_a_worthwhile_contributor.3F Opbeith (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Opbeith, I'm not sure why you're continuing to edit war. You and Fairview360 are the only users who support adding the material; no one else agrees with you. Please do not mistake the ability to post large blocks of text for consensus. If you wish to include the material, please gain consensus that the source is reliable; you may try WP:RSN, but I doubt your effort would be worth it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, you have arrived here out of the blue, without any previous involvement in the subject but a history of confrontational interventions elsewhere on subjects involving figures with anti-Islamic views. Without prior discussion you sought to delete all reference to Pamela Geller, claiming that there was no consensus for including her views despite no evidence of consensus for your action in deleting them. When it was suggested that you take account of and participate in discussion of the subject before proceeding, you made one quick and superficial comment before again taking drastic action. A number of the Wikipedia articles that include reference to members of the self-styled Counterjihad movement have been the subject of interventions that appeared intended to curtail reference to the activities and views of Counterjihad members rather than consider their relevance. I suggest that before you take further drastic action without discussion you show some sign of your wish to play a constructive role in contributing here. Opbeith (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the points you have ignored: The Guardian article establishes the notability of Geller's views on the subject. Geller's blog Atlas Shrugs is an acceptable source of evidence for her own views and confirms the substance of the views cited here. Opbeith (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that an individual is notable does not mean that every feeling they express on their personal blog is, by extension, worthy of inclusion in their article or any other article. If the Guardian believed that her views on Srebrenica were notable, they presumably would have demonstrated this belief by mentioning them. As for my presence at this article, I was in the course of removing inferior propaganda sources from a number of articles where they were cited in violation of policy, such as this one; I was unaware that there had been previous discussion here over the blog, but since there's clearly no consensus for its inclusion, it's all well and good. (Sean.hoyland, Shrike, RashersTierney, and Hohum all opposed your use of the inappropriate source and asked you to take it to RSN. Take it there. There is no presumption that a source is reliable, especially not a source that's obviously inferior for a multitude of different reasons, like this one.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese first enters this discussion with about as much maturity as some 12-year-old child on the playground saying "Only Fairview360 agrees with you, Opbeith. Nobody else likes you." And then, in the above entry, Roscelese proffers pure fantasy: that editors Sean.hoyland, Shrike, and RashersTierney all asked Opbeith to take it to RSN. Roscelese has access to all of their edits. Perhaps he can back up his fantasizing with actual facts. Where did Sean.hoyland, Shrike, and RashersTierney ask Opbeith to take it to RSN? Roscelese states that Shrike opposed Opbeith's use of "the inappropriate source". In fact, Shrike explicitly contradicts Roscelese's claim. Perhaps this page could get another editor with the maturity of a 12-year-old to say to Roscelese: "Nobody likes you Roscelese. You're always lying that people are your friends, but they're not." It does make one wonder what the agenda is here when there is a section titled Opposition to the description "genocide", an editor has offered an example of such, and Roscelese is so against it using manipulation as opposed to sound reasoning to make his point. What does it matter if there is one more example of opposition to the description of genocide in a section titled Opposition to the description "genocide"? Why all this effort to get it deleted? Fairview360

Be sure to let me know when you decide to actually discuss content, sources, or policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Roscelese going to respond? Is he going to back up the content of his own comments? Or does he think he can just throw anything out there and not be held accountable? Roscelese claims that editors Sean.hoyland, Shrike, and RashersTierney all asked Opbeith to take it to RSN. Roscelese has access to all of their edits. Where did Sean.hoyland, Shrike, and RashersTierney ask Opbeith to take it to RSN? Fairview360

I'm struck by the fact that someone with a long history of activity at Wikipedia, deploying arguments based on a familiarity with Wikipedia principles and emphatic about the need for consensus on content, turns up out of the blue and, makinjg no attempt to look at the Talk Page where there has been recent discussion of the content at issue, proceeds to remove a specific section of the article in its entirety, adding incidental comments whose forceful language appears intended to suggest authoritative judgment.

The way in which Fairview360 and myself, who whether or not you agree with us both have considerable familiarity with the issues relating to this article and the specific point at issue, have responded in detail to the points raised, and not pursued, by the other participants in this discussion you have completely ignored. You resort to wikilawyering to dismiss out of hand the relationship between the framework of notability established by the Guardian and New York Times articles including general reference to Geller's views on war crimes in Bosnia and Geller's expressed views on Srebrenica, widely regarded as the most significant such crime perpetrated during the war.

It's also noteworthy that your intervention here focussed immediately, uncompromisingly and, apart from a throwaway expression of general contempt, exclusively on Pamela Geller here. Ever since the Breivik killings there has been an observed tendency for supporters of the Counterjihad commentators to try to decrease the visibility of some of the movement's members' more controversial outpourings. Roscelese, you have been noticeably active on Wikipedia in this area, peremptorily removing legitimate reference to the views of people like Fjordman. Your interventions are often couched in extravagant language that appears intended to preempt questioning of your authority to judge how discussion of the topic should be conducted. You seem to have an axe to grind. Perhaps if you were rather more open about this it would be easier to proceed with the discussion.Opbeith (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Lololol "she also tried to remove the self-published views of revered and neutral Islam expert Fjordman! she's a traitor to Wikipedia values!" Ridiculous. WP:RS doesn't stop applying just because you really like a blogger. If Geller's feelings about Srebrenica were notable, they would appear in a reliable source, but the only reliable source currently cited treats them in exactly three words: "Serbian war criminals." This is not sufficient to support the inclusion of the block of text you've inserted into this article; she has her own blog for promoting her views and Wikipedia must not be used for that purpose. If it's important to you to make sure that Wikipedia make a little more effort to deny that this event happened, find a reliable, secondary source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't really seem to know what you're talking about. We're not talking about "liking a blogger", we're talking about whether Geller's blog qualifies as a reliable source for her own views. Perhaps you would read the WP Guidelines on Reliable Sources again. The Guidelines on Notability are explicit that the criterion of notability is applied only to justification of the existence of an article on the subject, not to the content. Both refer to the exercise of Common Sense.

Common Sense indicates that when the Guardian refers to Geller's views on the war crimes generally, it would hardly have been excluding Geller's comments on the largest single war crime in the Bosnian War. The article is about her influence and her views are referred to in generally categories. The Guardian article offers an overview, not a detailed summary of all points. If it was to be understood that Srebrenica wasn't included, that would be the surprise that warranted special mention. I'm surprised that if you've read my comments you imagine I'm an admirer of PG. Did what you read really suggest that it's important to me to make sure that Wikipedia make a little more effort to deny that this event happened? Really? The suggestion that the purpose of including Geller's views here is to propagate them is a straw argument and a pretty ludicrous one at that. The crux of the matter, though, is that the political clout that Geller wields is significant (or perhaps was until she tripped over Breivik) and when her links with the Counterjihad movement lead her to identify with the deniers of the genocide, a politically important aspect of the subject here, that's certainly a matter of interest that warrants inclusion. Opbeith (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, before you delete the content yet again, let me remind you of the content of the Wikipedia guidelines at WP:Notability:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

... On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article.

... Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article

The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.

Opbeith (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If hew view on this matter were notable WP:RS would report it.Till it happens her view should stay out of Wikipedia.Moreover there are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems with this paragraph.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

About two months ago, Shrike was presented with these questions: What is the unwarranted synthesis that Shrike has claimed? What is undue about citing an example of opposition to the description of genocide in a section titled Opposition to the description "genocide"?Fairview360 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Might Shrike answer these questions before deleting the example of opposition to the description of genocide in a section titled Opposition to the description genocide? Fairview360

Is Shrike implying that the Guardian and the Southern Poverty Law Center are not reliable sources? Fairview360

You've completely ignored my mention of the Wikipedia Guidelines on notability above. I'm not convinced that the parties becoming involved here are genuinely interested in consensus, but I've done my best to engage with the arguments. However this doesn't seem to be a real discussion.

Since the Breivik killings strenuous efforts have been made to diminish public exposure of what some of Geller's associates perceive to be her politically embarrassing comments and actions. Geller is an influential member of the group of far-right Jewish-American commentators associated with the Counterjihad group/movement in promoting an aggressively anti-Islamic viewpoint in the media and on the internet, apparently in strategic alliance with far-right political groups in Israel. She's been criticised for a counterproductive lack of judgment, for example in supporting the stridently anti-Islamic English Defence League and ignoring potential problems posed by the traditional anti-semitism of the British nationalist far right.

Counterjihad members have been strongly supportive of Serb nationalists' efforts to frame the war in Bosnia as something other than a primarily political and economic conflict by portraying a heroic conflict of Western Christian values (as narrowly represented by the Serbian Orthodox Church) and "alien" Muslim beliefs. Hence apparently Geller's support for Radovan Karadzic, currently on trial at The Hague for his role in the Srebrenica genocide, and her enthusiastic defence of Srdja Trifkovic, Karadzic's spokesperson and press adviser working with him in Pale as the killings were being organised and taking place.

Sympathisers of the Israeli far right have found expedient common cause with Serb nationalists' efforts to distort the truth established truth about the Bosnian war (Avigdor Lieberman's support for the Kusturica project at Visegrad being a fairly high profile example). Hectoring support for a very circumscribed set of Wikipedia principles is a hallmark of activists with an agenda on Wikipedia. Now it seems that hasbara-type activists, whose interventions seem to have remarkable acceptance and support at Wikipedia, appear to be taking over from the overt and less overt Serb nationalists like Osli73 in working to dismantle articles.

While a reference to Pam Geller's contribution to the campaign to deny the genocide at Srebrenica is relevant and useful her comments are not the most important part of this article. They're not worth the consequences to any editor committed to a truthful as well as verifiable article of getting drawn into an edit war ambush. I have no intention of pursuing the deletionists down that path but it's important not to pretend we don't know what's going on. Opbeith (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You brought that back very quickly from your recent editing at Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik. Opbeith (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How does giving an example of opposition to the description of genocide in a section titled Opposition to the description genocide constitute advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, an opinion piece, scandal mongering, self-promotion or advertising? Fairview360

Protecting the removal of Pamela Geller's views on Srebrenica

CKatz has put the article into Protection by preserving the deletion of the Pamela Geller content rather than reverting to the situation before the current dispute began. He instructs the parties concerned by developments to "sort it out" when it is obvious that the chances of "sorting it out" are minimal. His professedly neutral intervention, as on previous occasions, comes at the moment where its effect appears to be less than neutral.

A group of editors who had shown no previous interest in the article came to it, declared an absence of consensus for the inclusion of the Geller sub-section article, largely ignored detailed arguments for its inclusion, removed the sub-section and now have the status of its removal protected.

Fairview360 and I do not always see eye to eye but we both have a familiarity with the subject as well as a long experience of editing this article and responding to numerous sustained efforts to distort or remove its content. I think in this matter we both see justification for the sub-section's inclusion and we have both responded in detail to the justifications for its removal. Despite Roscelese's assertion that "There is both talk page consensus and RSN consensus against using this source." I wasn't aware of a discussion at WP:RSN and so haven't contributed what would obviously have been a differing view.

I don't see why a debate should have been conducted away from the Talk Page where both Fairview360 and I have set out our arguments in detail. Experience has been that when discussion is taken away from the Talk Page as in the recent request for comments about the section's title the result is the intervention of editors with limited knowledge of the subject whose comments show substantial misunderstanding of the subject at issue.

In the case of the discussion over the change of sub-section title the change was over-ruled on the grounds that, disregarding the specific arguments and the support of a majority of those with legitimate previous involvement with the article, the existence of opposition meant there was no consensus. Now change has been carried out (and consolidated) apparently on the basis that because there is support for change among people with no previous interest in the article the disagreement of those familiar with the article does not count as questioning consensus. Lack of consensus is deemed to act retrospectively.

CKatz maintains that he is unable to understand why his interventions are perceived by me as being less than neutral. I hope that my comments on the effect of his latest intervention will help him understand. As an admin his views and actions prevail, but nevertheless he should not expect his assertion that "THIS IN NO WAY ENDORSES EITHER PERSPECTIVE and should not be interpreted as such" to pass without being measured against the effect of his intervention.

I have always tried to respond carefully and objectively to what seem to be legitimate doubts and queries about the content of the article. However experience of this article and its relationship to the world outside Wikipedia has made me aware of and less patient with attempts, direct and indirect, to reshape parts of this article to an agenda, sometimes even key (verifiable) truths, and I do not see this action to protect what appears to me to be a deliberate campaign of intervention as appropriate. Opbeith (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

People in the past who have professed themselves to be neutral at this article have often tended, whether deliberately or not, to identify neutrality as the midline between existing content based on verifiable sources - eg the status of the genocide - and the views of those disputing that content. Neutrality is not the same as compromise. I suggest that in future if CKatz believes that there is a need for his intervention he consider seeking a second opinion, preferably from one of the few genuinely neutral - knowledgeably or diligently so - admins who have become involved here, such as User:Jitse Nielsen or User:Aervanath, or someone recommended by them. Opbeith (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of Geller should stand. Geller's opinion is not important unless it is noticed by observers writing in reliable sources. If Geller's blog entries about Srebrenica are not noticed by the larger world then they are unimportant.

The only way that Geller's opinion should be introduced is if independent third party reliable sources can be cited to show that her opinion merits discussion. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Does Binksternet consider The Guardian, The Daily News New York and/or the Southern Poverty Law Center reliable sources? Fairview360

Binksternet repeats arguments without noting that they have previously been contested. When a reliable source reports her significant public influence and particularly that of her anti-Muslim views and includes reference to her opinions in the general area of "Serbian war crimes", common sense suggests that her comments concerning the substance of by far the most notable of those crimes (once again, the worst crime in Europe since the Second World War according to the Secretary-General of the United Nations) are worth including in the relevant sub-section of the article about the crime. The Wikipedia guidelines that are repeatedly cited here in the sense of inflexible commandments do in fact suggest the use of common sense but editors like Binksternet continue to demand observance of a rigorous policy that does not permit the exercise of common sense. Perhaps Binksternet could point me to the wording that enunciates the principle he insists should be applied.Opbeith (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Start with WP:UNDUE. If a notable person's blog entry is not noticed by others, it is not worth inclusion in an article. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be your interpretation. The essence of the policy is that "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." The article certainly does not give the minority view equal/undue attention. The subsection records a view that has been at the heart of much of the ongoing conflict in the region and problems that have hindered the judicial process. Cited references indicate the importance of the minority view. The significance of Geller's opinions generally - however substantial they may be - is indicated by reliable sources, including the general category into which her views on Srebrenica fall. The validity of the reference on the blog, denying the established facts about the genocide aand supporting the politician being tried for responsibility and enthusiastically defending the publicist of the view, is not refuted by the policy. The policy states "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". It does not say anything about how a prominent adherent's view has to be reported in order to be relevant to an article. Read what the policy you cite says. Opbeith (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A minority view is held by a few people. Maybe you can prove me wrong but I see that nobody but Geller believes what she wrote in her blog. Nobody has commented on it to lend it credence. That is not a minority view, it is a fringe view. Geller's blog should not be used to reveal Geller's opinion if it is the only source for that opinion. Somebody else should have written about it or it is a tree falling in the forest with none to hear. It is undue emphasis on a sub-minor fringe viewpoint. Perhaps you are not aware that Geller is considered an extremely fringe character much like the members of Westboro Baptist Church. Much of the time she is all by herself in her opinions. Only sometimes does she strike a nerve and receive notice from others. This is not one of those instances. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It is time for Binksternet to stop pretending he has not been presented with The Guardian article which does in fact take note of Geller's opinion and specifically refers to what she is writing on her blog, specifically referring to her denying war crimes committed by Serbian war criminals. Binksternet has been referred to the article repeatedly. Perhaps it is time for him to actually read it. Also, it is absurd for Binksternet to claim that no one agrees with Geller. The entire section of the article gives multiple references to people who do agree with Geller. Again, it would help if Binksternet did a little bit, just a little bit of homework, before being so heavy handed.Fairview360

"A minority view is held by a few people." That suggests a redefinition of the word "minority". If Geller is such a fringe character how has been was able to secure such exposure for her views and mobilise public opinion for example over the Manhattan mosque proposal? She gets John Bolton to write the introduction for her book - does that suggest a figure of "sub-minor" significance? I don't think you can simply ignore sources cited here such as the Guardian and NY Times that describe her influence. She's a shallow, trivial and deceitful character. That doesn't make her insignificant. Opbeith (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, "The Wrong Version" is always an issue. If CKatz had fully protected the version that used the poor source, obviously we could just as reasonably have taken him or her to task for it, but that wouldn't have been very reasonably at all because some version of the article must exist. As for the rest - I see nothing more that has to happen other than Opbeith and Fairview360 ceasing their edit war. Not only do they lack consensus for their addition, there is evident consensus against it. They laid out their arguments, but the arguments of people who disagreed with them were clearly more convincing. That's just how it works sometimes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Our edit war? Opbeith (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Geller claims that the death toll was exaggerated and that all the victims were killed by their own side in order to blame non-Muslims.[6] That is a fringe view, and therefore should not be included. Fringe views can sometimes have significance that they should be included. However one would have to show that reliable sources about the massacre would mention them. In this case the source provided is about Geller, not the massacre. Her opinions belong only in articles about her. TFD (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The continuing significance of this "fringe view" is the reason why the sub-section exists. TFD's comment suggests a failure to understand the role that denial and minimisation has played and continues to play in the region and wider. References cited earlier on this Talk Page give a bit of an idea:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/serbian-president-denies-srebrenica-genocide

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/serbias-new-president-revives-balkan-tensions-by-denying-srebrenica-massacre-was-genocide/2012/06/04/gJQAtstIDV_story.html

http://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/2977-norway-protests-serbian-presidents-srebrenica-denial

When a debate is dominated by people who have often not read the article and have only a passing interest in the subject it's quite dispiriting when the admins who intervene here routinely ignore the consensus of people with a long-term interest, not just Fairview360 and myself, in favour of a consensus of short-term interest. Opbeith (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

None of those articles are about Geller. TFD (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

They point to the significance of the denialist view and respond to your comment that Geller's denialist comments should not be included because they are a fringe view. As far as your assertion that views of someone who is significant only for the circulation and influence of her views belong only in articles about her and not in an article about the subject, that seems to be your view rather than an inflexible Wikipedia principle. De minimis non curat lex and likewise Wikipedia guidelines remind us of the importance of exercising common sense. The discussion here is becoming an exercise in exegetics in which the theologians have not yet got round to quoting the original wording. Opbeith (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Note that the debate should be about the issue, not the fact that the article is protected. Short of outright vandalism, or some other clear issue, it is not the role of the admin to pick "the right version" before locking it up. Thirteen reverts back and forth is clearly disruptive; sort it out here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

CKatz, your interventions in the past have often been arbitrary, showing a lack of concern for a consensus that involves long-term contributors here. Your protection of the page might have been considered reasonable in itself, but in the actual circumstances, your curt instructions to "sort it out" is just another indication of your apparent unwillingness to engage constructively with the issues here. Opbeith (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrators lock the currenrt version when they lock the article. It is always the "wrong version". TFD (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that a rule? Otherwise there's a choice, conscious or unconscious, involved in the administrator's decision in locking the article at its current version or in the version quo ante. Opbeith (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead section is too long

If the article was not edit-protected I would add this template:

The guideline WP:LEAD says the topic should be summarized in four paragraphs at most. The current lead section relies too heavily on quotes. As well, it makes arguments which are best left for the body of the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)